Benalla six dead and $5,000 VOR reward
Thread Starter
Jerricho, post 54 basically says that in the view of En-Rooter, the radar coverage at Benalla is not suitable for Class E airspace. No evidence is given on why En-Rooter claimed this is so.
It appears that it is not suitable for Class E, but still suitable for the ATSB to do a report showing radar traces to low level, which clearly show that the pilot was many miles away from the correct approach point.
As stated by Voices of Reason at different times, Class E airspace has nothing to do with radar coverage. All IFR approaches in the USA are covered by a minimum of Class E airspace. Over 50% of their approaches are below radar coverage.
I ask you to support at least trying one bit of low level Class E airspace – let’s say at a place like Charleville or Mt Isa – to see how it will work, to find the extra training costs for the controllers, and to find out if there are any delays for IFR aircraft. Surely that is the way of seeing if a system will work safely.
Remember there were pilots who supported the engineers in claiming that a Boeing 767 could not operate without a special engineer’s console on the flight deck. Ansett took notice of this resistance to change and it was the start of their downfall – that is, the millions of dollars wasted in ordering 767s with an engineer’s position, and then the tens of millions of dollars wasted in removing those engineer consoles many years later.
Isn’t it a pity that the pilots and engineers at Ansett at the time couldn’t have taken advice and at least tried the proven system which now works in airlines all around the world?
It appears that it is not suitable for Class E, but still suitable for the ATSB to do a report showing radar traces to low level, which clearly show that the pilot was many miles away from the correct approach point.
As stated by Voices of Reason at different times, Class E airspace has nothing to do with radar coverage. All IFR approaches in the USA are covered by a minimum of Class E airspace. Over 50% of their approaches are below radar coverage.
I ask you to support at least trying one bit of low level Class E airspace – let’s say at a place like Charleville or Mt Isa – to see how it will work, to find the extra training costs for the controllers, and to find out if there are any delays for IFR aircraft. Surely that is the way of seeing if a system will work safely.
Remember there were pilots who supported the engineers in claiming that a Boeing 767 could not operate without a special engineer’s console on the flight deck. Ansett took notice of this resistance to change and it was the start of their downfall – that is, the millions of dollars wasted in ordering 767s with an engineer’s position, and then the tens of millions of dollars wasted in removing those engineer consoles many years later.
Isn’t it a pity that the pilots and engineers at Ansett at the time couldn’t have taken advice and at least tried the proven system which now works in airlines all around the world?
My bolding:
No, it isn't.
We don't risk lives by "trying" something to see if it will work safely, and blind Freddy can see that.
We first conduct a thorough hazard identification and safety analysis exercise to determine if a proposal is indeed safe, and in addition - via the minister's direction - that there is a demonstrated cost benefit.
I ask you to support at least trying one bit of low level Class E airspace – let’s say at a place like Charleville or Mt Isa – to see how it will work, to find the extra training costs for the controllers, and to find out if there are any delays for IFR aircraft. Surely that is the way of seeing if a system will work safely.
We don't risk lives by "trying" something to see if it will work safely, and blind Freddy can see that.
We first conduct a thorough hazard identification and safety analysis exercise to determine if a proposal is indeed safe, and in addition - via the minister's direction - that there is a demonstrated cost benefit.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Class E airspace outside of radar coverage is a complete farce, as it provides no protection for IFR aircraft from VFR aircraft. So why have it? Just because the USA does it that way, it really doesn't mean that we should.
Why do we have to look to the USA or Europe to model our airspace, when we have sufficient expertise to design our own to meet the ICAO standards.
Why do we have to look to the USA or Europe to model our airspace, when we have sufficient expertise to design our own to meet the ICAO standards.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog One- That's a very provincial view of the world mate! Now how the hell is anyone who flies in your unique solution from outside of Straya going to do it safely with a cracked up solution like that one.
Read Dick Smith's example about the Ansett engineers panel on their 767s, then imagine the perplexed look on the faces of Boeing engineers when they were actually asked to put the bloody things in!
It's time for us to have a system that is similar to other countries in order to make the airspace understandable for users both in Australia and for those who come in for trade and commerce.
