NAS rears its head again

[Josh Cox]

There has been mention of "whats the point having C/E without RADAR ?".

Why not mandate ADSB for all aircraft, that will take the guess work out of it ?. Have ADSB units and FIS at all RPT ports.

Make it C or E, I do not believe it will really matter, ultimately IFR aircraft will be protected from the VFR weekend warrior on the wrong frequency, 30nm off track (no offence intended to weekend warriors).

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, why is this so important to you?

Why arn't you in a position where you can talk under your own name and be listened to?

Sounds to me as if you have a enormous chip on your shoulder! Very sad!

Do you really believe that cabinet decisions are not valid if each cabinet member does not understand every detail of the decision?

If you have a genuine belief that the proposed CASA/AsA decisions in relation to airspace are wrong why don't you phone Steve Creedy at the AUS. I guarantee he will give you a good hearing a write a good article.

I dare you.

[squawk6969]

Do you really believe that cabinet decisions are not valid if each cabinet member does not understand every detail of the decision?

Dick in most cases I doubt the majority do, especially with anything as knowledge specific as aviation.

They can't get insulation scheme's right without killing people, all in aid of what??

SQ

[Howabout]

Dick, old fruit, I respectfully suggest that the chip is not on my shoulder.

Howabout, why is this so important to you?

Clearly, Dick, because it is so important to you.

I just don't happen to like what are, in my opinion, unsubstantiated arguments that are transmitted to gullible policy makers as fact.

Dick, if you can provide substantiation for your argument, I'll back off and, furthermore, provide an apology.

But mate, in my opinion, the stuff about going to Creedy etc is really grasping at straws. An argument stands or falls on its veracity - nothing else.

I will continue to keep this civil and only argue fact. I trust that in the spirit of what's best for aviation in this country you will agree and continue to do the same.

Regards

[LeadSled]

Ferris,
All our mate ARFOR has (yet again) proved, is that he is a champion "cut and paster", actually understanding what he has cut and pasted ( including all the context, the docs. not presented, because they might spoil his take on the subject) is another matter.

Have a look at my last post on the Willy thread.

Bloggs,
Re. a recent post, you could edit it to make it demonstrably more accurate:
Then it would read

C needs radar. I don't think!

That I could believe.

Tootle pip!!

[peuce]

Geez, I hope this guy doesn't hold an important position within our Government or its Agencies.

He has no idea on how to debate an issue.

Full marks for childishness though.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

I find it strange that you support C without radar when blind freddy would know that Radar would improve safety.

Gee, I didn't know that. Could you explain it a bit more?

Ledsled,

Bloggs,
Re. a recent post, you could edit it to make it demonstrably more accurate:
Then it would read
Quote:
C needs radar. I don't think!

That I could believe.

That's the 5th or is it the 6th time you have tried to edit my posts. You're not doing a very good job, although this last one is close. I absolutely incredibly strongly agree that C does not need radar. Glad you have finally got the message, or were you just trying to put words into my mouth?

[ferris]

Leadsled, I'm fairly certain that anyone, ANY casual reader, who happened upon this thread, would agree that your attempts at obfuscation have been roundly put to rest. Facts, cut and pasted or not, are still facts.

I would ask any, ANY casual reader, to note the conspicuous absence of any support for the alleged transplant of the "US system" by any actual air traffic controllers. Think about that. Not one. Why would that be? The reasons offered by the Nastonauts are that ATCs are change resistant, troglodytes, or any number of spurious labels. The reason is that actual ATCs understand the infrastructure constraints in oz, and that, despite what Dick says, the under-resourcing of the services to the industry will continue. Oz does it best- with what it has. Dick blows long and hard about how much money he has saved the industry- but what he should be saying is how much money he has removed from the industry. Not one cent of any alleged savings has gone back into services etc.

FIX THAT PROBLEM, Dick. It's an actual problem that could use a transplant from the US- the US charging regime. The effort expended on this airspace BS really is astounding, and is looking quite self-interested.

[ARFOR]

LeadSled

You have lost the plot

actually understanding what he has cut and pasted ( including all the context, the docs. not presented, because they might spoil his take on the subject) is another matter.

Have a look at my last post on the Willy thread.

Your last post on the willy thread:- http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post5655530

"NAStronaut". I'll wear the "T" shirt if someone prints them up.

