Benalla six dead and $5,000 VOR reward
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is an interesting article, I learnt a fair bit from it and I'm sure we can all take a lesson from it here.
Ozbusdriver suggested in another thread that I was an aquired taste, maybe so but if you don't think outside the square you stay there. I guess if you do, and in aviation terms you cannot be assured of a more positive outcome than prior you must retreat to what you know and experience has shown is safe and achievable. So who actually owns this monkey, read on?
Ozbusdriver suggested in another thread that I was an aquired taste, maybe so but if you don't think outside the square you stay there. I guess if you do, and in aviation terms you cannot be assured of a more positive outcome than prior you must retreat to what you know and experience has shown is safe and achievable. So who actually owns this monkey, read on?
Monkey Management
Imagine one day that you are walking down the hallway at your organization, and a subordinate approaches you with a problem about one of his subordinates. "I cannot believe how Jane is acting toward our customers. She is curt, unfriendly and sometimes downright difficult. I have told her several times that her behavior is just not acceptable, but it doesn't seem to help. Can you visit with her and see if she takes it better from you?"
As a manager, you have a number of choices. Which is the right choice for you, for the supervisor, and for Jane?
In a classic article in the Harvard Business Review in 1974, authors William Oncken, Jr., and Donald L. Wass offer a theoretical framework for seeing this situation in its true light and making the right decision. In the article "Who's Got the Monkey?" the authors tell the tale of an overburdened manager who allows his employees to delegate upward. When a manager takes an unsolved problem from his subordinates, he is allowing a figurative monkey to leap from the employee's back to his back. When a manager has too many monkeys, he is increasing his own load, failing to develop his subordinates, and probably not solving the problems effectively in the final analysis.
Oncken and Wass offer a well defined basic law for managing monkeys. It is:
At no time while I am helping you will your problem become my problem. The instant your problem becomes mine, you will no longer have a problem. I cannot help someone who hasn't got a problem. You may ask my help at any appointed time, and we will make a joint determination of what the next move will be and who will make it.
Refusing to accept problems that subordinates try to delegate upward, and instead giving them opportunities to meet with you to "feed the monkey" is the best choice for both the monkey and for its keeper. The employee who is closest to the problem usually has the knowledge and skill to solve the problem, if empowered to do so. Consultations with the manager will serve to broaden perspective and offer new ways of seeing the problem. And as the employee feeds and eventually solves the problem, he or she learns important skills that make them more valuable to the organization and to the managers.
In addition to the law of monkey management, the authors list six rules of managing monkeys that are instructive to managers. These include:
1. Monkeys should be fed or shot. No one likes the consequences of a starving monkey. They tend to be very disagreeable and squeal and raise a ruckus. Monkeys must be fed periodically; in this analogy, the problem must be dealt with between the manager and the employee with the problem on a regular basis. If the monkey can be shot (the problem solved quickly), then feeding times are not necessary.
2. Every monkey should have an assigned next feeding time and a degree of initiative. After a feeding session, the manager should select an appropriate time for the next feeding and should have a number of action steps for the employee to take. "Can we meet next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. to see how things are going and what we should do next?"
3. The monkey population should be kept below the maximum number that the manager has time to feed. The authors suggest that it should take 15 minutes to feed a monkey, and that managers should keep the list of problems that are in various stages of solution at a manageable number.
4. Monkeys should fed by appointment only. Allowing employees to bring problems to you on their timetable increases the chances that the monkey will move from the employee to the manager. By setting specific times for addressing the problem, managers empower employees to make interim decisions about the problem, and still report back.
5. Monkey feeding appointments may be rescheduled but never indefinitely postponed. Either party, the manager or the subordinate, may reschedule a feeding appointment for any reason, but it must be scheduled to a specific time to avoid losing track of the monkey.
6. Monkeys shall be fed face to face or by telephone, but not in writing. Holding feeding sessions via e-mail or memo transfers the monkey to the manager. An employee can pass the monkey to the manager by simply requesting a response. Feedings that take place in person or on the phone require the monkey to remain with the employee unless the supervisor takes an affirmative step to take it.
Proper delegation skills, properly applied as suggested in this creative approach, can help managers better solve problems and develop their employees' problem solving skills. Visualizing each problem as a monkey that is impatient and noisy can help managers see problems as they really are and address them in the best possible way. Beware of the monkeys that may come into your life today!
