NAS rears its head again
Avalon E over C/G should be interesting... throw in a few random vfr students, a couple of english as a second language airline types, and a gaggle of jetstar 200hr cadet copilots..... all in close proximity.. 
Bloggs,
In future, I will be more careful in my phraseology, so that you don't confuse RA Commands ( which are often but not only two horizontal bars) with FD Command Bars.
I note you are silent about further arguing about when TCAS was widely adopted, as opposed to being mandated, and your claims that my "20 years" must have been wrong --- I say again, get your facts straight.
What, no argument about the delivery dates of the first QF B767, or what they had fitted at delivery --- almost 25 years ago??? Surely you know better than those of us who were there at the time???
Folks,
I note the snide comments about MS Flight Sim, it will undoubtedly distress some of you to know that MS Flight Sim is the basis for several quite advanced Synthetic Trainers approved by CASA per. CASR 60.
Indeed, several of these "four and six degrees of freedom" devices even has specific (CAR 217) approval as a Flight Sim, their demonstrated results are so good, even though they do not meet a number of normal technical certification criteria as a full flight sim.
The visuals on the above devices ( including 230 lateral degrees of view --- no problem with certification for visual circling off an NPA) make many "CASA approved" flight simulators more like the toy ----- these blokes ( and they are not the only ones in Australia doing it) make the visuals on a number of CASA certified sims look like the toys, not the other way round.
Come to think of it, I must be one of the few pilots in AU who has never owned a copy of MS Flight Sim, maybe it is time to rectify that omission.
As to my statements about ATC errors, I note the standard knee jerk reaction, but if you really want to know ( as opposed to basking in the glow of rose colored glasses) the facts, apart from stuff produced by BASI/ATSB, try some of the conclusions of one or more of the following: Bureau Veritas consultants/Roake Manor Research/Ratner Associates/Chavkin/UK NATS/several other reports over the years whose names don't come immediately to mind.
You do your own homework and self-education, I have my facts straight. Most of the above, plus various other papers on the subject will turn up with an internet search.
As to AATA policy decisions, talk to anybody who was in on the policy at the time, there are plenty still around. Anybody who knew Reg will know he didn't spend one brass razoo, unless there was an extremely convincing reason ---- look at the history of airborne weather radar.
Tootle pip!!
In future, I will be more careful in my phraseology, so that you don't confuse RA Commands ( which are often but not only two horizontal bars) with FD Command Bars.
I note you are silent about further arguing about when TCAS was widely adopted, as opposed to being mandated, and your claims that my "20 years" must have been wrong --- I say again, get your facts straight.
What, no argument about the delivery dates of the first QF B767, or what they had fitted at delivery --- almost 25 years ago??? Surely you know better than those of us who were there at the time???
Folks,
I note the snide comments about MS Flight Sim, it will undoubtedly distress some of you to know that MS Flight Sim is the basis for several quite advanced Synthetic Trainers approved by CASA per. CASR 60.
Indeed, several of these "four and six degrees of freedom" devices even has specific (CAR 217) approval as a Flight Sim, their demonstrated results are so good, even though they do not meet a number of normal technical certification criteria as a full flight sim.
The visuals on the above devices ( including 230 lateral degrees of view --- no problem with certification for visual circling off an NPA) make many "CASA approved" flight simulators more like the toy ----- these blokes ( and they are not the only ones in Australia doing it) make the visuals on a number of CASA certified sims look like the toys, not the other way round.
Come to think of it, I must be one of the few pilots in AU who has never owned a copy of MS Flight Sim, maybe it is time to rectify that omission.
As to my statements about ATC errors, I note the standard knee jerk reaction, but if you really want to know ( as opposed to basking in the glow of rose colored glasses) the facts, apart from stuff produced by BASI/ATSB, try some of the conclusions of one or more of the following: Bureau Veritas consultants/Roake Manor Research/Ratner Associates/Chavkin/UK NATS/several other reports over the years whose names don't come immediately to mind.
You do your own homework and self-education, I have my facts straight. Most of the above, plus various other papers on the subject will turn up with an internet search.
