NAS - Common Risk Management Framework

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

IF YOUR GOING TO QUOTE ME, QUOTE ME IN CONTEXT - DON'T SELECTIVELY QUOTE PARTS FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSES.

… perhaps you might point out said quotes?!

If you read my arguments CAREFULLY, you will see that there are numerous points that we agree on.

… I did read your posts carefully (right up until the motherhood statements and irrelevant personal tangents that arrived in the latter posts), and responded to those points where the mechanics (of airspace operations) of airspace services were at odds. Your initial post raised issues worthy of ‘considered’ discussion. What followed read as defensive and patronising.

It was your argument that there should only be two classes of airspace (plus DRA's).

… in part yes, I have explained the reasons for that view. I still have not seen anything as far as tech detail that would suggest those views are not reasonable or supportable when ’compared’ to the status quo or ‘multicom’ and class E as you suggested. .. if my views are wrong explain why!

My arguments are WHY I believe it wouldn't work and my reasons, and some comments about the way airspace is implemented.

.. I still have not seen any argument or reason/s why it wouldn’t work (more effectively)

I was replying to the thread

… funny I got the feeling you were addressing me as each post starts with Scurvy.D.Dog .. not Pork Chop or Madam Lash or other

- other people may be following it.

… I sincerely hope so

I have not seen ONE positive comment by you about the competence of a VFR pilot in this thread.

… that’s because you are being unreasonably defensive …. Re read my comments .. I have much respect for VFR pilots … I have merely highlighted the ‘unreasonable’ knowledge expectations placed on them from both an IFR flight trajectory and segregation assessment points of view … The fact remains many VFR pilots (no slight on their flying abilities) haven’t a schmick about these IFR airspace issues or, in the main, regular CTA participation and therefore competence.

A person's background and experience does influence the way I evaluate their arguements, which considering the points you were making makes your background relevant.

… errrrm OK

D airspace is the currently the first airspace which has any VFR involvement with a third party for traffic purposes (except CA/GRS or UNICOM).

… Unicom is not a function that is involved in ‘third party traffic services’ .. except for 'basic information on traffic' (whatever that means) AIP GEN 3.4 3 3.3.3 h - 7th June 07' ammendment other than that, absolutely correct

Old OCTA had VFR involvement with FS - that is THE similarity I was referring to.

… yes and the point I have made repeatedly is that the only similarity is VFR use’ish the radio … the services provided in those two examples (CTA D and OCTA F) are light years apart … you inferred other!

Re YBHM (1) - a VFR aircraft at A010 cannot physically be traffic for an IFR aircraft outside 6 nm YBHM very conservatively between the 000 and 090 radials (no circling to NE of AD and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out why).

… really Werner Von Braun … OK lets do it then shall we:-
.
1. Dig out DAP East (if you have it) … look at the inbound tracks for the NDB, 14 and 32 VOR App’s .. and the associated missed approach tracks … note the position of the VOR with respect to the ‘No circling’ area … then note the MDA’s ….. then note that the Approach clearances from ATC are from the IAF (initial approach fix) all the way to the threshold (including circling area and nav tolerances) …. So I say again, traffic must be clear of the Approach track, turn tolerances, circling area and the missed approach path Before the IFR reaches the IAF … which returns me to my original statement that unless there is a geographical fix that is surveyed (the little map you referred to in the tower ) outside 1nm (+ tolerances) from the areas listed (above) that ATC must consider … what do you reckon might happen to you at A010 if the above cannot be met?????
.
2. The ‘circling’ restrictions refer to IFR at night and in less than VMC … they do not mean an IFR could not be in VMC and manoeuvring below MSA to the North and/or East …. The Fact that ERSA stipulates ‘Right hand circuits RWY 14’ does not restrict ATC from using the airspace to the North and East .. IFR circling at night and/or in less than VMC are inexorably a different set of circumstances to IFR operations in VMC by day! …. Do you understand the difference?

