Senate hearing and NAS – interesting answers from CASA
Thread Starter
Peuce, you state:
You are 100% correct. That is because we haven’t moved to the system that was decided by the Board in 1991. You obviously haven’t read Unsafe Skies. I would suggest you spend 30 minutes in reading it, and you will see what the story was.
The present system is a disaster for air traffic controllers and one day, one will be held responsible for an accident that was caused because we are at a half way point. I cannot understand why controllers don’t support either going back to the dual system, or moving forward to a disciplined system where air traffic controllers control aircraft and you do not have VFR aircraft on air traffic control frequencies and making announcements.
The present system is sort of like an amateurish, childish version designed by Enid Blyton.
The reason we have this system is because of constant, ill-informed resistance to completing the reforms which were started in 1991. Look again at the diagrams in Unsafe Skies (see here). The airspace was to closely follow that of North America, which is a system designed by professional air traffic controllers with the prime aim of high levels of safety while ensuring controllers are not held responsible for accidents they have minimum control over.
For example, in the USA, the FAA would never design a system so all VFR aircraft in Class E were on the air traffic control frequency by law, had a transponder, and therefore were the responsibility of the air traffic controller who is not even providing a control service or a radar advisory service.
The present system is a disaster for air traffic controllers. Of course many of the airline pilots like it because they think are getting something for nothing, and that maximises the profits for their bosses while increasing the risk for air traffic controllers.
I was amazed that when the Government made the decision to go to NAS, many informed controllers phoned me and said this was a good decision. It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS, so we ended up with a half-way system of amateur airspace.
I would also suggest that Air Traffic Control has had to manage far more safety and risk mitigators than before taking over OCTA.
The present system is a disaster for air traffic controllers and one day, one will be held responsible for an accident that was caused because we are at a half way point. I cannot understand why controllers don’t support either going back to the dual system, or moving forward to a disciplined system where air traffic controllers control aircraft and you do not have VFR aircraft on air traffic control frequencies and making announcements.
The present system is sort of like an amateurish, childish version designed by Enid Blyton.
The reason we have this system is because of constant, ill-informed resistance to completing the reforms which were started in 1991. Look again at the diagrams in Unsafe Skies (see here). The airspace was to closely follow that of North America, which is a system designed by professional air traffic controllers with the prime aim of high levels of safety while ensuring controllers are not held responsible for accidents they have minimum control over.
For example, in the USA, the FAA would never design a system so all VFR aircraft in Class E were on the air traffic control frequency by law, had a transponder, and therefore were the responsibility of the air traffic controller who is not even providing a control service or a radar advisory service.
The present system is a disaster for air traffic controllers. Of course many of the airline pilots like it because they think are getting something for nothing, and that maximises the profits for their bosses while increasing the risk for air traffic controllers.
I was amazed that when the Government made the decision to go to NAS, many informed controllers phoned me and said this was a good decision. It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS, so we ended up with a half-way system of amateur airspace.
Dick,
You speak of
and then you make comments such as
Entirely appropriate at the time and with the technology levels available, and before the Americans probably knew what aeroplanes were.
Amateurish and childish indeed. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The IFR Directed Traffic Information service, required by the Class G spec (or should we call it Class F, as it is transitory airspace on the way to ADS-B surveilled Class E if you get your way), used to be provided by FSOs, who saved the industry quite a lot of money as they were not paid as much as ATCs. The current system (which you and your ATC cohorts put in place) actually costs more. But that doesn't matter, because "our" prime concern, much to your surprise, probably, is not money but safety, affordable safety. Since Class E without surveillance coverage of some sort just will not work, it is entirely logical to use the same "controller" to provide DTI and then the clearance when it becomes available. It works well "over here" with the sectorisation at FL290.
You speak of
amateurish, childish
Of course many of the airline pilots like it because they think are getting something for nothing, and that maximises the profits for their bosses
the whole catastrophe.
Amateurish and childish indeed. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The IFR Directed Traffic Information service, required by the Class G spec (or should we call it Class F, as it is transitory airspace on the way to ADS-B surveilled Class E if you get your way), used to be provided by FSOs, who saved the industry quite a lot of money as they were not paid as much as ATCs. The current system (which you and your ATC cohorts put in place) actually costs more. But that doesn't matter, because "our" prime concern, much to your surprise, probably, is not money but safety, affordable safety. Since Class E without surveillance coverage of some sort just will not work, it is entirely logical to use the same "controller" to provide DTI and then the clearance when it becomes available. It works well "over here" with the sectorisation at FL290.
