Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Thread Starter
Max1, you state:
I am sure you are honestly stating your belief on this, but do you realise that the ASTRA Cross Industry Business Case & Cost-Benefit Analysis ADS-B Avionics Fitment, Introduction of TSO 145/146 Navigators & Extended Surveillance Coverage stated:
Max1, as you know, currently the capital city airports have Class C, and this means that Airservices will be able to “essentially provide the same level of ATC service” (i.e. Class C) at places like Broome and Ayers Rock.
Remember that Class C requires separation of IFR and VFR, and VFR pilots pay a terminal charge at the major capital city airports. I read this as a proposal to do the same thing at Broome and Ayers Rock, but to provide the service from the Air Traffic Control Centre in Melbourne or Brisbane.
How do you read it?
There is no sneaky plan to make GA come into the system so they can start to get charged, it would overwhelm the system and the controllers. Unless you ask for it, there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.
The expansion of ADS-B into hotspots such as Broome and Ayers Rock will enable Airservices Australia to provide traffic advisory and other ATC services at these airports. This will essentially provide the same level of ATC service at these airports as is currently provided at major capital city airports.
Remember that Class C requires separation of IFR and VFR, and VFR pilots pay a terminal charge at the major capital city airports. I read this as a proposal to do the same thing at Broome and Ayers Rock, but to provide the service from the Air Traffic Control Centre in Melbourne or Brisbane.
How do you read it?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James Michael;
When you first arrived in Godzone you knew nothing?
Then you follow your research and gather information?
Now you are an expert and profess to tell all what they should and shouldn’t do!
Well I for one, am not listening to you and I suspect also, that you may have an agenda. I also note your use of the word “slagging” which is indicative of who you may be or who you get your propaganda from.
Remember: “As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributors may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the Press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists to elect certain reactions.
When you first arrived in Godzone you knew nothing?
Then you follow your research and gather information?
Now you are an expert and profess to tell all what they should and shouldn’t do!
Well I for one, am not listening to you and I suspect also, that you may have an agenda. I also note your use of the word “slagging” which is indicative of who you may be or who you get your propaganda from.
Remember: “As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributors may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the Press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists to elect certain reactions.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Sorry if you didn't understand, what I said was that there is not a 'sneaky plan' to start charging GA aircraft just because you 'paint' on our screens.
As I said if you don't have a flight plan in the TAAATS system ( a Flight Data Record, FDR) you can't be hit with navcharges.
These are the two points I think you refer to.
5. Any GA aircraft with ADS-B Out will not have to pay navcharges if they are not in the 'system' as a flightplan (TAAATS call them Flight Data Records, FDRs), ATC will be able to see these 'blips' in range of an ADS-B ground station, and give traffic to aircraft who are in the system.
6. There is no sneaky plan to make GA come into the system so they can start to get charged, it would overwhelm the system and the controllers. Unless you ask for it, there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.
Sorry if you didn't understand, what I said was that there is not a 'sneaky plan' to start charging GA aircraft just because you 'paint' on our screens.
As I said if you don't have a flight plan in the TAAATS system ( a Flight Data Record, FDR) you can't be hit with navcharges.
These are the two points I think you refer to.
5. Any GA aircraft with ADS-B Out will not have to pay navcharges if they are not in the 'system' as a flightplan (TAAATS call them Flight Data Records, FDRs), ATC will be able to see these 'blips' in range of an ADS-B ground station, and give traffic to aircraft who are in the system.
6. There is no sneaky plan to make GA come into the system so they can start to get charged, it would overwhelm the system and the controllers. Unless you ask for it, there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
Another who has run out of diversions in the debate and needs to play the man.
Please don't listen to me, that's your privilege.
And, I have an agenda. Sheer Genius, Bob Murphie. I've already expressed it - ADS-B on the panel. Every poster on here has an agenda - what's yours? Are you an aircraft owner?
Tell all what they should and shouldn't do? Perhaps you could elucidate? What I have posted today is FACTS about decision making - which has got me a response from Dick as near as a bee's to defaming me.