I can see the reverse side..." I flew class E and survived".

I'll have two, where do I order??

I know you were referring to the one previous, but hey, accuracy counts eh!

I'll issue the same challange on this thread. If you feel anything I have quote only tells part of the story, please enlighten us with any missing bits. As your friend would say I dare you

[peuce]

Okay, in a final attempt to keep this real, I'm changing sides for a moment. (I've always wanted to pretend to be a Nastronaut!)
I'm going to try and put Leadsled's point across ... in a civil manner.. and see where we go from there.

Dear Fundamentalists,

The data has been gathered and the calculations have been made, using the most current Risk Management tools and processes.
The result shows that, using the Broome data, a Class D Tower with Class E steps up to the lower limit of current CTA will provide a residual risk value of x.
A value of x is consider extrememly low and well within the required residual risk.

Now, you guys say that you want to use Class C, so that the residual risk will be further lowered to a value of Y.
However, although Class C on the face of it, appears "safer", x is already so low that bringing it down to y will not provide any visible reduction in risk.
It's really like trying to reduce something that doesn't really exist (according to the research and modelling) in the first place ... that is the likelihood of a VFR/IFR MAC.

However, you say that ... for little, if any, cost ... we could add that extra level of risk reduction ... just in case the modelling is wrong.... which a lot of you feel.
Well, I can agree with you to some extent that, had you access to the modelling process, you might be more convinced that non-radar Class E will provide the required risk mitigation. But that is not currently available.

Well, dear Fundamentalists, your only option appears to be to convinve OAR to ... "add a bit for Mum", with Class C.

I'll leave it with you. I'm off to get ready for Anzac Day.

[rotorblades]

Why jump from E to C, D is a plausable mid-space class.
All traffic (IFR & VFR) is known - unless pilots breaking air law, but thats a different argument, all subject to clearances (thus workload can be managed on ATC side), safety is greater than E, Not as restrictive as C, greater situation awareness due to better & fuller TI, and still if an IFR cant get a clearance he can choose VFR and get a clearance to climb that way.

And work on some route segregation, so that inbounds/outbounds/overfliers arent always crossing-paths or flying head to head. may mean a few more miles to fly (not a great deal, though). What price safety?

[Frank Arouet]

Dear Fundamentalists,

And your mob; Dear Zealots.

The NAStronauts must be winning if the plethora of new posters is logarithmatically proportional to your cut and paste arguements. Some, of previous note, are private VFR day pilots with an axe to grind over their previous failures.

Pathetic really.

[rotorblades]

Now Now children,

Name calling isnt getting anybody anywhere. We are just running round & round in ever decreasing circles. I'm not blameless. But Ive decided to take a step back and try to be a bit more objective. Call me a COSmonaut (Change Of System). It needs changing, whether NAS/E etc is the way to go. Who knows yet(be 100% honest if you decide to comment on this last sentence, please - no knee jerks from either side).

Why dont you put the proposals out formally to the likes of - the check pilots of the airlines & regular IFR chief pilots, ATC Line Checkers, ATC Sector Procedures (mostly current controllers as well) etc and see what feedback comes from them. And they are the ones who are gonna have to work with them. Not government ministers, CASA etcAfter all its their heads on the line if anything goes wrong with the new procedures.

Cause just like anywhere else in the world the majority of the blame wont be apportioned to the heads of the government departments or the chiefs on the upper floors of ASA/CASA etc. And they wont lose their jobs/life.

Lets all think of the passengers on these planes & their safety - thats what we are here for, rather than our pet loves/hates.

And anyway, theres more important matters - like air(no)services staffing. And if AnSA told the truth I think even Dick Smith would be shocked.
There's no point in over-burdening a creaking system under current procs.
Get the staff then get the airspace to match, not vice versa.

[Howabout]

Frank, read my previous posts and please respond. As I've said, many times, I want to keep it civil; let's argue the facts.

Invective doesn't cut it, from my side or yours. Let's just argue the facts Frank.

Missives, as per the following, don't promote your case:

The NAStronauts must be winning if the plethora of new posters is logarithmatically proportional to your cut and paste arguements. Some, of previous note, are private VFR day pilots with an axe to grind over their previous failures.

