Terry Wesley-Smith rewarded
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Dick, weren’t you the head honcho at CASA when the Westmead inbound reporting point was dumped? Why was it dumped? Anything to do with Heli op’s?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaser,
A bit before my time but I believe it was to do with Heli ops.
Those ops based directly beneath the reporting point, the hospital.
Dunno about you but I'd rather they had all the room they needed.
Dick,
Random thoughts about BK.
If BK (like all GAAPS) was class D, wouldn't that mean that the specific training required for controllers to operate a GAAP wouldn't be required? Isn't that training a cost for Airservices that could be reduced if all non-radar CTA was class D?
Sure there are procedural differences, but surely there's a saving somewhere.
If Class D is too restrictive, perhaps all class D becomes GAAP instead?
A bit before my time but I believe it was to do with Heli ops.
Those ops based directly beneath the reporting point, the hospital.
Dunno about you but I'd rather they had all the room they needed.
Dick,
Random thoughts about BK.
If BK (like all GAAPS) was class D, wouldn't that mean that the specific training required for controllers to operate a GAAP wouldn't be required? Isn't that training a cost for Airservices that could be reduced if all non-radar CTA was class D?
Sure there are procedural differences, but surely there's a saving somewhere.
If Class D is too restrictive, perhaps all class D becomes GAAP instead?
Thread Starter
Ferris, your comments are childish.
Owen, it has changed, you now have to fly to Prospect and collide with the inbound traffic from the west.
Chaser, I was not involved in the changes and would not have supported them- I wanted to follow the proven US system which does not focus IFR and VFR aircraft to collision points.
Freewheel, probably!
Owen, it has changed, you now have to fly to Prospect and collide with the inbound traffic from the west.
Chaser, I was not involved in the changes and would not have supported them- I wanted to follow the proven US system which does not focus IFR and VFR aircraft to collision points.
Freewheel, probably!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Freewheel, you might have a point there, bit of an APEC style debacle between arriving and departing heli and fixed wing between Westmead and Bankstown too, so much for random arrivals and departures being the fixer elixir
Mr Dick, nothing to do with it, Mr Bond (WA) would be giggling at that, based at Bankstown, flying heli’s and fixed wing, head of CASA, nothing to do with it, did you flash up the hospital [pun intended] rhetoric in opposition to Westmead’s removal at the time?
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']NexGen, greater use of 3 and 5nm ‘separation’, ADS-B, self-separation (ADS-B) flow control automation, the land of the free, home of the brave are copying Australia[/FONT]
Mr Dick, nothing to do with it, Mr Bond (WA) would be giggling at that, based at Bankstown, flying heli’s and fixed wing, head of CASA, nothing to do with it, did you flash up the hospital [pun intended] rhetoric in opposition to Westmead’s removal at the time?
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']NexGen, greater use of 3 and 5nm ‘separation’, ADS-B, self-separation (ADS-B) flow control automation, the land of the free, home of the brave are copying Australia[/FONT]
Thread Starter
I will,however take the blame for the Victor 1 lane.
I well remember how John Green of Qantas ran a 12 month campaign of disinformation to stop it.
He nearly succeeded.
I well remember how John Green of Qantas ran a 12 month campaign of disinformation to stop it.
He nearly succeeded.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, I think all GAAP's should be Class D with implied clearances. Enter anywhere. Time to beef up the numbers in the tower and make it safe again.
Oh and Dick. How much do you think it has cost to get CASA to answer all your equiries, requests, demands, and legal threats? I bet that would add up. I have a feeling that a lot of people have to run around trying to answer your questions. Sometimes it is better for all concerned to cut your losses (or in this case OUR losses) and accept that sometimes CASA or Airservices know what they are doing. Just kidding about knowing what they are doing, but you get my drift.
Go after speed camera's or something. My eyes would be much better outside the car than on the speedometer. Hmmm does that sound familiar???
Oh and Dick. How much do you think it has cost to get CASA to answer all your equiries, requests, demands, and legal threats? I bet that would add up. I have a feeling that a lot of people have to run around trying to answer your questions. Sometimes it is better for all concerned to cut your losses (or in this case OUR losses) and accept that sometimes CASA or Airservices know what they are doing. Just kidding about knowing what they are doing, but you get my drift.