It takes a big man to apologise, it takes facts to answer my three questions. I don't expect either based on the way the debate has gone since the facts were trotted out.
Another who has run out of diversions in the debate and needs to play the man.
Please don't listen to me, that's your privilege.
And, I have an agenda. Sheer Genius, Bob Murphie. I've already expressed it - ADS-B on the panel. Every poster on here has an agenda - what's yours? Are you an aircraft owner?
Tell all what they should and shouldn't do? Perhaps you could elucidate? What I have posted today is FACTS about decision making - which has got me a response from Dick as near as a bee's to defaming me.
It takes a big man to apologise, it takes facts to answer my three questions. I don't expect either based on the way the debate has gone since the facts were trotted out.
Thread Starter
James Michael, I think I’ve got you. You state:
You are obviously referring to the Caroline Tulip issue. Has it occurred to you that if you want to take a similar action, you will then have to say your name – and that is what I want to know?
At the present time there is no comparison with the Caroline Tulip issue because you are hiding behind anonymity. Don’t you understand that? A person who is anonymous can’t be defamed.
Now let me answer your three questions. The answers are as follows.
No, not for a sermon. I wanted to try to find out why you are spending so much time on this issue, and also provide some important information as to why I believe Airservices do not have one person who is prepared to put their name to and “sell” the low level ADS-B proposal. There is also extra information I would like to give you but I would only do this after I understand your own personal motivation.
I’ve looked at it, but it is so bloody complex I’m not sure which part you are referring to. As you know, the FAA proudly announced that it has more notified differences to ICAO than any other country. This is because the FAA wants to have a viable aviation industry – which it generally has – rather than an industry which is stifled by inappropriate rules which add to cost but not to safety in an effective way.
In his paper on why Australia should not blindly accept ICAO certification standards, Ron Yates (the past CEO of Qantas) pointed out that ICAO was primarily in place for third world countries that could not afford modern standards of their own.
I am not opposing ADS-B, I think it is the way of the future. I will say again that I don’t want to rush into it, and I believe the proposed subsidy is a major misallocation of valuable safety dollars.
No, I’m not looking for any type of “deal” with the union. I have worked for 20 years to improve aviation in Australia – that is, the whole industry. That is why I am standing up and publicly saying that there is a shortage of air traffic controllers, and this has come about from poor leadership and a lack of planning.
I have always wanted to get more people flying in Australia, and a more viable industry. That can only help air traffic controllers.
Remember, I was the person who led the Board decision in 1991 to give all of the airspace to air traffic controllers so we could improve efficiency and safety.
Kindly withdraw the allegation. Dick, your's sails almost close enough for a bouquet of tulips consequence
At the present time there is no comparison with the Caroline Tulip issue because you are hiding behind anonymity. Don’t you understand that? A person who is anonymous can’t be defamed.
Now let me answer your three questions. The answers are as follows.
What's the information - or was that just bait to have me ring on Sunday for a sermon?
How are you going with ICAO Annex 6?
In his paper on why Australia should not blindly accept ICAO certification standards, Ron Yates (the past CEO of Qantas) pointed out that ICAO was primarily in place for third world countries that could not afford modern standards of their own.
Why are you opposing ADs-B that will probably better enable your desired NAS to occur earlier (or are you hoping for a contra deal with the union if you bang the ATC staffing shortage drum as at present?).
No, I’m not looking for any type of “deal” with the union. I have worked for 20 years to improve aviation in Australia – that is, the whole industry. That is why I am standing up and publicly saying that there is a shortage of air traffic controllers, and this has come about from poor leadership and a lack of planning.
I have always wanted to get more people flying in Australia, and a more viable industry. That can only help air traffic controllers.
Remember, I was the person who led the Board decision in 1991 to give all of the airspace to air traffic controllers so we could improve efficiency and safety.
Thread Starter
James, in the interest of fairness and a level playing field I offer to cover all your costs -even if you lose the defamation action! What could be fairer!