As to AATA policy decisions, talk to anybody who was in on the policy at the time, there are plenty still around. Anybody who knew Reg will know he didn't spend one brass razoo, unless there was an extremely convincing reason ---- look at the history of airborne weather radar.
Tootle pip!!
Thanks for that Mr 'Ozbus'......We were actually working towards something like that - with a 'thing' called 'FISADS' - I've forgotten just what the acronym stood for - but it was an 'automated' system of displaying all traffic on a screen, based on aircraft flight planned times between points and an actual DEP time.
It was probably morphed/developed into TAAAAATS..??
Imagine what it could have become with say, ADSB... - a real LIVE tfc info and advice service..!! (Cant' say with a RADAR feed for those OCTA acft...NO NO...Naughty thoughts....)
However, after ALL of those $$'s - rumoured to have been spent by the 'MILLIONS'....we have what the 'idealists/evangelists' ALMOST wanted.
AND - THEY haven't got there yet..!!
I've indicated before that we were told the Canadians liked our AFIZ so much that they imported the idea for some of their less busy 'remote' areas, closed the ATC Tower facility and installed a 'comparable' FS service...
T'was the level of service required and at a 'cheeaper' rate utilising less facilities etc .....
Well, as Mr Peuce has predicted...we' re nearly there....AGIN!!
Rotsa Ruck...Boys and Gals..
It was probably morphed/developed into TAAAAATS..??
Imagine what it could have become with say, ADSB... - a real LIVE tfc info and advice service..!! (Cant' say with a RADAR feed for those OCTA acft...NO NO...Naughty thoughts....)
However, after ALL of those $$'s - rumoured to have been spent by the 'MILLIONS'....we have what the 'idealists/evangelists' ALMOST wanted.
AND - THEY haven't got there yet..!!
I've indicated before that we were told the Canadians liked our AFIZ so much that they imported the idea for some of their less busy 'remote' areas, closed the ATC Tower facility and installed a 'comparable' FS service...
T'was the level of service required and at a 'cheeaper' rate utilising less facilities etc .....
Well, as Mr Peuce has predicted...we' re nearly there....AGIN!!
Rotsa Ruck...Boys and Gals..
Ledsled,
WTF are you on about? Please post a pic of this "two horizontal bars RA command". I am now beginning to believe the MS thing...
To be honest, I can't be stuffed, but I'll take your word for it. Now you can stop carrying on like a dipstick ripping into me just because I question your statements (and I never accused you of lying about 767s [WGAF when they arrived]). You must have been a real pleasure to fly with. Did the FE keep a points tally between you and the poor FO?
BTW, what was wrong with my post about the TCAS "Monitor Vertical Speed" response?
I notice that you are silent on what "Continuous Two Way Comms" means for VFR in E. You don't know, do you?
And while you're there, where's the CBA on E over D: there isn't one, is there? Ideology rules, eh?
In future, I will be more careful in my phraseology, so that you don't confuse RA Commands ( which are often but not only two horizontal bars) with FD Command Bars.
I note you are silent about further arguing about when TCAS was widely adopted, as opposed to being mandated, and your claims that my "20 years" must have been wrong --- I say again, get your facts straight.
What, no argument about the delivery dates of the first QF B767, or what they had fitted at delivery --- almost 25 years ago??? Surely you know better than those of us who were there at the time???
What, no argument about the delivery dates of the first QF B767, or what they had fitted at delivery --- almost 25 years ago??? Surely you know better than those of us who were there at the time???
BTW, what was wrong with my post about the TCAS "Monitor Vertical Speed" response?
I notice that you are silent on what "Continuous Two Way Comms" means for VFR in E. You don't know, do you?
And while you're there, where's the CBA on E over D: there isn't one, is there? Ideology rules, eh?
FISADS (Flight Information Service Aircraft Display System) cost under $500,000 from memory. The biggest cost was the PCs to install it in, back in those days. I saw it in action at Brisbane and it was brilliant by all accounts. Some of the FSOs reckoned that they could handle 3 times the amount of traffic using it ... as it removed the mental gymnastics required in using cardboard strips.
