Class C radar direction
If someone doesn't want the Government to make a decision, or wants it to make a different decision, then the best way to be involved in such deliberations would be to run for Parliament.
Oh, no ... now look what you've made me say ....
Thread Starter
Ozbusdriver, you state:
This is not correct. The directive did not call for “RADAR-LIKE equipment”. It clearly stated an “approach radar control service”. It was made quite clear to Airservices that ADS-B would not suffice as it is more equivalent to secondary radar – i.e. that ADS-B equipment alone would not suffice as it will not show up aircraft which are not fitted with ADS-B.
I agree that Airservices went off on a tangent and implied that the directive would allow ADS-B.
Ozbusdriver, I certainly gave no misinformation about security and spoofing signals in relation to ADS-B. The details I gave were factual. That is, the ADS-B as proposed by Airservices can be easily spoofed and aircraft such as those of the customs and police can be easily tracked. I’m sure that with proper design, both of these problems can be fixed, however this has not been done as yet and did not seem to have even been thought about by Airservices.
I’ve always supported ADS-B, and I’ve always stated this. However I believe we should harmonise where possible with the system that is going to be most widely used in the world – therefore it will be less expensive.
Are you really suggesting that Airservices canned their whole low level ADS-B project because of a couple of press releases from me? Wow, they can’t have been very committed – considering they didn’t even answer the points I made, they just simply announced they were cancelling the project! I can imagine the frustration of working for such an organisation. Basically there is not proper communication to the staff and customers. I still don’t know the real reason they cancelled the ADS-B project, do you?
****su_Tonka, you state:
Yes, I support the case for more controllers if Class C airspace is required above Class D. However you don’t answer the obvious question. If Class E airspace above Class D is the standard in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, why can’t it be the standard here? You have not answered this.
You also make no comment about the fact that Airservices Australia is operating Class D control towers with Class E above in the USA. Surely they would not do be doing that unless it met adequate safety levels.
If Class C airspace is required above Albury, why is it that Class G airspace is accepted for Avalon? That is, right in the circuit area with lots of small planes mixing with jet airliners and with no air traffic control at all – simply “do it yourself” radio calls. This system is not allowed anywhere else in the world as far as I know. It is interesting that you never make a comment against it. I would have thought that you could do this using your pseudonym, as it is hardly likely to threaten your job.
The directive … to install radar or RADAR-LIKE equipment in ten key airports.
I agree that Airservices went off on a tangent and implied that the directive would allow ADS-B.
Ozbusdriver, I certainly gave no misinformation about security and spoofing signals in relation to ADS-B. The details I gave were factual. That is, the ADS-B as proposed by Airservices can be easily spoofed and aircraft such as those of the customs and police can be easily tracked. I’m sure that with proper design, both of these problems can be fixed, however this has not been done as yet and did not seem to have even been thought about by Airservices.
I’ve always supported ADS-B, and I’ve always stated this. However I believe we should harmonise where possible with the system that is going to be most widely used in the world – therefore it will be less expensive.
Are you really suggesting that Airservices canned their whole low level ADS-B project because of a couple of press releases from me? Wow, they can’t have been very committed – considering they didn’t even answer the points I made, they just simply announced they were cancelling the project! I can imagine the frustration of working for such an organisation. Basically there is not proper communication to the staff and customers. I still don’t know the real reason they cancelled the ADS-B project, do you?
****su_Tonka, you state:
it is great to see you supporting the case for more controllers.
You also make no comment about the fact that Airservices Australia is operating Class D control towers with Class E above in the USA. Surely they would not do be doing that unless it met adequate safety levels.
If Class C airspace is required above Albury, why is it that Class G airspace is accepted for Avalon? That is, right in the circuit area with lots of small planes mixing with jet airliners and with no air traffic control at all – simply “do it yourself” radio calls. This system is not allowed anywhere else in the world as far as I know. It is interesting that you never make a comment against it. I would have thought that you could do this using your pseudonym, as it is hardly likely to threaten your job.
Thread Starter
Creampuff, you state:
Could you be judging John Anderson on what you would do in the same circumstances? I believe John Anderson issued the direction because he wanted Airservices to comply with Government policy that he had put through Cabinet.