Bring it on!
Bring it on!
Thread Starter
Max1, you state:
Yes, but what about Ayers Rock and Broome? I say again that the ASTRA case says that air traffic controllers will “essentially provide the same level of ATC service at these airports as is currently provided at major capital city airports.”
there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
Now I have stopped laughing, I can post.
I have already told you my name. I am glad it continues to push your conspiracy theory button.
What your post tells everyone is that you have no compunction making baseless assertions about fellow posters. Interesting behaviour but as I noted, it takes a big man to apologise.
Your three answers - more waffle. Extra information - share it here.
ICAO Annex 6 - if you cannot comprehend the area to which I pointed you, best stay out of any technical debates like ADS-B. And that part does not apply to 'third world countries' - it applies to Australia more than anywhere else if you think about it.
Not looking for a deal with the union? How long since you last met with them, just for our interest?
Thank you for the offer of financial subsidy. We Michael's are not notorious for coming down in the last shower. Hey, it might just get pulled at the last moment like the one for ADS-B
You have not withdrawn the baseless allegation made against me, Dick. Forget defamation suits, I'll allow the court viewing Pprune to make its own judgement of your behaviour, but I do need to seriously consider whether I debate directly with you in future after such behaviour. I chosse my mates, they don't buy me.
T28D
Well said. So much for the Bob Murphie argument about aggies.
Given the aggies get a new ES model free, they should be jumping for joy as it will be newer thus more reliable, more depreciation for their tax, and so on.
Now I have stopped laughing, I can post.
I have already told you my name. I am glad it continues to push your conspiracy theory button.
What your post tells everyone is that you have no compunction making baseless assertions about fellow posters. Interesting behaviour but as I noted, it takes a big man to apologise.
Your three answers - more waffle. Extra information - share it here.
ICAO Annex 6 - if you cannot comprehend the area to which I pointed you, best stay out of any technical debates like ADS-B. And that part does not apply to 'third world countries' - it applies to Australia more than anywhere else if you think about it.
Not looking for a deal with the union? How long since you last met with them, just for our interest?
Thank you for the offer of financial subsidy. We Michael's are not notorious for coming down in the last shower. Hey, it might just get pulled at the last moment like the one for ADS-B
You have not withdrawn the baseless allegation made against me, Dick. Forget defamation suits, I'll allow the court viewing Pprune to make its own judgement of your behaviour, but I do need to seriously consider whether I debate directly with you in future after such behaviour. I chosse my mates, they don't buy me.
T28D
Well said. So much for the Bob Murphie argument about aggies.
Given the aggies get a new ES model free, they should be jumping for joy as it will be newer thus more reliable, more depreciation for their tax, and so on.
Thread Starter
James Michael, it was actually Flying Binghi who made the first allegation in relation to your self-interest. This is his statement:
It is interesting that you have made no comments at all to Flying Binghi, nor threatened any action. I wonder why this would be so?
James, there is nothing wrong with self-interest as long as it is disclosed.
If you are not going to make any money from ADS-B, can you confirm that you earn no income from people who could benefit directly (or indirectly) from the introduction of this system in Australia? I bet that is a harder one.
By the way, they are not baseless assertions. Any intelligent person would wonder why someone like yourself would spend such an enormous amount of time spruiking the benefits of the Airservices low level ADS-B proposal. Yes, it could be just that you want a “free” unit in the panel of your aircraft. There could also be other reasons, and I happen to believe the other reasons are more likely.
Hmmm...
james michael, sounds to me like you are going to make money from ADS-B - is this the case ?
james michael, sounds to me like you are going to make money from ADS-B - is this the case ?
James, there is nothing wrong with self-interest as long as it is disclosed.
If you are not going to make any money from ADS-B, can you confirm that you earn no income from people who could benefit directly (or indirectly) from the introduction of this system in Australia? I bet that is a harder one.
