NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank said:
Will it roon your day to hear you were separated plenty enuf for this to happen in class C airspace. Nobody had to climb, move along.
a C182 and myself found each other in intersecting circumstances but with 500ft of vertical separation.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
Ever departed a non-towered aerodrome with a few hundred trusting pax on board, and you make all the necessary calls, get airborne to find you have six or seven TCAS returns, some as close as 5 miles, which is traffice thats heard your calls, but haven't responded. We are climbing at 250 kts below 10,000 with a body angle of about 15 degrees. It makes see and be seen very hard, and TCAS becomes our first and last line of defense, which is dependant on target aircraft having and using a servicable transponder.
It would sound like you haven't a transponder in your Colt. The visibility out of a Colt is not great, and you would be fairly blind to the rear, so a overtaking jet on descent might have trouble seeing you visually and if you don't have a ransponder......................!!!!
Ever departed a non-towered aerodrome with a few hundred trusting pax on board, and you make all the necessary calls, get airborne to find you have six or seven TCAS returns, some as close as 5 miles, which is traffice thats heard your calls, but haven't responded. We are climbing at 250 kts below 10,000 with a body angle of about 15 degrees. It makes see and be seen very hard, and TCAS becomes our first and last line of defense, which is dependant on target aircraft having and using a servicable transponder.
It would sound like you haven't a transponder in your Colt. The visibility out of a Colt is not great, and you would be fairly blind to the rear, so a overtaking jet on descent might have trouble seeing you visually and if you don't have a ransponder......................!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Exactly Dog One 
Your comments echo my thoughts on everything from Trikes to A380's having a transponder. RPT let downs in IMC to a cloud base of say 1400 of OVC and you find all sorts of things in the circuit area..... YHB and YBUD or YBNA spring to mind.
Hang on I am about to start a thread drift to other well thrashed out topics....with a common thread, ASA/CASA and the Guvvmint have screwed them up too!
Your comments echo my thoughts on everything from Trikes to A380's having a transponder. RPT let downs in IMC to a cloud base of say 1400 of OVC and you find all sorts of things in the circuit area..... YHB and YBUD or YBNA spring to mind.
Hang on I am about to start a thread drift to other well thrashed out topics....with a common thread, ASA/CASA and the Guvvmint have screwed them up too!
Francis, not requested....PROVIDED!
OK....so...the premise of your argument. You directly contacted the conflicting aircraft and arranged your situation. You say you were ignored by ML centre....yet, you do not feel woried about arranging your own separation....Now, where else does VFR say nothing unless they feel they are in conflict....?
AirServices ARE instigating a broadcast zone for non-surveilled class E to eliminate "unknown traffic"
Good try, Francis
OK....so...the premise of your argument. You directly contacted the conflicting aircraft and arranged your situation. You say you were ignored by ML centre....yet, you do not feel woried about arranging your own separation....Now, where else does VFR say nothing unless they feel they are in conflict....?
AirServices ARE instigating a broadcast zone for non-surveilled class E to eliminate "unknown traffic"
Good try, Francis
Frank Arouet wrote
Funny, with class D acknowledging is a clearance!!
Often when you call a Tower controller on final all you get is an acknowledgement but you are certainly getting a service.
When you were "ignored" did you ring Melbourne Centre to put your point of view? Perhaps better to have done it at the time rather than harp on it later.
Are you suggesting acknowledging that is a "service"?
Often when you call a Tower controller on final all you get is an acknowledgement but you are certainly getting a service.
When you were "ignored" did you ring Melbourne Centre to put your point of view? Perhaps better to have done it at the time rather than harp on it later.
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
Dog One;
The Colt was two aircraft ago. It had a certified functional King transponder with mode C.
OZBUSDRIVER;
Read my previous again. The IFR 182 was the one having difficulty with the situation, not me. I saw him from shortly after he gave his departure call. MB centre called unidentified traffic, at exactly where I was.
The 182 and I had communications between us and he had communications with MB centre.
