Class C radar direction

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Dick Smith

Fixa24 you state:

Yet daily i see aircraft skirting my airspace at low levels, bumping around the weeds and mountains, but for a simple clearance request they could have been cruising in smooth air.

I’m sure you realise the significance of what you have said. That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).

… I would suspect a lack of familiarity with ATS interaction (AMATS), concern for making a reportable mistake, or pilot consideration of the terminal area where RPT and other arriving climbing and descending traffic perhaps they think it is worth keeping clear of! … if it is not safe to conduct flight at low level VFR around CTA … why would they do it? … and who’s fault is that?

Why do pilots have that perception? I can assure you it is because of practical experience.

.. how exactly can you ‘assure’ us of that, is it your word, or are there statistics that support this notion?

While I am delighted that you have never refused a clearance to VFR aircraft, I can assure you that VFR aircraft are often extensively delayed or diverted because of our procedural separation standards

.. again how can you assure us? With what?

– which probably come from the 1930s.

…. No, current procedural approach standards have been formulated internationally and refined over many years… I happen to have historical copies of AOI and the documents that preceded AOI … our current standards are at best 10-15 years old and tailored (internationally) for procedural approach!

Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.

..we do that all the time through RAPAC and direct involvement with GA …. Perhaps you might stop assisting them into thinking it is a ‘road block’ or some sort of big brother trap that should be avoided!

…. however if you talk to an American controller (or no doubt to Voices of Reason who posted this here) it is obvious that this “distraction” is pretty well a unique Australian problem.

.. where exactly is the incident data that supports this notion that D controllers in Australia are distracted? … you must accept the idea that to be able to say there is a problem requires incident data that supports the case .. where is it? … simple question!

US controllers love Class E airspace. US airline pilots love Class E airspace. So what is the difference?

as has been stated by US controllers, the services they provide are not strictly E, more a hybrid Radar D, along with legal protection if it goes pear shaped!

I reckon it is a complete lack of education and training.

…. education and training in the differences between the US airspace rules and ICAO E?

Could I suggest that Aussie controllers talk to the controllers in the contract towers that Airservices are running in the United States?

…. Already have, August last year in Bowral NSW (annual Tower manger conference)!

I’m sure they will tell you that they love the airspace configuration because they can concentrate in the area where aircraft are most likely to collide.

… perhaps that is right, it also assumes RADAR in the tower, separate radar approach (all paid for by the US Fed gov’t) … in Australia, who would pay for that flash extra stuff when we have a different and arguably more efficient (less resources for a similar outcome) way of skinning the same cat!

You will find that the controllers in the Class D towers (both contract and non-contract) in America are not “distracted” by VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace above.

… Australian controllers are not distracted either …. Prove otherwise!

I have just had this brilliant idea after reading your John Anderson media releases. Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems?

…. We did that, as you would remember, the DoTaRS paid for an FAA controller (at the ARG request as I remember) to come to Australia, and who initially had no contact with actual line controllers rather … NASIG personnel only, this was during the early part of the AusNAS2b odyssey!
…. In August 2004 (just prior to the rollback decision) that same FAA controller met with the Check and Standards Regional D controllers in Canberra (I was present), the issues were discussed, the problems explained, the net safety outcomes discussed, and he understood exactly why we had issues, and that C was demonstrably safer, more efficient and considering the change had not been subject to design aeronautical study .. was in need of assessment for possible rolled-back … It is a matter of record!

Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices?