Smith has also outlined very effectively the arguments to make our system similar to other widespread examples of Europe and USA to make the avionics and ATC software and training standards similar as well.
I just back from Heathrow and Ireland and there are still enough differences between Europe and USA that need to be researched thouroughly the night before. Don't go and make a country like Australia complicated. No foreign pilot will bother to learn it, they'll just meander through it. Not a good solution at all.
Read Dick Smith's example about the Ansett engineers panel on their 767s, then imagine the perplexed look on the faces of Boeing engineers when they were actually asked to put the bloody things in!
It's time for us to have a system that is similar to other countries in order to make the airspace understandable for users both in Australia and for those who come in for trade and commerce.
Smith has also outlined very effectively the arguments to make our system similar to other widespread examples of Europe and USA to make the avionics and ATC software and training standards similar as well.
I just back from Heathrow and Ireland and there are still enough differences between Europe and USA that need to be researched thouroughly the night before. Don't go and make a country like Australia complicated. No foreign pilot will bother to learn it, they'll just meander through it. Not a good solution at all.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the view of En-Rooter, the radar coverage at Benalla is not suitable for Class E airspace. No evidence is given on why En-Rooter claimed this is so.
I'll give you a little hint..........post #10 of this thread.Shall we turn a blind eye to the number of times YOU have posted your views both here and in the media without providing facts (now we wait for the tired old "Well, why doesn't he use his real name if he really cares")
And before you start shoving Class E down my throat, I work 2 terminal areas that are Class E up to 12,500 feet surrounding a Class D tower. Both are mandatory transponder airspace. Both have excellent radar coverage. While we're at it, why don't you ask me about the priority Medevac flight that was pissed around last week and delayed in landing because of some tool who wasn't talking to ATC and stooged straight through the final approach of the active runway at 3500 (unverified altitude of course, because it was never verified by ATC).
Last edited by Jerricho; 12th Apr 2007 at 14:15.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho,
Without hijacking this thread, most of these examples you cite have a lot more to do with the declining standards of Australian pilot training and nothing to do with Dick Smith or airspace.
A VFR aircraft running through the final and not talking to anyone is going to happen anywhere if you don't hold training to a certain standard in the first place.
Without hijacking this thread, most of these examples you cite have a lot more to do with the declining standards of Australian pilot training and nothing to do with Dick Smith or airspace.
A VFR aircraft running through the final and not talking to anyone is going to happen anywhere if you don't hold training to a certain standard in the first place.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Chris, what that one example (what "examples" are you talking about? Huh?) shows is that in the all magical Class E airspace, our little VFR friend squawking 1200 doesn't need to be talking to ATC and squawking an altitude that is not verified and is pretty much useless.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho, Chris, Dick.
Just a thought, an unverrified altitude is usually correct, but I know appreciate what Jerricho is saying. I have on my desk right now, for installation this evening a brand new altitude encoder. Why when the one on board is only 2.75 years old I could ask. Luckily for me my Transponder displays the PA from the encoder, and I noticed an abnormality. Flying in Class G on Wednesday I noticed this, asked Brisbane radar to monitor the output and it was all over the place, worse than the display was showing me (update rate on display) so select Mode A and replace the encoder ASAP.
I have since been informed they have a life span of 3 - 5 years, unlucky me
, but it makes you think very hard about the fact that most older GA aircraft (and some no so old) probably have deffective encoders, that only get checked every two years (hopefully) and their Transponders do not have a display for the PA being transmitted.
Jerricho should be concerned in fact!!! So unverified is a radar controllers concern.
Question Jerry, with changes after changes, I may be wrong, but I thought one requirement for class E was to be on the correct ATC freq. and yes I know there is no guarantee. On the rare occassion I am in Class E I ask for a VFR flight following, mainly so you guys have contact and its better for any IFR around also for me to be "known" traffic. Just good manners I think.
What do you think?
J
Just a thought, an unverrified altitude is usually correct, but I know appreciate what Jerricho is saying. I have on my desk right now, for installation this evening a brand new altitude encoder. Why when the one on board is only 2.75 years old I could ask. Luckily for me my Transponder displays the PA from the encoder, and I noticed an abnormality. Flying in Class G on Wednesday I noticed this, asked Brisbane radar to monitor the output and it was all over the place, worse than the display was showing me (update rate on display) so select Mode A and replace the encoder ASAP.