Imagine one day that you are walking down the hallway at your organization, and a subordinate approaches you with a problem about one of his subordinates. "I cannot believe how Jane is acting toward our customers. She is curt, unfriendly and sometimes downright difficult. I have told her several times that her behavior is just not acceptable, but it doesn't seem to help. Can you visit with her and see if she takes it better from you?"
As a manager, you have a number of choices. Which is the right choice for you, for the supervisor, and for Jane?
In a classic article in the Harvard Business Review in 1974, authors William Oncken, Jr., and Donald L. Wass offer a theoretical framework for seeing this situation in its true light and making the right decision. In the article "Who's Got the Monkey?" the authors tell the tale of an overburdened manager who allows his employees to delegate upward. When a manager takes an unsolved problem from his subordinates, he is allowing a figurative monkey to leap from the employee's back to his back. When a manager has too many monkeys, he is increasing his own load, failing to develop his subordinates, and probably not solving the problems effectively in the final analysis.
Oncken and Wass offer a well defined basic law for managing monkeys. It is:
At no time while I am helping you will your problem become my problem. The instant your problem becomes mine, you will no longer have a problem. I cannot help someone who hasn't got a problem. You may ask my help at any appointed time, and we will make a joint determination of what the next move will be and who will make it.
Refusing to accept problems that subordinates try to delegate upward, and instead giving them opportunities to meet with you to "feed the monkey" is the best choice for both the monkey and for its keeper. The employee who is closest to the problem usually has the knowledge and skill to solve the problem, if empowered to do so. Consultations with the manager will serve to broaden perspective and offer new ways of seeing the problem. And as the employee feeds and eventually solves the problem, he or she learns important skills that make them more valuable to the organization and to the managers.
In addition to the law of monkey management, the authors list six rules of managing monkeys that are instructive to managers. These include:
1. Monkeys should be fed or shot. No one likes the consequences of a starving monkey. They tend to be very disagreeable and squeal and raise a ruckus. Monkeys must be fed periodically; in this analogy, the problem must be dealt with between the manager and the employee with the problem on a regular basis. If the monkey can be shot (the problem solved quickly), then feeding times are not necessary.
2. Every monkey should have an assigned next feeding time and a degree of initiative. After a feeding session, the manager should select an appropriate time for the next feeding and should have a number of action steps for the employee to take. "Can we meet next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. to see how things are going and what we should do next?"
3. The monkey population should be kept below the maximum number that the manager has time to feed. The authors suggest that it should take 15 minutes to feed a monkey, and that managers should keep the list of problems that are in various stages of solution at a manageable number.
4. Monkeys should fed by appointment only. Allowing employees to bring problems to you on their timetable increases the chances that the monkey will move from the employee to the manager. By setting specific times for addressing the problem, managers empower employees to make interim decisions about the problem, and still report back.
5. Monkey feeding appointments may be rescheduled but never indefinitely postponed. Either party, the manager or the subordinate, may reschedule a feeding appointment for any reason, but it must be scheduled to a specific time to avoid losing track of the monkey.
6. Monkeys shall be fed face to face or by telephone, but not in writing. Holding feeding sessions via e-mail or memo transfers the monkey to the manager. An employee can pass the monkey to the manager by simply requesting a response. Feedings that take place in person or on the phone require the monkey to remain with the employee unless the supervisor takes an affirmative step to take it.
Proper delegation skills, properly applied as suggested in this creative approach, can help managers better solve problems and develop their employees' problem solving skills. Visualizing each problem as a monkey that is impatient and noisy can help managers see problems as they really are and address them in the best possible way. Beware of the monkeys that may come into your life today!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
They're not disputing the ability of radar to provide service and reduce the possibility of an error chain producing an accident. They're worried about cost.
Nobody can dispute the value of radar, you have to prove in cost analysis that it would work and be affordable in the way you describe.
In the case of Port Macquarie, you would disappear as soon as you went below Middle Brother Mountain, just South of your old private strip at Kew.
The value of radar seperation would be lost during the approach phase of flight.
Are you suggesting we use build radar repeating stations? Use satelites? Open new radar rooms and primary radar facilities? I don't know if I quite follow you on this idea. I like the ADSB one better.
They're not disputing the ability of radar to provide service and reduce the possibility of an error chain producing an accident. They're worried about cost.
