NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout
Regarding the YMLT Airspace review report. The Mackay [published around the same time as YMLT] report is also no longer there.
I suspect the cutoff date for feedback has expired for those two reports, and as per the Alice Springs report, will reappear soon with the feedback incorporated.
Lets keep an eye on it though!
Regarding the YMLT Airspace review report. The Mackay [published around the same time as YMLT] report is also no longer there.
I suspect the cutoff date for feedback has expired for those two reports, and as per the Alice Springs report, will reappear soon with the feedback incorporated.
Lets keep an eye on it though!
Some interesting background:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ml#post2782339
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post1591839
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ml#post2782339
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post1591839
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The intent of ICAO airspace classifications may well be to apply equal risk levels to all airspace, whether it be G, A, or anything in between. But we all know that there's theory and there's practice. Some things look great 'in theory' and are absolute dogs 'in practice.' I'm sure Leyland thought the P76 was a dead-set winner.
As for Class E and NAS, I'd put the following: If the intent of the ICAO airspace classification system is to apportion equal levels of risk across all airspace, based on traffic densities, I'd really appreciate a steer to the definitive, quantitative study that was done when the decision was made to reclassify large swathes of Class C as Class E under that dog otherwise known as NAS.
Surely this must have been done if the underlying principle of airspace classification involves assessing traffic levels to ensure equal risk. Didn't think so. It was a 'suck it and see' judgement that resulted in potentially fatal NMACs. If it looks like a dog, cocks its leg like a dog and barks like a dog, it is a dog - I just got a dirty look from man's best friend, who's parked at my feet.
I also proffer the following from the CASA commissioned Launy study:
The study goes on to say:
.
As to the slavish adherence to ICAO principles, there's one further thing I'd like to add in reference to the Avalon PIR . If we are going to insist that we follow ICAO, then we don't cherry-pick. One of the more disturbing conclusions from the recent Avalon PIR was as follows:
Jeez, this program has no consistency when trying to cut-and-paste
It seems to me that ACAS/TCAS is being used as a partial justifier for downgrading Class C to Class E. If anyone disagrees, please speak up.
Given that the level of air traffic services is inextricably linked to airspace classification, ICAO states the following:
To quote Paul Keating, "these guys couldn't raffle a chook in a pub."
As for Class E and NAS, I'd put the following: If the intent of the ICAO airspace classification system is to apportion equal levels of risk across all airspace, based on traffic densities, I'd really appreciate a steer to the definitive, quantitative study that was done when the decision was made to reclassify large swathes of Class C as Class E under that dog otherwise known as NAS.
Surely this must have been done if the underlying principle of airspace classification involves assessing traffic levels to ensure equal risk. Didn't think so. It was a 'suck it and see' judgement that resulted in potentially fatal NMACs. If it looks like a dog, cocks its leg like a dog and barks like a dog, it is a dog - I just got a dirty look from man's best friend, who's parked at my feet.
I also proffer the following from the CASA commissioned Launy study:
Given that Class E presents a higher risk profile than Class C, without a marked changed in efficiency, it is reasonable to maintain the status quo at Launceston. Moving from Class C to Class E classification removes a significant safeguard against a MAC. It also moves away from the premise of risk being maintained to ALARP principals.
With the scenario of high capacity jet PT operations in mind, the reviewers could not endorse the use of Class E over Class D airspace as enhancing efficiency or safety
As to the slavish adherence to ICAO principles, there's one further thing I'd like to add in reference to the Avalon PIR . If we are going to insist that we follow ICAO, then we don't cherry-pick. One of the more disturbing conclusions from the recent Avalon PIR was as follows:
The potential conflict risk area identified in the previous Avalon Aeronautical Study remained. This area was identified as an area to the North of Avalon where VFR aircraft travelling East and West had the potential to conflict with IFR PT aircraft arriving and departing Avalon (approximately 8 to 12 NM North of the aerodrome). Airspace changes proposed in the ACP will assist in mitigating this conflict risk. Barriers to this threat include surveillance and monitoring of the airspace by air traffic control, airspace design measures to provide IFR/VFR segregation; and ACAS protection.