I have since been informed they have a life span of 3 - 5 years, unlucky me
, but it makes you think very hard about the fact that most older GA aircraft (and some no so old) probably have deffective encoders, that only get checked every two years (hopefully) and their Transponders do not have a display for the PA being transmitted. Jerricho should be concerned in fact!!! So unverified is a radar controllers concern.
Question Jerry, with changes after changes, I may be wrong, but I thought one requirement for class E was to be on the correct ATC freq. and yes I know there is no guarantee. On the rare occassion I am in Class E I ask for a VFR flight following, mainly so you guys have contact and its better for any IFR around also for me to be "known" traffic. Just good manners I think.
What do you think?
J
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J430
A point that has been studiously avoided by the protagonists here on this and the TCAS debate.
Jerricho
I have since been informed they have a life span of 3 - 5 years, unlucky me , but it makes you think very hard about the fact that most older GA aircraft (and some no so old) probably have deffective encoders, that only get checked every two years (hopefully) and their Transponders do not have a display for the PA being transmitted.
Jerricho
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
Dick, I understand the considerable population and infrastructure differences between Australia and the US! I also respect that the way things are done in the US for the most part, may work very well there!
For Australia however, I am still not convinced that unannounced VFR's in E airspace, with or without Radar coverage, with possibly incorrect mode C readouts and on the wrong frequency is a good thing! It seems by the reponses to this thread, that I am not a lone voice, surely it is reasonable to acknowledge these deficiencies in the proposed sytem and try to improve it whilst staying as close as possible to the ICAO model.
I don't get this statement, is it imperative for ATC to know what flight conditions an IFR aircraft is in when OCTA? What is the US procedure? When I was there, "Cancel IFR" had the same meaning as "Cancel SAR"!
Chris, most people coming in from the USA (and elsewhere for that matter) for business and commerce, would be IFR in controlled airspace, if you operate in Australia the same way you do in the USA in controlled airspace, you would not have a problem! There are numerous examples of this happening everyday!
Furthermore if we are going to align ourselves with any system, then why would we not align as close as possible to ICAO? This would make it simpler for incoming flights from all countries, not just the US! Frankly I don't think that the differences in airspace cause any concern to foreign operators entering Australia.
For Australia however, I am still not convinced that unannounced VFR's in E airspace, with or without Radar coverage, with possibly incorrect mode C readouts and on the wrong frequency is a good thing! It seems by the reponses to this thread, that I am not a lone voice, surely it is reasonable to acknowledge these deficiencies in the proposed sytem and try to improve it whilst staying as close as possible to the ICAO model.
Dick Smith Said: This is not the Australian, system as we do not even have a procedure where a pilot in uncontrolled airspace informs the controller that he or she is no longer in IMC.
Chris Higgins Said: It's time for us to have a system that is similar to other countries in order to make the airspace understandable for users both in Australia and for those who come in for trade and commerce.
Furthermore if we are going to align ourselves with any system, then why would we not align as close as possible to ICAO? This would make it simpler for incoming flights from all countries, not just the US! Frankly I don't think that the differences in airspace cause any concern to foreign operators entering Australia.
Last edited by Howard Hughes; 13th Apr 2007 at 00:39. Reason: Lucidity after a string of night shifts...
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the meantime notwithstanding Mr Smiths laudable intent, the RFDS is still short of Dicks $5,000.
appears either to have fallen on deaf ears or;
the VOR by identifying themselves see themselves on a hiding to nothing or;
are of the belief that there is truly nothing they can add to the issue.
If I recall correctly they only entered the fray here;
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=117373 its worth reading through the thread again
to observe ;
and suggest;
and point out;
It's a pity that the RFDS will miss out on a donation the trigger for which was probably unfounded and uncollectable. It got everybodies attention though.
So lets get back to tors and context on this shall we, before you or anyone else feels tempted to invoke their authority to personal advantage.