Grandpa Aerotart
Chimbu Chuckles, I think you will find the reason other countries don’t have frequency boundaries is so that pilots will concentrate on being on the CTAF frequency when in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome
This alleged $100 million/annum saving from closure of the old FSO system?
Some back of the envelope musings.
Say there were 200 FSOs at any one time - earning say $60k (that was a lot of money in 1991) and say the total cost/employee was double that to take into account training/super/annual lve/sick lve etc?
Plus some infrastructure costs obviously, but given the nature of the beast fairly minor I would suggest. An office/FAX/computer (these days)/2x HF and 2 x VHF radios/phone line/printer and office consumables - Oh and a little weather station thingamy. For those posted remote a (very cheap and fully depreciated) govt house. In fact having been in a fair number of the briefing offices in those years I'd say the book value of those would have been bordering on zero too
I would have thought $35-40 million/annum would knock it over stone cold dead?
Where does the other $60-70 million/annum come from - would that be a 'rounding error' Dick - you aren't overstating the figures for the sake of your legacy are you?
many informed controllers phoned me and said this was a good decision. It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS, so we ended up with a half-way system of amateur airspace.
and I presume those "many informed controllers" are all anonymous?
I was amazed that when the Government made the decision to go to NAS, many informed controllers phoned me and said this was a good decision. It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS, so we ended up with a half-way system of amateur airspace.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles
G'day CC, I resigned from Flight Service as an FSO2, Domestic and International air-ground operator in 1988 and from memory I was on about 38k. 60k would have been a rating and development guy's salary. I would be interested to see what an air ground guys would be offered now. I don't think it would be as much as people suspect and certainly nowhere near a controllers pay. Dick said he would like to see the system go one way or the other. When we did have FSOs/FSUs it appeared to work and was effective. Let's go back to the future! (and no, I'm not looking for a job)
Grandpa Aerotart
Thanks Flying Spike.
60k was a pure guess I deliberately guestimated high. How man FSOs do you think were employed total...was my 200 guess close?
If it was around 200 people @ 60K/annum (total employee costs always much more than wages) that's $12 million/annum...I wonder what the other 88 mill was for
I suspect DS' $100 mill/annum figure is like so many of his claimed 'savings'
60k was a pure guess I deliberately guestimated high. How man FSOs do you think were employed total...was my 200 guess close?
If it was around 200 people @ 60K/annum (total employee costs always much more than wages) that's $12 million/annum...I wonder what the other 88 mill was for
I suspect DS' $100 mill/annum figure is like so many of his claimed 'savings'
CC - I recall in the very late 90s a Flight Service manager was quoted as saying that FS then cost about $15m/year to operate, so your guess is about spot on.
Dick Smith said:
No, it was widespread industry concern:
Any future proposed changes to airspace architecture and procedures that don't have widespread industry support are doomed to failure.
Dick Smith said:
It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS
MINUTES WESTERN AUSTRALIAN RAPAC MEETING 2003/02
26TH NOVEMBER 2003
5.4. NAS
A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.
• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.
• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.
• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.
• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.
• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.
• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.
• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.
• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.
• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.
• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.
26TH NOVEMBER 2003
5.4. NAS
A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.
• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.
• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.
• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.
• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.
• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.
• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.
• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.
• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.
• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.
• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Why engage in this pointless and repetitive exchange with Dick. The following extract from the Department's website indicates clearly that Mark Vaile's directive to CASA is dead, and a new directive will be given to CASA soon. NAS is dead and will soon be buried. No amount of defibrillation by Dick will bring it back to life.
Extract from Department's Website:
Under Section 8 of the Airspace Act 2007, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, is responsible for making the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS).
The AAPS provides guidance to the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), on the administration of Australian airspace noting the functions of, and exercise of powers by, the OAR as set out in the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007.
As part of the launch of the Government's Aviation Green Paper on 2 December 2008, the Minister announced the Government would be finalising an updated AAPS, to reflect the Government's airspace policy objectives and released a draft updated AAPS for comment.
The Department is currently finalising its consideration of comments received on the draft AAPS from Government agencies and industry.