It seems to me that ACAS/TCAS is being used as a partial justifier for downgrading Class C to Class E. If anyone disagrees, please speak up.
Given that the level of air traffic services is inextricably linked to airspace classification, ICAO states the following:
The carriage of airborne collision avoidance systems (ACAS) by aircraft in a given area shall not be a factor in determining the need for air traffic services in that area.
To quote Paul Keating, "these guys couldn't raffle a chook in a pub."
Last edited by Howabout; 12th Mar 2010 at 07:03.
I could be wrong but I seem to remember the upside being more freedom for VFR aircraft. The thing is, freedom for VFR aircraft isn't going to be a big issue up in the North West Kimberly.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so what airspace do you throw over a virtual control tower?
Saab - Airservices Australia teams up with Saab
It's called ROT : remotely operated tower
Saab - Airservices Australia teams up with Saab
It's called ROT : remotely operated tower
Safe and economic, remote air traffic control
The reasons for controlling air traffic at several airports from a common control centre relate both to economy and safety. At small and mid-sized airports, traffic is unevenly distributed over the day, with occasional peaks when the workload is higher. Instead of keeping several air control towers open, resources can be co-located.
In regard to safety, there are several advantages:
The reasons for controlling air traffic at several airports from a common control centre relate both to economy and safety. At small and mid-sized airports, traffic is unevenly distributed over the day, with occasional peaks when the workload is higher. Instead of keeping several air control towers open, resources can be co-located.
In regard to safety, there are several advantages:
- Cameras can register changes to images, which enables hazards such as forgotten tools on runways to be more easily detected.
- A camera with automatic tracking that can zoom in up to 36 times replaces binoculars in a conventional tower.
- A video tracking feature automatically detects incoming aircraft and marks them, making it easier for air traffic controllers to follow their progress, even when visibility is poor.
- With cameras, everything that occurs in air spaces and at airports can be recorded for later viewing in the event of an incident.
- Runway contours, structures and other objects at airports can be marked on screens so that they can be seen even when there is limited visibility.
- The camera zoom feature, information from radars as well as information about weather and wind are integrated into a 360-degree view – corresponding to a modern jet pilot's head-up display – that is monitored by air traffic controllers so that they don't have to shift their attention and focus.
Leadsled,
If that is the case, then we should err on the side of caution and implement C instead of E, given the "insignificant" numbers of VFR who will be disadvantaged by C as opposed to E. The fact is that there is NO logical reason for E airspace. Too many VFRs that will be dicked around by C? Then the traffic density is so high that E is dangerous. Very few VFRs? Then the airspace may as well be C as very few will be inconvenienced! The term "Mutual Inconvenience" comes to mind.
In E airspace? Nonsense!
Quite simply, the fear/probability of un-alerted see and avoid is greatly exaggerated.
This has been established by every on-the-ground survey done in recent years ---- that the claims of significant numbers of aircraft (always blamed on PPLs, but where in the few cases it happens, "professionals" are almost always the culprits) are not using radio, when operating VFR in G or E, is simply not true.
This has been established by every on-the-ground survey done in recent years ---- that the claims of significant numbers of aircraft (always blamed on PPLs, but where in the few cases it happens, "professionals" are almost always the culprits) are not using radio, when operating VFR in G or E, is simply not true.
However, the revised CAR 166 spells it out so there is no "ambiguity" (not that there ever was) about use of radio for communications ----- if its serviceable, it must be used.
Leadsled,
You're on another planet if you can't see that has Dick all over it.
What, E instead of C? What IS the increased cost/resources needed of C verses E?
"Demonstrated Risk": let's have a few NMACs to demonstrate that the airspace category is risky and then change it (eg radar E in the J curve in 2003). Good plan.