By the way, they are not baseless assertions. Any intelligent person would wonder why someone like yourself would spend such an enormous amount of time spruiking the benefits of the Airservices low level ADS-B proposal. Yes, it could be just that you want a “free” unit in the panel of your aircraft. There could also be other reasons, and I happen to believe the other reasons are more likely.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T28D:
If you have a look at a modern aerial applicator, like a turbine Airtractor, Thrush etc, you will note that not only do they have txp and radio, but a very sophisticated GPS system that allows them to do away with markers and the like. They apply the chemical with little or no overspray because of the possibility of legal action from neighbours who possibly don't want that chemical drift onto their land. Depending on the system it is quiet feasable, according to some, to run a wire to some box that gives ADSB qualities.
Some are getting up in the weight catagory, so I don't know if they would qualify for the "subsidy" even if they did want it.
If you have a look at a modern aerial applicator, like a turbine Airtractor, Thrush etc, you will note that not only do they have txp and radio, but a very sophisticated GPS system that allows them to do away with markers and the like. They apply the chemical with little or no overspray because of the possibility of legal action from neighbours who possibly don't want that chemical drift onto their land. Depending on the system it is quiet feasable, according to some, to run a wire to some box that gives ADSB qualities.
Some are getting up in the weight catagory, so I don't know if they would qualify for the "subsidy" even if they did want it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
Not only are you going too far, you are reading without comprehending.
Because I know you have aviation at heart, even though I believe your associated guidance system should be noted on the MR as misguided, I am going to give you one last chance to recover some dignity and credibility.
You stated
10:04 today, myself
Your myopia is showing Dick. If you cannot follow that simple statement in the recent short-term, please give up interfering with experts (not me) pursuing ADS-B and safety.
Yes I confirm that absolutely.
And as far as the part I made red, you are repeating your earlier disgraceful behaviour.
Any intelligent person would wonder why someone like yourself would spend so much time spruiking the dangers of the ADS-B LAP given you don't have the full facts.
Re the red - again you lower yourself by baseless allegation.
NOW, DICK SMITH, LET'S GET REALLY FAIR DINKUM.
YOU started this thread.
The title of the thread relates to ADS-B.
I am a poster to this topic.
A debate is conducted on the positives and negatives based on FACT and EVIDENCE.
Instead, you have run out of puff when the facts are served up to YOU.
Result - you start a diversion to attack the server.
Dick, there are plenty on anon posters on here - their identities are meaningless if they can trot out EVIDENCE and DATA in support of their argument.
But, given the continuation of your reprehensible behaviour in denigrating my persona, DO NOT expect to deal with me except in the third person.
I hope By now all reading this are alert to your strategy - perhaps next you can move to my race and sexuality and any other red herrings to cover your lack of information re ADS-B and your myopia about its future.
STOP YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY, DICK - AND GET BACK TO THE TOPIC, FACTS, AND EVIDENCE.
Not only are you going too far, you are reading without comprehending.
Because I know you have aviation at heart, even though I believe your associated guidance system should be noted on the MR as misguided, I am going to give you one last chance to recover some dignity and credibility.
You stated
It is interesting that you have made no comments at all to Flying Binghi
Binghi
So much for sensible debate. Early on you brag of leading me on, then you call me a fool, now you sail close with the current 'assumption'.
So much for sensible debate. Early on you brag of leading me on, then you call me a fool, now you sail close with the current 'assumption'.
can you confirm that you earn no income from people who could benefit directly (or indirectly) from the introduction of this system in Australia? I bet that is a harder one.
And as far as the part I made red, you are repeating your earlier disgraceful behaviour.
Any intelligent person would wonder why someone like yourself would spend such an enormous amount of time spruiking the benefits of the Airservices low level ADS-B proposal. Yes, it could be just that you want a “free” unit in the panel of your aircraft. There could also be other reasons, and I happen to believe the other reasons are more likely.
Re the red - again you lower yourself by baseless allegation.
NOW, DICK SMITH, LET'S GET REALLY FAIR DINKUM.
YOU started this thread.