Why engage in this pointless and repetitive exchange with Dick. The following extract from the Department's website indicates clearly that Mark Vaile's directive to CASA is dead, and a new directive will be given to CASA soon. NAS is dead and will soon be buried. No amount of defibrillation by Dick will bring it back to life.
Extract from Department's Website:
Under Section 8 of the Airspace Act 2007, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, is responsible for making the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS).
The AAPS provides guidance to the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), on the administration of Australian airspace noting the functions of, and exercise of powers by, the OAR as set out in the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007.
As part of the launch of the Government's Aviation Green Paper on 2 December 2008, the Minister announced the Government would be finalising an updated AAPS, to reflect the Government's airspace policy objectives and released a draft updated AAPS for comment.
The Department is currently finalising its consideration of comments received on the draft AAPS from Government agencies and industry.
Mr Smith, for your benefit I have located a complete ADS-B capable transponder AND receiver for your aircraft. The total cost is $5124.01AU for the two units.(Plus fitment..of course) Please reply here if you are still interested. Both units comply with current TSO. The receiver also incorporates a GPS to provide a certified output foir the transponder if you do not already have one. It also incorporates modeS and FLARM depiction accurately out to 16nm around your aircraft. I would say this would be a perfect solution for operations around GAAP. An audible alert is sounded when there is a proximity warning so you do not have to have your head buried in the cockpit monitoring your instruments.
Enjoy
Enjoy
OK, I thought this also may be interesting..from the same hansard of committee-
I am aware of a particular commentator in the industry that thinks that,
but it is not so
And I wonder who would be that person?
Senator HEFFERNAN—I think the best thing I can do is to follow it up personally with the department
and bring it to the minister, because it seems that these people might have a case. If it was you that had the
problem, I would be trying to help you too. So that is that matter. Now, on the matter of air traffic controllers
and class E airspace, as we know, the air traffic controllers are not keen to have the class E come down under
8½ thousand feet; is that right?
Mr Russell—Senator, that is not so. I am aware of a particular commentator in the industry that thinks that,
but it is not so.
and bring it to the minister, because it seems that these people might have a case. If it was you that had the
problem, I would be trying to help you too. So that is that matter. Now, on the matter of air traffic controllers
and class E airspace, as we know, the air traffic controllers are not keen to have the class E come down under
8½ thousand feet; is that right?
Mr Russell—Senator, that is not so. I am aware of a particular commentator in the industry that thinks that,
but it is not so.
but it is not so
And I wonder who would be that person?
And-
Mybolds-
Dick, you just do not give up, do you?
Senator HEFFERNAN—This would mean more work for the air traffic controllers, by the way, because
the class E will come down, so that that plane that crashed in Benalla would actually have been under control.
As it was, that plane was on radar. There was no obligation for the air traffic controllers to tell them that they
were going to fly into a hill. Then there was the plane that nearly crashed in Canberra, which involved
Canberra airspace when the approach radar is closed—not that there is much difference with the approach
radar. In the case of the 737 incident, in a near collision with Tinderry Peak, are you familiar with that?
the class E will come down, so that that plane that crashed in Benalla would actually have been under control.
As it was, that plane was on radar. There was no obligation for the air traffic controllers to tell them that they
were going to fly into a hill. Then there was the plane that nearly crashed in Canberra, which involved
Canberra airspace when the approach radar is closed—not that there is much difference with the approach
radar. In the case of the 737 incident, in a near collision with Tinderry Peak, are you familiar with that?
Dick, you just do not give up, do you?
And further on-
Dick, you keep feeding Heffernen this stuff and he will ignore you in the end.
Mr Russell—No, but I make the point, because it is an important issue. We, in Airservices, are of the view,
and it is not a view shared by the commentator you may be talking to, that our radar coverage is not reliable
below 5,000 feet in that area and, therefore, the aeroplane could not be subject to air traffic control below that
height. That was the point of view we made
and it is not a view shared by the commentator you may be talking to, that our radar coverage is not reliable
below 5,000 feet in that area and, therefore, the aeroplane could not be subject to air traffic control below that
height. That was the point of view we made
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, now we know NAS will be buried soon!
The parallel post about the new CASA Board announcements makes it a complete certainty that the Minister wants to see CASA focus on the safety of high end aviation, and to reinforce risk management rather than populist hysteria as the guiding principles for CASA.