It is clear this debate will continue forever unless some definitive discoveries are made in the presence of all sides. … the cost of allowing that festering is untenable and unacceptable …. it is not doing anyone or the industry any good!
.
…OK.. further Discovery
.
… If we are going to send another working groupto the US , it should be ‘Operational’ controllers (I assume you would prefer salaried staff not contractors)! .. the most effective group framework for doing so would be the following:-
.
- 7 experienced Check and Standards controllers
1 National Class D/C Check and Standardisation controller (preferably the one who is working at and checking the other D towers with C approach)
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a regional tower with no surveillance availability
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a regional tower with full surveillance availability
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a tower with partial surveillance availability
2 experienced Enroute Radar (checkie’s) those who would likely be the ones providing the additional approach services (in your model) to look at the Approach radar components
1 experienced Approach Radar (checkie) to compare Approach radar services Aus C v’s US
.
... Visit US towers as follows:-
.
- An AsA contract tower in Hawaii (class D equivalent) 3 days
- A regional US FAA D tower with separate radar App 3 days
- A regional US D Tower that provides the E terminal airspace also 3 days
.
.. with travel (no mucking about) probably a fortnight!
.
.. as part of the process, a report to be published setting out:-
.
- Legislative differences and similarities
- Operations differences and similarities
- Infrastructure differences and similarities
- Industry cost and charging differences and similarities
- remedial actions that might facilitate similar services against ALARP requirements
.
The 'unedited' final report to be published to the Secretary of the DoTaRS, The Transport Minister, RAPAC and here on PPRuNe.
.
… the exercise funded at nil cost to industry through the Minister by DoTaRs (I am sure you would assist finacially, however that would be a conflict for both parties)
.
… staff secondment from AsA to DoTaRS for the 2 weeks (assuming we can be released from the operational rosters), perhaps around Mid January!
.
… over to you!
.
Re other:-

Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels,

… I keep harping back to the fact that they have what they accept as high safety levels, as I am sure you would accept though, they also have IFR/VFR mid-airs in E, comparatively, how many have we had any in our terminal C

surely we could learn from this.

…. I have an open mind (believe it or not) …. Remember your visit to Tamworth Tower! … remember the conversation (we sure as hell do) …. and the piece of paper you signed that day …. Do you still believe you had a full grasp on exactly what ICAO E really was?!
.
MJ
.
... depending on the response to the above proposition, I might just contact him!

Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. Shame on all of you!

.. easier to say that rather than debate the technical … come on, tell us why we are wrong!

As with Chris Higgins, I have experienced airspace and controllers on 4 continents including in the US for 7 years. I am not an airspace administrator, designer, statistician, or any other professional that considers and designs airspace but I am the consumer of these services and as such I have considerable experience as a consumer of the Australian product over several others.

… don’t you like CA/GRS? .. that was Mr Smiths baby!

As a user of Australian airspace and ATC services, it does not come close to the system in place in the US.

… and are you going to explain why?

Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere,

… the same controllers that were called ‘basically criminal’ for operating AusNAS class E as it was required by law and by ICAO

its just that they are using an antiquated and busted system with band aids stuck all over it from years on neglect.

…. That would be 10-15+ years?

Once again, CONTROLLERS are rubbishing the system and dreaming up every conceivable reason not to improve to a better system and I seriously doubt, by the vitriol peddled in these pages that any change in airspace design would be accepted.

.. dreamed up … not improve … better system … vitriol … Come on MJ … no dreams just facts … we want to improve not go backwards … we can have a better system (than the US) …. Vitriol is an easy accusation if you have no technical counter arguments!

I can tell you that I have flown, many hundreds of times at an uncontrolled airport that had daily aircraft movements right on the trigger point of class D (FAA trigger point, not Aus) using the mandatory and recommended radio procedures. That airport just recieved its tower last year!

… how many airprox’s and midairs occur in US CTAF’s? … it is easy to find it on the NTSB site …. shall you or I?

You seem convinced that pilots cannot use common sense in a CTAF.

.. tis not offen the pilots not using common sense, rather the procedures that are at issue ... RAPAC meetings asked the same question … what was the safety advantage of US CTAF over Aus MBZ? …… you can guess the answer!
.
Chris Higgins

The Australian Airspace System has always frowned upon the grass-roots employers, enthusiasts and small capacity RPT. Unfortunately with the geography of Australia and the sparse population, the very agency that is set up in the name of public service-has not done any public service.

… how exactly do you reconcile that? … don’t those agencies follow Political direction and Lobby group consultation … who do you suppose has been at that game since you stopped plying the skies over Port?

G/A is dead, the system you support is management top-heavy, you don't have a clear line of communication within your own industry and training has suffered from all of the changes and the ensuing confusion.