Go after speed camera's or something. My eyes would be much better outside the car than on the speedometer. Hmmm does that sound familiar???
Thread Starter
Dangly, by following NAS and upgrading GAAP to class D two more pilots would probably be alive today.
I wish I had threatened legal action on that one.
I wish I had threatened legal action on that one.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Dick, T W-S to massive job losses to NextGen to your NAS to ADS-B to Class E to Proserpine to hiding behind pseudonyms to legal threats to Bankstown to Victor 1 to QANTAS back to legal threats and back again to your NAS and Bankstown in 9 posts, you sound like you are running out of time?
Airspace, AOPA USA
“Class D airspace surrounds airports with operating control towers and weather reporting service that are not superseded by more restrictive Class B or C airspace.
Most Class D airspace extends from the surface to 2,500 feet above ground level (agl), and typically has a circular diameter of 8.6 nautical miles (10 statute miles).
Aircraft must establish and maintain two-way radio contact with the control tower before entering or operating in Class D airspace. Weather minimums are the same as for Class C airspace.”
8.6nm? same rules within as Australian GAAP’s, why would you insist on an airspace reform that would further restrict heli and fixed wing transits, make the frequency congestion and traffic management almost impossible for non-radar towers like Bankstown? Airspace reform via “threaten legal action”, crash or crash through without any real thought.
Airspace, AOPA USA
“Class D airspace surrounds airports with operating control towers and weather reporting service that are not superseded by more restrictive Class B or C airspace.
Most Class D airspace extends from the surface to 2,500 feet above ground level (agl), and typically has a circular diameter of 8.6 nautical miles (10 statute miles).
Aircraft must establish and maintain two-way radio contact with the control tower before entering or operating in Class D airspace. Weather minimums are the same as for Class C airspace.”
8.6nm? same rules within as Australian GAAP’s, why would you insist on an airspace reform that would further restrict heli and fixed wing transits, make the frequency congestion and traffic management almost impossible for non-radar towers like Bankstown? Airspace reform via “threaten legal action”, crash or crash through without any real thought.
Thread Starter
The Chaser,
By moving to NAS Class D at Bankstown there will be no measurable increase in restrictions for fixed wing and helicopter transits. You simply do not understand how it works. It is like the people who say that using ICAO Class D – as they do in the USA, that IFR must separated from IFR therefore there will be restrictions and delays at Bankstown. This is wrong, if the correct terminology is used there is no measurable difference for IFR aircraft operating in GAAP and IFR operating in US NAS Class D.
You just have to be prepared to ask advice on how the system works and then look at the advantages and disadvantages – quite simple. At the present time most of the people in the office of Airspace Regulation at CASA have their minds completely closed. You have probably heard the claim that Class C costs the same as Class D so we may as well have C. This is wrong. If we had upgraded Bankstown to Class D as per the NAS there would not be two reporting points. Therefore the two people who lost their lives could be alive today.
By moving to NAS Class D at Bankstown there will be no measurable increase in restrictions for fixed wing and helicopter transits. You simply do not understand how it works. It is like the people who say that using ICAO Class D – as they do in the USA, that IFR must separated from IFR therefore there will be restrictions and delays at Bankstown. This is wrong, if the correct terminology is used there is no measurable difference for IFR aircraft operating in GAAP and IFR operating in US NAS Class D.
You just have to be prepared to ask advice on how the system works and then look at the advantages and disadvantages – quite simple. At the present time most of the people in the office of Airspace Regulation at CASA have their minds completely closed. You have probably heard the claim that Class C costs the same as Class D so we may as well have C. This is wrong. If we had upgraded Bankstown to Class D as per the NAS there would not be two reporting points. Therefore the two people who lost their lives could be alive today.
Thread Starter
Owen Stanley, you are all about stopping any change. To compare airspace with a banking system is totally ridiculous.
The US airspace has evolved because of the weather conditions and the very high density of air traffic. It is similar to a Boeing 747 which has evolved to be one of the best aircraft in the world. Are you suggesting that a 747 designed and built in the United States is no good?
No, I wouldn’t want to copy the American banking system under any circumstances. It was obvious to anyone asking any advice that the whole system was flawed.
I agree that we do some things better than the Americans. That is why I have always said, “Go around the world, look at what’s happening, copy the best and keep what we do better.” Nothing could be more logical.
