CASA premature ADS-B mandate will result in even more pilots losing jobs
Thread Starter
I am not blaming the controllers. I find there are many controllers – especially the younger ones – who want to embrace the idea of giving a better service in radar covered airspace where we have airline traffic.
I can see why the bosses are happy to exploit controllers. You may remember with NAS 2b, the airspace above Class D was Class E. It was a number of controllers who vocally led the movement to have this reversed and made Class C – without any extra manning or without even an approach radar facility.
Can you imagine this? There was no hope of any more pay for the extra responsibility, but these controllers were saying to their bosses, “Give us the extra responsibility compared to controllers in other countries. We don’t want radar, we don’t want extra staffing and we know we will be paid no more as there is no more income, but we will do it anyway.”
Once the bosses see that controllers are happy to take extra responsibility when there is no potential for any more income – and therefore no potential for any higher pay – the bosses will exploit.
I spoke to a US controller and union member, and asked if the FAA insisted on changing the Class E above their Class D to Class C, without any extra staffing or radar, would they accept it? He said, “There’s no way we would take on that responsibility as we would not know where all the VFR traffic is, as about 50% of our towers with Class D airspace have no radar coverage to the Class E above. In the USA we will only operate Class C airspace with an approach radar facility and adequate Class C manning.”
There you have it. Australian controllers insisting that they have this extra responsibility, and even reversing NAS 2b, whilst US controllers are simply saying they would never take that extra responsibility unless it was properly manned and with proper radar.
I can see why the bosses are happy to exploit controllers. You may remember with NAS 2b, the airspace above Class D was Class E. It was a number of controllers who vocally led the movement to have this reversed and made Class C – without any extra manning or without even an approach radar facility.
Can you imagine this? There was no hope of any more pay for the extra responsibility, but these controllers were saying to their bosses, “Give us the extra responsibility compared to controllers in other countries. We don’t want radar, we don’t want extra staffing and we know we will be paid no more as there is no more income, but we will do it anyway.”
Once the bosses see that controllers are happy to take extra responsibility when there is no potential for any more income – and therefore no potential for any higher pay – the bosses will exploit.
I spoke to a US controller and union member, and asked if the FAA insisted on changing the Class E above their Class D to Class C, without any extra staffing or radar, would they accept it? He said, “There’s no way we would take on that responsibility as we would not know where all the VFR traffic is, as about 50% of our towers with Class D airspace have no radar coverage to the Class E above. In the USA we will only operate Class C airspace with an approach radar facility and adequate Class C manning.”
There you have it. Australian controllers insisting that they have this extra responsibility, and even reversing NAS 2b, whilst US controllers are simply saying they would never take that extra responsibility unless it was properly manned and with proper radar.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent many years flying in and through the US airspace, I can state with complete honesty that Dick Smith is actually right on the money with this one!
There is nowhere in the US that doesn't have Class C without radar-PERIOD!!
No controller would ever agree Stateside to operating Class C without radar...in fact most Class D towers now have radar too!
There is nowhere in the US that doesn't have Class C without radar-PERIOD!!
No controller would ever agree Stateside to operating Class C without radar...in fact most Class D towers now have radar too!
Thread Starter
Of course the radar in the US class D towers is used as a situational awareness tool as US class D controllers are not radar rated- just as in Australia.
About 50% of the 350 US class D towers have no radar coverage to the E airspace that adjoins the D.
In the USA the class D changes to E when the tower is not manned- not to class G as in Australia.
A very much safer system. Bring on NAS!
About 50% of the 350 US class D towers have no radar coverage to the E airspace that adjoins the D.
In the USA the class D changes to E when the tower is not manned- not to class G as in Australia.
A very much safer system. Bring on NAS!
So ... you're saying that there's "no way" that the yanks would have Class C without radar ... as they "wouldn't know where the VFRs are"
Yet ... yet ... they would have Class E without radar, because the VFRs would be invisible and, presumably, ... "out of sight, out of mind" ...
I suppose there's some whacky logic there
Yet ... yet ... they would have Class E without radar, because the VFRs would be invisible and, presumably, ... "out of sight, out of mind" ...
I suppose there's some whacky logic there
Thread Starter
Peuce, the VFRs may be “invisible” to someone 20 miles away in a control tower without radar, however they are certainly not invisible to the airline aircraft. All VFR aircraft flying in Class E in Australia need to have a transponder, and airline aircraft normally have TCAS.
You seem to have forgotten that at the present time we have Class G airspace in places like Proserpine – with no transponder requirement at all, so it is certainly “out of sight, out of mind” for the ATCs, even though there is good radar coverage in the area.
At least with Class E we not only bring in a mandatory transponder requirement, but we actually separate IFR from IFR. It is a good step up from the Class G we have now, which most pilots want to remain because that is the way we have done it for decades.
You seem to have forgotten that at the present time we have Class G airspace in places like Proserpine – with no transponder requirement at all, so it is certainly “out of sight, out of mind” for the ATCs, even though there is good radar coverage in the area.
At least with Class E we not only bring in a mandatory transponder requirement, but we actually separate IFR from IFR. It is a good step up from the Class G we have now, which most pilots want to remain because that is the way we have done it for decades.
I am not blaming the controllers. I find there are many controllers – especially the younger ones – who want to embrace the idea of giving a better service in radar covered airspace where we have airline traffic.
I can see why the bosses are happy to exploit controllers. You may remember with NAS 2b, the airspace above Class D was Class E. It was a number of controllers who vocally led the movement to have this reversed and made Class C – without any extra manning or without even an approach radar facility.
