NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for most of you, all I see is a string of assertions about "safety", without any qualified support, no data, just more than personal opinions, howling down anything that doesn't conform to your opinions
read the published ATSB reports without a pre-bias that the VFR was wrong
Dick has had some of the world's preeminent experts, both organizations and individuals, to guide him in his acquisition of knowledge in the field.
That you are a controller does not make you an expert on CNS/ATM design, any more than you (or Bloggs) being a pilot (with a current medical) flying in the airspace make you an expert on the subject.
Once again, in reply to legitimate questions about how Dick's dream will actually work; the lack of infrastructure and other differences to the 'US system', etc. etc. readers will note the silence. A silence punctuated by whining like the above, lacking any fact or insight other than to resort to personal attack and to belittle anyone "not on side". You've been done like a dinner, again Leadsled. For all to see.
Argue the facts if you want any respect- or just live with the contempt you so richly deserve, turd polisher.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead
You or your master have yet to detail why E airspace benefits jet RPT aircraft against C airspace?
Why do you believe that C airspace has a higer risk factor than E. Is this because you believe the VFR operators will not request a clearance and treat C as E?
You or your master have yet to detail why E airspace benefits jet RPT aircraft against C airspace?
Why do you believe that C airspace has a higer risk factor than E. Is this because you believe the VFR operators will not request a clearance and treat C as E?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotorblades
Great post. A deconfliction service [OCTA] in surveillance coverage is a fine addition [compatible] to Class F type services.
LeadSled
Biggles in Oz,
Old mate, by just what convoluted line of total ill-logic did you come to the conclusion that risk to IFR in E increases, compared to G.
Biggles is but one of many posters who have raised these actualities. In brief summary:-
Class G [really Class F]
- IFR given a DTI/advisory service on IFR
- VFR are 'required' to broadcast in the terminal area CTAF within 30nm [northwest airports being discussed]
- No surveillance coverage
- TXPDR's mandatory Above A100
- VFR Radio carriage and use [broadcast] cross checks against accuracy or non-use of TXPDR's
- ACAS not carried by most aircraft [except IFR RPT]
Class E
- IFR separated from IFR
- VFR no radio transmission use required
- No surveillance coverage
- TXPDR's mandatory
- No cross checks [VFR radio use] against accuracy or non-use of TXPDR's
- ACAS not carried by most aircraft [except IFR RPT]
You tell us:-
- Which rule set is [on balance] less safe [we know which one is more expensive] to all airspace users [IFR & VFR]
- Which is the higher risk to all airspace users i.e. is it the IFR/IFR conflicts, or IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR conflicts that are the greatest risk exposure in the terminal area?
Or perhaps, better still, open, transparent and publically available Risk Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis processes would answer these very important unanswered questions. WOULDN'T THEY!
Great post. A deconfliction service [OCTA] in surveillance coverage is a fine addition [compatible] to Class F type services.
LeadSled
but unsurveilled E is effectively the same as G, except that the risk to IFR has increased.
Old mate, by just what convoluted line of total ill-logic did you come to the conclusion that risk to IFR in E increases, compared to G.
Class G [really Class F]
- IFR given a DTI/advisory service on IFR
- VFR are 'required' to broadcast in the terminal area CTAF within 30nm [northwest airports being discussed]
- No surveillance coverage
- TXPDR's mandatory Above A100
- VFR Radio carriage and use [broadcast] cross checks against accuracy or non-use of TXPDR's
- ACAS not carried by most aircraft [except IFR RPT]
Class E
- IFR separated from IFR
- VFR no radio transmission use required
- No surveillance coverage
- TXPDR's mandatory
- No cross checks [VFR radio use] against accuracy or non-use of TXPDR's
- ACAS not carried by most aircraft [except IFR RPT]
You tell us:-
- Which rule set is [on balance] less safe [we know which one is more expensive] to all airspace users [IFR & VFR]
- Which is the higher risk to all airspace users i.e. is it the IFR/IFR conflicts, or IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR conflicts that are the greatest risk exposure in the terminal area?
