TCAS safety deficiency and the AIPA, AFAP and GAPAN
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
Few wines on board (and maybe you have too), but I cant say I disagree with you.
But bring on ADSB and with the in/out being potentially so affordable we could all benefit. I can assure you that many of us have had a close call at least once, even if we did not know it
. Recently I was almost taken out by a C421 in class G, 3.5 miles from a CTAF 4miles from another, by a IFR talking to BNE coming out of C........and he did not get any traffic info on me (yes my transponder was on and working, I checked with BNE RAD) and had we both had ADSB displays, because we both would, and knowing who it was that nearly ran me down (ATPL big fella) we would have been much more aware and likely to have seen each other.
Now that is a personal close call, but how many others are even more serious?
We have the technology, not implimenting it is negligence by everyone.
Ok.....its bed time now.....nite!
J
Few wines on board (and maybe you have too), but I cant say I disagree with you.
But bring on ADSB and with the in/out being potentially so affordable we could all benefit. I can assure you that many of us have had a close call at least once, even if we did not know it
. Recently I was almost taken out by a C421 in class G, 3.5 miles from a CTAF 4miles from another, by a IFR talking to BNE coming out of C........and he did not get any traffic info on me (yes my transponder was on and working, I checked with BNE RAD) and had we both had ADSB displays, because we both would, and knowing who it was that nearly ran me down (ATPL big fella) we would have been much more aware and likely to have seen each other.Now that is a personal close call, but how many others are even more serious?
We have the technology, not implimenting it is negligence by everyone.
Ok.....its bed time now.....nite!
J
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
…. Tiger Moths operating out of bumfeck Taswegia?
.
.
….. screen covered in claret now me thinks
.
.
.
.
…. just a wind up ol' cock ..... we lov ya chuckles
.
.
.
.
.
.. as for the other stuff .....errrrm
... anyone else smell poo 
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuckles.
Ooooer, snort, coke and nose in the same sentence tsk. tsk.
OZBUSDRIVER
it would be a boring old world otherwise.
But that has always been the root of problem hasn't it. Politicians manipulated by people with personal agendas make the laws, bureaucrats hassled by the same people if the bureaucrats have a different usually well qualified because thats what we pay them to be, view.
And you put your finger right on it. If it works for the FIFO's and corporate iron and especially the RFDS
it works for the real Australian aviation landscape, because they work in it 24/7.
TCAS came out of the high density radar environment and evolved into a really great tool for the enroute non radar environment in Australia and elsewhere, because the type of aircraft operating there generally originated their flights in a radar environment where transponders are mandatory and routinely checked for accuracy almost every flight if not every other.
Not so with Chuckles Deliverance country. and transponders are not much use to them that dont/wont go near a CTZ nor have any reason/desire to, whereas a hardwired ADSB benefits everyone equally. As for those with paranoid delusions about "big brother" is watching, I find a roll of Alfoil fashioned into a pointy cap makes the voices go away. 
Neither system helps "visually see" the other aircraft any better, but either way it is better to have not seen and avoided than not seen at all.
It's Valentines Day soon you know.
And whilst I am at it and as a matter of interest only, is it the harsh nature of the Australian light that makes it difficult, because even with a screen full of non conflicting TCAS advisories I am buggered if I can find some of them at all. Does anyone know if the ADSB presentation is better?? This seeing business is not all its cracked up to be you know
NGATS rocks.
Ooooer, snort, coke and nose in the same sentence tsk. tsk.
OZBUSDRIVER
I have differing opinions to you on law and bureaucracy
But that has always been the root of problem hasn't it. Politicians manipulated by people with personal agendas make the laws, bureaucrats hassled by the same people if the bureaucrats have a different usually well qualified because thats what we pay them to be, view.
And you put your finger right on it. If it works for the FIFO's and corporate iron and especially the RFDS
it works for the real Australian aviation landscape, because they work in it 24/7. TCAS came out of the high density radar environment and evolved into a really great tool for the enroute non radar environment in Australia and elsewhere, because the type of aircraft operating there generally originated their flights in a radar environment where transponders are mandatory and routinely checked for accuracy almost every flight if not every other.
Not so with Chuckles Deliverance country.
and transponders are not much use to them that dont/wont go near a CTZ nor have any reason/desire to, whereas a hardwired ADSB benefits everyone equally. As for those with paranoid delusions about "big brother" is watching, I find a roll of Alfoil fashioned into a pointy cap makes the voices go away. Neither system helps "visually see" the other aircraft any better, but either way it is better to have not seen and avoided than not seen at all.