The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
That Australia has been out of step with ICAO on airspace matters, and is slowly being brought into step (far too slowly, in my opinion, because I accept, understand and support the risk management underpinnings of ICAO CNS/ATM --- directing the resources at the areas of greatest demonstrated risk) really should not be a surprise.
"Demonstrated Risk": let's have a few NMACs to demonstrate that the airspace category is risky and then change it (eg radar E in the J curve in 2003). Good plan.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, we just don't seem to learn. When the inconvenient questions get asked (as per my query on the - non existent - study that justified E, based on traffic levels under NAS), there is silence. The 'inconvenient truths' are ignored, because they can't be rebutted and are just that; inconvenient.
'Fundamentalism' comes to mind.
So, once again NAS crusaders, if ICAO airspace classifications are meant to deliver an equal risk outcome across all airspace classifications based on traffic levels - as alleged on here - please point me in the direction of the study that definitively established the facts regarding relative traffic levels when a large amount of airspace was re-classified from Class C to Class E under the dog otherwise known as NAS 2b.
Anyone?? Was the judgement to reclassify C as E based on sound empirical analysis, or was it grounded in nothing more than fundamentalist ideology and arbitrary (flawed) judgement??
I'd bet my house on the latter, but the invitation remains open on this specific question - without irrelevant obfuscation. It's a pretty simple question. Anyone?? Anyone??
'Fundamentalism' comes to mind.
So, once again NAS crusaders, if ICAO airspace classifications are meant to deliver an equal risk outcome across all airspace classifications based on traffic levels - as alleged on here - please point me in the direction of the study that definitively established the facts regarding relative traffic levels when a large amount of airspace was re-classified from Class C to Class E under the dog otherwise known as NAS 2b.
Anyone?? Was the judgement to reclassify C as E based on sound empirical analysis, or was it grounded in nothing more than fundamentalist ideology and arbitrary (flawed) judgement??
I'd bet my house on the latter, but the invitation remains open on this specific question - without irrelevant obfuscation. It's a pretty simple question. Anyone?? Anyone??
To those who love to change things, I would suggest a read of ;
Pondering the Precautionary Principle Praxis Foundation
He also has a series of articles about the creepingness of 'virtual towers' in the USofA.
Staffed Virtual Towers (SVT) Praxis Foundation
(somehow, I just don't, feel secure and comfortable about being given terminal instructions from a tower controller who isn't actually near where I am, and who could be simultaneously controlling several aircraft at other dispersed locations.
Multitasking is all very well, but it does have it's limits and costs).
Pondering the Precautionary Principle Praxis Foundation
He also has a series of articles about the creepingness of 'virtual towers' in the USofA.
Staffed Virtual Towers (SVT) Praxis Foundation
(somehow, I just don't, feel secure and comfortable about being given terminal instructions from a tower controller who isn't actually near where I am, and who could be simultaneously controlling several aircraft at other dispersed locations.
Multitasking is all very well, but it does have it's limits and costs).
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K3, with all due respect, this thread is not about 'remote towers.' Please start another thread.'
I've asked a question twice of the NAS crusaders, and I'm yet to receive an answer. While I appreciate that your post was well intentioned, those that don't have an answer to the questions on NAS get relief through posts that are thread-drift.
No offence.
And, once again NAS crusaders, will you please answer my very simple question above. To remind you; the empirical study that justified C to E under NAS 2b based on 'ICAO principles' that relate to traffic volumes.
Didn't think so, but I am going to keep asking.
I've asked a question twice of the NAS crusaders, and I'm yet to receive an answer. While I appreciate that your post was well intentioned, those that don't have an answer to the questions on NAS get relief through posts that are thread-drift.
No offence.
And, once again NAS crusaders, will you please answer my very simple question above. To remind you; the empirical study that justified C to E under NAS 2b based on 'ICAO principles' that relate to traffic volumes.