The title of the thread relates to ADS-B.
I am a poster to this topic.
A debate is conducted on the positives and negatives based on FACT and EVIDENCE.
Instead, you have run out of puff when the facts are served up to YOU.
Result - you start a diversion to attack the server.
Dick, there are plenty on anon posters on here - their identities are meaningless if they can trot out EVIDENCE and DATA in support of their argument.
But, given the continuation of your reprehensible behaviour in denigrating my persona, DO NOT expect to deal with me except in the third person.
I hope By now all reading this are alert to your strategy - perhaps next you can move to my race and sexuality and any other red herrings to cover your lack of information re ADS-B and your myopia about its future.
STOP YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY, DICK - AND GET BACK TO THE TOPIC, FACTS, AND EVIDENCE.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
james michael
Scurvy.D.Dog
I would have thought that with the expense of installing such a radar on the Launy airfield that the feed would be there already. Scurvy, unless I have misread, I understand that you are a tower controller in LST. Is this the case? Do you have radar information in the tower like they do in many US class D towers?
As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.
What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?
What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.
I don't have the answer to these questions Scurvy, if you have these numbers I am sure everyone would like to see them.
I have had no problems however, while flying in the US with enroute controllers giving radar services down to the IAF at remote class D airfields. It seems to work very well indeed. And as an RPT pilot I would welcome such a move.
Dick Smith says
As I have stated before, I will donate $1100 to a program that sends controllers to the US to learn. If Dick Smith is prepared to cover your costs to visit Hawaii Scurvy, I will happily donate my $1100 for your trip. What an offer Scurvy, a free trip to Hawaii with $1100 spending money.
I have noticed in the past that Dick Smith has offered to talk to people on the phone about various topics, or to accompany him on a flight in one of his aircraft. I have noticed over the last couple of years that no one seems to take up his offer. Why is this? Scurvy, will you take up his offer to go to Hawaii?
james michael I freely admit as a mere airline pilot I know little to nothing about ADS-B and can offer very little on the issue. You on the other hand seem quite knowledgeable and have a great deal to offer the debate. Why not call Dick Smith? Who knows, you may help change his views on ADS-B.
Can anyone explain to me what the reason could be that people would not want to talk to Dick Smith directly? I really don't understand why!
Mjbow
Good point. One suspects as an example that there is no difficulty (except cost) in getting the Lonnie radar feed to Lonnie Tower?...
Good point. One suspects as an example that there is no difficulty (except cost) in getting the Lonnie radar feed to Lonnie Tower?...
Whilst we wait for that, perhaps you MJ might give us your view on the costs to industry (comparision) of what we currently have v's Remote Surveillance Approach services!?
As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.
What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?
What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.
I don't have the answer to these questions Scurvy, if you have these numbers I am sure everyone would like to see them.
I have had no problems however, while flying in the US with enroute controllers giving radar services down to the IAF at remote class D airfields. It seems to work very well indeed. And as an RPT pilot I would welcome such a move.
Dick Smith says
Scurvy, I’m happy to cover the cost of you going to the tower, to see what they do for a couple of hours, and then for you to advise whether you think it has any advantages over what we do here in Australia.
I have noticed in the past that Dick Smith has offered to talk to people on the phone about various topics, or to accompany him on a flight in one of his aircraft. I have noticed over the last couple of years that no one seems to take up his offer. Why is this? Scurvy, will you take up his offer to go to Hawaii?
james michael I freely admit as a mere airline pilot I know little to nothing about ADS-B and can offer very little on the issue. You on the other hand seem quite knowledgeable and have a great deal to offer the debate. Why not call Dick Smith? Who knows, you may help change his views on ADS-B.
Can anyone explain to me what the reason could be that people would not want to talk to Dick Smith directly? I really don't understand why!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone explain to me what the reason could be that people would not want to talk to Dick Smith directly? I really don't understand why!
Lack of credibility, maybe????
As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.
What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?
What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.