MB centre ignored my input into the situation.
Oh! golly gosh. Inside information. Will this be a CTAF, CTAF (R), or MBZ MK2 or a control zone that fits in with the ICAO push, or a technophobe's desire for more knobs to play with by newer mandated gadgetry put there by poor bloody owners who have to pay for your fantasy's.? Do you fly a 3000ft per minute aeroplane which "can" be in "Indian territory" for 3 minutes at a time on climb or descent? Does that 3 minutes terrify you so much that you can't bear to look out the window?
You give me the $hits. Fair dinkum. Talk too much and you get "thingy" or don't talk at all and you want us mandated to talk. And you, the quasi professional wannabe RPT jockey/ ATCO and all. Struth, blokes like you ARE still the problem.
The Colt was two aircraft ago. It had a certified functional King transponder with mode C.
OZBUSDRIVER;
Read my previous again. The IFR 182 was the one having difficulty with the situation, not me. I saw him from shortly after he gave his departure call. MB centre called unidentified traffic, at exactly where I was.
The 182 and I had communications between us and he had communications with MB centre.
MB centre ignored my input into the situation.
AirServices ARE instigating a broadcast zone for non-surveilled class E to eliminate "unknown traffic"
You give me the $hits. Fair dinkum. Talk too much and you get "thingy" or don't talk at all and you want us mandated to talk. And you, the quasi professional wannabe RPT jockey/ ATCO and all. Struth, blokes like you ARE still the problem.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB centre ignored my input into the situation
G is see & avoid airspace, you said you saw him on his departure call & were in comms with the other aircraft.
If you are VFR in G, ATC are not going to take positive control over you. I'm struggling to see the actual point of your argument (beyond not getting a "roger" answer), it sounds like you've just got the sh*ts wth ATC.
The gadgetry, Im assuming you mean radios, transponders, mode-s (ADSB) etc. Is all designed around increasing safety. (no different to seatbelts, airbags, ABS in cars). The more ATC can see the better the service. What price safety?
In the UK its mandatory for most aircraft to have at least mode-s elementary (and Ive seen aircraft made with just newspaper & badger spit carry it)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/810/gen.pdf
If its expensive then its the suppliers you should be griping at not CASA. Mode-s is far superior to radar - more accurate, cheaper to install & maintain (ATC side).
And if it wasnt for all the nay sayers it would have been implemented much sooner and it would all be second nature to everyone, and would not be looked at any differently to radios or engines. Dont be so resistant to good change.
As for your (and Dick's) efforts in the CAAPs re telling RPT to be nice,
Dick had nothing to do with it at all. I certainly had an input only.
The final outcome is as a result of the CASA Operational Standards Sub-Committee of the SCC recommendations, and the data in both the Ambidjii and PCH reports plus at leat one ATSB report and (probably) some of the ATSB incident and other reports, such as under the new ATSB Confidential Reporting rules.
I would guess (but don't know) that the CASA DAS/CEO (who flies his own aircraft, when he gets the chance) probably also had an input and influence. He certainly understands the issue and associated generated air safety problems.
Why was I in receipt of the reports I have--- none of your business, but don't even try and suggest it was anything other than entirely above board.
Still a bit miffed at showing you didn't understand comms requirements, are you. I (and most people I know personally) will back my knowledge of the Australian rules set, or for that matter, other ICAO countries, against you, any day of the week.
Tootle pip!!
---- but See and Avoid only works...WHEN it works.
That applies to any airspace classification, "controlled airspace", by whatever name, with "all traffic known to the system", does not make "absolute safety". As the collision record clearly shows.
That some of you continue to suggest that a risk level of "vanishingly small" is still too higher risk are only broadcasting your lack of knowledge of very elementary statistical method.
As for the term "vanishingly small", have fun, but understand that ICAO (or any other that I am aware of) separation assurance standards (by whatever name) are NOT vanishingly small.