Or perhaps, better still, open, transparent and publically available Risk Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis processes would answer these very important unanswered questions. WOULDN'T THEY!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick has had some of the world's preeminent experts
Quotes:
"An ordinary man away from home giving advice." - Oscar Wilde
"An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy." - Steven Weinberg
"Consultants are people who borrow your watch and tell you what time it is, and then walk off with the watch." - Robert Townsend
"No man can be a pure specialist without being in the strict sense an idiot." - George Bernard Shaw
"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken." - Bertrand Russell
"Experts often possess more data than judgment." - Colin Powell
"One who limits himself to his chosen mode of ignorance." - Elbert Hubbard
Lead:
I will back Dick's experience as a pilot
lead, why do you continually insist on telling everyone they cant have an opinion or voice their concerns because they, perceivably, dont have as much 'experience' as Dick, or yourself?
That is exactly the petty, beaurocratic, narrow-mindedness that is prevalent in the industry and causing all the problems & woes. If someone is high enough up the foodchain and thinks its a good idea all the 'yes-men' jump onboard to try and grab the share of basking in the golden glow. But its rarely them who have to deal with the fallout.
Anybody can have an opinion, no matter of experience or how many experts they've got in their back pocket. And the decision makers need to take it on board. The time you start thinking that someone with 'less experience' has no valid points to make is the time to be thrown out of the industry. Its just pure egotistical, one-upmanship.
The biggest problem led & dick have is not listening to others who dont agree, immediately slamming them as having not enough 'experience'. They put across arguments at a tangent to the issue to try and befuggle the issues.
Dick - Start listening, and respond with sensible answers & less personal attacks. You may find that people start to understand you better.
On the substantiating of the points, just saying an expert has told you this, word of mouth isnt confirming the validity. Post the reports or point people in the dircetion so they can read it for themeselves.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I see it, is that Dicky and Leady won't be operating in this so called safe airspace in command of a RPT jet with 200 pax. The phrase "all care and no responsibility springs to mind" as well as the definition of an expert.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely Bloggs:
Class C airspace isn't destroying GA, http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/413966-anyone-visited-mildura-lately.html
Sorry, I'm not good at manipulating links (right-click to open), but your comment was 'this is.'
Agree entirely. And I wonder who championed 'user pays' and the attendant disaster that resulted in 'airport owners' racking up fees and charges to the extent that GA is not viable at many locations. Jeez, didn't 'user-pays' sound so logical to the unwashed? 'User-pays' was not thought through in reference to GA and the industry in general.
The demise of YHOX, the closure of the crossing runway at YSBK, and many other examples, from where I sit, can be put down to 'business models' that have little regard for GA viability. 'User pays,' IMHO, championed (I believe) by the 'free in G brigade,' has brought GA to its knees.
Once we had a system that tacitly acknowledged that GA benefited everyone in the population. Whether it was the newsagent in Tennant, the pharmacist in St George, the RFDS, or the local flying school that contributed to the supply of future commercial pilots. Consequently, we federally funded aviation, particularly regional and GA, because the benefits extended to the entire population, albeit indirectly in some areas.
'User-pays' canned all that. A vital sector of the industry, that was funded out of government revenue, for the benefit of all Australians (and I mean all), atrophied because of the 'user-pays model.'
Take a bow, those supporters of 'user-pays' and 'free in G.' From my perspective, you undermined a viable industry.
Only my take, but Class E over D is a molehill in comparison to the irreversible damage that's been done by blinkered zealots.
Class C airspace isn't destroying GA, http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/413966-anyone-visited-mildura-lately.html
Sorry, I'm not good at manipulating links (right-click to open), but your comment was 'this is.'
Agree entirely. And I wonder who championed 'user pays' and the attendant disaster that resulted in 'airport owners' racking up fees and charges to the extent that GA is not viable at many locations. Jeez, didn't 'user-pays' sound so logical to the unwashed? 'User-pays' was not thought through in reference to GA and the industry in general.
The demise of YHOX, the closure of the crossing runway at YSBK, and many other examples, from where I sit, can be put down to 'business models' that have little regard for GA viability. 'User pays,' IMHO, championed (I believe) by the 'free in G brigade,' has brought GA to its knees.
Once we had a system that tacitly acknowledged that GA benefited everyone in the population. Whether it was the newsagent in Tennant, the pharmacist in St George, the RFDS, or the local flying school that contributed to the supply of future commercial pilots. Consequently, we federally funded aviation, particularly regional and GA, because the benefits extended to the entire population, albeit indirectly in some areas.
'User-pays' canned all that. A vital sector of the industry, that was funded out of government revenue, for the benefit of all Australians (and I mean all), atrophied because of the 'user-pays model.'