I do not believe (and have never believed) that we should have Class E airspace to low levels at every place we have an instrument approach as the United States does. However I believe when we have jet RPT aircraft operating into places which have good radar coverage – such as Proserpine – we should upgrade the uncontrolled airspace to a minimum of Class E and provide a proper air traffic control service when aircraft are in IMC. There would be a small cost but I’m sure a passenger would be prepared to pay that little extra for the obvious safety benefits.
Owen Stanley I’ll say it again – you are all about maintaining the status quo. It is amazing that we could ever move from four engine DC6s to twin engine DC9s – you know, four engines must be safer than two.
The US airspace has evolved because of the weather conditions and the very high density of air traffic. It is similar to a Boeing 747 which has evolved to be one of the best aircraft in the world. Are you suggesting that a 747 designed and built in the United States is no good?
No, I wouldn’t want to copy the American banking system under any circumstances. It was obvious to anyone asking any advice that the whole system was flawed.
I agree that we do some things better than the Americans. That is why I have always said, “Go around the world, look at what’s happening, copy the best and keep what we do better.” Nothing could be more logical.
I do not believe (and have never believed) that we should have Class E airspace to low levels at every place we have an instrument approach as the United States does. However I believe when we have jet RPT aircraft operating into places which have good radar coverage – such as Proserpine – we should upgrade the uncontrolled airspace to a minimum of Class E and provide a proper air traffic control service when aircraft are in IMC. There would be a small cost but I’m sure a passenger would be prepared to pay that little extra for the obvious safety benefits.
Owen Stanley I’ll say it again – you are all about maintaining the status quo. It is amazing that we could ever move from four engine DC6s to twin engine DC9s – you know, four engines must be safer than two.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think Owen has summed it up just as a few others have in the past.
Some of what Dick is bringing up time after time has merit......... problem is we do not have the following to help facilitate the steps forward, Mandatory transponders or at least CTAF R and above, not enough ATC facilities and not enough ATC's to man the facilities.
Fix them and we are in for great change, but don't then ask about the cost...
J
What I am averse to is changing an airspace system without the staff or facilities.
Fix them and we are in for great change, but don't then ask about the cost...
J
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some research for you Mr Dick
“ICAO Annex 11 Chapter 3 Air Traffic Control Service
3.3.3 Clearances issued by air traffic control units shall provide separation
a) between all flights in airspace Classes A and B;
b) between IFR flights in airspace Classes C, D and E;
c) between IFR flights and VFR flights in airspace Class C;
d) between IFR flights and special VFR flights;
e) between special VFR flights when so prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority,
except that, when requested by an aircraft and if so prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority for the cases listed under b) above in airspace Classes D and E, a flight may be cleared without separation being so provided in respect of a specific portion of the flight conducted in visual meteorological conditions.”
Appendix 4 of Annex 11- ATS AIRSPACE CLASSES - SERVICES PROVIDED AND FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS
ICAO Class D [not American D or Australian GAAP]
“Type of flight = IFR and VFR
Separation provided = IFR from IFR, VFR nil
Service Provided=
IFR = Air traffic control service, traffic information about VFR flights (and traffic avoidance advice on request)
VFR = IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR traffic information (and traffic avoidance on request)”
Australian Class D is stricter application of the ICAO Air Traffic Control Service definition of ‘prevent collisions’ between IFR and VFR, a good idea with high capacity passenger operations, another difference from GAAP
Back to your error, American D and Australian GAAP are essentially the same service, and different to ICAO D and Australian D, back to Bankstown, you think that heli and fixed wing transits [Westmead, and past the current Bankstown CTR] will not create frequency congestion and traffic management overload much of which will be outside visual range of the tower? you think you will receive traffic information? No, traffic information in American D and Australian GAAP is strictly workload permitted. You have not thought this through [common theme] Mr Dick
“ICAO Annex 11 Chapter 3 Air Traffic Control Service
3.3.3 Clearances issued by air traffic control units shall provide separation
a) between all flights in airspace Classes A and B;
b) between IFR flights in airspace Classes C, D and E;
c) between IFR flights and VFR flights in airspace Class C;
d) between IFR flights and special VFR flights;
e) between special VFR flights when so prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority,
except that, when requested by an aircraft and if so prescribed by the appropriate ATS authority for the cases listed under b) above in airspace Classes D and E, a flight may be cleared without separation being so provided in respect of a specific portion of the flight conducted in visual meteorological conditions.”