Put another way, no airspace design standard requires the residual risk to be vanishingly small, to determine the airspace classification.
Other than that, I have made my views on the subject clear enough often enough.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled,
Still interested in your thoughts ...
Still interested in your thoughts ...
Leadsled (if you're still there),
Considering your position is that ... when a particular volume of Airspace becomes "safe" , with a particular Classification in place, it's illogical to go to a higher classification ... as it's already "safe". (except for the naughty words I've used, I think I've summarised your position. Let me know if I'm incorrect) ...
How do you reconcile the Broome ... Class E with Fries ... situation?
If they considered that Class E was not "safe enough" as is, don't you think they should have gone up to the next classification?
Isn't that why we have a Classification System?
Or, do you think that we should continue with this "Peculiar to Australia" method?
Considering your position is that ... when a particular volume of Airspace becomes "safe" , with a particular Classification in place, it's illogical to go to a higher classification ... as it's already "safe". (except for the naughty words I've used, I think I've summarised your position. Let me know if I'm incorrect) ...
How do you reconcile the Broome ... Class E with Fries ... situation?
If they considered that Class E was not "safe enough" as is, don't you think they should have gone up to the next classification?
Isn't that why we have a Classification System?
Or, do you think that we should continue with this "Peculiar to Australia" method?
Ledsled,
Been in the job 18 months and obviously has plenty of first hand experience with being bullied around the sky by intimidatory RPT pilots. Right.
Your inability to explain what is meant by "Continuous Two Way comms" for VFR in E demonstrates your lack of knowedge of the system, despite carrying on like an expert.
The collision record clearly shows that we have NEVER had a midair involving RPT despite millions of hours and decades of operation including in in so-called "dirt road" airspace, because the system is set up to include everybody. On the one hand you continually harp on about statistics validating the safety of airspace and then you come out with that claptrap. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
That is about to change over Broome and Karratha, for no cost benefit, and for that you and your NAStronaut mates should be condemned.
Nobody is after absolute safety. All we suggest is cost-effective safety, a concept that you obviously cannot come to grips with, given your inability to produce one iota of evidence that terminal E over D is more cost-effective than C over D (or D over D).
the CASA DAS/CEO (who flies his own aircraft, when he gets the chance) probably also had an input and influence. He certainly understands the issue and associated generated air safety problems.
Still a bit miffed at showing you didn't understand comms requirements, are you.
That applies to any airspace classification, "controlled airspace", by whatever name, with "all traffic known to the system", does not make "absolute safety". As the collision record clearly shows.
That is about to change over Broome and Karratha, for no cost benefit, and for that you and your NAStronaut mates should be condemned.
Nobody is after absolute safety. All we suggest is cost-effective safety, a concept that you obviously cannot come to grips with, given your inability to produce one iota of evidence that terminal E over D is more cost-effective than C over D (or D over D).
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
[QUOTE]The collision record clearly shows that we have NEVER had a midair involving RPT despite millions of hours and decades of operation including in in so-called "dirt road" airspace[/QUOTE
Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D?
Just asking.
Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D?
Just asking.
Frank,
Fair question. The answer, of course, is "of course, depending on the traffic levels".
However, I think G over D is more trouble than it is worth, because no sooner than I have left FL180 I have to get another clearance to enter the D CTR. It would be unusual to have a very heavily-trafficked circuit requiring a tower with no traffic in the mid, link levels, hence nobody is suggesting G over D. If a D tower is required, then some sort of controlled airspace would also be necessary in the link airspace.
We contend that that should be either D or C, since the cost of providing D, C or E will be the same (or close enough to be insignificant). The cost to VFR certainly is the same (radio and transponder required), so there is no skin off anybody's nose (apart from Dick's, who believes in "Free in GE, don't talk to anyone") and everybody gets the benefit of separation (C) or VFR traffic (D).
Win win, I say.
Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D?