Nobody can dispute the value of radar, you have to prove in cost analysis that it would work and be affordable in the way you describe.
In the case of Port Macquarie, you would disappear as soon as you went below Middle Brother Mountain, just South of your old private strip at Kew.
The value of radar seperation would be lost during the approach phase of flight.
Are you suggesting we use build radar repeating stations? Use satelites? Open new radar rooms and primary radar facilities? I don't know if I quite follow you on this idea. I like the ADSB one better.
Thread Starter
Chris, I just don’t understand it. When something can simply be done with existing equipment at no measurable cost, you start talking about ADS-B – a system which is going to cost tens of millions of dollars to install and hasn’t even yet been certified for GA aircraft at an affordable price.
In the case of Port Macquarie and Middle Brother Mountain, if you look at the Runway 03 RNAV approach, it is aligned directly over Middle Brother Mountain. An aircraft on arrival should not go below 4,100 feet until 12.4 miles from the missed approach point – which is close to the aerodrome. It doesn’t require rocket science to have the existing radar system set up so that an alarm is enabled if an aircraft goes below this altitude when outside the distance.
At the present time the approach is in uncontrolled airspace. The alarm cannot be enabled because the air traffic controller would not know if the aircraft was in IMC or VMC.
This is a situation where, with proper use of the radar, we could improve safety at no measurable cost. By the look of it, the changes won’t happen until we have a similar accident at Port Macquarie to the one at Lockhart River.
As I’ve said, we could either put in Class E airspace to a lower level at a place like Port Macquarie, or write better procedures for operations in Class G when under radar surveillance to “close the loop” – and keep the air traffic controller responsible for advising the pilot not to descend below the minimum radar altitude until the pilot reports visual. It’s not really rocket science and doesn’t require a $100+ million ADS-B system, which probably won’t cover the area around Middle Brother Mountain any better than the existing radar system!
In the case of Port Macquarie and Middle Brother Mountain, if you look at the Runway 03 RNAV approach, it is aligned directly over Middle Brother Mountain. An aircraft on arrival should not go below 4,100 feet until 12.4 miles from the missed approach point – which is close to the aerodrome. It doesn’t require rocket science to have the existing radar system set up so that an alarm is enabled if an aircraft goes below this altitude when outside the distance.
At the present time the approach is in uncontrolled airspace. The alarm cannot be enabled because the air traffic controller would not know if the aircraft was in IMC or VMC.
This is a situation where, with proper use of the radar, we could improve safety at no measurable cost. By the look of it, the changes won’t happen until we have a similar accident at Port Macquarie to the one at Lockhart River.
As I’ve said, we could either put in Class E airspace to a lower level at a place like Port Macquarie, or write better procedures for operations in Class G when under radar surveillance to “close the loop” – and keep the air traffic controller responsible for advising the pilot not to descend below the minimum radar altitude until the pilot reports visual. It’s not really rocket science and doesn’t require a $100+ million ADS-B system, which probably won’t cover the area around Middle Brother Mountain any better than the existing radar system!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another worm in the can of worms
Dick, Chris,
reading the above brought back my thoughts of a year or so ago about ADSB and its potential for better safety levels on IFR approaches into regional airports such as Lockhart River in IMC. Yes I know some will be saying that now rules require EGPWS for a/c like the metro, but what about all the other charter, private, corporate/government or RFDS or whoever that do not have EGPWS anyway.
ADSB should be implimented, and the cost of reducing old enroute radar etc numbers be used to subsidise its roll out. Dont start on the issue of airlines etc etc......
Now assuming we get the whole fleet 100% ADSB fitted, and all the sites like Lockhart River, Longreach, and Port Macquarie, and Benalla and many other places justifying ADSB ground station coverage, we now have the data to use for an enhanced radar / ADSB ATC system.
So , when any aircraft is on an IFR plan into Karumba or where ever, the ATC software can monitor its progress wrt to traffic and or terrain quite effectively. All it takes is software (may not be easy today) but its possible. If the pilot advises he is in IMC he gets "watched" all the way to the ground. If he is in VMC he can be given the less attention in a manner like now for class G.
The point is and I am not an ATC expert, is that the potential for greater protection at little extra cost once ADSB is introduced is immence and this is why it should be followed through with all seriousness.
