CASA Boss Confirms Support for NAS

[flying-spike]

Fact? I don't think he said that

"This factor could explain"
Opinion/hypothesis maybe?

[Howabout]

I am still not convinced on the case for E terminal airspace. E enroute, that used to be G, I don't have problems with; this seems like a quantifiable safety upgrade where it's achievable - available ATC resources etc.

There's also the point that the CASA boss, while supporting NAS (allegedly) hasn't really defined what that support entails. Is that 'support' an exact duplication of US NAS, or is it some form of adherence to a set of principles for more efficient airspace use that reflects an underlying NAS philosophy? Sorry, those are ropey words, but I wonder about intent, as claimed in the opening post, and actual intent.

However, let's assume that the intent is exact duplication (it may not be) with respect to E terminal. I know this is a bit long-winded, but I'm trying to lay my thoughts out and would appreciate an answer from the controller perspective.

One of the things that alarmed me during NAS 2b was the number of statements from controllers on this forum that pointed out the difficulties of providing some form of separation in a see-and-avoid environment when they could not control both aircraft (IFR RPT and VFR). More than one made the comment that by giving a recommended heading to an RPT he/she could well have run that aircraft into a non-communicating, but transponding, aircraft that did an unanticipated turn. Those posts got me thinking.

Which leads me to the question: Is this really a viable proposition for the future? If those sorts of doubts were raised in an environment where the problem was separation between a jet and relatively slow-moving VFR avgas singles or twins, what are the implications when we have far faster and quicker turning aircraft on the register.

I am referring, of course, to the introduction of VLJs, which every mag, guru and anybody else with an interest is touting as the way of the future. If slow-flying bug-smashers were a problem, what's the potential for a VFR VLJ to cruel everbody's day (say one-on-one with an A380)? The predictions are that VLJs will burgeon as a form of corporate and (if you're rich enough) private transport. No doubt, a proportion could be VFR.

Are we at risk of introducing a potentially antiquated system that cannot accommodate modern technology?

Any comment?

[tobzalp]

As a controller with ratings over the GAFA at this point in time, I support the correct implementation of NAS. Really, it is a very simple process. I am not so sure that the airlines are fully aware however of the actual way these E procedures will work for them. Take for example Cape York at this time of year. For much of the last month there has been OVC conditions around 6000.

When a couple of IFR aircraft depart within a few minutes of eachother, as it stands, they can go all the way up to 180 working themselves out. In procedural E where VMC does not exist they will be having a very tough time getting a clearance. While the crews will work out very quickly that they need to wait an extra minute or two before departing to get some form of distance separation that ATC can use, I ask how is this a saving as those props are turning while they wait?

This whole thing has had enormous coverage on this site and every time it gets a new head of steam is is due to a new bureaucrat with a hand up their arse or some idealist who really does not understand the mix of traffic that this country has and in what areas.

I am over it and really, implement whatever.

[trueline]

I am over it and really, implement whatever.

Yeah, I feel the same.
Couldn't be bothered fighting those idiots that want to bring back NAS 2B.
Them and their 'risk analysis' and 'world's best practice'.
WE know it's dangerous but who ever listens to ATCs?

So, go ahead, bring it in and just hope that you're not on board the VFR bugsmasher that gets drilled by a SAAB 340 or DHC8 or Jungle jet over Albury....

[Howabout]

You guys didn't answer the question, but I suppose it goes to something I alluded to before. Change fatigue has buggered us all, regardless of which side of the mic you reside.

[Joker 10]

Can't be VFR above FL 250

I am referring, of course, to the introduction of VLJs, which every mag, guru and anybody else with an interest is touting as the way of the future. If slow-flying bug-smashers were a problem, what's the potential for a VFR VLJ to cruel everbody's day (say one-on-one with an A380)? The predictions are that VLJs will burgeon as a form of corporate and (if you're rich enough) private transport. No doubt, a proportion could be VFR.

[Capn Bloggs]

One of the things that alarmed me during NAS 2b was the number of statements from controllers on this forum that pointed out the difficulties of providing some form of separation in a see-and-avoid environment when they could not control both aircraft (IFR RPT and VFR).

You think that's bad? At least ATC can see both aircraft.Think of the poor jet crew dodging a VFR on the CTAF AND being directed around by ATC on the Centre frequency in non-radar E because they are conflicting with another IFR. Yep, here comes DICK. "CANCEL IFR". So what did that achieve??

Can't be VFR above FL 250

FL 200 actually, without CASA approval. Which is why E should never have been introduced above FL200.

[peuce]

Howabout,

As all the others have said, the issue in Class E is vectoring IFRs, whilst VFRs track as desired. With surveillance, there's some mitigation, without surveillance, it's Russian roulette.

As Dick will quite rightly say ... "they do it all day, every day in the States"

Yes, they do ... because they have to. There's no other way to process that amount of traffic. Imagine if it was all Class C.

The problem is ... we don't have to ... with our traffic levels, we have other options to protect IFRs, without inconveniencing VFRs .. too much.

[mjbow2]

Capn Bloggs

Your deliberate campaign of misinformation serves only to illustrate to other pilots your resistance to change despite the prevailing tide of common sense.