.. who do you suppose is responsible for that?

Whether I fly around Port Macquarie in a Cessna 152 or into MIlan Italy in a Citation X, a cursory observation tells me that things are not right back at home.

…same question as the last!

Dick Smith may not have all of the answers..so what are your answers?

…. Do you read our posts?

I am going to Washington DC tomorrow to take my kids to the Air and Space Museum and then get the two youngest ones their Australian Passports. I won't be able to answer anything you might have in reply for about a week.

.. have a great time, look forward to your return
.
.. over to you Mr Smith!

Self edited to remove some jabs ..... in good faith

[Philthy]

Hey, if the Aussie Towers have more airspace than their Seppo counterparts (presumably with the same number of staff), doesn't this make Aussie controllers much more efficient?

Maybe the Seppo controllers should come here and we could teach them how it's done.

[max1]

20+ years in the ATC game, and can't ever remember denying a clearance, maybe a short wait(1-2 minutes whilst getting or making up a flightplan) and that is pretty rare too.
To the GA guys out there, do not be afraid to call up ATC. We are there to assist, nearly all have an interest in aviation that got us into the job in the first place. Controllers are also GA pilots, gliding enthusiasts, skydivers, airline passengers,ex RAAF, etc etc.
Whilst we're on ASA running Towers in the US competitively, (a rumour doing the rounds),maybe the quote we gave neglected to include a remote allowance of around 20%, and we are actually losing money on the deal.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Thankyou Mr D.Dog, this argument has been going on for way too long. We all want reform no question, we just don't want it based on the U.S. system when our requirements and budgets are very different to thiers. We can figure it out ourselves using a bit here and a bit there with new tech and the expertise of all industry proffesionals as well as weekenders. As we have done with most things in the past we have the ability to evolve something that suits our unique circumstances.

Why is it that idea's that haven't got industry support keep getting thrown up? Why is it a dated system that doesn't really fit the aussie model constantly being touted as worlds best and what we need?

Mr Smith I respect your courage in popping your head over the Parapet in order to further your plans. I do think it may be more helpful to not use your real name when posting these discussions, this is an advantage of this forum. This would give us a chance to view your topics without the visceral emotion your name seems to bring. It may result in a more independent dissection of NAS.

There's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

[Dick Smith]

Albizia, you state:

Dick

What a brilliant idea! Never happen though, overseas trips are the reserve of management.

Well, they weren’t in the past. If you remember, when I was Chairman of the CAA I organised overseas trips for coal face controllers – they were incredibly successful. It was agreed that the controller would write a report when back home explaining what was perceived to be “better”, and what was perceived to be “worse”, than what happened in Australia. I still have a number of those reports - they were fantastic. Unfortunately however, no changes were made. This is because of the resistance to change of many people.

I can assure you that if I had any direct responsibility for the management of airspace since I retired as Chairman of the CAA in February 1992, I would have made sure that coal face controllers were involved directly during every step of the way.

I’m amazed how Airservices just send managers overseas and don’t send the coal face controllers. It is utterly crazy. It would be a bit like Qantas ordering a new Boeing jet and sending the management over to check it out, but not sending the pilots to even do a familiarisation or sim check in the new aircraft.

****su_Tonka, you state in relation to Airservices communicating to pilots:

Agreed - an excellent idea. You just need to find someone who can communicate this to management. The Air Traffic Controllers would be all for it. They like providing the service.

I can understand there are many times when we need whistleblowers and it is important for them to remain anonymous.

However what I find fascinating is that somehow the Airservices management has prohibited their controllers from stating what they genuinely believe about airspace. This is extraordinary. It is not a state secret, it is not party political – it simply needs to be a scientific equation of allocating the ICAO categories commensurate with risk. It really shows that the air traffic controllers at Airservices are being severely let down by being prevented from stating in an open way what they really believe.

Mingalababya, in relation to US controllers coming to Australia you state:

Or in the short term, why not invite some US controllers to this thread and have them join the debate? It should be interesting.