J
reading the above brought back my thoughts of a year or so ago about ADSB and its potential for better safety levels on IFR approaches into regional airports such as Lockhart River in IMC. Yes I know some will be saying that now rules require EGPWS for a/c like the metro, but what about all the other charter, private, corporate/government or RFDS or whoever that do not have EGPWS anyway.
ADSB should be implimented, and the cost of reducing old enroute radar etc numbers be used to subsidise its roll out. Dont start on the issue of airlines etc etc......
Now assuming we get the whole fleet 100% ADSB fitted, and all the sites like Lockhart River, Longreach, and Port Macquarie, and Benalla and many other places justifying ADSB ground station coverage, we now have the data to use for an enhanced radar / ADSB ATC system.
So , when any aircraft is on an IFR plan into Karumba or where ever, the ATC software can monitor its progress wrt to traffic and or terrain quite effectively. All it takes is software (may not be easy today) but its possible. If the pilot advises he is in IMC he gets "watched" all the way to the ground. If he is in VMC he can be given the less attention in a manner like now for class G.
The point is and I am not an ATC expert, is that the potential for greater protection at little extra cost once ADSB is introduced is immence and this is why it should be followed through with all seriousness.
J
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J430, you are correct.
The software can be programmed to monitor the progress of the flight in relation to tolerances applied to the track of the aircraft as defined in the Flight Plan as it was submitted and any subsequent amendments advised to the controller by radio. It obviously cannot read the mind of the pilot.
And, it will only work with ADS-B.... not with RADAR.
Contrary to the advice given by Dick Smith, RADAR is not as accurate as ADS-B and is in no way sufficiently accurate to enable monitoring of the displayed track on the screen to the commencement of the instrument approach.
Why, because RADAR is NOT accurate. RADAR accuracy diminishes significantly with range at lower levels (ie, the bottom of the RADAR beam is higher from the ground the further away from the RADAR site and the bottom of the RADAR beam is a "grey" zone, not a defined transition). Intermittent RADAR returns with display errors appear on the screen, if at all. Large tolerances are applied to the displayed track when used by the controller due to the potential errors in the information gained by the RADAR. These tolerances are too large to enable accurate monitoring of the aircrafts flight path to the degree required in Dick's proposal.
The software can be programmed to monitor the progress of the flight in relation to tolerances applied to the track of the aircraft as defined in the Flight Plan as it was submitted and any subsequent amendments advised to the controller by radio. It obviously cannot read the mind of the pilot.
And, it will only work with ADS-B.... not with RADAR.
Contrary to the advice given by Dick Smith, RADAR is not as accurate as ADS-B and is in no way sufficiently accurate to enable monitoring of the displayed track on the screen to the commencement of the instrument approach.
Why, because RADAR is NOT accurate. RADAR accuracy diminishes significantly with range at lower levels (ie, the bottom of the RADAR beam is higher from the ground the further away from the RADAR site and the bottom of the RADAR beam is a "grey" zone, not a defined transition). Intermittent RADAR returns with display errors appear on the screen, if at all. Large tolerances are applied to the displayed track when used by the controller due to the potential errors in the information gained by the RADAR. These tolerances are too large to enable accurate monitoring of the aircrafts flight path to the degree required in Dick's proposal.
- RADAR is only accurate at ranges close to the RADAR site. Accuracy diminishes significantly with range.
- ADS-B is accurate.
- ADS-B is more accurate than RADAR.
- ADS-B accuracy does not diminish with range.
- ADS-B will work with Dick's proposal.
- RADAR will not.
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
The point is and I am not an ATC expert, is that the potential for greater protection at little extra cost once ADSB is introduced is immence and this is why it should be followed through with all seriousness.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In effect, that as a monopoly provider of services it has become as efficient as possible. This is unlikely.
Class G when under radar surveillance to “close the loop” – and keep the air traffic controller responsible for advising the pilot not to descend below the minimum radar altitude until the pilot reports visual.
Extra cost to industry in IFR to IFR delay without any change in VFR protection combined with extra ATC resources to provide all of this. Outside a surveillance environment it is not practical to put the MSA responsibilities on ATC; which could create confusion about when it is and isn’t provided; it’s a pilot issue; leave it there; or establish ‘real’ ATC services not this half pregnant Class E rubbish; but that is probably not cost effective for the increase in safety. Think of all the different possibilities for MSA when you start including all the RNAV approach types, GPS NPA, RNP, RNP-AR etc. the ATCs have a system with multiple workarounds add extra stuff to do; where is a mistake most likely to occur? The pilot flying the approach with the plate/FMS loaded or the ATC ‘picking’ a level relevant to the location and type of approach?