I also believe that there is evidence to show that John Anderson saw political risk in allowing Airservices to go ahead with Class C airspace without radar when Government policy clearly showed that radar was required. No doubt John Anderson could see that it would be he, or a subsequent Minister, who would be held accountable if there was a midair collision in this airspace.
I take it as a great compliment that you give me powers that I clearly don’t have. It is interesting. I’ve heard others claim that the recent redundancies at CASA are something to do with me. This seems to be despite the point that some of my good friends at CASA have now been declared redundant!
Creampuff, you state:
Yes, I agree, but what happens if it is not revoked or amended? It seems strange to me that in a two year period of Airservices constantly requesting for it to be revoked or amended, that this hasn’t happened.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment about my alleged powers.
It’s pretty clear that John Anderson’s decision to give the direction to AA, on the eve of the issuing of the writs for the last election, was intended to keep you on side for the duration of the election.
I also believe that there is evidence to show that John Anderson saw political risk in allowing Airservices to go ahead with Class C airspace without radar when Government policy clearly showed that radar was required. No doubt John Anderson could see that it would be he, or a subsequent Minister, who would be held accountable if there was a midair collision in this airspace.
I take it as a great compliment that you give me powers that I clearly don’t have. It is interesting. I’ve heard others claim that the recent redundancies at CASA are something to do with me. This seems to be despite the point that some of my good friends at CASA have now been declared redundant!
Creampuff, you state:
If the direction is now revoked or amended, it's all academic really.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment about my alleged powers.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I support the case for more controllers if Class C airspace is required above Class D.
However you don’t answer the obvious question. If Class E airspace above Class D is the standard in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, why can’t it be the standard here? You have not answered this.
You also make no comment about the fact that Airservices Australia is operating Class D control towers with Class E above in the USA. Surely they would not do be doing that unless it met adequate safety levels.
If Class C airspace is required above Albury, why is it that Class G airspace is accepted for Avalon? That is, right in the circuit area with lots of small planes mixing with jet airliners and with no air traffic control at all – simply “do it yourself” radio calls. This system is not allowed anywhere else in the world as far as I know. It is interesting that you never make a comment against it. I would have thought that you could do this using your pseudonym, as it is hardly likely to threaten your job.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position...”
What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities. I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.
Could I ask you to think laterally and examine whether Class E airspace could be used?
Separation and sequencing of VFR aircraft will be suspended in the event of a radar outage as this service is dependent on radar. The pilot will be advised that the service is not available and issued wind, runway information and the time or place to contact the tower...Separation of VFR aircraft will be suspended during CENRAP operations. Traffic advisories and sequencing to the primary airport will be provided on a workload permitting basis. The pilot will be advised when center radar presentation (CENRAP) is in use.
At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.
By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names?
Another reason is that I have been effectively gagged from doing so since you were CAA chairman. Since then all employees of ASA (and its forebears) have not been permitted to comment on the policy of the department (and its successors) under pain of unemployment. I can't say what I think about that, erm, for the same reason. Anybody that wants to disagree with ASA, (I wouldn't boss, really) has to use a nom de proon.
Last edited by Spodman; 7th Nov 2006 at 01:19.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming VFR tracking west 270R to east 090R via overhead AY
Dick, if the VFR isn't tracking directly overhead there are also a number of what are referred to as "prominent topographical features" which can also be used for procedural separation.
I am an ex AY ATC, and cannot ever recall turning someone 90 degrees or similar, in fact with the topography, river, roads, towns, it is quite easy to separate procedurally in and out of AY. I even spoke to you a few times as you flew over without delay
.The oft quoted 10 minutes that you refer to for procedural separation is not really a tool that is used that often is a Class D/C tower, there just isn't enough airspace, the 10 minutes is more an enroute tool. The 15/30, 10/20, 5/15, 1 NM procedural buffer, lateral separation are much more often used by towers. I'm sure you have access to MATS so I won't go in to too much more detail.
Sometimes yes, the VFR aircraft may need to adjust track slightly, same as sometimes the IFR does (ever heard a clearance similar to "REX379 track amended 200R till leaving A085 thence direct ELW planned route"?). I'll give you a hint, nine times out of ten that is due to a VFR out there at A075, that wait for it, the IFR is being moved around.