Mingalababya, that has happened previously. A US air traffic controller from Juneau tower came to PPRuNe. I had spoken to this bloke a number of times on the phone and he had even been out to Australia as a guest of the President of the Civil Air union. I’m sure he is still there in the Juneau tower, but I doubt if he’d come back on the forum again because controllers in Australia universally rubbished him and said he didn’t know what he was talking about.

By the way, Juneau tower is situated in the capital city of Alaska and has over 100,000 movements per annum, with no radar below about 11,000 feet.

****su_Tonka, I tend to agree about the problems in the new CTAFs. I personally don’t even understand how they actually work. Remember, we were going to have stock standard US CTAF procedures but at the last meeting Warren Truss agreed to meet with a dozen or so Chief Pilots from the regional airlines, and other small airlines. He agreed that “compromises” would be made. This resulted in a mish-mash of old Australian 1930s Flight Service procedures with modern US CTAF procedures.

I agree that the result is a nightmare – but don’t blame me for it. I had nothing to do with it and was not involved in any way – other than being on the original ARG panel (with the current Chief of Defence, Angus Houston) and making a decision to go to the proven US system. I’m sure no one on the Aviation Reform Group ever envisaged that pilots who had never flown in the US system would be allowed to make changes so the whole thing became a mess.

CaptainMidnight, you mention the LLAMP project (Low-Level Airspace Management Plan) and state:

but when it was heading in a direction a certain individual didn't agree with it was overturned

I thought PPRuNe readers should look at some of the points about the LLAMP project – i.e. below 12,500 feet you moved off the radar frequency and went on to a giant Designated Area Frequency where every pilot became their own air traffic controller.

Chimbu chuckles, yes, I know – you want me as a wealthy Australian to campaign for a system where general taxpayers (many PAYG workers) subsidise my flying. No, I won’t be doing that. You will need others to be involved.

Scurvy.D.Dog, thanks for your great long post. I can see that you have a tremendous interest in this. Unfortunately I can’t help you in relation to getting operational controllers over to the USA to see how the system works. All I can say is that if I were the Chairman of Airservices it is the first thing I would organise. The cost would be next to nothing compared to the goodwill it would put in place.

Fortunately I travel a lot and I have been able to stand beside the controllers in non-radar towers in many countries in the world. I have also been able to fly in the airspace. From this experience I genuinely believe that the US system is simply the best in the world. Why wouldn’t it be? They have an unlimited amount of money to throw at it, they have a litigious society, and they have an extremely high standard of living and some of the lousiest weather conditions. It is obvious that the airspace would evolve like a Boeing 747 to be incredibly safe and move a tremendous amount of people/aircraft.

[fixa24]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Fixa24 you state:
I’m sure you realise the significance of what you have said. That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).
Why do pilots have that perception? I can assure you it is because of practical experience. While I am delighted that you have never refused a clearance to VFR aircraft, I can assure you that VFR aircraft are often extensively delayed or diverted because of our procedural separation standards – which probably come from the 1930s.
Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.

Dick... i have no idea why this perception exists here or any other tower. Already there has been numerous controllers respond here saying they have never refused a clearance. So you saying that they skirt CTA due to past experience just doesn't add up. I believe it's more of a case of pilots too scared to talk on the radio. I have witnessed many times aircraft transitting MBZ's (when they existed) not saying a single word on the radio. Whether this is by mistake or on purpose its severely poor airmanship. This wasn't a quiet MBZ either. I believe you are familiar with YBPN.

I believe it's now become a culture thing with pilots. I have spoken to pilots who have done all their training at regional airports with a tower and they are still afraid to speak on the radio for saying the wrong thing. The pilots that train at GAAP airports are the worst... But this thread isn't about that.

Procedural standards? Crikey... not as restrictive in a tower environment as you would have everyone believe Dick. Most of the time, we just pass traffic to the IFR about the VFR... OMG... yes. we do do it. The biggest standard we use here is the 10nm same track longitudinal standard. Or there is the 12nm CEP with GPSRNAV.. but don't often use that. Most of the time it's the 5 DME inside 15NM for arriving aircraft. And of course, we have Visual separation, which allows us to run things a hell of a lot tighter than your class c friends can.. Procedural standards can be much smaller than radar ones.....