In all fairness to you, I read that several times to try and be even-handed Frank. After reading it multiple times, I don't have a clue as to the point you are trying to make

In fact, I don't actually know whether you're backing Dick or agin him.

[ferris]

Rotorblades,

I'm interested in this comment

It needs changing, whether NAS/E etc is the way to go

. Could you expand on that- I think there are a lot of people scratching their heads at why? Do you mean that things need to change at Broome, or that the Australian system needs changing? If it's the latter- a lot of us would be interested in your reasoning.

I mean it would be terrible, wouldn't it, if this whole crusade was based on a false premise? I'm sure you will agree.

[rotorblades]

Broome?
I was under the impression, maybe wrongly, that this push was for Australia-wide. If its just Broome, then i got the wrong end of the stick.
I'm no Broome expert. If its just about Broome, I can still have an opinion, cant I, or can only people that fly into Broome & followers of NAS be allowed to speak?

I mean it would be terrible, wouldn't it, if this whole crusade was based on a false premise? I'm sure you will agree.

If this is just trying to rattle my cage, or try and prove your right and everyone else is wrong. It wont work. I'm past that now. Even if it is just Broome, how long before it would be pushed at other aerodromes?

As for the latter. I do think it needs an overhaul. There are patchwork quilts of random airspace for so many airfields that seem to have been put together on a knee twitch without a much larger plan being thought in.
I come from 7 years working in a country where the thought of having an RPT fly into an uncontrolled aerodrome would have the CAA/SRG having kittens.
I personally think, there needs to better ingress/egress routes into controlled airspace from the uncontrolled aerodromes, to give better protection to the IFR flights.

Take the E airspace at Williamtown, I am seeing an increasing level of IFR busting in or turning without clearance. i can only put this down to confusion as to the rules required in the new airspace or a distinct lack of airmanship from professional RPT pilots. I'm hoping its the previous.

Regardless of whether Ive got the wrong airport/airspace under the initial thread leader. The other 90% of my last post Is still valid.

[ferris]

I'm not saying you cant have an opinion- quite the opposite. I'm trying to find out what you think is wrong with the current australian system.

I personally think, there needs to better ingress/egress routes into controlled airspace from the uncontrolled aerodromes, to give better protection to the IFR flights.

Protection from what? From other IFRs. From VFRs? From CFIT? Where is the problem that needs fixing? Is it just an opinion? Do you think the introduction of half of the "US system" will address this 'problem' (which is the actual topic of the thread)?

Your last post indicates that the introduction of E at Williamtown is the problem. Perhaps the problems arise when complexity is increased trying to pander to Dick's dreams.
I certainly agree that there are more important matters to address before ANY effort is wasted on NAS.

[rotorblades]

Hi Ferris,
I'm not trying to start a intra-nationality bum-fight here. I can just see from, previous experience, a few tweeks that could do a lot in improving the service.
Its not all airspace, internal ASA needs looking at. There is no staff, no morale, there is no communication between management & ATCOs. Procedures get forced on ASA & ATCOs from CASA/DAP despite the ASA safety case against it.
And no the UK isnt perfect, nor the US, Canada, Germany, UAE or any other country you care to pick.

I'll try and address your points/questions in turn...

Protection from what

Both VFR & IFR in the free for all airspace. CFIT I dont see as a major issue due to well published LSALT/RouteLS etc. Although the potential is always there, be it with self-separating from other traffic or TCAS RA's. but Im guessing that the terrain alarm would go off in turn (GPWS?, from memory)

Is it just an opinion

Of course. I have a different background to most/some. Where I spent the first 7 years controlling we had Controlled airspace protection for 99% of RPT traffic for their entire trip. (only exception I can think of without looking at maps is Newcastle, where they spend about 10track miles in G before entering D class CTZ - whilst in G they will be under Radar Advisory Service, so ATC provide vectors around traffic on radar (including primary paints)). So to see it here with a lot of RPT traffic mixing it in a free for all, is offputting (&scary) sometimes.
Anyway, I can only give opinions/advice. I have no policy making position
within ASA.

half of the "US system" will address this 'problem'