Didn't think so, but I am going to keep asking.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout
Apologies, posted before reading yours. But just quickly
Kx3
Quite apart from the 'traffic management' inefficiencies of a remote Air traffic Control service. It would be seriously 'unfunny' if:-
- the cleaner kicked the 'plug' in the wall at the:-
a. Camera/s
b. Comm's
c. lights
d. anemometer feeds
e. Equipment room/s
f. sat ground station
g. satellite
h. other end sat ground station
i. ML/BN equipment room/s
j. surveillance system/s and links
k. equipment running the virtual tower display/s
Or, a CB sparked up terra firma around cabling and/or structures, and part or all of this 'picture and sound' show
FAILED?
The poor bloody Controller in Melbourne or Brisbane, wishing they could grab a handheld radio and keep on rockin' [not from a thousand + miles away they ain't], and the nearest local tech staff is half an hour, to an hour away
at best
The pilots operating on or around the airport would do what?
Now that would be a deafening silence
for the first few seconds at least, until all [self separating] hell broke loose!
Lets see the [proper] C.B.A and risk assessments!
Now back to normal programming
Apologies, posted before reading yours. But just quickly
Kx3
Quite apart from the 'traffic management' inefficiencies of a remote Air traffic Control service. It would be seriously 'unfunny' if:-
- the cleaner kicked the 'plug' in the wall at the:-
a. Camera/s
b. Comm's
c. lights
d. anemometer feeds
e. Equipment room/s
f. sat ground station
g. satellite
h. other end sat ground station
i. ML/BN equipment room/s
j. surveillance system/s and links
k. equipment running the virtual tower display/s
Or, a CB sparked up terra firma around cabling and/or structures, and part or all of this 'picture and sound' show
FAILED?
The poor bloody Controller in Melbourne or Brisbane, wishing they could grab a handheld radio and keep on rockin' [not from a thousand + miles away they ain't], and the nearest local tech staff is half an hour, to an hour away
at bestThe pilots operating on or around the airport would do what?
Now that would be a deafening silence
for the first few seconds at least, until all [self separating] hell broke loose!Lets see the [proper] C.B.A and risk assessments!
Now back to normal programming
Last edited by ARFOR; 13th Mar 2010 at 11:35. Reason: Clarify
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks ARFOR; I am not trying to give anyone the sh@ts. I am just asking what I think is a reasonable question. I know there are other issues, but side-ways diversions just let the NAS crusaders and fundamentalists off the hook. So, to the annoyance of everybody, and as an invitation to the crusaders, I repeat the following and request a reply (modified to take out some irrelevant comment):
The intent of ICAO airspace classifications may well be to apply equal risk levels to all airspace, whether it be G, A, or anything in between. But we all know that there's theory and there's practice. Some things look great 'in theory' and are absolute dogs 'in practice.' I'm sure Leyland thought the P76 was a dead-set winner.
As for Class E and NAS, I'd put the following: If the intent of the ICAO airspace classification system is to apportion equal levels of risk across all airspace, based on traffic densities, I'd really appreciate a steer to the definitive, quantitative study that was done when the decision was made to reclassify large swathes of Class C as Class E under that dog otherwise known as NAS.
Surely this must have been done if the underlying principle of airspace classification involves assessing traffic levels to ensure equal risk. Didn't think so. It was a 'suck it and see' judgement that resulted in potentially fatal NMACs. If it looks like a dog, cocks its leg like a dog and barks like a dog, it is a dog.
I also proffer the following from the CASA commissioned Launy study:
The study goes on to say:
As to the slavish adherence to ICAO principles, there's one further thing I'd like to add in reference to the Avalon PIR . If we are going to insist that we follow ICAO, then we don't cherry-pick. One of the more disturbing conclusions from the recent Avalon PIR was as follows:
It seems to me that ACAS/TCAS is being used as a partial justifier for downgrading Class C to Class E. If anyone disagrees, please speak up.