"Clearance not available remain outside class C/D airspace" does not mean a clearance won't ever be available, it means I am sorting something out with someone else who already has a clearance, and as soon as I can I'll give you one. Hint, call 10 minutes prior to boundary and I doubt you will ever need to change heading by more than 10 degrees or so to get your clearance.
Of course those who report position as 378NM to run MIA may need to call a little earlier!
Can our airspace be made more efficient, absoloutely! However I don't believe that the "road blocks" over C/D towers is where we need to start.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Albury, NSW
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"By the way, why is no one answering the original post? That is, how would an air traffic controller handle a VFR aircraft at Albury in the circumstances quoted? "
The scenario given was a VFR transitting Albury from west to east at 7500, plus an IFR inbound to Albury from the south.
The VFR might be asked to 'report overhead'.
The IFR would be given descent with a requirement to be at or below 6500 by 10 DME Albury.
BTW, radar separation is either 3 miles or 5 miles, depending on the capability of the radar. In rare circumstances I recall, it could be 1 mile, eg using RAAF PAR, but that was long ago and I could be wrong. I am fairly sure it cannot be "less than 1 mile'.
There are many means of separation and many separation standards (the two are not the same thing) which is why the manual is so large.
The scenario given was a VFR transitting Albury from west to east at 7500, plus an IFR inbound to Albury from the south.
The VFR might be asked to 'report overhead'.
The IFR would be given descent with a requirement to be at or below 6500 by 10 DME Albury.
BTW, radar separation is either 3 miles or 5 miles, depending on the capability of the radar. In rare circumstances I recall, it could be 1 mile, eg using RAAF PAR, but that was long ago and I could be wrong. I am fairly sure it cannot be "less than 1 mile'.
There are many means of separation and many separation standards (the two are not the same thing) which is why the manual is so large.
Thread Starter
Spodman, you state:
(my underlining).
Unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable.
You, and a number of your colleagues are so convinced of the myth that I make up my airspace views as I go along that you obviously haven’t even bothered to look at the NAS document that I prepared with Qantas.
What do you mean
Have a look at the NAS document, prepared on 14 December 2001 (nearly 5 years ago) as approved by Cabinet here.
First of all, the NAS document states under Executive Summary:
On page 8, under Interim Design Model, it states:
Surely nothing can be clearer than that.
Later on (under the same Interim Design Model heading) it states:
On page 16, Note number 12 states:
Nothing could be clearer.
Spodman, because of your statement:
the above clearly shows that you haven’t bothered to read the document. Why would this be so? Is it because you have made up your mind that there is just no way we in Australia will move to this safer system?
Just so you understand, I have been working for over 10 years to improve the service in low level airspace. If US and Canadian enroute controllers can provide an excellent terminal service in Class E non-radar airspace, I believe it should at least be tried here. I had been in touch with the operators at Longreach and they wanted to cooperate in a trial of Class E to 700 feet. Of course, there is a complete vacuum of leadership at Airservices, so this has never gone ahead.
I remember I tried to get Class E airspace in after 1992, but I was told that this could not come in until TAAATS was completed – what a furphy. Now that TAAATS is in, I’m told that we need ADS-B for Class E to work – i.e. anything to resist change.
Can I suggest that you and your colleagues have a thorough look at that NAS document which I prepared with Qantas? There are probably other things in the document that you haven’t seen. You have to read it first, don’t you?
I know in your private self you are working to the concept of Enroute ATC applying control services to IFR flights in all airspace, down to almost ground level, but it isn't in the document
Unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable.
You, and a number of your colleagues are so convinced of the myth that I make up my airspace views as I go along that you obviously haven’t even bothered to look at the NAS document that I prepared with Qantas.
What do you mean
…it isn’t in the document
First of all, the NAS document states under Executive Summary:
Provides an IFR separation service to 700’ AGL at non-tower terminal airspace at selected locations.
… it is proposed initially to introduce low level Class E corridors, and on a trial basis to a limited number of aerodromes, Class E terminal airspace (base 700 ft AGL) to demonstrate cost/benefits and test the TAAATS procedural management of low level Class E corridors.
Later on (under the same Interim Design Model heading) it states:
Class E airspace will be established lower to 700 ft AGL in terminal areas with published let down procedures but without tower services.12
Initially this airspace will be at two airports – possibly Mt Isa and Longreach for ATC and pilot training purposes – with the plan to move to an end result of the airspace dropping to 700’ wherever required by IFR traffic services. It is noted that this will require extensive training for air traffic controllers.