Take a bow, those supporters of 'user-pays' and 'free in G.' From my perspective, you undermined a viable industry.
Only my take, but Class E over D is a molehill in comparison to the irreversible damage that's been done by blinkered zealots.
Rotorblades-
A Deconfliction Service is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction
this almost sounds like our current "snapshot" procedures..excepting the words "radar service Terminated" to ensure no implied continued service.
Deconfliction Service:
A Deconfliction Service is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions. Under a Deconfliction Service the following conditions apply:
The service may be requested under any flight rules or meteorological conditions.
Controllers can expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations which may require flight in IMC. Controllers should be aware that pilots may not be qualified to fly in IMC. Should this situation arise the controller will be informed by the pilot.
There is no legal requirement for a pilot flying outside controlled airspace to comply with instructions because of the advisory nature of the service. However, should a pilot choose not to comply with advisory avoiding action then he will become responsible for his own separation and any avoiding action that may subsequently prove necessary.
The controller will be advised before a pilot changes heading or level.
Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with nonparticipating traffic and, wherever possible, shall seek to achieve separation which is not less than 5 nm or 3000 feet, except when specified otherwise by the CAA. However, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.
Controllers shall continue to provide information on conflicting traffic until the confliction is resolved.
A Deconfliction Service is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions. Under a Deconfliction Service the following conditions apply:
The service may be requested under any flight rules or meteorological conditions.
Controllers can expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations which may require flight in IMC. Controllers should be aware that pilots may not be qualified to fly in IMC. Should this situation arise the controller will be informed by the pilot.
There is no legal requirement for a pilot flying outside controlled airspace to comply with instructions because of the advisory nature of the service. However, should a pilot choose not to comply with advisory avoiding action then he will become responsible for his own separation and any avoiding action that may subsequently prove necessary.
The controller will be advised before a pilot changes heading or level.
Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with nonparticipating traffic and, wherever possible, shall seek to achieve separation which is not less than 5 nm or 3000 feet, except when specified otherwise by the CAA. However, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.
Controllers shall continue to provide information on conflicting traffic until the confliction is resolved.
this almost sounds like our current "snapshot" procedures..excepting the words "radar service Terminated" to ensure no implied continued service.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozbus,
It is very similar. Although, from my experience, there is less advice given here on avoiding the traffic. Its more a TI and let the pilots sort themselves out.
In the UK the advice is given as an instruction and the pilot can then either take it or not. Control/Radar service terminated is also used in the UK.
It just shows how similar the two are.
And as for vectoring in G (for the ILS, for example), if all the 'uncontrolled' aerodromes in G here had a tower & approach service, then the same procedure would probably occur here also.
Any & every country decides how best to adapt the ICAO rules to fit its traffic patterns. Saying one is worse than the other isn't applicable because you cant compare traffic numbers/density, airspace sizes, density of airfields between such different countries as Australia & UK. The UK allows anybody who wants to fly in G do so without being on an ATSC frequency or filing FPLs(whether they are IFR or VFR), but the ones that do want a service can call the local approach control or, for example, around London the LONDON LARS, London Lower Airspace Radar Service. Which is purely there for G and providing Alerting Svc/FIS/RIS/RAS(Deconfl.Svc.). So its upto to the pilots to opt in or opt out. I believe its similar to what Australia had with the FISOs {this may not bee the correct term, I wasnt here for it} (non-radar) before the tasking was amalgamated onto current ATC sectors.
And for all the others out there who like jumping on me for being an ex-Englander..Im not advocating bringing the UK system to Australia wholesale.
CASA/DAP/ASA need to sit down & think long & hard about access for everyone - IFR, VFR, RPT, AWK, Weekend Warrior etc. Everyone has a part to play in the industry and although I agree that VFRs shouldnt impede RPT traffic they cant be disposed of entirely.
But thats another discussion
It is very similar. Although, from my experience, there is less advice given here on avoiding the traffic. Its more a TI and let the pilots sort themselves out.
In the UK the advice is given as an instruction and the pilot can then either take it or not. Control/Radar service terminated is also used in the UK.
It just shows how similar the two are.
And as for vectoring in G (for the ILS, for example), if all the 'uncontrolled' aerodromes in G here had a tower & approach service, then the same procedure would probably occur here also.