Appendix 4 of Annex 11- ATS AIRSPACE CLASSES - SERVICES PROVIDED AND FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS
ICAO Class D [not American D or Australian GAAP]
“Type of flight = IFR and VFR
Separation provided = IFR from IFR, VFR nil
Service Provided=
IFR = Air traffic control service, traffic information about VFR flights (and traffic avoidance advice on request)
VFR = IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR traffic information (and traffic avoidance on request)”
Australian Class D is stricter application of the ICAO Air Traffic Control Service definition of ‘prevent collisions’ between IFR and VFR, a good idea with high capacity passenger operations, another difference from GAAP
Back to your error, American D and Australian GAAP are essentially the same service, and different to ICAO D and Australian D, back to Bankstown, you think that heli and fixed wing transits [Westmead, and past the current Bankstown CTR] will not create frequency congestion and traffic management overload much of which will be outside visual range of the tower? you think you will receive traffic information? No, traffic information in American D and Australian GAAP is strictly workload permitted. You have not thought this through [common theme] Mr Dick
Last edited by The Chaser; 27th May 2009 at 10:09. Reason: Misread Diameter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chaser
The vast majority of Class D airspace in the US is the default 4.3nm from the Airport Reference Point or the Geographical Point not your fabled 8.6nm
If you are going to peddle garbage, get it right.
The vast majority of Class D airspace in the US is the default 4.3nm from the Airport Reference Point or the Geographical Point not your fabled 8.6nm
If you are going to peddle garbage, get it right.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA USA do not peddle garbage
GA Serves America: Airspace
Look to this thread on PPRuNe for garbage sales
GA Serves America: Airspace
Look to this thread on PPRuNe for garbage sales
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good pick-up [previous post edited], strengthens the US D being the same as Australian GAAP, 1.3nm radius larger, how does that solve any of the matters at hand? It does not
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before you edited your post stating that if we copied the US class D airspace we would face frequency congestion because the tower would be responsible for providing services to traffic up to 8.6nm from the airport.
This seemed unacceptable to you. I agree. Dick Smith probably agrees with you too.
It is unacceptable for a tower controller to be distracted with providing services to traffic that as you mentioned, would be outside of view of the tower at distances of 8.6nm.
If we copy the US system the traffic within class D is viewable at 4.3nm from the tower.
Its good to see that you agree then with reducing the size of our current class D towers at places like Maroochydore (13nm) and Launceston (20nm).
This seemed unacceptable to you. I agree. Dick Smith probably agrees with you too.
It is unacceptable for a tower controller to be distracted with providing services to traffic that as you mentioned, would be outside of view of the tower at distances of 8.6nm.
If we copy the US system the traffic within class D is viewable at 4.3nm from the tower.
Its good to see that you agree then with reducing the size of our current class D towers at places like Maroochydore (13nm) and Launceston (20nm).
Thread Starter
The Chaser, I have not made an error. I will put it here again as simply as I can.
I wish to follow the current Government policy of the NAS airspace and the way they operate Class D in NAS.
By the way, not all US NAS is 4.3 miles in radius. There are places where the radius is less – in similar circumstances to Bankstown.
I wish to follow the current Government policy of the NAS airspace and the way they operate Class D in NAS.
By the way, not all US NAS is 4.3 miles in radius. There are places where the radius is less – in similar circumstances to Bankstown.
Yet again Mr Smith starts off character assassinating a very respected gent in the industry, who quite frankly doesn't deserve this. As an infrequent poster, but a regular reader, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Smith seems to go after anybody that's had a profile whether they be regulator or in another part of the industry and as usual the original thread develops into a slanging match where it does a complete 90 degrees and one just gets bored reading it.
Terry, if you were in a room at a social gathering I'd come up and have a beer and a chat with you because you never had an ego and in my view all you tried to do was improve the industry. I'm not sure Mr Smith would attract the same audience with the same intentions, but I could be wrong there.
Terry, if you were in a room at a social gathering I'd come up and have a beer and a chat with you because you never had an ego and in my view all you tried to do was improve the industry. I'm not sure Mr Smith would attract the same audience with the same intentions, but I could be wrong there.