Spodman, because of your statement:
…but it isn’t in the document
Just so you understand, I have been working for over 10 years to improve the service in low level airspace. If US and Canadian enroute controllers can provide an excellent terminal service in Class E non-radar airspace, I believe it should at least be tried here. I had been in touch with the operators at Longreach and they wanted to cooperate in a trial of Class E to 700 feet. Of course, there is a complete vacuum of leadership at Airservices, so this has never gone ahead.
I remember I tried to get Class E airspace in after 1992, but I was told that this could not come in until TAAATS was completed – what a furphy. Now that TAAATS is in, I’m told that we need ADS-B for Class E to work – i.e. anything to resist change.
Can I suggest that you and your colleagues have a thorough look at that NAS document which I prepared with Qantas? There are probably other things in the document that you haven’t seen. You have to read it first, don’t you?
Thread Starter
Albizia, you solve the problem by moving the VFR aircraft so it tracked lots of extra distance via overhead Albury. The particular flight I was talking about was about 20 miles to the south of Albury and going from west to east.
I would be interested to know what “prominent topographical feature” that an inexperienced VFR pilot would know when crossing such an area. In practice I believe it would not be possible.
Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?
I look forward to your advice.
I would be interested to know what “prominent topographical feature” that an inexperienced VFR pilot would know when crossing such an area. In practice I believe it would not be possible.
Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?
I look forward to your advice.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the above clearly shows that you haven’t bothered to read the document.
) as you like, even your supporters don't really know what it is you want. As usual you take any question as an attack. It may come as a surprise that while I personally hold a very low opinion of your good self I genuinely support airspace reform.Your answer also clearly demonstrates you haven't read my questions. What about the concept that running non-radar C airspace the way the yanks do would mean none of the diverting of VFR flights you find so painful?
Why not make a clear statement about increased risk for E over C?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east.
Dick, sorry I didn't realise from what you wrote above that the aircraft was 20NM south, that's why I wrote "assuming" in my second line. I would not move an aircraft 20 NM south of AY to overhead in this example, so please don't say I "solve the problem by moving the VFR aircraft so it tracked lots of extra distance via overhead Albury". If you can move the goal posts so can I. If the aircraft was 20 NM south, the SF34 would be kept above initially and one of the plethora of procedural standards (I now have radar to help, so I can't remember them all) would be used to get the SF34 below. In VMC one of the best is sighting. Also, 20NM south of AY at A075 radar can be useful. AY tower now has TSAD as well, this enables excellent traffic to be passed
Prominent topographical features are on maps, I would expect a VFR pilot to be complying with regs and have appropriate maps for the flight. Down in that area there are a number of large towns, the ML freeway etc. I don't have an AY VTC with me, and 5 years is a long time to remember the names of everything.
Being a CS TWR controller it would be inappropriate of me to comment on your "safety problem" caused by "your reasonable test", although I'm sure that the ATC's there would process all traffic expeditiously and safely.
I will stick to commenting what I know, and that is that procedural traffic can be safely and expeditously processed by a number of methods, not all of which require 10 minutes or massive diversions by aircraft.
Dick, I answered your question as to how an ATC would handle your scenario, based on an assumption, I have answered again when you have elaborated (changed?) where the VFR was. Failing an exact scenario with tracking, estimates, position reports etc we could go round all day as to how and why.
I don't intend to do that.
Dick, sorry I didn't realise from what you wrote above that the aircraft was 20NM south, that's why I wrote "assuming" in my second line. I would not move an aircraft 20 NM south of AY to overhead in this example, so please don't say I "solve the problem by moving the VFR aircraft so it tracked lots of extra distance via overhead Albury". If you can move the goal posts so can I. If the aircraft was 20 NM south, the SF34 would be kept above initially and one of the plethora of procedural standards (I now have radar to help, so I can't remember them all) would be used to get the SF34 below. In VMC one of the best is sighting. Also, 20NM south of AY at A075 radar can be useful. AY tower now has TSAD as well, this enables excellent traffic to be passed
Prominent topographical features are on maps, I would expect a VFR pilot to be complying with regs and have appropriate maps for the flight. Down in that area there are a number of large towns, the ML freeway etc. I don't have an AY VTC with me, and 5 years is a long time to remember the names of everything.