It's Valentines Day soon you know.And whilst I am at it and as a matter of interest only, is it the harsh nature of the Australian light that makes it difficult, because even with a screen full of non conflicting TCAS advisories I am buggered if I can find some of them at all. Does anyone know if the ADSB presentation is better?? This seeing business is not all its cracked up to be you know
NGATS rocks.
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
.... I find a roll of Alfoil fashioned into a pointy cap makes the voices go away.
..... ahhh dear ..... haven't laughed that hard in years
I understand AsA's original proposal was that they would subsidise the fitting of ADSB to GA from the savings made by not replacing enroute radars. A certain large airline advised that they paid AsAs bills and as such they wanted the savings passed back to them, not used to fit GA with ADSB.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be true topdrop; we are 'restructuring' to make sure all the revenue from Regional Airspace and costs comes in and out of the same bucket.
The problem I have with ADS-B IN is that it doesn't work like a TCAS; yes you may see all those around you who are squitting (yes you can choose not to squit just like a transponder) but you have no idea about intentions.
The TCAS algorythms provide a buffer around the frame; can a pilot do the same just by looking at a cockpit traffic display; can the pilot adjust in the same manner as a TCAS to changes, when they are busy flying their own beast? We all know that TCAS is hopeless for 'traffic caputre/situational awareness', I suspect in the same way a a cockpit TDI will be equally useless for traffic avoidance (that said better than what you have now).
The issue here is cost benefit; where are the risks and what is the cost of those risks? Personally I'd like to fly on a TCAS equipped aircraft as SLF; but under the MEL what is the acceptable unserviceable time?
The problem I have with ADS-B IN is that it doesn't work like a TCAS; yes you may see all those around you who are squitting (yes you can choose not to squit just like a transponder) but you have no idea about intentions.
The TCAS algorythms provide a buffer around the frame; can a pilot do the same just by looking at a cockpit traffic display; can the pilot adjust in the same manner as a TCAS to changes, when they are busy flying their own beast? We all know that TCAS is hopeless for 'traffic caputre/situational awareness', I suspect in the same way a a cockpit TDI will be equally useless for traffic avoidance (that said better than what you have now).
The issue here is cost benefit; where are the risks and what is the cost of those risks? Personally I'd like to fly on a TCAS equipped aircraft as SLF; but under the MEL what is the acceptable unserviceable time?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZBUSDRIVER,
The only benefits I have seen frm the ADS-B Upper Airspace Project (UAP) is a few less position reports to be made when going to/from Perth or Darwin.
The 5nm separation standard will only be available when all UAP ground stations come on line.
SM4 Pirate,
The TCAS MEL allows unservicability for 72hrs from midnight on the Day of discovery. TCAS cannot be unserviceable for planned flight throuhg E or G airspace.
Does that fill you with any more confidence.
That is a very interesting rumour about an airline claiming the savings realised by not replacing enoute SSR.
The only benefits I have seen frm the ADS-B Upper Airspace Project (UAP) is a few less position reports to be made when going to/from Perth or Darwin.
The 5nm separation standard will only be available when all UAP ground stations come on line.
SM4 Pirate,
The TCAS MEL allows unservicability for 72hrs from midnight on the Day of discovery. TCAS cannot be unserviceable for planned flight throuhg E or G airspace.
Does that fill you with any more confidence.
That is a very interesting rumour about an airline claiming the savings realised by not replacing enoute SSR.
Thread Starter
Why is it that when I’m asking for Australia to introduce safety improvements that are well proven and relatively inexpensive, and have been mandatory in other modern aviation countries for 12 years, that virtually everyone goes completely off the track and talks about something that hasn’t even been invented yet?
Let me explain. If you get the latest Airbus or Boeing aircraft, people will claim that it is fully equipped with ADS-B. In fact, it is equipped with ADS-B ‘out’, but its sole method of receiving – i.e. showing on a cockpit display and giving a traffic or resolution advisory – is by TCAS.
No one has yet invented an ADS-B ‘in’ unit which is certified and gives the required voice calls.
Even the most advanced ADS-B (in relation to being proven) the US Capstone project has a display and no audio - you have to look down at it all of the time rather than looking out. Of course after three months of looking down and not seeing an aircraft, it is the aircraft that comes close that you hit.