It was capable of taking a "feed" from any source ... ADSB, Radar, Flight Plans etc.
On the eve of its full rollout, after most of the money had been spent, .... guess who pulled the plug?
By my reckoning .... you could have incresed FS efficiency by about 50% and, with a bit of tweaking and finesing, it could have been a fairly useful ATC weapon, albeit without all the bells and whistles, for about 1/1000th of the cost of TAAATS.
Go figure ...
It was capable of taking a "feed" from any source ... ADSB, Radar, Flight Plans etc.
On the eve of its full rollout, after most of the money had been spent, .... guess who pulled the plug?
By my reckoning .... you could have incresed FS efficiency by about 50% and, with a bit of tweaking and finesing, it could have been a fairly useful ATC weapon, albeit without all the bells and whistles, for about 1/1000th of the cost of TAAATS.
Go figure ...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So there is a long history of keeping Oz Aviation and airspace in the dark ages hey.....by the promoter of technology 
Laugh my A$$ off there lads. This must have been before my time. ahhhh a rat in a rat wheel!
Laugh my A$$ off there lads. This must have been before my time. ahhhh a rat in a rat wheel!
WTF are you on about? Please post a pic of this "two horizontal bars RA command". I am now beginning to believe the MS thing...
Once again, to try and help you understand that there is a whole world out there beyond (rather obviously) your knowledge and experience --- and a few others on this thread.
For very nice color illustrations of the red RA Command displays that you seem to believe only exist in MS Flight Sim, herewith a reference ( and this goes for the rest of you who seem to doubt what I have said):
Honeywell Corp.
Publication Reference: C28-3841-02-04
TCAS 11, Pilots Handbook.
Appendix C,
TCAS EFIS DISPLAYS.
Pages C-1 through C-5.
Incidentally, the publication date is well before TCAS became "mandatory".
The obsession of certain Australian groups we all know of about, with "mandatory" as a precondition to anybody doing anything "safe" is well known. Witness the rubbish talked about "recommended" leading to non-compliance, whereas "mandatory" will ensure "compliance" that will result in "safe" ----- despite every study that shows otherwise, and including CASA CEO/DAS well informed remarks to the Senate Estimates Committee.
You really really should get your facts straight.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Appendix D of the same publication helpfully lists a more or less complete list of the regulatory compliance documents for TCAS 11, including:
FAA Advisory ( Note: not Mandatory) Circulars,
TSOs
RTCA/SAE Docs
ARPs, various and
Some very interesting studies on NMACs and TCAS.
Yep, history has a nasty way of coming back and biting those who try and rewrite it. The removal of FS was needed BEFORE TAAATS became active. If FS was still operating and with the equipment that Griffo has so kindly related to...what a weapon it would have been. Coulda sold it to the world!
Now, this IS interesting! If the forerunner of TSAD was only minimally priced with the dearest item being the PC to run it...and it would prove to improve effficiency by at least 300%...and scaleable with emerging and even not yet designed technology..where does the argument come in that FSUs were going to cost aviation mega millions to continue running???? If anything, it was going to save heaps more in efficiency. More information to be saddened about
Now, this IS interesting! If the forerunner of TSAD was only minimally priced with the dearest item being the PC to run it...and it would prove to improve effficiency by at least 300%...and scaleable with emerging and even not yet designed technology..where does the argument come in that FSUs were going to cost aviation mega millions to continue running???? If anything, it was going to save heaps more in efficiency. More information to be saddened about
Many TKS 'Peuce'....the 'ole memory glands seem to be deteriorating in direct proportion to the current 'red'....
And although the WCE did a magnificent job tonite....we didn't actually win the 4 points...but 't'was GOOD anyway...
You've got the drift Mr 'Oz'......
And, I'm SURE Mr 'Peuce' is well aware as well....
Boo Hoo Hoo.........
And ALL of that 'vast' experience and 'local knowledge' Down The Drain..!!
And, You've guessed it!! The original intent WAS to market the 'Airspace Management' to the rest of the world - starting with our 'nearest neighbours' in the Pacific....Would have been an excellent income for OZ economy.
