Airspace Policy Statement 2010
Thread Starter
Folks,
It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway: Primary or secondary radar, or ADS-B Out to ground is (more or less) line of sight.
What a modern ATC system (such as Eurocat/TAAAAAATS) displays are a different matter altogether --- both volumes of airspace and returns displayed are selectable.
"RADAR" coverage and what a working controller sees are not necessarily the same thing.
Tootle pip!!
It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway: Primary or secondary radar, or ADS-B Out to ground is (more or less) line of sight.
What a modern ATC system (such as Eurocat/TAAAAAATS) displays are a different matter altogether --- both volumes of airspace and returns displayed are selectable.
"RADAR" coverage and what a working controller sees are not necessarily the same thing.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a modern ATC system (such as Eurocat/TAAAAAATS) displays are a different matter altogether --- both volumes of airspace and returns displayed are selectable. "RADAR" coverage and what a working controller sees are not necessarily the same thing.
You seem to be implying that controllers do not always take advantage of all radar coverage.
Every sector displays ALL surveillance capability (radar, ADSC, ADSB) available for the airspace being worked at all times.
Thread Starter
----- available for the airspace being worked at all times.
That's not the same as the total potential volume of airspace with radar coverage.
As I recall, there is a rather well known case, going back to the "Class G trial", where there was a big difference in the available (volume of) radar coverage, north of Sydney, and the coverage available to the working controller.
As I further recall, Airservices found themselves in an interesting situation about this "coverage", when the quite easily available 10,000 and 5,000 ft coverage charts for the area were made available for scrutiny. My recollection is that "management decisions" about the displayed volume available to the sector controller were quite rapidly amended.
I would be most surprised if the Eurocat facility of suppressing selected returns (say SSR 1200) has been written out of TAAAAAATS. There have been some "interesting" high level "policy" discussions about which ADS-B returns "might" be suppressed, to de-clutter a controller's screen --- this discussion based on the "potential" situation where ADS-B OUT was made mandatory, as many were/are demanding.
If you are a controller, do you really want to watch/be distracted by a bunch of AG sprayers looking like flies buzzing around in a bottle.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
This is indeed good news. It was troubling at the time of the draft Airspace Policy Statement, the removal of any reference to NAS. I wonder if that omission was attributable to the rank and file at CASA and AsA?
I have it on good authority that John McCormick’s words of support for NAS are genuine. He surely must now surround himself with people who will support its implementation. Does Peter Cromarty actually support NAS? I have my doubts.
In the May 2009 Senate Estimates hearing the following was said.
In the same hearing the Common Risk Management framework was said to be a 'work in progress' and included the ALARP concept. I concede that I am not a mathematician nor a risk expert but my understanding is that ALARP has significant limitations.
Was this particular risk based approach used at Broome and Karratha? Was this same risk based approach used at Avalon? Does anyone know what risk assessment model is actually being used nowadays?
Do you Leadslead or other readers know why ALARP has been included in the CRM framework? Does anyone know why we do not use the proven FAA Cost Benefit Analysis for the establishment and disestablishment of towered airports? Dr Bob Hall believes it is a cheap and proven method that is scientifically reliable.
Could it be that Peter Cromarty does not want to use the scientifically proven FAA Cost Benefit Analysis as this would make it hard to reject the E over D, C and B design on scientific grounds?
GaryGnu
There is a very good reason that the government is pursuing the FAA airspace model. It works extraordinarily well with 15 times the volume of air traffic than we currently have. Why should we wait until our uniquely Australian system has catastrophic failures as traffic loads increase?
As an airline pilot in both Australia and previously in the U.S. for a number of years, I look forward to the full implementation of NAS. GaryGnu I’m sure you would want the same if you had spent a few years flying in the U.S.
This is indeed good news. It was troubling at the time of the draft Airspace Policy Statement, the removal of any reference to NAS. I wonder if that omission was attributable to the rank and file at CASA and AsA?
I have it on good authority that John McCormick’s words of support for NAS are genuine. He surely must now surround himself with people who will support its implementation. Does Peter Cromarty actually support NAS? I have my doubts.
In the May 2009 Senate Estimates hearing the following was said.
Senator HEFFERNAN—You are a full supporter of the full implementation of the NAS class E over D airspace in Australia?
Mr Cromarty—I am a full supporter of a risk-based approach and if that is the appropriate cost-benefit solution then I am a full supporter.
Mr Cromarty—I am a full supporter of a risk-based approach and if that is the appropriate cost-benefit solution then I am a full supporter.
Was this particular risk based approach used at Broome and Karratha? Was this same risk based approach used at Avalon? Does anyone know what risk assessment model is actually being used nowadays?
Do you Leadslead or other readers know why ALARP has been included in the CRM framework? Does anyone know why we do not use the proven FAA Cost Benefit Analysis for the establishment and disestablishment of towered airports? Dr Bob Hall believes it is a cheap and proven method that is scientifically reliable.
Could it be that Peter Cromarty does not want to use the scientifically proven FAA Cost Benefit Analysis as this would make it hard to reject the E over D, C and B design on scientific grounds?
GaryGnu
There is a very good reason that the government is pursuing the FAA airspace model. It works extraordinarily well with 15 times the volume of air traffic than we currently have. Why should we wait until our uniquely Australian system has catastrophic failures as traffic loads increase?