Even TCAS I gives a traffic advisory, and you can simply look at the screen at that time, see where the traffic is, then look out and work out how to avoid it. With TCAS II, you get a full resolution advisory. This is existing, proven equipment that is not that expensive.
Why aren’t the AFAP, AIPA and GAPAN calling for the Government to at least accept this existing, proven system?
Airservices Australia is now going ahead with a contract in Tasmania, placing a multilateration system on the mountain tops. This works with standard Mode C and Mode S transponders. It does not need a rotating radar head and TCAS I and TCAS II will obviously work perfectly with the system.
There is no doubt that ADS-B will come in one day – I’m told it is at least a decade away. At the present time we have excellent, proven TCAS which is not even required in Australia when it would be overseas. I understand there are some 190 airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers flying in Australia which are not equipped. This is outrageous.
Please do not get off the track and talk about things which are not yet certified – let’s use a proven system.
I will look forward to seeing press releases from the three organisations calling for the Government to at least catch up with the rest of the world before trying to lead the rest of the world.
Beaver rotate, CAR 262AC states:
To find out what this means, have a look at CAR 262AA (definitions):
In short, commercial jet or turboprop aircraft of 30 passengers or more are required to have TCAS II.
Let me explain. If you get the latest Airbus or Boeing aircraft, people will claim that it is fully equipped with ADS-B. In fact, it is equipped with ADS-B ‘out’, but its sole method of receiving – i.e. showing on a cockpit display and giving a traffic or resolution advisory – is by TCAS.
No one has yet invented an ADS-B ‘in’ unit which is certified and gives the required voice calls.
Even the most advanced ADS-B (in relation to being proven) the US Capstone project has a display and no audio - you have to look down at it all of the time rather than looking out. Of course after three months of looking down and not seeing an aircraft, it is the aircraft that comes close that you hit.
Even TCAS I gives a traffic advisory, and you can simply look at the screen at that time, see where the traffic is, then look out and work out how to avoid it. With TCAS II, you get a full resolution advisory. This is existing, proven equipment that is not that expensive.
Why aren’t the AFAP, AIPA and GAPAN calling for the Government to at least accept this existing, proven system?
Airservices Australia is now going ahead with a contract in Tasmania, placing a multilateration system on the mountain tops. This works with standard Mode C and Mode S transponders. It does not need a rotating radar head and TCAS I and TCAS II will obviously work perfectly with the system.
There is no doubt that ADS-B will come in one day – I’m told it is at least a decade away. At the present time we have excellent, proven TCAS which is not even required in Australia when it would be overseas. I understand there are some 190 airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers flying in Australia which are not equipped. This is outrageous.
Please do not get off the track and talk about things which are not yet certified – let’s use a proven system.
I will look forward to seeing press releases from the three organisations calling for the Government to at least catch up with the rest of the world before trying to lead the rest of the world.
Beaver rotate, CAR 262AC states:
After 31 December 1999, the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft that is a turbine-powered commercial aeroplane must not begin a flight if the aircraft is not fitted with an approved TCAS II that is serviceable.
turbine-powered commercial aeroplane means a large-capacity aeroplane that: (a) is propelled by turbojet, turbofan, or turboprop engines; and (b) is being used, for hire or reward, to carry passengers, cargo or both.
Large-capacity aeroplane means an aeroplane that: (a) has a maximum take-off weight of more than 15,000 kg; or (b) is permitted by its type certificate to have a passenger seating capacity of more than 30 seats.
Large-capacity aeroplane means an aeroplane that: (a) has a maximum take-off weight of more than 15,000 kg; or (b) is permitted by its type certificate to have a passenger seating capacity of more than 30 seats.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Feb 2007 at 00:59.
A certain large airline advised that they paid AsA's bills and as such they wanted the savings passed back to them, not used to fit GA with ADSB.
GaryGnu
Say I pay $400m to my service provider because that's what it cost them to provide the service. Now the service provider finds some new technology so he can provide the service for only $200m. Why should I keep paying the service provider $400m? Or in this case, why should I continue to pay $400m so that $200m can be used to pay for gadgets for other pilots/aircraft? If those gadgets are deemed necessary, then the taxpayer pays, not me.
TCAS cannot be unserviceable for planned flight throuhg E or G airspace.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
topdrop
Assuming those savings actually go to their bottom line, they will not even come close to the cost incurred when one of their 19-30 pax aircraft gets taken out by one of Chuckles aforementioned Taswegian bumfeck ??