[CaptainMidnight]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

CaptainMidnight, you mention the LLAMP project (Low-Level Airspace Management Plan) and state:
I thought PPRuNe readers should look at some of the points about the LLAMP project – i.e. below 12,500 feet you moved off the radar frequency and went on to a giant Designated Area Frequency where every pilot became their own air traffic controller. Look [URL link deleted]

So I don't know specifically what you are on about, but I can say that the DAFs were being designed to be as small or as large as suited the need in a particular area, operating in the same fashion as FIAs before CTAF & MTAF came in. Thus on a DAF you only heard aircraft in the same area as yourself, unlike the NAS debacle, where suddenly EVERY single AD & ALA in the country uses 126.7 unless it has a discrete CTAF or CTAF(R). The mess that currently exists on 126.7 is a direct result of a badly thought out and executed policy.

And with LLAMP strangely enough, local operators were consulted and forums held for them to provide input re DAF design, unlike NAS where little or no consultation was conducted ("the time for consultation is over ...", and concerns and input virtually completely ignored.

On that point, it is interesting to note you did not comment on the rejection of NAS and obvious ill-feeling expressed in the forum minutes I quoted.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick Smith, you said-

Chimbu chuckles, yes, I know – you want me as a wealthy Australian to campaign for a system where general taxpayers (many PAYG workers) subsidise my flying. No, I won’t be doing that. You will need others to be involved.

That is not what he said. A tax on airline tickets pays for the use of the airspace. If you stopped flying your aircraft tomorrow, and I stopped flying tomorrow would ATC know any different. If the airlines stopped flying tomorrow, it would be a ghost town up there. ATC from the beginning from Flight Services right up to ATC with full SSR facilities and TAAATS is soley for the safety of its biggest user. THE AIRLINES! GA in the states also still use a tax on fuel which we used to have until someone lobbied hard that bush flying pilots unfairly paid for a service they didn't use....but they did , until FSUs became history. If a fuel tax was administered and EVERY LAST CENT went back onto services for ALL aircraft, like the upkeep of the Nation's GA airport infrastructure before developers manage to steal it all away. I for one would be for that. AS a professional user of the Nation's highway system who pays a considerable amount of fuel tax and GST to the States I am more than welcome to allow you to share the road with me. Provided you obey the rules and play nice with my trucks. Afer all you pay for the same road with what little tax you pay through your fuel usage, I consider that fair.

[Jerricho]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems

Mr Smith, I am a radar controller in Canada who works 2 Class E Terminal Areas and believe me, it is NOT operated as Class E but a very much bastardised version of Class D. Even then the IFR/RPT drivers aren't huge fans of the classification.

Get your facts straight (I have told you this before Seems you don't want to hear)

[No Further Requirements]

Jerricho -

From what I have heard, this is also common practice in the US E radar airspace - contollers end up 'separating' IFR from VFR in E so they don't collide. Which, of course, is completely uncalled for in the rules of E airspace. Or, you could do what was required like up at Maroochy, and get called 'criminal' because you applied the rules correctly.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't......

Cheers,

NFR.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

A US air traffic controller from Juneau tower came to PPRuNe. …
....but I doubt if he’d come back on the forum again because controllers in Australia universally rubbished him and said he didn’t know what he was talking about.

… I am not sure he was rubbished, the merits and comparison of their E v’s our C (and I think from fading memory AusNAS E) were discussed. The resulting differences were borne out along similar lines to this discussion … I also seem to remember some discussion regarding VFR broadcast requirements due the lack of surveillance coverage .. stand to be corrected though!

Scurvy.D.Dog, thanks for your great long post. I can see that you have a tremendous interest in this.

… my interest is solely in discharging what I see as my professional responsibility to informed debate on airspace architecture and operations practice in the field for which I am responsible.. nothing more nothing less!. The fact that folks choose this vehicle to engage these discussions is neither here nor there! .. it gives me no pleasure to disagree with other views!