Can you imagine this? There was no hope of any more pay for the extra responsibility, but these controllers were saying to their bosses, “Give us the extra responsibility compared to controllers in other countries. We don’t want radar, we don’t want extra staffing and we know we will be paid no more as there is no more income, but we will do it anyway.”
Once the bosses see that controllers are happy to take extra responsibility when there is no potential for any more income – and therefore no potential for any higher pay – the bosses will exploit.
I spoke to a US controller and union member, and asked if the FAA insisted on changing the Class E above their Class D to Class C, without any extra staffing or radar, would they accept it? He said, “There’s no way we would take on that responsibility as we would not know where all the VFR traffic is, as about 50% of our towers with Class D airspace have no radar coverage to the Class E above. In the USA we will only operate Class C airspace with an approach radar facility and adequate Class C manning.”
There you have it. Australian controllers insisting that they have this extra responsibility, and even reversing NAS 2b, whilst US controllers are simply saying they would never take that extra responsibility unless it was properly manned and with proper radar.
Again I ask why are you still bleating on in here & not bashing the ears of those doing a well less than half @rsed job of introducing a system. They are the problem.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To solve the class G issue then............
Make all CTAF R's a mandatory radio AND Transponder. Which it should be anyway! 
You seem to have forgotten that at the present time we have Class G airspace in places like Proserpine – with no transponder requirement at all, so it is certainly “out of sight, out of mind” for the ATCs, even though there is good radar coverage in the area.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank you are right AIP ENR 1.4 6 4.2.2. Aerodromes where carriage and use of radio is required will be designated CTAF <frequency > (R) and will be depicted on charts and in ERSA
Thread Starter
Le Pingouin, in relation to controllers having the responsibility for all of Class D, and the Class C above, you state:
No, there was no need to do that. There is a current directive to Airservices Australia, that wherever they have Class C over Class D, they must provide an approach radar facility. All you had to do – as a controller – is to publicly support the directive which came from the Minister.
The directive is still current, and I feel sure that if Civil Air or some individual controllers mentioned that giving one single controller in the tower a responsibility for a vast amount of Class C airspace without radar is simply not on – especially when the Government policy, and a Ministerial directive, states that an approach radar facility should be provided.
For some reason I haven’t heard one controller publicly state that the Government policy should be adhered to. Very strange.
And what possible recourse did we have? Go on strike?
The directive is still current, and I feel sure that if Civil Air or some individual controllers mentioned that giving one single controller in the tower a responsibility for a vast amount of Class C airspace without radar is simply not on – especially when the Government policy, and a Ministerial directive, states that an approach radar facility should be provided.
For some reason I haven’t heard one controller publicly state that the Government policy should be adhered to. Very strange.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Geez Joker......... did you have to look up AIP for that...... another idiot in our midst.
When you two stop misquoting out of context the rest of the world will start taking you seriously.
When you two stop misquoting out of context the rest of the world will start taking you seriously.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please educate me Jabawocky. I am only a dumb idiot aparantly.
I was under the impression that CTAF (R) replaced the MBZ.
What now does the "R" stand for in CTAF (R) and Why is there no (R) in other CTAF's? (Monto for example in QLD).
Or did you and your wealthy Capitalist mates who suffer vertigo when you look out the window get this changed so we all need a microchip, digital clock, multiple GPS, and radio to fly there?
Also note I used your correct username as you requested earlier. But just how seriously should the rest of the world treat you when you resort to petty vilification.
You obviously hang around with people who are a bad influence on you.
You are getting very close to being removed from my Christmas card list.
I was under the impression that CTAF (R) replaced the MBZ.
What now does the "R" stand for in CTAF (R) and Why is there no (R) in other CTAF's? (Monto for example in QLD).
Or did you and your wealthy Capitalist mates who suffer vertigo when you look out the window get this changed so we all need a microchip, digital clock, multiple GPS, and radio to fly there?
Also note I used your correct username as you requested earlier. But just how seriously should the rest of the world treat you when you resort to petty vilification.
You obviously hang around with people who are a bad influence on you.You are getting very close to being removed from my Christmas card list.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I get it now. Poor comprehension on my part and an "opinion" about having "mandatory" transponders for anyone who wants to operate in a CTAF (R).
So it is already "mandated" that a radio be used in CTAF (R) and one suspects it is also "mandated" that one uses it as "prescribed". Now some expert private VFR pilot/ soon to be, owner bulider, reckons that we should prescribe to the "double condom" theory and be twice as safe. (To be sure to be sure in Ireland). This assumes of course that everyone flying in and out is blind or can't look out the window.
Jabawocky; can you post another photo of your new toy showing us all the TCAS.
So it is already "mandated" that a radio be used in CTAF (R) and one suspects it is also "mandated" that one uses it as "prescribed". Now some expert private VFR pilot/ soon to be, owner bulider, reckons that we should prescribe to the "double condom" theory and be twice as safe. (To be sure to be sure in Ireland). This assumes of course that everyone flying in and out is blind or can't look out the window.
Jabawocky; can you post another photo of your new toy showing us all the TCAS.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...especially when the Government policy, and a Ministerial directive, states that an approach radar facility should be provided.
For some reason I haven’t heard one controller publicly state that the Government policy should be adhered to. Very strange.
For some reason I haven’t heard one controller publicly state that the Government policy should be adhered to. Very strange.