Any road if you read my posts carefully you'll see that I don't actually have a problem with mandatory TCAS for ALL PUBLIC transport aircraft including up to 9 pax BUT to complete the safety circle EVERYBODY that they are likely to encounter whilst airbourne MUST unless I am missing something, must have a serviceable and operating transponder including airspace which currently does not require it?? The big sky theory does not cut it when they approach an uncontrolled mining airstrip or well travelled nav point.
So if we are going to demand TCAS we must also demand TCAS for ALL public transport aircraft right down to the C210 and universal transponders for ALL aircraft.
For those who dont fully understand the WA/NT mining ops environment I believe a day or three spent jumpseating might help.
Our friend Capn Bloggs would be delighted to accomodate you I'm sure.
And FYI http://www.faa.gov/asd/ads-b/06-07-0...B-Overview.pdf
And yup it may not be ready right now but the FAA are leading the way so the manufacturers CAN make the provisions. And if my memory serves me correctly AsA are of the same view.
In any event it is a perfect solution for Australia unique aviation architecture.
I understand AsA's original proposal was that they would subsidise the fitting of ADSB to GA from the savings made by not replacing enroute radars. A certain large airline advised that they paid AsAs bills and as such they wanted the savings passed back to them, not used to fit GA with ADSB.
Any road if you read my posts carefully you'll see that I don't actually have a problem with mandatory TCAS for ALL PUBLIC transport aircraft including up to 9 pax BUT to complete the safety circle EVERYBODY that they are likely to encounter whilst airbourne MUST unless I am missing something, must have a serviceable and operating transponder including airspace which currently does not require it?? The big sky theory does not cut it when they approach an uncontrolled mining airstrip or well travelled nav point.
So if we are going to demand TCAS we must also demand TCAS for ALL public transport aircraft right down to the C210 and universal transponders for ALL aircraft.
For those who dont fully understand the WA/NT mining ops environment I believe a day or three spent jumpseating might help.
Our friend Capn Bloggs would be delighted to accomodate you I'm sure.
And FYI http://www.faa.gov/asd/ads-b/06-07-0...B-Overview.pdf
And yup it may not be ready right now but the FAA are leading the way so the manufacturers CAN make the provisions. And if my memory serves me correctly AsA are of the same view.
In any event it is a perfect solution for Australia unique aviation architecture.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Bloggs,
I was merely expressing surprise at having heard such a rumour here. I would have thought it may come out in other fora first.
All the major domestic airlines in this country operate into Non Controlled and/or Non radar aerodromes where the benefits of ADS-B and CDTI can be realised. If I recall correctly we would need ADS-B Out equippage rates in the GA fleet close to that of current VHF Radio (around 90%).
For a major airline to ignore such benefits is short sighted but is really just the logical extension of user pays I suppose.
The restriction on unserviceable TCAS in E or G airspace is a straight lift from the MEL that my lot operate under.
I was merely expressing surprise at having heard such a rumour here. I would have thought it may come out in other fora first.
All the major domestic airlines in this country operate into Non Controlled and/or Non radar aerodromes where the benefits of ADS-B and CDTI can be realised. If I recall correctly we would need ADS-B Out equippage rates in the GA fleet close to that of current VHF Radio (around 90%).
For a major airline to ignore such benefits is short sighted but is really just the logical extension of user pays I suppose.
The restriction on unserviceable TCAS in E or G airspace is a straight lift from the MEL that my lot operate under.
Last edited by GaryGnu; 7th Feb 2007 at 03:44.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I understand there are some 190 airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers flying in Australia which are not equipped.
I can give you the registrations of 54 aircraft that are not required to have TCAS but do! And there must be many many more that I don't know of!
Even the most advanced ADS-B (in relation to being proven) the US Capstone project has a display and no audio - you have to look down at it all of the time rather than looking out. Of course after three months of looking down and not seeing an aircraft, it is the aircraft that comes close that you hit.
Even TCAS I gives a traffic advisory, and you can simply look at the screen at that time, see where the traffic is, then look out and work out how to avoid it. With TCAS II, you get a full resolution advisory. This is existing, proven equipment that is not that expensive.
Even TCAS I gives a traffic advisory, and you can simply look at the screen at that time, see where the traffic is, then look out and work out how to avoid it. With TCAS II, you get a full resolution advisory. This is existing, proven equipment that is not that expensive.
I have been saved many times by TCAS without a traffic or resolution advisory! Simply by knowing the whereabouts of another aircraft helps you to avoid it. You do not need to know it's direction of travel nor it's intentions to be able to take safe early avoidance action.