So have you actually increased safety or decreased it whilst potentially increasing cost?
I just don’t understand it. When something can simply be done with existing equipment at no measurable cost
This is a situation where, with proper use of the radar, we could improve safety at no measurable cost.
operations in Class G when under radar surveillance to “close the loop” – and keep the air traffic controller responsible for advising the pilot not to descend below the minimum radar altitude until the pilot reports visual.
Clearly an increase in ATC sectors, staff and facilities would be required for ATCs to closely monitor aircraft conducting an instrument approach (possibly at multiple aerodromes simultaneously with typical widespread bad WX) while still providing services to all their other aircraft. In addition, Quokka has outlined well the inappropriatness of attempting to use radar for this, so an alternative method would need to be implemented, but still require the ATC resources to monitor approaches.
Your constant failure to listen to those with direct experience, knowledge and expertise - dismissing their input when it differs from your opinion as
resistance to change
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but still require the ATC resources to monitor approaches.
J
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick.
I think we all want the same thing here; the ability of ATC to provide tracking information and collision avoidance. I also share your concerns about cost and going through an enormous change burden on the entire industry. Perhaps this is the reason we should be doing it though...airspace is still growing, even general aviation deliveries are back up, it will only get more expensive the longer we put it off.
Nobody seems to be taking training seriously anywhere right now, but somewhere along the line we need to address the "Pavlovian School of Aeronautics" syndrome that is plaguing us. Recently I have seen some really crappy airmanship going on. Nowhere is the value of ATC more valuable than to make up for this obvious shortfall.
I think we all want the same thing here; the ability of ATC to provide tracking information and collision avoidance. I also share your concerns about cost and going through an enormous change burden on the entire industry. Perhaps this is the reason we should be doing it though...airspace is still growing, even general aviation deliveries are back up, it will only get more expensive the longer we put it off.
Nobody seems to be taking training seriously anywhere right now, but somewhere along the line we need to address the "Pavlovian School of Aeronautics" syndrome that is plaguing us. Recently I have seen some really crappy airmanship going on. Nowhere is the value of ATC more valuable than to make up for this obvious shortfall.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you explain to me how E airspace to a low level can be any safer than G airspace, where you are seperated from IFR aircraft, but are not seperated or made aware of VFR traffic. Without radar coverage,I cannot see how E airspace would be safer, as your safety is reliant upon the lowest common denominator, ie a VFR aircraft. Your safety levelwould increase if vFR aircraft were required to get a clearance to enter E airspace, which means they would then be notified as traffic. Whilst I have TCAS to provide some protection whilst on descent, it is the last protection and reliant on the VFR aircraft having a servicable transponder and it being switched on. What worries me, is the turbine commuter or RFDS King Air behind me, also decending at 250 kts,which do not have TCAS as the final protection against unnotified VFR traffic.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we sit and wait for a certain individual to start the "ADS-B is sooooo bad coz it can have extra traffic added by some bad guy on the ground with a computer..........." 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerricho,
Not a completely unjustified concern... and not a completely impossible problem to fix with encryption technologies perhaps? We have to address all of the concerns and national security is one of them.
Back on the limitations of radar...
Do you guys remember that Cessna 210 that went in over the Barrington Tops? It's rego was VH-MDX. Did they ever find the wreck? It was thought that the radar scale at that time was so bad that the last known contact could have placed it anywhere within quite a number of square miles.
Not a completely unjustified concern... and not a completely impossible problem to fix with encryption technologies perhaps? We have to address all of the concerns and national security is one of them.
Back on the limitations of radar...