Unfortunately I can’t help you in relation to getting operational controllers over to the USA to see how the system works.

.. that is unfortunate! .. positive outcomes could be achieved by such a process!

Fortunately I travel a lot and I have been able to stand beside the controllers in non-radar towers in many countries in the world. I have also been able to fly in the airspace. From this experience I genuinely believe that the US system is simply the best in the world.

… after all that has happened, and all that has been written here, you clearly hold that view strongly .. fair enough! .. I guess we will have to agree to disagree!

They have an unlimited amount of money to throw at it, they have a litigious society, and they have an extremely high standard of living and some of the lousiest weather conditions.

… it would be nice if our industry also had unlimited money to throw at the issue!
.
.. and yes, sadly, Australians in ever increasing numbers are adopting that overly sensitive 'glass house' litigious nature! ..it does nothing for our international reputation for 'thick skins' and 'broad shoulders'!
.
.. perhaps our standard of living in Australia is focused on other, more rewarding things than just money!
.
.. and thank goodness we do not have their weather!

It is obvious that the airspace would evolve like a Boeing 747 to be incredibly safe and move a tremendous amount of people/aircraft.

… I agree in principal that the US system has evolved through necessity into a unique creature that does handle large volumes of aircraft and people, I am just not certain it is technically ICAO E
.
P-A-F
.
.. for fear of missing your point (as this tax stuff is not my thing)

Yes, and the GST I paid on my computer keyboard is covered many times over by any burden I put on Australia by purchasing it. It is a tax. It was put in place to give states a growth tax.

.. errm, isn’t Chuck talking about funding a federal ATM system?
.
At the moment, ATS is charged to IFR and VFR (landing) via location specific and enroute charges .. IMHO, Chuck’s argument regarding the system and who it primarily caters for is sound (although all users must have access and utility etc), therefore, I agree with him that the US system of funding ATS is the logical method!

Next time you are shopping, ask a random person if you think people flying a light aircraft at the local airport should be exempt from the GST. I'll bet you a carton the answer would be no.

True, however, you would have to explain to that random person that the pilot and owner are paying GST on everything related to that aircraft except ATS?!
.
… perhaps you would also ask that random person if they think they should be paying GST on their shopping items?
.
… particularly seeing as the GST

was overdue and well needed.

.
…. 'growth' tax …. more like a 'goitre'
.
Night All!

[Chief galah]

Thanks Dick!

I was fortunate enough to participate in CAA's Overseas Awareness
Program that ran in the early 90's. I believe Buck Brooksbank was at the helm at the time.
A good thing to come out of that program was for Melbourne to look at it's runway utilization resulting in the 16 arrivals and 27 departures mode.
To bad the SID's and STAR's introduced later meant hellishingly long track miles for some, which waters down the runway efficiency.
We visited Oakland Centre on several occasions, and I am still perplexed as to why a centre controller was vectoring a helicopter
for a instrument approach to a remote location out in the "sticks".
He commented himself that it was a difficult task with the radar scales available to him.
It seemed to take a lot of his attention as well.
At the same time, a Learjet blasted off from somewhere else, VFR, because an IFR clearance was not available.
Lots of controller coordination and keyboard input to deal with this event as well.
More distraction from his separating responsibilities with traffic at higher levels.
So it seems that no matter what airspace system is in use, someone is going to have to deal with it,
whether it be tower or centre. If the centre staff are spread thin, then their extra workload with setting up approaches
to remote locations may well be much higher than that of the tower.
I think it is easier and more efficient for the towers run their own approaches and leave the centres to do the higher level separating.
Recently, I visited Cambridge tower in England, a private operation with a E CTR.
If we think the alphabet airspace system is universal, then this message didn't get through to the chaps there.
Their VFR operations were much more restricted than any C airspace we have here.
CG

[max1]

I am amazed that someone with no ATC experience, rating etc can say they stood next to someone in a tower, watched what they were doing, and declare that what they are doing is the best in the world.
I would not presume to sit in a cockpit observe the pilot and declare that this is the best aircraft in the world.
It bothers me when reporter grabs a passenger off a flight and then report that the passenger believes that the go around was 'dangerous' or 'seconds from death' or that the pilot was just coping.
In almost all situations , it is not until something is put into an overload scenario that you can appreciate how good it is in a normal day to day environment.
I also think we need airspace reform.