Now as these situations are not 'near misses', nor do they require a written report as no audible alert was sounded, I cannot support my theory with factual data, but ask any airline pilot who regularly arrives at airports in G airspace and I am sure they will have similar stories.
In my opinion an aircraft fitted with ADSB, even without an audible warning, would still increase both situational awareness and safety ten fold!
PS: Please do not bother AFAP, they are busy negotiating me a long overdue pay rise.
Thread Starter
Howard Hughes, you state:
If this is so, why aren’t you coming out in support of Australia following mandatory requirements which have been in place in other countries in the world for many years?
Yes, I agree that having a display is better than nothing, but in times of high workload in a small commuter airline aircraft, it has been shown that pilots cannot be guaranteed to refer to the TCAS screen all the time. That is why there are audio voice calls.
In relation to the number of 190 aircraft, I will check my figures and come back to you. I believe you will find that I’m pretty close to the mark – and even it if it only 160, surely that is serious. Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by the TCAS?
I have been saved many times by TCAS without a traffic or resolution advisory
Yes, I agree that having a display is better than nothing, but in times of high workload in a small commuter airline aircraft, it has been shown that pilots cannot be guaranteed to refer to the TCAS screen all the time. That is why there are audio voice calls.
In relation to the number of 190 aircraft, I will check my figures and come back to you. I believe you will find that I’m pretty close to the mark – and even it if it only 160, surely that is serious. Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by the TCAS?
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
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by the TCAS?
.
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that is the result of a GA ALT encoder that is 300ft out or not selected ON?, or
.
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with TCAS and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by the provision of VFR ATC traffic separation or DTI (not provided in E and G airspace)??, or
.
Would you like to be a passenger or a crew member in the aircraft which is not fitted with ADS-B and is involved in a midair collision that could possibly have been prevented by ADS-B subsidised fitment to all aircraft capable of powering the equipment?
.
... related to the thrust of your query, perhaps you might also clarify your position on the more important related issues i.e.
.
Do you support ATS Separation/segregation/Traffic services to RPT?
.
Do you support subsidised fitment of digital ADS-B (including integral digital encoders)?
.
.. perhaps you might send out a media statement to that effect, and explain how your current 'safety activism' is consistent with your previously related airspace mantra's
.
.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If this is so, why aren’t you coming out in support of Australia following mandatory requirements which have been in place in other countries in the world for many years?
Furthermore I recently moved from an operator who was not required to fit TCAS, but did, to an operator who is not required to fit TCAS and doesn't! Guess what, I am now actively involved in advocating the fitment of TCAS to our aircraft. Now this may be a long uphill battle but I think I am worth it!
Now you might perceive this as hypocritical, but as far as regulatory reform is concerned, I would like to see our efforts put towards a system that will serve us well in the future and be compatible with our unique environment. I see a combination of TCAS, mode S and ADSB as the likely system and by the postings of others, I am not in the minority.
everyone goes completely off the track and talks about something that hasn’t even been invented yet?
This is obviously ridiculous, as companies such as Regional Express are making really good profits at the moment and could easily afford TCAS.
From my experience the only aircraft in the 19-36 seat category that I have encountered that do not have TCAS are night freighters and even some of these do. Having experience late at night, I can categorically say they do not require TCAS! EGPWS certainly, but TCAS no! What happens to these aircraft? I suspect they would be included as the wording generally says 'capable of carrying 10 to 30 passengers' and these aircraft are certainly capable of that.
I think you should publically rescind your statement regarding 160-190 aircraft as I believe it is grossly inaccurate, unless of course you are willing to put forward the registrations of said aircraft for public scrutiny!!
Cheers, HH>
TCAS relies on the other aircraft having a functional transponder selected in the "ON" position. You would be amazed, nay, shocked at the amount of aircraft i see launch every day without their transponder on. and this is in controlled airspace!!! what about farmer jim out at whoop whoop station, i'm sure he does a full and comprehensive run up and ensures transponder to ALT b4 take off..not.
TCAS is a flawed system, but it's all we can do. see and avoid does not work, ATSB have acknowledged this. so what can we do? is compulsory TCAS the answer dick? really? how many mid-airs have there really been that could have been prevented with this equipment on the aircraft class that your going on about?
I'm really not sure what your agenda is here dick. I'd agree with you 100% if you included the fact that ALL transponders must be hard wired to the master switch, so they can never be turned off. however, i don't think that this will happen. but until it does, TCAS is relying on farmer bob in his C152 to turn on his transponder when he goes to check on his dam which just happens to be under final to a remote airport...