Do you guys remember that Cessna 210 that went in over the Barrington Tops? It's rego was VH-MDX. Did they ever find the wreck? It was thought that the radar scale at that time was so bad that the last known contact could have placed it anywhere within quite a number of square miles.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 18th Apr 2007 at 16:34.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Chris, not a completely unjustified concern. However, being the smart guy you are, how many ways can you think of screwing up the present system with the use of a simple radio? Holy sh*t. Stop press...........you can render a busy terminal frequency useless just by using a radio? To attempt to blatently grab headlines (and constantly) by waving a big scare flag as was done with this ADS-B spoofing thing is sensationalism some of the British trash-mags would be proud of.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good point Jerricho, and I'm sorry to hear that this is your perception of Mr Smith. I hold a slightly different view of him; that he is very passionate about his points of view and yes, he does use his fame and fortune to spread his beliefs. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.
Back on track....
We all realise that the present system has many problems and all that we need to do to seal this deal with Dick Smith and the regulators is to prove that these problems are able to be fixed and at reasonable speed and cost.
Mr Smith has outlined his concerns about European versus US versions of ADSB in what seems to be a technological race between closely competing products for user acceptance. His argument has merit..we don't want to buy a lemon; one that the rest of the world wont be using and has no manufacturer support. That seems to be getting resolved as more research about cost and availability is being shared, even on this forum.
Security concerns with technology are with us everytime we turn on the computer. It's a real concern and one that must be addressed to responsibly move forward.
It seems popular to turn these forums into a bashing session. The time has come to put down the weapons and yes; to stop the grand-standing and get to work.
There are great number of lives that can be saved in the next 20 years by being proactive on these initiatives. Healthy concern about direction is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Back on track....
We all realise that the present system has many problems and all that we need to do to seal this deal with Dick Smith and the regulators is to prove that these problems are able to be fixed and at reasonable speed and cost.
Mr Smith has outlined his concerns about European versus US versions of ADSB in what seems to be a technological race between closely competing products for user acceptance. His argument has merit..we don't want to buy a lemon; one that the rest of the world wont be using and has no manufacturer support. That seems to be getting resolved as more research about cost and availability is being shared, even on this forum.
Security concerns with technology are with us everytime we turn on the computer. It's a real concern and one that must be addressed to responsibly move forward.
It seems popular to turn these forums into a bashing session. The time has come to put down the weapons and yes; to stop the grand-standing and get to work.
There are great number of lives that can be saved in the next 20 years by being proactive on these initiatives. Healthy concern about direction is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Mr Higgins, you highlight the very crux of my (and others) disdain of many points that are thrust into the public limelight as gospel and fact........they are beliefs not necessarily based on facts.
I have pointed out several times just how Class E airspace is actually used in North America. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to fit into "a belief", and discussion never ensues. A poster here pointed out that radar coverage in the Benalla isn't great........the retort is "no evidence is given on why En-Rooter claimed so". How about the mere fact En-Rooter is a licenced Air Traffic Controller (as was identified early in the topic). I think I know who is qualified to make a statement like that. We then digress again into tired old arguments/beliefs again that we have all heard time and time again
Radar=good, ADS-B=bad
Class E = good, contollers = bad.
Number of controllers in US = heaps, number of bad lazy, change resistant controllers in Australia = not so many
It's a broken record being put on the turntable for another spin. And you're right, it turns into negativity and sledging, and is counterproductive.
I do however applaud with all my heart your observations regarding training and standards and that word "airmanship" (my little Medevac scenario is an excellent example of that one).
I have pointed out several times just how Class E airspace is actually used in North America. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to fit into "a belief", and discussion never ensues. A poster here pointed out that radar coverage in the Benalla isn't great........the retort is "no evidence is given on why En-Rooter claimed so". How about the mere fact En-Rooter is a licenced Air Traffic Controller (as was identified early in the topic). I think I know who is qualified to make a statement like that. We then digress again into tired old arguments/beliefs again that we have all heard time and time again
Radar=good, ADS-B=bad
Class E = good, contollers = bad.
Number of controllers in US = heaps, number of bad lazy, change resistant controllers in Australia = not so many
It's a broken record being put on the turntable for another spin. And you're right, it turns into negativity and sledging, and is counterproductive.
I do however applaud with all my heart your observations regarding training and standards and that word "airmanship" (my little Medevac scenario is an excellent example of that one).
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you explain to me how E airspace to a low level can be any safer than G airspace, where you are seperated from IFR aircraft, but are not seperated or made aware of VFR traffic.
Replacing C airspace with E? That is something different, an obvious increase in risk, but probably still safe enough in enroute airspace. Most on this forum do not seem to agree.