[Dick Smith]

Fixa24, you mention pilots being too scared to talk on the radio – especially to enter a CTA in Australia. I couldn’t agree more. You probably know that a major part of NAS is simplifying the procedures.

For example, to enter Class D airspace in the USA you simply make a request in English. The friendly controller comes back and gives instructions on what to do. In Australia you have to actually receive a full airways clearance, and pilots are scared that if they don’t repeat it back perfectly, they will be criticised – or worse still end up with a CASA inquiry.

A number of years ago I was flying into Alice Springs in my Caravan with two American pilots. I suggested that they call for the clearance. They couldn’t believe it. They were given a complex clearance, with a clearance limit at a place with an Aboriginal name about another 10 miles on. Of course they used the American system and just came back with the call sign. They were very promptly told by the controller that the whole clearance would have to be repeated – which my American friends did in their US accents.

It is interesting that a major part of the original airspace changes in 1991, then again with Airspace 2000 and again with NAS, was to simplify the procedures for VFR pilots. This has been opposed in just about every way. Unfortunately there are some air traffic controllers and airline pilots who believe that if the procedures are complex, it somehow adds to safety. Of course, with low time VFR pilots the simpler and more straightforward it is, quite often the higher the resultant safety levels will be.

CaptainMidnight, some of the DAFs (Designated Area Frequencies) contained up to 15 airports. Imagine that! 15 airports all on the same frequency, with everyone talking in the circuit area.

You mention:

And with LLAMP strangely enough, local operators were consulted and forums held for them to provide input re DAF design

I think this is like getting a group of pilots together to design an aircraft. It is just not within their skill set. Airspace has actually not been designed, it has evolved over 100 years of flying. Changes are made (sometimes minor, sometimes major) when an accident or serious incident occurs. The resultant airspace can be incredibly safe and efficient if there has been a lot of pressure from a lot of aircraft – that’s just plain commonsense.

Consultation is one thing, however getting pilots and other people from the industry to actually design airspace is another. I am one for copying a proven system – especially if it is proven safe like a Boeing 747 or a Citation.

Max1, you state:

I am amazed that someone with no ATC experience, rating etc can say they stood next to someone in a tower, watched what they were doing, and declare that what they are doing is the best in the world.

No, it is not as simple as that. I’ve also flown extensively in the USA and in many other countries. I recently completed the Citation CJ3 single pilot course at Wichita, including flying my aircraft numerous times in the area. I then flew the aircraft from Wichita to Seattle, Anchorage, Bethel, then across to Russia and Japan before heading to Australia. With this flying – all IFR – you get a very good idea of what is an efficient and safe airspace system.

I have made it my job to study airspace over the last 15 years. I have been able to put time in that many others have not been able to. I have then asked advice from experienced people who have not only flown, but been controllers in other countries in the world. That is how I have formed some of my opinions.

I agree that I am not a coal face controller with a rating, however I have spoken to many operational controllers and asked for their advice. I have then used commonsense to evaluate which way I believe is the best for a country like Australia.

[peuce]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

I agree that I am not a coal face controller with a rating, however I have spoken to many operational controllers and asked for their advice.

Problem is that you appear to consider the words of US Controller as gospel, Australian Controllers' as herecy

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

I have then used commonsense to evaluate which way I believe is the best for a country like Australia.

Problem is the professionals use calculations, formulas, standard design techniques and safety assessments.

[Jerricho]

You not going to reply to my observation Mr Smith?