Yet in the area around 7nm to the NE (Whitehaven) there can be numerous VFR aircraft that are significant traffic to each other. This area is covered by a discrete CTAF(R) that also includes Hardy Reef, YSHR, Long Island Sound and Hayman Island underneath the CTA which has high densities of VFR traffic. When the tower closes for lunch and at night the reclassified airspace becomes part of the discrete CTAF(R) - there may be an arguement that it should be left as a CTAF(R) using the tower frequency.

.. possibly? .. have you floated the idea with RAPAC?

Re YBHM (2) - converging heading was to the same waypoint approx 1nm outside the zone and we both arrived there within about a minute. Traffic whilst still in CTA ? - ######oath it was. Requirement to pass as traffic - I think so.

… well now that depends on all of those issues I have gone to great length to explain earlier … without knowing the specifics, including what else was going on in CTA or in the tower (as there is a multitude of coordination and other items that are being worked that does not involve using the frequency i.e. you won’t hear anything) …. I don’t know, you sure as hell don’t know either .. what we do know is that you have said you both (VFR) heard each other, which no doubt the tower knew AND … that is why in D VFR/VFR are required to maintain comms and primarily see-and-avoid …. Go back and read the rules that underpin that in AIP and in this thread …. Chucking stones at ATC (mid hissi fit) with scant detail speaks volumes

Re YBHM (3) - locations - Very few of the locally used waypoints are included on the VTC. ATC know where they are - they use them as clearance limits on a regular basis. Over a beer one evening one of the local controllers told me there is a chart in the tower that depicts them - and he named a few I that I didn't know where they were.

…. I rest my case

Re 1500' AMSL CLEAR of cloud in G - perfectly legal providing pilot uses radio as required.

.. ‘as required’ …. Yeeeeeeeees … I see … that works for the IFR on the drop outa IMC …. cuckoo cuckoo

Re E - If it's so dangerous / impractical it wouldn't work anywhere else in the world. Quoting myself (with emphasis):

I personally believe that "E" is a great airspace classification - I just think that it is poorly implemented in Australia.

And your argument is?

…. Do a search of the NTSB (US) database and others in Europe (its all been done to death in this place in the last few years) for Airprox and Mid-air collisions ….. and then come back and tell us E is just peachy … particularly in geographical areas where D or C can be provided for the same cost … do not gloss over the info on the other thread about the way E is REALLY run O/S V’s ICAO … unless of course you have Ostrich tendencies … in which case .. feel free to stick your head in the sand!

And a final comment - the local controllers are approachable and I can have a healthy discussion with them about airspace without it denigrating into a ####fight. Professionalism maybe?

…. Had that hissi-fit inference come from someone who argued the tech issues rather than (when the going gets tough) the man …. I might have been offended …. Alas … neh, in fact, I nearly wet myself laughing at your last post!
.
… you see, in this place, you get back what you put in … i.e. reasoned, polite and erudite discussion .. or … reciprocated rubbish … I am most happy to play either game!

And a final comment –

…..
Saucer of milk to the Whitsunday’s
.
Nitey nite

[Freedom7]

I guess the famil flight is off????

[peuce]

Although we've drifted off topic a bit, the thrust and parry is still quiet entertaining.

One thing Mr WERBIL said was interesting ... and was, in fact, connected with the original topic ...

"If you read my arguments CAREFULLY, you will see that there are numerous points that we agree on. It was your argument that there should only be two classes of airspace (plus DRA's). My arguments are WHY I believe it wouldn't work and my reasons"

Fact is ... that system DID work ... up until it was dicked in the early 90's. That's 17 years now we have been fighting over airspace. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because there was never any really substantiated reason for changing. Was there any objective RISK ASSESSMENT made of the, then current, system ... before charging headlong into fantasyland?

As Scurvy implied ... the real driving factor was the "need" to get rid of Flight Service.