The only possible safety benefit for E replacing G is where IFR aircraft arrange their own separation with each other and with the ground. Dick's whole message is that pilots are not capable of doing this unless visual, so until they do they must get an ATC service. Bewdy, bring it on. Benefit is full IFR separation, cost is, ....erm, full IFR separation.
G: "ABC taxying Arglebargle" "ABC, traffic is DEF 10 nm east, on descent."
E: "ABC taxying Arglebargle" "ABC, unable clearance, traffic is DEF 10 NM east, for a VOR approach."
I had two aircraft pass south of Mildura today, one at 41 DME, the other 43. "We're well clear," said one. Have to wait till ATC had 10 DME in E airspace, have to wait 10 minutes if there was no DME
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Dick is surrounded by sycophants who agree with everything he says and tell him what he wants to hear
I think one poster pointed out that the ATSB radar plot may not have been what the controller saw. No reply to that post!
It doesn't matter how many times the facts are pointed out to Dick, he just WILL NOT LISTEN
I think one poster pointed out that the ATSB radar plot may not have been what the controller saw. No reply to that post!
It doesn't matter how many times the facts are pointed out to Dick, he just WILL NOT LISTEN
A simple question for the ATCers:
Is the existing TAAATS system capable of reliably and accurately setting off an alarm if - to use Dick's example - any aircraft with any IFR code descends below 4,100 more than 12.4 miles from PMQ? Or let's say below 4,500 more than 13 miles from PMQ?
Yes or no. I get the impression from earlier posts, that the answer is 'no'.
Dick: if the answer is 'no', I'm afraid your reasoning is specious. You cannot achieve the outcome you suggest can be achieved, unless someone spends money on more technology to get the necessary reliability and accuracy of automatic systems, or money on more controllers to watch smaller chunks of airspace, or both.
If the answer is 'yes', why aren't those alarms set up?
I recall the same issue arose with respect to Benalla.
Is the existing TAAATS system capable of reliably and accurately setting off an alarm if - to use Dick's example - any aircraft with any IFR code descends below 4,100 more than 12.4 miles from PMQ? Or let's say below 4,500 more than 13 miles from PMQ?
Yes or no. I get the impression from earlier posts, that the answer is 'no'.
Dick: if the answer is 'no', I'm afraid your reasoning is specious. You cannot achieve the outcome you suggest can be achieved, unless someone spends money on more technology to get the necessary reliability and accuracy of automatic systems, or money on more controllers to watch smaller chunks of airspace, or both.
If the answer is 'yes', why aren't those alarms set up?
I recall the same issue arose with respect to Benalla.
Last edited by Creampuff; 19th Apr 2007 at 04:14. Reason: got my 'withins' mixed up with my 'more thans'!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is no.
Why.... "reliably" = no "accurately = no
TAAATS + RADAR = not possible.
TAAATS + continental ADS-B coverage = possible.
To achieve Dick's aim would require the following...
It can be achieved efficiently and safely...
Why.... "reliably" = no "accurately = no
TAAATS + RADAR = not possible.
TAAATS + continental ADS-B coverage = possible.
To achieve Dick's aim would require the following...
- Complete the roll-out of the Low-Level ADS-B stations throughout Australia, including the additional supplementary stations that were planned for installation if sufficient funds were left in the budget. Ensure continental ADS-B coverage is achieved.
- Employ sufficient controllers to replace the current shortage plus an additional number to provide the extra service planned by Dick, Class E down to 5000FT.
- Train all the controllers (this takes several months due to staff shortages) in the use of ADS-B with the current airspace structure.
- Allow a period of six months after training to enable the controllers to practise and consolidate their knowledge and application of techniques, standards and phraseologies associated with the use of ADS-B using the current airspace structure.
- Train all the controllers in the additional Class E service provision using the proposed changes to the airspace structure (ie. ATC simulator exercises that familiarise the controller with the likely IFR/IFR conflicts and separation specific to the new Class E airspace that they will be responsible for).
- Multiple software upgrades to the TAAATS system at each stage.
It can be achieved efficiently and safely...
...not with RADAR but with ADS-B...
...not with the current surveillance coverage but with continental ADS-B coverage...
...and not without a significant increase in the number of Air Traffic Controllers.
...not with the current surveillance coverage but with continental ADS-B coverage...
...and not without a significant increase in the number of Air Traffic Controllers.