Any & every country decides how best to adapt the ICAO rules to fit its traffic patterns. Saying one is worse than the other isn't applicable because you cant compare traffic numbers/density, airspace sizes, density of airfields between such different countries as Australia & UK. The UK allows anybody who wants to fly in G do so without being on an ATSC frequency or filing FPLs(whether they are IFR or VFR), but the ones that do want a service can call the local approach control or, for example, around London the LONDON LARS, London Lower Airspace Radar Service. Which is purely there for G and providing Alerting Svc/FIS/RIS/RAS(Deconfl.Svc.). So its upto to the pilots to opt in or opt out. I believe its similar to what Australia had with the FISOs {this may not bee the correct term, I wasnt here for it} (non-radar) before the tasking was amalgamated onto current ATC sectors.
And for all the others out there who like jumping on me for being an ex-Englander..Im not advocating bringing the UK system to Australia wholesale.
CASA/DAP/ASA need to sit down & think long & hard about access for everyone - IFR, VFR, RPT, AWK, Weekend Warrior etc. Everyone has a part to play in the industry and although I agree that VFRs shouldnt impede RPT traffic they cant be disposed of entirely.
But thats another discussion
Any & every country decides how best to adapt the ICAO rules to fit its traffic patterns.
I suspect that the U.K. & the U.S. provide separation and other services in G & E in various situations in order to make their existing airspace work.
Australia on the other hand is effectively starting with a clean sheet of paper, doing traffic, risk, safety etc. analysis exercises to determine what ICAO class of airspace is appropriate to a particular situation, and - importantly - having to take into account the real rules applicable to those classes of airspace under ICAO, not what other countries may do in theirs.
So Dick,
Confirm or deny this (from the AFAP report on the field trip to the US to study the USNAS circa 2003) :
Incompetents! 
Confirm or deny this (from the AFAP report on the field trip to the US to study the USNAS circa 2003) :
Class G airspace.
In the US NAS IFR aircraft receive an IFR/IFR separation service in Class G airspace. This Service is not dependent on radar coverage, and indeed most Class G airspace lies beyond radar coverage. This is in stark contrast to the proposal in AUSNAS to have IFR aircraft operate without an en-route traffic information service in Class G.
When the question of IFR in Class G airspace was raised at the FAA headquarters in Washington, Mr Reggie Matthews, Manager Airspace and Rules Division, who is the FAA executive with policy authority to make an interpretation on ATC regulations, stated that FAA policy requires IFR aircraft in Class G airspace to operate on a clearance. This policy is not documented, however Mr Matthews advised that it is current custom and practice,
both for industry and FAA, to function in this manner, and that if an interpretation was required it would come to him for decision.
In the US NAS IFR aircraft receive an IFR/IFR separation service in Class G airspace. This Service is not dependent on radar coverage, and indeed most Class G airspace lies beyond radar coverage. This is in stark contrast to the proposal in AUSNAS to have IFR aircraft operate without an en-route traffic information service in Class G.
When the question of IFR in Class G airspace was raised at the FAA headquarters in Washington, Mr Reggie Matthews, Manager Airspace and Rules Division, who is the FAA executive with policy authority to make an interpretation on ATC regulations, stated that FAA policy requires IFR aircraft in Class G airspace to operate on a clearance. This policy is not documented, however Mr Matthews advised that it is current custom and practice,
both for industry and FAA, to function in this manner, and that if an interpretation was required it would come to him for decision.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midnight,
I agree, As it should, and what Ive been advocating all along. But it seems some just want to lift the US model and move it into Australia.
I'm not entirely sure of this statement, myself.
I cant speak for the US, but in the UK its been part of the integrated airspace design for a long time. It was the best adaptation that could be made to allow continual access to arispace by GA traffic who didnt want a service & to give the IFRs (&other aircraft wanting to aprticipate in the service) an extra level, I suppose you could call it Class G+ or G.5.
By the time the arguments have finished, ICAO will have changed it letterings & designations to just the three its planning. - N, K & U (basically corresponding to current C, E & G). Whether various countries will take this, I personally, think not, but depends on how they write the 'rules' for the new letters.
here are links to the three:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gall...tegory%20N.pdf
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gall...tegory%20K.pdf
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gall...tegory%20U.pdf
Australia on the other hand is effectively starting with a clean sheet of paper
...existing airspace work
I cant speak for the US, but in the UK its been part of the integrated airspace design for a long time. It was the best adaptation that could be made to allow continual access to arispace by GA traffic who didnt want a service & to give the IFRs (&other aircraft wanting to aprticipate in the service) an extra level, I suppose you could call it Class G+ or G.5.