However, I think G over D is more trouble than it is worth, because no sooner than I have left FL180 I have to get another clearance to enter the D CTR. It would be unusual to have a very heavily-trafficked circuit requiring a tower with no traffic in the mid, link levels, hence nobody is suggesting G over D. If a D tower is required, then some sort of controlled airspace would also be necessary in the link airspace.
We contend that that should be either D or C, since the cost of providing D, C or E will be the same (or close enough to be insignificant). The cost to VFR certainly is the same (radio and transponder required), so there is no skin off anybody's nose (apart from Dick's, who believes in "Free in GE, don't talk to anyone") and everybody gets the benefit of separation (C) or VFR traffic (D).
Win win, I say.
Gee Peuce....am now going thru 'withdrawal symptoms'......
And, sorry Owen - that bloke has more hair...and is better lookin'...But TKS for the thought...
Now back to 'bizzo'....Frank, re yr:
"Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D? " (sic)
Certainly IS!!
In 'G'...NO 'dedicated' controller looking after airspace - just the SECTOR guy/gal working the aircraft in CTA above, for which they are primarily responsible....
and ALL 'other' requests ='When Workload Permits'...
therefore, in my reckoning,
cost of 'G' = NIL!
Can't be more 'cost effective than that..!!
(Well, almost NIL, I know 'Flightwatch' still there manning HF & briefing etc..)
I could go on about the 'services' offerred in the past, like when we were cut down and then 'self-managed' from a total staff of around 138 in late 1991 in PH FSC, to just 38 in late 2000 and still managed to provide a 'service'... but there's really no point.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Would have to be a fairly huge reinvestment in facilities- eg VHF outlets to replace the ones reallocated to ATC use - 3 'spares' left in WA which were surplus to ATC reqs, therefore became VHF Flightwatch freqs, ARG, PD and Kalamunda - LOTS of space in between to be filled now....and that's only in WA!
BUT - WHO would WANT 'G' in such an area as BRM or KTA??
Regards....
And, sorry Owen - that bloke has more hair...and is better lookin'...But TKS for the thought...
Now back to 'bizzo'....Frank, re yr:
"Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D? " (sic)
Certainly IS!!
In 'G'...NO 'dedicated' controller looking after airspace - just the SECTOR guy/gal working the aircraft in CTA above, for which they are primarily responsible....
and ALL 'other' requests ='When Workload Permits'...
therefore, in my reckoning,
cost of 'G' = NIL!
Can't be more 'cost effective than that..!!
(Well, almost NIL, I know 'Flightwatch' still there manning HF & briefing etc..)
I could go on about the 'services' offerred in the past, like when we were cut down and then 'self-managed' from a total staff of around 138 in late 1991 in PH FSC, to just 38 in late 2000 and still managed to provide a 'service'... but there's really no point.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Would have to be a fairly huge reinvestment in facilities- eg VHF outlets to replace the ones reallocated to ATC use - 3 'spares' left in WA which were surplus to ATC reqs, therefore became VHF Flightwatch freqs, ARG, PD and Kalamunda - LOTS of space in between to be filled now....and that's only in WA!
BUT - WHO would WANT 'G' in such an area as BRM or KTA??
Regards....
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
Problem is Bloggs, that I, and about 10,000 others have opted out of the system. I personally don't give a rat's, but those 10,000 others can't access controlled airspace because they represent a "minority fringe".
Good riddance you say?
BTW. What is the AFAP membership (excluding CASA Dudes), these days?
It will be a win/ win situation when those 10,000 can access a through clearance (at least), albeit with a transponder if you think things will be better for the poor ignorant travelling public.
I harp back to Alice Springs.
Also I still ask the question why a 1200 paint would be ignored where radar is currently feasable, operational and, again, positively, the need to debate the pro's and con's about say, the Benalla matter WRT impediments to the safe flow of IFR traffic in whatever airspace. I don't know what level radar is set to these days but it is obvious a duty of care exists to safeguard all concerned whether in or out of the system.
PS to Griffo.