Do you think we would still be arguing the toss now if a risk assessment of the 1990 system had been done, shortcomings identified and appropriate corrective actions/changes initiated. Unlikely.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... where the end game is decided before the analysis takes place ... failure is certain. The last 17 years prooves that.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Addendum
.
Just goes to show, these discussions (no matter the tenor) are useful for everyone’s level of awareness.
.
werbil
.
Yesterday evening whilst working on some paperwork for an upcoming airshow, I had a flick though GEN (having reflected on our exchange ) and noticed a small but apparently very important change made to AIP in the June 7 amendment.
.
It is in the context of Unicom services, and changes the intent of Unicom. It is therefore appropriate to revisit the statement made by me to you i.e.

D airspace is the currently the first airspace which has any VFR involvement with a third party for traffic purposes (except CA/GRS or UNICOM).

… Unicom is not a function that is involved in ‘third party traffic services’ .. other than that, absolutely correct

…. AIP GEN 3.4 3 3.3.3 (h) has been added which now says

h. basic information on traffic

The wording seems to have been carefully chosen i.e. not ‘Traffic Information’ as defined in AIP ‘Flight Information Service’ GEN 3.3 2 2.15 (specifically 2.15.9)
.
…. I wonder what the intended difference is? ... if there is any?? …. Hmmm … ... in any event, I have noted the correction in red in the above post
.
Interestingly, given the CA/GRS is a ‘certified’ role, and Unicom is not (the difference was always based on training and knowledge required to manage ‘interference’ on the G/CTAF frequency), this change would seem an excursion into the unknown. .. why I hear you ask
.
The little ‘gotcha’ ( 3.3.3 (h) above) is relevant when tagged to the other bits in AIP UNICOM i.e.
.
- GEN 3.4 3 3.3

3.3.1 Unicom (Universal Communications) is a non-ATS communications service provided to enhance the value of information normally available about a non-towered aerodrome.
.
3.3.2 The primary function of the frequency used for UNICOM services where the Unicom is the CTAF is to provide pilots with the means to make standard positional broadcasts when operating in the vicinity of an aerodrome. Participation in Unicom services must not inhibit the transmission of standard positional broadcasts.

my bolding
.
Now, tie that in with:-

3.3.6 The Unicom operator is solely responsible for the accuracy of any information passed to aircraft, while the use of the information obtained from a Unicom is at the discretion of the pilot in command.

my bolding
.
Subtle to read, but as a whole, adding ‘basic information on traffic’ changes dramatically the role picture/expectation for those participating in or providing Unicom services.
.
Folks would be well advised to give very careful consideration to their liability coverage, and; for pilots, the same consideration if they choose to rely on the Unicom info or loose SA due Unicom frequency interference.
.
The glaring difference between CA/GRS and Unicom is the services provided and the fact that a CA/GRS is trained and ‘certified’ to do so, not so for a Unicom operator thus the ‘solely responsible’ caveat. ….. hmmm
.
I do not know (as yet) how this jem slipped in … would anyone in the know (CASA) care to comment.
.
At first glance, it may also raise ‘serious liability issues’ for those of us (ATC’s) that volunteer at CTAF airshows and fly-ins!
.
On a different note.
.
Having re-read the latest exchange/s, it was perhaps (on reflection) unfair of me to have assumed you (Mr/Mrs werbil) were deliberately throwing in curve balls to distract/detract from the discussion. If you are genuine in your beliefs, and not being obtuse, then I apologise for the tone of my responses.
.
Raising awareness of tech issues without the ‘carrier waves’ is a long and frustrating process. Genuine discussion and explanation (where sort) is what many of us are trying to achieve. No one 'expects' consensus, but in its absence, calm reasoning and explaination of the contrary view ... perceptions of motherhood statements are like Avgas near a naked flame in this place.
.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of those ‘deliberate misinformer’ types over the last number of years, which probably works to amplify the reactions (of some of us) when people appear to be attempting same.
.
Again, if that was not your intent, I apologise
.
Scurv