Given that the level of air traffic services is inextricably linked to airspace classification, ICAO states the following:
Will one of the NAS crusaders please respond on either the empirical study on Class C to E, the use of TCAS as justification for Class E, or, preferably both.
Given the preceding silence, I won't hold my breath.
The intent of ICAO airspace classifications may well be to apply equal risk levels to all airspace, whether it be G, A, or anything in between. But we all know that there's theory and there's practice. Some things look great 'in theory' and are absolute dogs 'in practice.' I'm sure Leyland thought the P76 was a dead-set winner.
As for Class E and NAS, I'd put the following: If the intent of the ICAO airspace classification system is to apportion equal levels of risk across all airspace, based on traffic densities, I'd really appreciate a steer to the definitive, quantitative study that was done when the decision was made to reclassify large swathes of Class C as Class E under that dog otherwise known as NAS.
Surely this must have been done if the underlying principle of airspace classification involves assessing traffic levels to ensure equal risk. Didn't think so. It was a 'suck it and see' judgement that resulted in potentially fatal NMACs. If it looks like a dog, cocks its leg like a dog and barks like a dog, it is a dog.
I also proffer the following from the CASA commissioned Launy study:
Given that Class E presents a higher risk profile than Class C, without a marked changed in efficiency, it is reasonable to maintain the status quo at Launceston. Moving from Class C to Class E classification removes a significant safeguard against a MAC. It also moves away from the premise of risk being maintained to ALARP principals.
With the scenario of high capacity jet PT operations in mind, the reviewers could not endorse the use of Class E over Class D airspace as enhancing efficiency or safety.
The potential conflict risk area identified in the previous Avalon Aeronautical Study remained. This area was identified as an area to the North of Avalon where VFR aircraft travelling East and West had the potential to conflict with IFR PT aircraft arriving and departing Avalon (approximately 8 to 12 NM North of the aerodrome). Airspace changes proposed in the ACP will assist in mitigating this conflict risk. Barriers to this threat include surveillance and monitoring of the airspace by air traffic control, airspace design measures to provide IFR/VFR segregation; and ACAS protection.
Given that the level of air traffic services is inextricably linked to airspace classification, ICAO states the following:
The carriage of airborne collision avoidance systems (ACAS) by aircraft in a given area shall not be a factor in determining the need for air traffic services in that area.
Given the preceding silence, I won't hold my breath.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For The Nas Crusaders
Hi NAS Crusaders,
At the risk of being annoying, and I'm sure I am, can the only one of you who has credibility (Lead) give your take on the previous posts.
Leady, I do not agree with you, but at least you keep it civil.
To remind you:
The intent of ICAO airspace classifications may well be to apply equal risk levels to all airspace, whether it be G, A, or anything in between. But we all know that there's theory and there's practice. Some things look great 'in theory' and are absolute dogs 'in practice.' I'm sure Leyland thought the P76 was a dead-set winner.
As for Class E and NAS, I'd put the following: If the intent of the ICAO airspace classification system is to apportion equal levels of risk across all airspace, based on traffic densities, I'd really appreciate a steer to the definitive, quantitative study that was done when the decision was made to reclassify large swathes of Class C as Class E under that dog otherwise known as NAS.
Surely this must have been done if the underlying principle of airspace classification involves assessing traffic levels to ensure equal risk. Didn't think so. It was a 'suck it and see' judgement that resulted in potentially fatal NMACs. If it looks like a dog, cocks its leg like a dog and barks like a dog, it is a dog.
I also proffer the following from the CASA commissioned Launy study:
The study goes on to say:
As to the slavish adherence to ICAO principles, there's one further thing I'd like to add in reference to the Avalon PIR . If we are going to insist that we follow ICAO, then we don't cherry-pick. One of the more disturbing conclusions from the recent Avalon PIR was as follows:
It seems to me that ACAS/TCAS is being used as a partial justifier for downgrading Class C to Class E. If anyone disagrees, please speak up.