It is a fact the
referred to in the context of the debate were NOT Airservices nor CASA they were the NASIG and you know who.
I’m prepared to make a $5,000 donation to the Royal Flying Doctor Service (Broken Hill Branch) if the VOR who wrote the below mentioned piece
will identify himself or herself and assist with airspace reform.
will identify himself or herself and assist with airspace reform.
the VOR by identifying themselves see themselves on a hiding to nothing or;
are of the belief that there is truly nothing they can add to the issue.
If I recall correctly they only entered the fray here;
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=117373 its worth reading through the thread again
to observe ;
Before we close – a respondent made a reference to our organizational allegiance. We do not represent anyone or any organization. We are concerned that many decisions made not only in your country, but in many others, are based not only on [hopefully] mis-understanding – but also [hopefully not] on deliberate mis-interpretation. We are concerned about safety – and we are concerned that any money that is spent on airspace management is correctly applied to ensure safety, without unnecessarily restricting the amenity of any user.
Might we suggest that rather than exchange frustrations on this site - clearly not heeded by your airspace designers - that you access ALL of the information on which their decision making is based - you might be [very] surprised at what you uncover.
We would suggest two mechanisms. First, as we said - be very specific in your request. Do not simply ask for airspace documents - ask for documents relating to every name and iteration over the last several years. We think you have had NAS, Class G Demonstrations, LAMP, Airspace 2000 and so on. Make sure you ask for information at EVERY level in the organization - not just at senior executive level.
The second is to establish a credible [to you] framework in which to request and analyse the information - that could be done by partnering with an interested party - such as your aviation investigation body - or if you are serious, with a dedicated newspaper reporter. You might find that the latter is less manageble [obviously reporters have particular reasons for participating] - but might accelerate the process so that your aviation investigation body is DIRECTED to act [we suspect you will understand what we mean].
If we can be of assistance, please post accordingly.
We would suggest two mechanisms. First, as we said - be very specific in your request. Do not simply ask for airspace documents - ask for documents relating to every name and iteration over the last several years. We think you have had NAS, Class G Demonstrations, LAMP, Airspace 2000 and so on. Make sure you ask for information at EVERY level in the organization - not just at senior executive level.
The second is to establish a credible [to you] framework in which to request and analyse the information - that could be done by partnering with an interested party - such as your aviation investigation body - or if you are serious, with a dedicated newspaper reporter. You might find that the latter is less manageble [obviously reporters have particular reasons for participating] - but might accelerate the process so that your aviation investigation body is DIRECTED to act [we suspect you will understand what we mean].
If we can be of assistance, please post accordingly.
If our views are not helpful, we will, of course, withdraw from your forum. We seek only to offer the benefit of experience in these matters - and to offer sources of information which you may use to the benefit of aviation safety in your country. From what we have observed, you are fighting misinformation - skillfully manipulated - but incorrect, nonetheless. We can provide assistance to discredit such misinformation, and point you to correct source material.
So lets get back to tors and context on this shall we, before you or anyone else feels tempted to invoke their authority to personal advantage.
It is a fact the
your airspace designers
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have a life span of 3-5 years????
Really? Are we really fitting such rubbish in our aircraft? Do the sales people tell us these things when they sell them?
Do the authorities understand this when they make the fitting of them mandatory?
How can you know if these things are working properly when you are at Birdsville? By using the test light?
Can you get them tested or fixed at Birdsville?
If not, is the fitting and use of transponders actually practical.
Do the authorities understand this when they make the fitting of them mandatory?
How can you know if these things are working properly when you are at Birdsville? By using the test light?
Can you get them tested or fixed at Birdsville?
If not, is the fitting and use of transponders actually practical.
Last edited by bushy; 13th Apr 2007 at 04:30.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushy,
If you can get Dick Smith to support the Low-Level Phase of the ADS-B project in Australia then you will be able to check your transponder at Birdsville by calling up ATC with a request for a transponder check.
Always have installed, and, always switch on your transponder. Some day it will save your life when a higher performance aircraft picks you up on it's TCAS and takes avoiding action.
If we can get Dick Smith to support and call for the mandatory carriage and operation of transponders by all aircraft operating in Class G airspace, a lot more lifes will be saved.