Alan Hawke is no friend of NAS - and that's for sure. It almost brought his career to a halt as departmental head back in the late 90's and required some serious side stepping by him - he is DEFINITELY no friend of Dicks, and you can be sure that he will 'shape the debate' away from inane airspace reform and back to serious issues like risk aversion and risk management.
NAS is Dead - long live common sense!!
The parallel post about the new CASA Board announcements makes it a complete certainty that the Minister wants to see CASA focus on the safety of high end aviation, and to reinforce risk management rather than populist hysteria as the guiding principles for CASA.
Alan Hawke is no friend of NAS - and that's for sure. It almost brought his career to a halt as departmental head back in the late 90's and required some serious side stepping by him - he is DEFINITELY no friend of Dicks, and you can be sure that he will 'shape the debate' away from inane airspace reform and back to serious issues like risk aversion and risk management.
NAS is Dead - long live common sense!!
I also like-
[QUOTEMr McCormick—I am new to this position—but that is not to say I am not responsible for it. This
document does say it will be modelled on the US system; it does not say we will adopt the US system. There
are a few other issues, I think, particularly on page 15 of the document to which you refer—the airspace policy
statement signed by the Hon. Mark Vaile—which says:
5.5 How major changes to airspace will be made
... These steps will include:
• risk management analysis consistent with the CASA Risk Management System and the Common Risk Management
Framework (see below);
And there are further references to that common risk management framework. My own inquiries have
discovered that that common risk management framework has never reached a final version.][/QUOTE]
Which is also quite telling from a different point of view.
[QUOTEMr McCormick—I am new to this position—but that is not to say I am not responsible for it. This
document does say it will be modelled on the US system; it does not say we will adopt the US system. There
are a few other issues, I think, particularly on page 15 of the document to which you refer—the airspace policy
statement signed by the Hon. Mark Vaile—which says:
5.5 How major changes to airspace will be made
... These steps will include:
• risk management analysis consistent with the CASA Risk Management System and the Common Risk Management
Framework (see below);
And there are further references to that common risk management framework. My own inquiries have
discovered that that common risk management framework has never reached a final version.][/QUOTE]
Which is also quite telling from a different point of view.
Senator HEFFERNAN—When is it planned to have the NAS reforms completed?
Mr Cromarty—Senator, the airspace policy statement, as Mr McCormick has just pointed out, is not, ‘Do
NAS; copy the United States system.’ It is, ‘Do NAS, subject to analytical process and cost-benefit analysis.’And I would draw your attention to paragraph 5.2 on page 14, where it says:
Future stages of the NAS will be implemented subject to the results of an enhanced analytical process, including cost–
benefit ...
That is what we have been doing.
Mr Cromarty—Senator, the airspace policy statement, as Mr McCormick has just pointed out, is not, ‘Do
NAS; copy the United States system.’ It is, ‘Do NAS, subject to analytical process and cost-benefit analysis.’And I would draw your attention to paragraph 5.2 on page 14, where it says:
Future stages of the NAS will be implemented subject to the results of an enhanced analytical process, including cost–
benefit ...
That is what we have been doing.
If anyone else wants to get direct info from the Hansard of this committee-
RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
It is a long read. Lots of colour and intrigue
RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
It is a long read. Lots of colour and intrigue
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 30th Jun 2009 at 01:01.
oh gosh no.
In a few weeks time, Mr. Smith will yet again broadcast his views to try and convince the irrational few in Oz who as yet do not acknowledge that the USofA system is the only true (tm) aviation system.
Those who dare to question him, or who disagree with him, or who raise irritating issues of practicality and or cost, will be summarily denounced as 1950's troglodytes who post behind pseudonyms and whom he can thence ignore.
Repeat the above cycle every few months when Mr. Smith has a few spare moments.
In a few weeks time, Mr. Smith will yet again broadcast his views to try and convince the irrational few in Oz who as yet do not acknowledge that the USofA system is the only true (tm) aviation system.
Those who dare to question him, or who disagree with him, or who raise irritating issues of practicality and or cost, will be summarily denounced as 1950's troglodytes who post behind pseudonyms and whom he can thence ignore.
Repeat the above cycle every few months when Mr. Smith has a few spare moments.
Probability close to 100% correct. Parliament is on winter recess so will more than likely see Mr Smith bob up again when he wishes to draw attention to what he got Sen. Heffernan to ask in committee.