The next generation of GA and young regional airline pilots will be flying in NAS airspace in the future. Some of them will give credence to your comments merely because you fly a 717 jet and develop the same blind resistance that you have.

Capn Bloggs says

Think of the poor jet crew dodging a VFR on the CTAF AND being directed around by ATC on the Centre frequency

This has been explained to you before, yet you deliberately continue to mislead the readers.

You will never be in the situation as you describe. ATC will not clear you for an approach (visual or instrument) until any conflicting IFR traffic has been dealt with. You will not be given approval from ATC to change off the centre frequency until you are clear of any other IFR traffic. Do you understand this?

In VMC conditions class E is exactly the same as what we do now, in class G.

Myself and many other Australian pilots have flown for many years using Class E in the United States and understand how safe and efficient it is. You clearly have not and are not speaking from a position of understanding or experience.

Capn Bloggs you say

Yep, here comes DICK. "CANCEL IFR". So what did that achieve??

I cannot accept that you made it to a 717 with such a poor level of comprehension so can only conclude that you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters for the next generation of airline pilots who are yet to make up the mind about NAS.

What did class E achieve? How many times does this have to be explained to you? Improved safety in IMC conditions. The Orange near miss in IMC would not have occurred. The Qantas GPWS incident in IMC at Canberra would not have occurred. The Benalla and Mount Hotham accidents would not have occurred.

Any reasonable thinking pilot would want the protection of Class E during IMC conditions Capn Bloggs. A class of airspace that also has the flexibility of Class G if VMC conditions exist.

[Frank Burden]

FAA and World's Best Practice

Forecast 1:
A return to mandatory radio carriage and associated reporting in all airspace.

Forecast 2:
An introduction of the FARs to Australia to overcome all the blockages that have been created for the CASA regulatory reform program.

Sometimes, a ready made 95% solution is better than no solution.

[peuce]

mjbow2,

Just so I have this straight.
The scenario is an RPT 737 on descent from F300 into, say, Ballina.

Are you saying that, if it's VMC, the Captain will change to VFR and continue down on his merry way, seeing and avoiding... and free from ATC instructions.
(In fact, can an RPT Jet change to VFR?)

Will that really happen?

Or, is it more likely that the SOP will be to remain IFR till the circuit, and receive the maximum amount of ATC protection?

As for your IMC example, that's exactly what we are saying ... the IFR will be controlled, more or less,to the circuit... irrespective of any VFRs in the vicinity. Oh, but it's IMC, you say. Well, who decides if it's IMC? ATC, the IFR captain ? What if johnny VFR has a different opinion?

The bottom line is ... yes, it can work (it does in the US), but at a certain risk level. Do we need to accept that risk level?

[Howabout]

mjbow2, I won't get into a slanging match; that does nobody any good. But you did accuse Bloggs of spreading misinformation and I do take issue with that. So, I re-post what I said to Lead, as follows:

Thanks Lead, I appreciate your views, but seem to remember a couple of incidents in E that weren't judged to be incidents because E was 'see-and-avoid' regarding IFR to VFR separation. Hence, under the regime at the time (E airspace), they were not, technicaly, incidents.

If the airspace was C, they would have been serious NMACs.

That was in response to Lead's assertion that ther were 'no incidents' under NAS 2b.

The concern, mjbow2, is not IFR to IFR - never has been. It's IFR to VFR, but I suspect you know this. Trying to confine the argument to IFR vs IFR is misleading and disingenuous on your part - precisely what you accuse Bloggs doing.

[C-change]

Boys club

Something seems a bit smelly here.

I'm wondering if the Chairman, the CEO and Dick Smith are all mates !!!

[ferris]

I cannot accept that you made it to a 717 with such a poor level of comprehension

Actually, MJBOW2, it is you who is quite clearly lacking comprehension. Your post is either deliberately misleading, or lacking basic understanding. It contains several factually incorrect statements. You say

In VMC conditions class E is exactly the same as what we do now, in class G.

That is blatantly incorrect. Do you really need it explained to you? How can someone claiming to " have operated for years in NAS class E and understand how safe and flexible it is" have any credibility after demonstrating such a basic lack of understanding?

The Qantas GPWS incident in IMC at Canberra would not have occurred.

Blatantly incorrect. The incident occurred because the controller arrived late for work. It wouldn't matter what class of airspace you have- even class A- if the controller isnt there to provide the service. But go ahead- continue to misinform.

The Benalla and Mount Hotham accidents would not have occurred.

Are you stupid, or just repeating misinformation from Dick's handbook? A lie told a hundred times....How does a controller, controlling procedurally (Mt Hotham- due lack of surveillance), stop CFIT? How does a controller, after having released an aircraft to make an approach (Benalla- even if there was surveillance) have any idea whether the pilot is visual, or have said pilot on freq to issue warnings etc? Are you advocating that pilots remain on the centre freq until decision height/visual? I'm really intrigued how you think this will work in the real world. (NB. This is without even going into having to have every possible approach at every airfield available to controllers, how controllers- even with adequate surveillance- would monitor all these approaches- screen scale, sector sizes etc etc).
Before you launch tirades against other posters for lacking understanding, how about YOU gain a bit of understanding about ATC, and how the practicalities of its provision exist in Australia's unique environment?
DONE TO DEATH.