Some of my fond memories are those interactions with FS. Given some of the Government waste seen of recent, that loss is exactly that... A loss which I wish was reversible. However the need for full reporting was overtaken by evolutionary technology in the form of better VHF comms.
It's a pity the ADSB mob don't just let things happen like that.
Good riddance you say?
BTW. What is the AFAP membership (excluding CASA Dudes), these days?
It will be a win/ win situation when those 10,000 can access a through clearance (at least), albeit with a transponder if you think things will be better for the poor ignorant travelling public.
I harp back to Alice Springs.
Also I still ask the question why a 1200 paint would be ignored where radar is currently feasable, operational and, again, positively, the need to debate the pro's and con's about say, the Benalla matter WRT impediments to the safe flow of IFR traffic in whatever airspace. I don't know what level radar is set to these days but it is obvious a duty of care exists to safeguard all concerned whether in or out of the system.
PS to Griffo.
Some of my fond memories are those interactions with FS. Given some of the Government waste seen of recent, that loss is exactly that... A loss which I wish was reversible. However the need for full reporting was overtaken by evolutionary technology in the form of better VHF comms.
It's a pity the ADSB mob don't just let things happen like that.
Frank,
I don't understand. Are you talking about RAA Aus members?
Absolutely not. I, on behalf of my pax, just want to know where they are so I can avoid them.
I don't understand. Sorry.
those 10,000 others can't access controlled airspace because they represent a "minority fringe".
It will be a win/ win situation when those 10,000 can access a through clearance (at least), albeit with a transponder if you think things will be better for the poor ignorant travelling public.
Good riddance you say?
Also I still ask the question why a 1200 paint would be ignored where radar is currently feasable, operational and, again, positively, the need to debate the pro's and con's about say, the Benalla matter WRT impediments to the safe flow of IFR traffic in whatever airspace. I don't know what level radar is set to these days but it is obvious a duty of care exists to safeguard all concerned whether in or out of the system.
G'Day Frank,
Re:"However the need for full reporting was overtaken by evolutionary technology in the form of better VHF comms."
Nah! Not really. That was a 'political decision' to remove a part of the 'service' - initiated 12/12/'91 - so that would require LESS FSO's to be
paid - by you, the consumer according to Dick at the time, and so - part of the 'mantra' - "Your Safety Will Be Enhanced and It Will Cost You Less"....
Remember when the 'fuel tax' was disposed of?
That was supposed to make VFR OCTA flights cheaper.
By cutting the 'Full SAR' or Full Reporting option to VFR PVT & AWK, (and the mandatory for CHTR acft, and acft in the Designated Remote areas sans EPIRB), that being one of the first trench cuts, we were able to start 'shedding' staff early 1992, when the first of our 'managed demise' accepted their 'redundo offer'.
The 'outstations' were closed by bringing the Sat. Link VHF's back to PH - and similarly in other states - so that we 'worked' places like BRM, KTA, PD, Kal etc etc from the PH Centre, and THAT move alone saved enormous amounts of $'s.
So we already had the 'evolutionary tech'...
A small point I know, but, to the best of my ever-fading recollection, a part of the history of the times.....
Cheers
And Bloggsy is quite right - all he wants to do is to know where they are - so he can avoid them!
Now, whaddya reckon is the BEST way of achieving this??
T'aint 'G'.....No cost but no service.
Could be 'E' - costs but 'limited' service.
Could be 'C' - SAME cost as 'E', but much improved and safer service. (IMHO)
Re:"However the need for full reporting was overtaken by evolutionary technology in the form of better VHF comms."
Nah! Not really. That was a 'political decision' to remove a part of the 'service' - initiated 12/12/'91 - so that would require LESS FSO's to be
paid - by you, the consumer according to Dick at the time, and so - part of the 'mantra' - "Your Safety Will Be Enhanced and It Will Cost You Less"....
Remember when the 'fuel tax' was disposed of?
That was supposed to make VFR OCTA flights cheaper.