Many years ago EVERYTHING used to be positively separated by radar, until some clown came in and changed all that, with introduction of airspace where aircraft could go in and did not need to talk to controllers in radar or even file a flightplan...regional towers like Bowen, etc were closed and the segregation of GA and RPT began
Lack of credibility, maybe????
As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.
What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?
What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.
Many years ago EVERYTHING used to be positively separated by radar, until some clown came in and changed all that, with introduction of airspace where aircraft could go in and did not need to talk to controllers in radar or even file a flightplan...regional towers like Bowen, etc were closed and the segregation of GA and RPT began
Thread Starter
James, I am baiting you and it is obviously working!
How sad that you have to remain anonymous on such an important issue for Aussie aviation. Don't you realise that you will most likely lose the debate because you are so secretive and many may therefore believe there is a hidden agenda?
Can you explain why there is no person with your knowledge openly and publicly selling the benefits of the Airservices proposal on this site or anywhere else?
Do those involved all fear their jobs could be threatened if they stood up and put their real names to their beliefs? If so this is a terrible indictment on the culture of fear that must exist at Airservices.
There is a good reason for allowing anonymity on this site – that is to facilitate the spread of information and rumours that may not be in the commercial interest of those who want to put safety in front of profits.
However in the case of the Airservices ADS-B proposal you would really want to know why the same type of anonymity is necessary unless some type of skulduggery is going on.
James, identities are not meaningless – quite the opposite.
You will no doubt get even angrier if my campaign to delay the ADS-B decision is successful, however you do not appear to understand the power of a person having the strength of their convictions and being prepared to put their own name to what they say.
I genuinely feel sorry for you. You are obviously very well educated and you could be right in what you believe, however you will have zero credibility if you are too frightened to put your own name to your convictions.
How sad that you have to remain anonymous on such an important issue for Aussie aviation. Don't you realise that you will most likely lose the debate because you are so secretive and many may therefore believe there is a hidden agenda?
Can you explain why there is no person with your knowledge openly and publicly selling the benefits of the Airservices proposal on this site or anywhere else?
Do those involved all fear their jobs could be threatened if they stood up and put their real names to their beliefs? If so this is a terrible indictment on the culture of fear that must exist at Airservices.
There is a good reason for allowing anonymity on this site – that is to facilitate the spread of information and rumours that may not be in the commercial interest of those who want to put safety in front of profits.
However in the case of the Airservices ADS-B proposal you would really want to know why the same type of anonymity is necessary unless some type of skulduggery is going on.
James, identities are not meaningless – quite the opposite.
You will no doubt get even angrier if my campaign to delay the ADS-B decision is successful, however you do not appear to understand the power of a person having the strength of their convictions and being prepared to put their own name to what they say.
I genuinely feel sorry for you. You are obviously very well educated and you could be right in what you believe, however you will have zero credibility if you are too frightened to put your own name to your convictions.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
I greatly value your good comment. But, as regards Dick Smith I refer you back to the quote I put up early in my appearance on this thread.
I honestly do not believe I will change his mind with facts because the issues he hypothesises are not necessarily within the realities I inhabit.
Further to that, his behaviours on this thread recently - particularly as concerns my good name and his unwarranted hints of pecuniary interest - make me reluctant to stoop so low as to converse.
Let him proceed to place on this thread the facts and evidence necessary to the pursuit of good debate. Telephone calls are undoubtedly theraputic for Dick but I work on the Sam Goldwyn principle that verbal advices are not worth the paper on which they are not written.
As regards Lonnie Tower, let me be upfront that I do not know enough of that aspect of the business to give you any formal advice re the radar.
I also note that during my preparation of this post Mr Smith has shamlessly done it yet again
I refuse to fuel his conspiracy fire and again note that he is so obsessed with identities and allegations - that he fails to proceed the basis of this thread.
I have read better in late night Hansard than what Dick is placing on here.
Deity help aviation if the Minister accepts the offer.
I greatly value your good comment. But, as regards Dick Smith I refer you back to the quote I put up early in my appearance on this thread.