[andrewr]

How does a controller, controlling procedurally (Mt Hotham- due lack of surveillance), stop CFIT? How does a controller, after having released an aircraft to make an approach (Benalla- even if there was surveillance) have any idea whether the pilot is visual, or have said pilot on freq to issue warnings etc?

I would suggest there is a big leap between "cutting a few corners" on the approach (as at Mt Hotham) when you think nobody is monitoring, and doing the same thing and lying to a controller by telling them you are flying the standard approach. If you a reporting to a controller, I would expect you are more likely to follow the rules, even if they can't actually see you on radar.

At Benalla the aircraft was well off course while it was still on radar. If the controller was responsible for issuing a clearance for the approach at the destination, do you think they might have queried the course early on?

The question is not necessarily whether a controller could have intervened at the last fatal step - changes to the situation much earlier in the flight might have changed the outcome.

[CaptainMidnight]

It has always intrigued me how a few here think they know airspace management, radar coverage, ATC procedures, what services ATC can provide and what workload they can handle better than ATC themselves, who clearly have the expertise because it is their job. And when given responses from ATC based on that expertise, it is still not heeded.

How often do we see ATCs here buying into cockpit matters, telling pilots how they should fly and manage their aircraft, deal with CRM and what workload they can handle?

[le Pingouin]

It has always intrigued me how a few here think they know airspace management, radar coverage, ATC procedures, what services ATC can provide and what workload they can handle better than ATC themselves, who clearly have the expertise because it is their job. And when given responses from ATC based on that expertise, it is still not heeded.

It's nothing about ATC & all about politics. Just ask TFN.

How often do we see ATCs here buying into cockpit matters, telling pilots how they should fly and manage their aircraft, deal with CRM and what workload they can handle?

They use the airspace & think they're the only aircraft in the sky. What's going to amuse me is when I refuse to clear them for an instrument approach in one tiny corner of my airspace because I'm too f*ing busy to monitor the approach.

[ferris]

Andrewr.

Your postulations are nothing more than speculation. You may speculate that pilots wont cut corners, but I put it to you that they might just be aware of what can and cant be seen, and that knowledge might actually worsen the situation. Either way, changing an airspace system based on speculation about what might or might not be achieved is pretty stupid.
Whilst in the Benalla accident, the a/c might have been on radar and off course, there is always going to come a time in every single approach when the aircraft will be maneuvering in a manner not apparent to the controller (unless the idea is to mandate ILS-type approaches using WAAS/whatever, and a/c must be 'stable' before being cleared to approach, or some such rubbish ). Every a/c must descend below the lowest safe at some point. Dick's idea to have increased hand-holding will bring enormous delay to many, many IFR flights that are successfully completed every year. This extra cost to the industry has nebulous benefit- what if the controller does have surveillance coverage, does have the aircraft on freq, and is monitoring the approach on a scale sufficient to detect the a/c being off-track? What if the pilot at Benalla acknowledges, checks his GPS derived position and comes up with the same wrong answer/incorrect info/whatever and continues with the same result? PURE SPECULATION, either way. Hardly a basis for airspace management. The only certainty is that there will be extra delays to IFR a/c (as an example; I'm assuming in the Orange incident cited that one of the a/c would've been holding overhead, waiting for the other to report on the ground so that the controller could clear the holding a/c to approach ) Just imagine the wasted time/resources etc.!!!
If proponents could absolutely show that ausNAS would provide affordable increases in safety, then there wouldn't be much of a leg for any naysayers to stand on. The problem is that many can see the practicalities (and their challenges) of what is proposed, and how little it will help anything.

[andrewr]

Your postulations are nothing more than speculation.

But those saying it wouldn't have made a difference are fact?

If controlled airspace doesn't improve safety for IFR, what is the point of any controlled airspace outside radar coverage?

If it does make it safer, the question then is do we want to pay the cost? If not that's OK, but we should understand the choices that are being made.

[Howabout]

andrewr,

The thrust of this thread goes way back. I hesitate to speak on behalf of the controllers, but the argument is thus (correct me guys if I'm wrong):

• ATC does not have a problem with E airspace being lowered in areas where the airspace is currently G.
• All ATC wants is to have sufficient resources to provide the level of service required. (Have I got it right so far?)
• The argument really revolves around the re-classification of C terminal to E terminal. Everything else is a smoke-screen.
• The arguments put forward in a couple of posts that people are resistant to change, for not wanting to go from G to E, are rubbish.
• It's not the G to E scenario; it's the C to E being pushed by the fundamentalists (had to get that in).
• Now, my definition of terminal may not be correct, but I'd define it as airspace after top-of-descent - yes, that's pretty broad.
• C to E, in a terminal environment, means that you (sitting there eating that crappy muesli that QANTAS passes off these days as a breakfast) are reliant on the vision of two guys upfront to prevent an aluminium shower on the way into Launy.
• Once again, it's not enroute (if the resources are available), it's terminal, terminal, terminal.