By cutting the 'Full SAR' or Full Reporting option to VFR PVT & AWK, (and the mandatory for CHTR acft, and acft in the Designated Remote areas sans EPIRB), that being one of the first trench cuts, we were able to start 'shedding' staff early 1992, when the first of our 'managed demise' accepted their 'redundo offer'.
The 'outstations' were closed by bringing the Sat. Link VHF's back to PH - and similarly in other states - so that we 'worked' places like BRM, KTA, PD, Kal etc etc from the PH Centre, and THAT move alone saved enormous amounts of $'s.
So we already had the 'evolutionary tech'...
A small point I know, but, to the best of my ever-fading recollection, a part of the history of the times.....
Cheers
And Bloggsy is quite right - all he wants to do is to know where they are - so he can avoid them!
Now, whaddya reckon is the BEST way of achieving this??
T'aint 'G'.....No cost but no service.
Could be 'E' - costs but 'limited' service.
Could be 'C' - SAME cost as 'E', but much improved and safer service. (IMHO)
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
"Call me Captain"- Capn Bloggs;
1) Yes.
2) Radio and TXP, no worries. I would think some RAA Dude would be more worried about being a feature on your windscreen.
3) Probably Owen Stanley himself can tell us what angular level the line of sight radar is set to in the E and G curve and beyond. The Benalla accident appeared to go off the screen, yet where I was, (West Wyalong), they had coverage enough to direct IFR traffic at 4000ft.
EDIT for Griffo;
I know, I know. I was talking about the 70's. The fuel tax was overtaken with inflation AND "taxes" by any name you want to call it. It seemed better than Air Nav Charges at the time.
This also highlights why private GA is buggered beyond repair and RAA is flourishing. Have you seen the cost of an ERC (L) + ammendments and wonder why they put frequencies on them if nobody gives a rat's if they talk or not. At least they were free in my day.
1) Yes.
2) Radio and TXP, no worries. I would think some RAA Dude would be more worried about being a feature on your windscreen.
3) Probably Owen Stanley himself can tell us what angular level the line of sight radar is set to in the E and G curve and beyond. The Benalla accident appeared to go off the screen, yet where I was, (West Wyalong), they had coverage enough to direct IFR traffic at 4000ft.
EDIT for Griffo;
I know, I know. I was talking about the 70's. The fuel tax was overtaken with inflation AND "taxes" by any name you want to call it. It seemed better than Air Nav Charges at the time.
This also highlights why private GA is buggered beyond repair and RAA is flourishing. Have you seen the cost of an ERC (L) + ammendments and wonder why they put frequencies on them if nobody gives a rat's if they talk or not. At least they were free in my day.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 17th May 2010 at 05:48.
Frank,
OK, I am not up with the RA Aus situation; correct me if I'm wrong, RA Aus cannot access C or D? If that is the case, from a safety point of view they probably shouldn't be allowed into E where the only separation tool is radio, where the RA Aus pilots are expected to listen and determine whether I am a threat?
Whatever they don't have (experience?) that stops them operating in D or C would, I expect, also preclude them from E, given that it is more demanding on the VFR operationally. In D or C, they (us as well) just get told what to do. Easy.
Re Alice specifically, if ATC won't let them thru, chances are it's because there's too much heavy metal in the way, and Class E won't remove that heavy metal, it just makes it less visible (until it hits you).
OK, I am not up with the RA Aus situation; correct me if I'm wrong, RA Aus cannot access C or D? If that is the case, from a safety point of view they probably shouldn't be allowed into E where the only separation tool is radio, where the RA Aus pilots are expected to listen and determine whether I am a threat?
Whatever they don't have (experience?) that stops them operating in D or C would, I expect, also preclude them from E, given that it is more demanding on the VFR operationally. In D or C, they (us as well) just get told what to do. Easy.
Re Alice specifically, if ATC won't let them thru, chances are it's because there's too much heavy metal in the way, and Class E won't remove that heavy metal, it just makes it less visible (until it hits you).