I honestly do not believe I will change his mind with facts because the issues he hypothesises are not necessarily within the realities I inhabit.
Further to that, his behaviours on this thread recently - particularly as concerns my good name and his unwarranted hints of pecuniary interest - make me reluctant to stoop so low as to converse.
Let him proceed to place on this thread the facts and evidence necessary to the pursuit of good debate. Telephone calls are undoubtedly theraputic for Dick but I work on the Sam Goldwyn principle that verbal advices are not worth the paper on which they are not written.
As regards Lonnie Tower, let me be upfront that I do not know enough of that aspect of the business to give you any formal advice re the radar.
I also note that during my preparation of this post Mr Smith has shamlessly done it yet again
many may therefore believe there is a hidden agenda
I have read better in late night Hansard than what Dick is placing on here.
Deity help aviation if the Minister accepts the offer.
Thread Starter
Willoz269, you state:
Actually, you mean everything in controlled airspace. In fact, huge amounts of radar covered airspace between Melbourne and Cairns, which were considered to be uncontrolled, had no radar service at all. Even if you wanted to get your transponder checked you had to talk to a Flight Service Officer who had a microphone and no radar. The FSO would call the radar controller on his tie line, and then report if the transponder was working. Yes, it was that ridiculous.
Can you advise if you are happy that I was involved in giving that uncontrolled airspace to radar controllers, so now we can get a radar service?
As you would probably know, I would like to upgrade a lot of this uncontrolled airspace (at places like Bowen) to Class E controlled airspace, so IFR will get a separation service, and also a service to help prevent controlled flight into terrain. VFR aircraft will also have a mandatory transponder requirement so TCAS is there for a safety back up.
As you can understand, in Class G airspace at the moment there is no requirement for transponders – so often there is not the TCAS safety back up.
Do you support these changes? I look forward to your comments.
Many years ago EVERYTHING used to be positively separated by radar
Can you advise if you are happy that I was involved in giving that uncontrolled airspace to radar controllers, so now we can get a radar service?
As you would probably know, I would like to upgrade a lot of this uncontrolled airspace (at places like Bowen) to Class E controlled airspace, so IFR will get a separation service, and also a service to help prevent controlled flight into terrain. VFR aircraft will also have a mandatory transponder requirement so TCAS is there for a safety back up.
As you can understand, in Class G airspace at the moment there is no requirement for transponders – so often there is not the TCAS safety back up.
Do you support these changes? I look forward to your comments.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick:
No, I don't mean everything in controlled airspace...I have no problem passing the FSO function to a radar controller to provide RAS, the problem I have is converting busy airspace into a hybrid GA capable airspace in the name of "modernisation" or just because "that's the way they do it in the US"...whoopee....there's a lot of stuff that is done in the US or other "leading countries" that I don't wish repeated here.
I know you want to convert airspace to Class E, just like it happened at Avalon and other places...the problem I have is....as soon as it is done, and an incident occurs, you are the first person to stand up and throw stones at the establishment for following your original ideas.
I haven't followed the TCAS story for a few years, but from memory your "idols" in the US did not have a requirement for a transpoder-equipped aircraft unless it was over a certain weight or capacity. Correct if this has changed, but in Australia I cannot see many people being able to afford a TCAS-C or S capable transponder without a significant subsidy.
Was it not you who was complaining of having ADS-B in your cockpit which would detract you from keeping a sharp lookout for traffic? If you follow the existing rules in GA, why would you require TCAS as back up? It will hardly allow you to keep a look out the way you are proposing to use it, plsu who is going to train the pilots on it??? And keep them current? Would that be policed by CASA?? HOW??? With the old affordable safety policy that says they have an obligation to do the right thing and if they don't and fall over, THEN the authority comes in and looks at it?
As it has been stated here before, TCAS is NOT a traffic management solution, it is an information tool which gives a warning based on calculations made computing a closest point of approach. Hardly the tool to use in GA!!!