Being a CS TWR controller it would be inappropriate of me to comment on your "safety problem" caused by "your reasonable test", although I'm sure that the ATC's there would process all traffic expeditiously and safely.
I will stick to commenting what I know, and that is that procedural traffic can be safely and expeditously processed by a number of methods, not all of which require 10 minutes or massive diversions by aircraft.
Dick, I answered your question as to how an ATC would handle your scenario, based on an assumption, I have answered again when you have elaborated (changed?) where the VFR was. Failing an exact scenario with tracking, estimates, position reports etc we could go round all day as to how and why.
I don't intend to do that.
Last edited by Albizia; 7th Nov 2006 at 07:32. Reason: make easier to read
Dick
Re the direction, I think I’ve made this point numerous times before: if Mr Anderson or the coalition of which he is a part really wanted approach radar at all class c towers, or anything else to do with airspace management for that matter, they would simply pass a law to make it happen. They have a majority in both houses, remember?
The government could sack those troublesome Airservices neddies in a trice for not implementing the direction, but they haven't been sacked. Don't you understand why?
The direction let Mr Anderson have his cake and eat it.
Re the direction, I think I’ve made this point numerous times before: if Mr Anderson or the coalition of which he is a part really wanted approach radar at all class c towers, or anything else to do with airspace management for that matter, they would simply pass a law to make it happen. They have a majority in both houses, remember?
The government could sack those troublesome Airservices neddies in a trice for not implementing the direction, but they haven't been sacked. Don't you understand why?
The direction let Mr Anderson have his cake and eat it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbowI can assure you Dick's supporters do know what he wants and we share his vision
Albizia Good reply.
Dick, I am sure you now feel reassured by the response from an experienced former Albury tower controller, that the options available are not at all restrictive to your VFR operations. As you can see, the airspace as it stands is very flexible and able to deal with the prevailing traffic levels without imposing the expensive burden of extra resources upon the GA businesses you talk of. Is this not simply a case of placing the levels of affordability in safety resources where they provide the best level of safety outcomes? Is that not something you agree with?
Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=day+of+action
I can assure you Dick's supporters do know what he wants and we share his vision.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour has it that at a meeting on 14 September 2006 in Parliament House, Warren Truss told the industry that he had been approached by the Airservices Board to remove the Class C radar direction.
This direction was given by Minister John Anderson on 31 August 2004 to ensure that Airservices complied with the Government’s NAS policy
The NAS policy requires terminal radar for Class C airspace.
This is for obvious safety and cost reasons.
Yes, you can operate Class C terminal airspace without radar, but you can only do this by often delaying, and therefore adding to costs for VFR aircraft.
Imagine a scenario of an IFR aircraft (whether it is a Dash 8 or a Cessna 172) coming in from the south into Albury in VMC conditions whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east.
What normally happens is that the VFR aircraft is extensively diverted or told to “remain OCTA.”
Of course, once the tower goes home, or at places such as Ballina, Ayers Rock and Broome, there is no similar “road block”
– so it is obvious that it is not required for safety reasons.
Most pilots I know flight plan around this Class C non-radar “road block” airspace and take the extra costs (which sometimes can be the “straw that breaks the Camel’s back” to make their business unviable) rather than end up holding or diverting.
No wonder GA is going broke.
Of course, there are those who believe there is no need for Class C and terminal radar, as Class E airspace is suitable in link airspace above Class D. Have a look at this to see the Voices of Reason support for Class E airspace in these situations and the “dangerously naïve” statements made in Australia.
Remember, our Class E airspace is even safer because we have a unique mandatory transponder requirement for all VFR aircraft
– there is no similar requirement in North America.
That is the whole point I am making - the policy hasn’t been changed. In fact, it is far more than policy, it is a legal direction given by the Minister in writing to Airservices.
I understand that they haven’t even ordered the required radars. Note that the directive says the radar should be put in place “At the earliest time it can be supplied and installed.”
Perhaps Creampuff can comment on the risk to the Airservices Board members from not complying with this legal direction for over two years?
Surely you are joking? No, the direction has not been rescinded. In fact, the Government has recently confirmed NAS policy.
Yes, it would be necessary to make it public! That is required by legislation – surely you know this. John Anderson made the direction because it was stated Government policy. That is, Class C airspace requires terminal radar.