As an airline pilot in both Australia and previously in the U.S. for a number of years, I look forward to the full implementation of NAS. GaryGnu I’m sure you would want the same if you had spent a few years flying in the U.S.
Thread Starter
mjbow2,
Perhaps the most important thing here is that the senior management of "The Department" understands and supports US NAS.
I believe John McCormick's support is twofold, firstly he understand the US system, and the fact that the whole basis of ICAO CNS/ATM is the US NAS, and secondly, his experience of the FAA versus "the Australian Way" ---- something that is painfully obvious to any non-Australian based pilot, every time they "hit" Australian airspace.
If your only experience is the "Australian Way", you can have no comprehension of how well the US system works. Indeed, far to many "Australian" pilots exhibit great unease with the freedoms of the US system, until they actually experience it, and, I am please to say, the adaption is immediate (with the exception of several union die-hards from one particular Regional)
Professor Hall is correct, but don't forget ALARP is not the same as "As Low As Possible", the nonsense that is/was built into the Airservices Safety Management System.
That resulted in the claim (risk analysis of C v. E between 10,000 and 20/25,000', en-route) that one statistical zero was lower than another statistical zero, and therefor the lower zero was more zero than the higher zero, and therefor a safer zero. Zero in on that one!!
Tootle pip!!
Perhaps the most important thing here is that the senior management of "The Department" understands and supports US NAS.
I believe John McCormick's support is twofold, firstly he understand the US system, and the fact that the whole basis of ICAO CNS/ATM is the US NAS, and secondly, his experience of the FAA versus "the Australian Way" ---- something that is painfully obvious to any non-Australian based pilot, every time they "hit" Australian airspace.
If your only experience is the "Australian Way", you can have no comprehension of how well the US system works. Indeed, far to many "Australian" pilots exhibit great unease with the freedoms of the US system, until they actually experience it, and, I am please to say, the adaption is immediate (with the exception of several union die-hards from one particular Regional)
Professor Hall is correct, but don't forget ALARP is not the same as "As Low As Possible", the nonsense that is/was built into the Airservices Safety Management System.
That resulted in the claim (risk analysis of C v. E between 10,000 and 20/25,000', en-route) that one statistical zero was lower than another statistical zero, and therefor the lower zero was more zero than the higher zero, and therefor a safer zero. Zero in on that one!!
Tootle pip!!
It works extraordinarily well with 15 times the volume of air traffic than we currently have.
We may have 15 times less traffic but 90% of our landmass doesn't have a person living in it, let alone and aeroplane flying over it.
Stick to the relevant facts please.
Leady
Coverage diagrams are useful as a guide as to what to expect but they aren't reality. At the margins of radar coverage there can be quite a variation in what is seen. Some days you'll get good coverage & on others bloody great holes appear.
To my knowledge around Melbourne there are no areas that have coverage suppressed, except in specially designated areas called "shoe boxes" around certain aerodromes close to a radar head such as Melbourne to prevent taxying aircraft being picked up. A shoe box is tiny.
We don't suppress any tracks & already get to see a myriad of 1200 blowflies.
Coverage diagrams are useful as a guide as to what to expect but they aren't reality. At the margins of radar coverage there can be quite a variation in what is seen. Some days you'll get good coverage & on others bloody great holes appear.
To my knowledge around Melbourne there are no areas that have coverage suppressed, except in specially designated areas called "shoe boxes" around certain aerodromes close to a radar head such as Melbourne to prevent taxying aircraft being picked up. A shoe box is tiny.
We don't suppress any tracks & already get to see a myriad of 1200 blowflies.
I would be most surprised if the Eurocat facility of suppressing selected returns (say SSR 1200) has been written out of TAAAAAATS. There have been some "interesting" high level "policy" discussions about which ADS-B returns "might" be suppressed, to de-clutter a controller's screen --- this discussion based on the "potential" situation where ADS-B OUT was made mandatory, as many were/are demanding.
And refering to 15 times busier over there than here yet...you are worried about "Clutter"????
EDIT- moved this para over to the "White Paper" thread
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead
yes it is!
and I'm talking about current reality, not your recollections/perceptions of something over 10 years ago
It hasn't; but very strict rules for any use, and never in the way are implying
Not within Aus ATC there hasn't. Not even close to the truth, and you clearly don't understand the topic!
Yes! If providing services in/adjacent to G or E airspace, it is required!! you clearly have NO idea what a controllers display even looks like.
Best leave 'expert' comment to something you may be 'expert' in; which is obviously not ATC facilities
That's not the same as the total potential volume of airspace with radar coverage.
As I recall, there is a rather well known case, going back to the "Class G trial", where there was a big difference in the available (volume of) radar coverage, north of Sydney, and the coverage available to the working controller.
I would be most surprised if the Eurocat facility of suppressing selected returns (say SSR 1200) has been written out of TAAAAAATS.
There have been some "interesting" high level "policy" discussions about which ADS-B returns "might" be suppressed, to de-clutter a controller's screen --- this discussion based on the "potential" situation where ADS-B OUT was made mandatory, as many were/are demanding.
If you are a controller, do you really want to watch/be distracted by a bunch of AG sprayers looking like flies buzzing around in a bottle.
Best leave 'expert' comment to something you may be 'expert' in; which is obviously not ATC facilities
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
con't
And hear i was thinking that 'J Curve' was a reference to Jennifer Lopez's curvacious a*s !
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
that would have everybody believe that the J Curve has full radar coverage to the ground