GA industry is a hard slog in this country, there are a LOT of really good air men and women out there who simply cannot afford extra equipment in their aircraft for a marginal return in safety and no returns in any foreseeable profit.
Not everyone likes to have gadgets!
No, I don't mean everything in controlled airspace...I have no problem passing the FSO function to a radar controller to provide RAS, the problem I have is converting busy airspace into a hybrid GA capable airspace in the name of "modernisation" or just because "that's the way they do it in the US"...whoopee....there's a lot of stuff that is done in the US or other "leading countries" that I don't wish repeated here.
I know you want to convert airspace to Class E, just like it happened at Avalon and other places...the problem I have is....as soon as it is done, and an incident occurs, you are the first person to stand up and throw stones at the establishment for following your original ideas.
I haven't followed the TCAS story for a few years, but from memory your "idols" in the US did not have a requirement for a transpoder-equipped aircraft unless it was over a certain weight or capacity. Correct if this has changed, but in Australia I cannot see many people being able to afford a TCAS-C or S capable transponder without a significant subsidy.
Was it not you who was complaining of having ADS-B in your cockpit which would detract you from keeping a sharp lookout for traffic? If you follow the existing rules in GA, why would you require TCAS as back up? It will hardly allow you to keep a look out the way you are proposing to use it, plsu who is going to train the pilots on it??? And keep them current? Would that be policed by CASA?? HOW??? With the old affordable safety policy that says they have an obligation to do the right thing and if they don't and fall over, THEN the authority comes in and looks at it?
As it has been stated here before, TCAS is NOT a traffic management solution, it is an information tool which gives a warning based on calculations made computing a closest point of approach. Hardly the tool to use in GA!!!
GA industry is a hard slog in this country, there are a LOT of really good air men and women out there who simply cannot afford extra equipment in their aircraft for a marginal return in safety and no returns in any foreseeable profit.
Not everyone likes to have gadgets!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
"there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.
Yes, but what about Ayers Rock and Broome? I say again that the ASTRA case says that air traffic controllers will “essentially provide the same level of ATC service at these airports as is currently provided at major capital city airports.”
Dick,
They are talking about a tower service like Coffs , Launy, Hobart etc, someone was stretching the truth. I don't envisage them having a dedicated Terminal Control Unit (TCU)with a flow capability, because they won't need it.
Now before you jump up and down and start asking what else is rubbish in it. To me, someone decided to over sell this, and decided to cover themselves with the line, "essentially provide the same level of service".
It could be argued that Coffs, Launy, and Hobart are provided with "essentially the same service" (a positive separation service) as Sydney and other major capital city services.I would never say that is the case. I agree, its not a good look to imply they will have a 24/7 TCU and they would be better off stating the exact truth, as no doubt people will pick up on these things and uncover them, and this detracts from the main issues.
My point is we do not want to be running a separation service into the circuit area in Kununnara, Gove, Boulia, Lord Howe etc.
"there is no way we want to start separating lighties somewhere out in the boonies.
Yes, but what about Ayers Rock and Broome? I say again that the ASTRA case says that air traffic controllers will “essentially provide the same level of ATC service at these airports as is currently provided at major capital city airports.”
Dick,
They are talking about a tower service like Coffs , Launy, Hobart etc, someone was stretching the truth. I don't envisage them having a dedicated Terminal Control Unit (TCU)with a flow capability, because they won't need it.
Now before you jump up and down and start asking what else is rubbish in it. To me, someone decided to over sell this, and decided to cover themselves with the line, "essentially provide the same level of service".
It could be argued that Coffs, Launy, and Hobart are provided with "essentially the same service" (a positive separation service) as Sydney and other major capital city services.I would never say that is the case. I agree, its not a good look to imply they will have a 24/7 TCU and they would be better off stating the exact truth, as no doubt people will pick up on these things and uncover them, and this detracts from the main issues.
My point is we do not want to be running a separation service into the circuit area in Kununnara, Gove, Boulia, Lord Howe etc.