Howard Hughes, you don’t seem to understand how our airspace charging system works. There is no charge for VFR aircraft to transit through Class C airspace.
The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile.
…. Again, we suggested using D below A100 in regionals …. You did not listen!
Imagine the difference! 30 miles separation compared to 1 mile.
I agree that there are some circumstances where the separation in procedural non-radar Class C can be reduced, but often this does not happen.
My vision follows the NAS policy.
Chimbu chuckles, if you have never been delayed or re-routed when transiting non-radar Class C, you have been extremely lucky.
However that is not the main issue at stake here.
What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities.
I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.
You don’t seem to understand that the chance of two planes colliding on a runway, on final, or in the circuit area is many times greater than two planes colliding above 4,500 feet. That is indeed why we have an airspace system with different classifications providing different services as the potential risk increases.
Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive.
At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.
I have never said that private enterprise can do things better when it comes to airspace design. I have similar views to you. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with copying the best from around the world.
I also point out that the stated reasons for the NAS reversal by Airservices Australia was because they did not follow the correct procedures in introducing the airspace.
It had nothing to do with me.
I suggest you talk to the people at Airservices.
The only time I have had legislative responsibility for airspace changes was when I was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I was responsible for the introduction of the AMATS changes, which were competently introduced and were probably the most substantial changes that have ever taken place. Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position” and fly at IFR levels at a cost of about $100 million per year. Since then, about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out by the industry and safety has continued to improve.
By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy,
never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts?
Could it be that you have a vested interest in the status quo?
In relation to you personally attacking me because of my age, at 62 I still have plenty of energy. After all, Nelson Mandela got out of prison and became the President of South Africa in his 70s.
Also, why is it that no one comes on from Airservices in an official capacity to explain their view on NAS?
Is it because most controllers would prefer to go to the professional NAS system? It is far more an ATC orientated system
– whereas our present system is still “flight service procedure” based in the lower levels. NAS is a disciplined system which provides very clear responsibilities for air traffic controllers.
That is why it is so professional and why it is Government policy.
Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?
…. It is quite clear to anyone regularly operating into or out of towered regionals what the traffic levels normally are …. I say again, if you deliberately overload the controller at AY in some attempt to be able to grab attention and say “OH I was delayed by 2-3-4 mins” or “Oh my, he made a mistake because of the traffic levels”, I hope you are charged with reckless endangerment
….never heard anything so pathetic … if you want real data on delays etc ask for data collection of normal traffic over a period …. Come to think of it, if this is such an issue for you, why have you not asked for this information earlier 
….. I suspect because it will not support your assertions! 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an observation: downgrading C over D to E over D isolates the D controllers a little more and pushes them out of the "system". Roll on the efforts for regional tower privatisation.
If this thrust at Albury doesn't work, is the next one scheduled for Broome again?
If this thrust at Albury doesn't work, is the next one scheduled for Broome again?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having visions now are we, I can just imagine the scene...
ATC: Well where'd these procedures come from then?
(holy music up)
Richard: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft the NAS plan from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Richard, was to execute NAS. THAT is why we will implement them!
Airline pilot: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing documents is no basis for a system of airspace! Supreme implementation power needs from a mandate from the industry, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!
Richard: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Airline pilot: You can't expect to reorganise an entire industry just 'cause some watery tart threw a book at you!!
Richard: (coming forward and grabbing the man) You haven’t even read the document!
Airline pilot: I mean, if I went 'round, saying we need to close all the freeways, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a magazine at me, they'd put me away!
Richard: (throwing the man around) Unbelievable, unbelievable, UNBELIEVABLE!
ATC: Well where'd these procedures come from then?
(holy music up)
Richard: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft the NAS plan from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Richard, was to execute NAS. THAT is why we will implement them!
Airline pilot: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing documents is no basis for a system of airspace! Supreme implementation power needs from a mandate from the industry, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!
Richard: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Airline pilot: You can't expect to reorganise an entire industry just 'cause some watery tart threw a book at you!!
Richard: (coming forward and grabbing the man) You haven’t even read the document!
Airline pilot: I mean, if I went 'round, saying we need to close all the freeways, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a magazine at me, they'd put me away!
Richard: (throwing the man around) Unbelievable, unbelievable, UNBELIEVABLE!