Given that the level of air traffic services is inextricably linked to airspace classification, ICAO states the following:
Leady, I look forward to your response, given that you, at least, have cred and debate the issues.
At the risk of being annoying, and I'm sure I am, can the only one of you who has credibility (Lead) give your take on the previous posts.
Leady, I do not agree with you, but at least you keep it civil.
To remind you:
The intent of ICAO airspace classifications may well be to apply equal risk levels to all airspace, whether it be G, A, or anything in between. But we all know that there's theory and there's practice. Some things look great 'in theory' and are absolute dogs 'in practice.' I'm sure Leyland thought the P76 was a dead-set winner.
As for Class E and NAS, I'd put the following: If the intent of the ICAO airspace classification system is to apportion equal levels of risk across all airspace, based on traffic densities, I'd really appreciate a steer to the definitive, quantitative study that was done when the decision was made to reclassify large swathes of Class C as Class E under that dog otherwise known as NAS.
Surely this must have been done if the underlying principle of airspace classification involves assessing traffic levels to ensure equal risk. Didn't think so. It was a 'suck it and see' judgement that resulted in potentially fatal NMACs. If it looks like a dog, cocks its leg like a dog and barks like a dog, it is a dog.
I also proffer the following from the CASA commissioned Launy study:
Given that Class E presents a higher risk profile than Class C, without a marked changed in efficiency, it is reasonable to maintain the status quo at Launceston. Moving from Class C to Class E classification removes a significant safeguard against a MAC. It also moves away from the premise of risk being maintained to ALARP principals.
With the scenario of high capacity jet PT operations in mind, the reviewers could not endorse the use of Class E over Class D airspace as enhancing efficiency or safety.
The potential conflict risk area identified in the previous Avalon Aeronautical Study remained. This area was identified as an area to the North of Avalon where VFR aircraft travelling East and West had the potential to conflict with IFR PT aircraft arriving and departing Avalon (approximately 8 to 12 NM North of the aerodrome). Airspace changes proposed in the ACP will assist in mitigating this conflict risk. Barriers to this threat include surveillance and monitoring of the airspace by air traffic control, airspace design measures to provide IFR/VFR segregation; and ACAS protection.
Given that the level of air traffic services is inextricably linked to airspace classification, ICAO states the following:
The carriage of airborne collision avoidance systems (ACAS) by aircraft in a given area shall not be a factor in determining the need for air traffic services in that area.
Last edited by Howabout; 15th Mar 2010 at 09:42.
The CASA Launy study is clearly claptrap
I bet no individual put a name to it.
If class C can be operated at the same cost as E every country would replace E with C !
Why not! Please give a reason here and put your real name on such a basic issue.
I won't hold my breath.
I bet no individual put a name to it.
If class C can be operated at the same cost as E every country would replace E with C !
Why not! Please give a reason here and put your real name on such a basic issue.
I won't hold my breath.
If class C can be operated at the same cost as E every country would replace E with C !
Why not! Please give a reason here
Why not! Please give a reason here
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
I would not be too sure about that
Mr Smith
And your single word assessment of the other D an D/C towers airspace reviews?
In answer to your question, traffic densities and mix
Because the VFR fraternity wants E rather than C.
Mr Smith
And your single word assessment of the other D an D/C towers airspace reviews?
In answer to your question, traffic densities and mix
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez Dick, I thought it would take a bit more effort to draw you out.
However, I'll do you a deal. You answer my questions first, seeing I registered them before your bite on the line, then I'll have a go at answering yours.
Fair deal?
Oh, by the way, the real name argument is really getting a bit tiresome. Broken record comes to mind.
However, I'll do you a deal. You answer my questions first, seeing I registered them before your bite on the line, then I'll have a go at answering yours.
Fair deal?
Oh, by the way, the real name argument is really getting a bit tiresome. Broken record comes to mind.