By the time the arguments have finished, ICAO will have changed it letterings & designations to just the three its planning. - N, K & U (basically corresponding to current C, E & G). Whether various countries will take this, I personally, think not, but depends on how they write the 'rules' for the new letters.
here are links to the three:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gall...tegory%20N.pdf
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gall...tegory%20K.pdf
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gall...tegory%20U.pdf
Rotorblades...I like the K version-
and-
If we are still supposed to be ICAO compliant, then E is not possible without surveillance. Why push for the current iteration if the future iteration requires what we all know it needs in the first place.
No E without surveillance!
Known Traffic Environment is an environment within which all traffic is known to ATS, either with position only or with flight intentions as well
Not all traffic is subject to an ATC clearance
No E without surveillance!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd go one further OZ - no E, in any environment, if C can be provided within the resources available.
I don't know, but suspect, that C can be provided at all of the locations debated on this post. If there is an increased cost factor, then I've seen absolutely no evidence to that effect.
Where is the CBA? Anyone? Where is the CBA that justifies E over D at any location?
Dick/Lead, I will get back in my box if you can provide solid, quantitative data, and analysis, that justifies E over D in respect of BME, KTA and YMAV. Where is the cost/benefit analysis, required by the Minister, that justifies a sub-optimal 'solution' that exposes RPT to avoidable risk?
The Australian Airspace Policy Statement clearly enunciates the requirement for risk analysis and cost/benefit. I have seen neither in credible form.
I don't know, but suspect, that C can be provided at all of the locations debated on this post. If there is an increased cost factor, then I've seen absolutely no evidence to that effect.
Where is the CBA? Anyone? Where is the CBA that justifies E over D at any location?
Dick/Lead, I will get back in my box if you can provide solid, quantitative data, and analysis, that justifies E over D in respect of BME, KTA and YMAV. Where is the cost/benefit analysis, required by the Minister, that justifies a sub-optimal 'solution' that exposes RPT to avoidable risk?
The Australian Airspace Policy Statement clearly enunciates the requirement for risk analysis and cost/benefit. I have seen neither in credible form.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Howabout
you might as well burn that box........
Have a look at the study at YBRK for example, but the others seem to ignore that when ever its brought up......for some strange reason.
you might as well burn that box........
Have a look at the study at YBRK for example, but the others seem to ignore that when ever its brought up......for some strange reason.
Dick has had a little dummy spit and gone away.
Dick still has not answered my question from a couple of pages ago...
Dick, why do you always refer to E as "controlled" from the tower BUT then talk about the C as being controlled by centre?
Dick still has not answered my question from a couple of pages ago...
Dick, why do you always refer to E as "controlled" from the tower BUT then talk about the C as being controlled by centre?
Howabout, user pays came in before I was involved in any way (Bosch Report?).
I was involved in the "Review of Resources" which reduced staff from about 7000 to 3500 so that the "user pays" only cost the industry about half as much.
Icarus, no I don't ! I think you may have it the wrong way around!
I was involved in the "Review of Resources" which reduced staff from about 7000 to 3500 so that the "user pays" only cost the industry about half as much.
Icarus, no I don't ! I think you may have it the wrong way around!
user pays came in before I was involved in any way (Bosch Report?).
The Department of Aviation's released a Review of the Future Role of the Flight Service Officer in the Provision of Air Traffic Services that envisaged the integration of air traffic control functions. With a booklet titled Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom aviator and entrepreneur Mr Dick Smith declared that the department had 'had its day' and was 'totally stupid' with regulations that 'reduced safety'. The Minister for Aviation endorsed the safety regime showing Australia having a low accident rate.
Onya Mr Bloggs......
Re " Review of the Future Role of the Flight Service Officer in the Provision of Air Traffic Services that envisaged the integration of air traffic control functions."
The 'Future Role' was to 'Foxtrot Oscar' them orf...........
And the 'integration' was 'As workload permits' = not much service at all really.....
But......thanks for the........
Re " Review of the Future Role of the Flight Service Officer in the Provision of Air Traffic Services that envisaged the integration of air traffic control functions."
The 'Future Role' was to 'Foxtrot Oscar' them orf...........
And the 'integration' was 'As workload permits' = not much service at all really.....
But......thanks for the........