[Border Collie]

Back to the gist of the OP.
I work in a class C Terminal Area radar environment and as such consider I am lucky, as the rules are fairly black and white. I don't have to worry about the variations of responsibility that comes with D and E airspace; I separate, I sequence and as a rule apply 'capital city priorities'.
This priority concept has been around for quite a while now, and is due for review. I understand the direction is heading towards a generic 'class C radar towers' priority, which will align the present Gold Coast and Cairns TMAs with their capital city cousins, and any other class C location to which radar is installed in the future.
I guess the analogy is like when a bus puts on it's indicator to leave the stop, or change lanes, the cars must give way. Only in our case it is up to the controller to manage this, as these priorities are clearly mandated in our instructions, as they will be soon for all class C radar TMAs.
You are free (literally) to fly through my airspace, but expect delays if you are there at the same time as lots of fare paying pax on RPT aircraft.
Cheers

[Shitsu_Tonka]

pilots are scared that if they don’t repeat it back perfectly, they will be criticised – or worse still end up with a CASA inquiry.

Oh come on Dick. What claptrap.

Based on your one example of a couple of yanks who couldn't be bothered to read the local AIP before flying in a foreign country?

Any other compelling evidence?

I am sure you know very well, that the 'second best' types of procedures that the US use were developed after the PATCO strike in 1981. They simply no longer had the resources to do the job they used to - so changed the procedures to suit. What do you say about the comments from the controllers in North America who actually have to deal with this E and D and don't agree with you?

[Spodman]

Could the Airservices enroute guys provide an approach service to the same degree as the yanks???

I am not aware of any genetic differences that would preclude it. It would just take big gobs of training for all ATC concerned. At the moment that would be all enrooters, but it is worth noting that under the SDE project being contemplated at the moment the number requiring training would be substantially reduced. Only Regional Services would be involved, and any infighting between Towers & Enroot will all be contained in the same division...

If SDE is implemented first they would be able to directly compare the costs of providing the service now with what is intended if further NAS stuff is implemented. Veeeerrrrryyyy interesting

[Chimbu chuckles]

PAF who do I think should pay for the system?

Well given that the entire aviation infrastructure is a natural monopoly and arguably essential national infrastructure, the bulk of which was initially paid for by tax payers over the perceeding decades I would suggest it should be paid for by the national Govt.

That they would then seek to recapture some or all of that expense is not unreasonable.

As such I would suggest the US system is a very fair one.

Every passenger pays a small levy on their ticket...it would only amount to a few $ each. This is in fact what the airlines essentially do already as they have the ability to pass on costs in this manner.

'Non revenue' GA pay a small fuel levy...in the US it amounts to a few cents a gallon.

If this was done instead of privatising airports it would, without doubt, be cheaper for ALL concerned, pax and operators alike, because you wouldn't have corporations like MacBank gouging every cent they can out of the airports.

How many tickets are sold anually on the airlines...50 million, 100 million?

$2 or $3/ticket and the entirety of CASA and AsA would be fully funded and a dividend returned to consolidated revenue to waste any way the Govt of the day sees fit....or they could plow it back into making the system better for all Australians...more jobs in relatively well paid jobs like...oh I don't know...engineering, ATC etc etc...Riiight

As to GST?

Once upon a time the states were funded, mostly, from general federal tax revenues. Then the GST was introduced and many state taxes were supposed to dissappear...but many didn't.

Whatever way you cut it extra taxation revenue has been raised by the federal govt (LOTS) and it is used instead of the taxes we were paying before to fund the states...only problem is we are all essentially STILL paying the same personal tax as we were before...give or take a % or 2.

Buy a house and the thieving c&*t$ want 10's of thousands of $ in stamp duty...what is stamp duty BTW? I am fecking sure it doesn't really cost that much to 'stamp duty' a house...and why does it cost twice as much to 'stamp duty' a $400k house as a #200k house?

1/5th of my aircraft insurance policy is taxes...about $500 EACH for GST and stamp duty.

I pay 13+ cents a liter in GST on avgas. If you own a car in Australia you are paying 10% GST on fuel excise!!!...that's gotta be worth 5 cents a liter all by itself. On top of that fuel GST and the GST on the fuel excise you pay all sorts of $ in stamp duties when you register/insure your car.

Australians are being ripped off left and right.

I have no problem paying for what I use...I object in the strongest terms to paying 4 or 5 times.

Just what will it take for the population to wake up?