Think about it, hey?
TCAS is a flawed system, but it's all we can do. see and avoid does not work, ATSB have acknowledged this. so what can we do? is compulsory TCAS the answer dick? really? how many mid-airs have there really been that could have been prevented with this equipment on the aircraft class that your going on about?
I'm really not sure what your agenda is here dick. I'd agree with you 100% if you included the fact that ALL transponders must be hard wired to the master switch, so they can never be turned off. however, i don't think that this will happen. but until it does, TCAS is relying on farmer bob in his C152 to turn on his transponder when he goes to check on his dam which just happens to be under final to a remote airport...
Think about it, hey?
Dick,
Since the powers that be have largely removed your "incredibly unsafe" E airspace, especially non-radar, the majority of 30 and under turborprops are no longer threatened by VFR off-freq higher flyers.
The main threat to my safety is you and your low level bugsmasher mates swanning around making broadcasts with their ears closed in MBZs. I have personally been concerned for the safety of me and my pax on three occasions in the last 18 months because of the stupid statement you had inserted in AIP "Direct Pilot to Pilot dialogue should be avoided where possible".
The only protection we have against these types is TCAS, and they don't have to have a transponder. YOU mandate transponders for the aircraft that will kill us, and we'll push for TCAS in the 30 seaters.
Since the powers that be have largely removed your "incredibly unsafe" E airspace, especially non-radar, the majority of 30 and under turborprops are no longer threatened by VFR off-freq higher flyers.
The main threat to my safety is you and your low level bugsmasher mates swanning around making broadcasts with their ears closed in MBZs. I have personally been concerned for the safety of me and my pax on three occasions in the last 18 months because of the stupid statement you had inserted in AIP "Direct Pilot to Pilot dialogue should be avoided where possible".
The only protection we have against these types is TCAS, and they don't have to have a transponder. YOU mandate transponders for the aircraft that will kill us, and we'll push for TCAS in the 30 seaters.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Luny Tunes
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
It usually takes some time to understand the real motivations of your posts and the underlying reasons.
1. Federal election looming
2. ASA / AERU functions moving to CASA mid 2007.
3. NAS still Government policy and there is no better time to remind the policy makers of their policy than now (refer to point 1)
4. One major hurdle for NAS and especially for attempting Class E over D again, the lowering of Class E to FL145 and Class E corridors is unalerted see and avoid, and the associated risks that have no effective mitigation.
5. TCAS cannot be used as mitigation.
6. Your proposal for increased fitment of transponder and TCAS, would enable strong lobbying with policy makers (see point 1) to make new policies prior to point 2 occurring regarding the use of TCAS as risk mitigation. This lobbying can be especially effective when the newly formed CASA wing has little knowledge of past history.
7. TCAS becomes the saviour of the many risks associated with unalerted see and avoid.
8. All remaining NAS characteristics are implemented by the newly formed CASA following Government policy and mandate. Resistance from industry over safety concerns and cost benefit is futile.
9. TCAS fitment and mitigation decreases the need for fast tracking any ADS-B in low level airspace as the cost argument could be used. The only solution would be for ASA / Government to pay for fitment 100%.
It usually takes some time to understand the real motivations of your posts and the underlying reasons.
1. Federal election looming
2. ASA / AERU functions moving to CASA mid 2007.
3. NAS still Government policy and there is no better time to remind the policy makers of their policy than now (refer to point 1)
4. One major hurdle for NAS and especially for attempting Class E over D again, the lowering of Class E to FL145 and Class E corridors is unalerted see and avoid, and the associated risks that have no effective mitigation.
5. TCAS cannot be used as mitigation.
6. Your proposal for increased fitment of transponder and TCAS, would enable strong lobbying with policy makers (see point 1) to make new policies prior to point 2 occurring regarding the use of TCAS as risk mitigation. This lobbying can be especially effective when the newly formed CASA wing has little knowledge of past history.
7. TCAS becomes the saviour of the many risks associated with unalerted see and avoid.
8. All remaining NAS characteristics are implemented by the newly formed CASA following Government policy and mandate. Resistance from industry over safety concerns and cost benefit is futile.
9. TCAS fitment and mitigation decreases the need for fast tracking any ADS-B in low level airspace as the cost argument could be used. The only solution would be for ASA / Government to pay for fitment 100%.