If you don't believe me, ask an RFDS pilot.
If you can get Dick Smith to support the Low-Level Phase of the ADS-B project in Australia then you will be able to check your transponder at Birdsville by calling up ATC with a request for a transponder check.
Always have installed, and, always switch on your transponder. Some day it will save your life when a higher performance aircraft picks you up on it's TCAS and takes avoiding action.
If we can get Dick Smith to support and call for the mandatory carriage and operation of transponders by all aircraft operating in Class G airspace, a lot more lifes will be saved.
If you don't believe me, ask an RFDS pilot.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and here is what the Ameriking web site says
So anybody else have this experience?? I know with any thermal element device they may not live forever and when turned on and off a fair bit they have only so many cycles. Mine was clearly an early failure. It had not failed completely but was very unstable.
Bushy, I see your point clearly hence my comment, the typical Bendix/king Transponder has no PA readout, mine does and its a handy reference if your EFIS and normal altimeter fail at the same time because you can display the PA at 1013 or select the display to actual altitude by entering known QNH.
J
:: FAA TSO-C71 approved.
FEATURES:
Extremely Accurate (+/- 20 Feet) and Extremely Reliable.
Compatible with all Transponders.
Prefabricated wiring Harness Assembly Included.
Currently OEM Production Supply (FAA TC approved)
to many Airframe Manufacturers including Mooney Aircraft, Aviat Aircraft, American Champion Aircraft, Luscomb Aircraft, Skystar, Diamond Aircraft of Canada, Aerospaciale Socata Aircraft of Germany etc.
ACCESSORIES:
Wiring Harness Assembly with Connector built-in Thick Tygon Pneumatic Hose, Parker Hannifin Brass Fittings, Anodized Mounting Tray.
OPTIONAL ACCESSORY:
Wiring Jumper, wiring junction interfaces (parallel data) from Altitude Encoder to GPS / Transponders / EGPWS / Air Data Computer etc. This allows Unlimited Cascading to many other Receivers as needed. Hence substituting the requirement for adding a Terminal Junction Block or PCB at the Encoder Data Outputs.
WARRANTY:
One and a half (1 1/2) years. Optional Extended Three (3) years Warranty.
FEATURES:
Extremely Accurate (+/- 20 Feet) and Extremely Reliable.
Compatible with all Transponders.
Prefabricated wiring Harness Assembly Included.
Currently OEM Production Supply (FAA TC approved)
to many Airframe Manufacturers including Mooney Aircraft, Aviat Aircraft, American Champion Aircraft, Luscomb Aircraft, Skystar, Diamond Aircraft of Canada, Aerospaciale Socata Aircraft of Germany etc.
ACCESSORIES:
Wiring Harness Assembly with Connector built-in Thick Tygon Pneumatic Hose, Parker Hannifin Brass Fittings, Anodized Mounting Tray.
OPTIONAL ACCESSORY:
Wiring Jumper, wiring junction interfaces (parallel data) from Altitude Encoder to GPS / Transponders / EGPWS / Air Data Computer etc. This allows Unlimited Cascading to many other Receivers as needed. Hence substituting the requirement for adding a Terminal Junction Block or PCB at the Encoder Data Outputs.
WARRANTY:
One and a half (1 1/2) years. Optional Extended Three (3) years Warranty.
Bushy, I see your point clearly hence my comment, the typical Bendix/king Transponder has no PA readout, mine does and its a handy reference if your EFIS and normal altimeter fail at the same time
because you can display the PA at 1013 or select the display to actual altitude by entering known QNH.J
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 you don't believe me, ask an RFDS pilot.
I'd give up my GPS for a TCAS...
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quokka
God bless em AND anybody else operating high performance aircraft into regional, mining and remote strips.
Maybe Dicks $5,000 could go towards some TCAS's in the RFDS aircraft that dont have em
If you don't believe me, ask an RFDS pilot.
Maybe Dicks $5,000 could go towards some TCAS's in the RFDS aircraft that dont have em
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 109 Likes
on
62 Posts
Maybe Dicks $5,000 could go towards some TCAS's in the RFDS aircraft that dont have em