Honestly, No.
I dont see E as a big enough step up from G. It is not/does not seem to aid in the unknown traffic situation. or aiding the pilots of aircraft in situation awareness at all. As for climbing into it VFR until get IFR clearance, Once again I can see how it helps an aircraft get above the LSALT, but not with traffic separation. It will just cause more headaches for ATC, possibly more RAs/TAs, and probably a lot of ill will from ATCers. I know from WLM that most reasons a pilot doesnt get clearance immediately is because of conflicting traffic. And not on taxi because of how quickly traffic can change (weather avoidance in the summer for example).
My own, humble, opinion is that if you want to significantly increase the safety advantages then D would be a better option. All traffic is known (VFR & IFR), they are under clearances, you know level & routing/intentions. you can provide alternate clearances to the VFRs with less hassle. Yet you still have the flexibility of see & avoid for VFR (but with known TI). And yes if a pilot really wanted to climb in VFR as opposed to IFR, he can with a clearance & TI (once again known TI).

The UK had very little E. I think only Belfast & Glasgow(?). and although VFR didnt have to announce themselves, it was strongly recommended that they got themselves identified to the controlling ATSC. I dont know how this worked because I was London TMA.

Am I advocating a UK based system. No. The UKs is deisgned around a lot of major aerodromes tucked into little corners, with a lot less space & a lot more aircraft. But that doesnt stop me thinking that D is a fair compromise between safety, IFR flight, VFR flight & Controller Workload management. (If too busy VFRs have to go around).

complexity is increased trying to pander to Dick's dreams.

I was trying to get the thread away from the his & hers dreams and onto sensible discussion, so wont comment on that bit.
Complexity was increased. With it being E down to 4500' it squidges any conflictions in G into less space than they had before. Outbounds initially have to climb to a level below the LSALT (outside 25nm to the N/NW), please dont start on IFR pick-up, anyone I think we;ve done that to death!
Most RPT flights are only gonna climb IFR.
I dont think its done a huge amount to increase safety (most ATCOs agree), its forced the conflixtions into sfc-4500 rather than sfc-8500.
It has reduced flexibility of the RPTs as if there is a VFR at, i.e. 6000', on a crossing track to an inbound on descent from flight levels. ATC will clear the RPT to leave CAS descending, control service terminates passing 4500', traffic is (unknown VFR, etc etc). The pilot may/or may not sight this aircraft and where he'd maybe normally just turn around it, if he's above 4500' he has to get an amended route clearance from ATC. Or if he levels off it will set the CLAM (Cleared level adherence monitor) in ATSC off and as well as looking for the traffic he'd be answering our calls on confirming he's levelled off. Because we have to check in case he misheard the clearance. (Or like one RPT today didnt readback the clearance to leave CAS, except with just "Roger", twice - I was too busy and gave up)

Once again, my opinions....
i hope this answers your questions

[Rule3]

Totally Confused?

Rotorblades.... Are you Fair Dinkum.

Your last post states {intimates} that in a RAS area, controllers are vectoring acft to provide a separation or avoidance service from unknown Primary paints. You can't be serious. The implications are totally mindblowing.

[Frank Arouet]

Howabout;

I have tried to be a spectator on this subject because, I will be the first to admit, I have no qualifications to speak on the subject. Indeed I am a Private owner/ pilot with lapsed Instrument rating who flies in class E probably three or four times times a year.

This fact doesn't seem to worry a few other posters even less qualified to try to fob themselves off as "experts" on the subject. They know who they are.

Given my situation, whenever I have flown E airspace as a responsible transponder equipped pilot would, I have always had good situational awareness of other traffic via Centre discussions with whatever aircraft are "in the system". Indeed on many occasions Centre have advised RPT of a 1200 VFR "paint" (me) at their o'clock and whatever altitude.

I therefor assume that RPT has similar situational awareness and most probably has the benefit of TCAS.

I can't believe there is a massive problem with non transponder aircraft that should influence this discussion.

What I note is a common theme of vested interests, some ATCO's and some Regional Pilots with a dead set against any "uncontrolled" or "out of the system" aircraft being in "their" airspace. I also note those with opposing opinions are treated like pariahs, sychopants or uninformed rabble despite some of these being very well informed.

As for assuming the NAStronaut's are winning, I base this observation on the length and veracity and multiples of posters.

"I think they doth protest too much".

I am backing Dick on this as he appears to be making more sense by supporting a well proven system. I also think rotorblades made some good observations with regard to the state of play at Airservices.