But, now yas get nuthin'..... except 'when workload permits'......
Cheers Guys & Gals........
And although the WCE did a magnificent job tonite....we didn't actually win the 4 points...but 't'was GOOD anyway...
You've got the drift Mr 'Oz'......
And, I'm SURE Mr 'Peuce' is well aware as well....
Boo Hoo Hoo.........
And ALL of that 'vast' experience and 'local knowledge' Down The Drain..!!
And, You've guessed it!! The original intent WAS to market the 'Airspace Management' to the rest of the world - starting with our 'nearest neighbours' in the Pacific....Would have been an excellent income for OZ economy.
But, now yas get nuthin'..... except 'when workload permits'......
Cheers Guys & Gals........
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 5th Jun 2010 at 14:07.
Ledsled,
Couldn't find it on the net. What model Boeing is this display fitted to and I'll continue my research.
Odd that the FAA did make it MANDATORY instead of "recommended".
Still waiting for answers.
Honeywell Corp.
Publication Reference: C28-3841-02-04
TCAS 11, Pilots Handbook.
Publication Reference: C28-3841-02-04
TCAS 11, Pilots Handbook.
Odd that the FAA did make it MANDATORY instead of "recommended".
BTW, what was wrong with my post about the TCAS "Monitor Vertical Speed" response?
I notice that you are silent on what "Continuous Two Way Comms" means for VFR in E. You don't know, do you?
And while you're there, where's the CBA on E over D: there isn't one, is there? Ideology rules, eh?
I notice that you are silent on what "Continuous Two Way Comms" means for VFR in E. You don't know, do you?
And while you're there, where's the CBA on E over D: there isn't one, is there? Ideology rules, eh?
Seriously, Plumbum. Relevance! The member must make his answer relative to the question! Plumbum!
Why is there no study that promotes a change from C over D to E over D? Why is there a "Broadcast Zone" instigated in class E? Why are VFR urged to call to and obey instructions from ATC in, effectively, class G airspace?
Are VFR pilots expected to maintain two-way communication in class E or just monitor the frequency? Where else on this planet is class E operated in such a fashion...and why are these "changes" required to be enacted?
Dogs breakfast! Hope it tastes good the second time down?
Why is there no study that promotes a change from C over D to E over D? Why is there a "Broadcast Zone" instigated in class E? Why are VFR urged to call to and obey instructions from ATC in, effectively, class G airspace?
Are VFR pilots expected to maintain two-way communication in class E or just monitor the frequency? Where else on this planet is class E operated in such a fashion...and why are these "changes" required to be enacted?
Dogs breakfast! Hope it tastes good the second time down?
Dear RAPAC,
P**** C*******, Executive Manager Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group, and I will be conducting industry briefings in Broome and Karratha during June 2010. The briefings are in regards to the airspace changes at both locations. Details of the briefings are as follows:
Location: Broome
Date: 15th June 2010
Time: 1700 - 1900hrs
Venue: The Mercure - Weld St. Broome
All welcome. Hope to see you there.
Location: Karratha
Date: 17th June 2010.
We will be making ourselves available to anyone who wishes to discuss the proposals on the morning of the 17th and plan to visit as many operators as possible. If anyone wishes to book a particular time please contact me via the addresses/no's. below.
Kind Regards
G***** R*****
Operations Manager
Office of Airspace Regulation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Ph (02) 6217 1413
P**** C*******, Executive Manager Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group, and I will be conducting industry briefings in Broome and Karratha during June 2010. The briefings are in regards to the airspace changes at both locations. Details of the briefings are as follows:
Location: Broome
Date: 15th June 2010
Time: 1700 - 1900hrs
Venue: The Mercure - Weld St. Broome
All welcome. Hope to see you there.
Location: Karratha
Date: 17th June 2010.
We will be making ourselves available to anyone who wishes to discuss the proposals on the morning of the 17th and plan to visit as many operators as possible. If anyone wishes to book a particular time please contact me via the addresses/no's. below.
Kind Regards
G***** R*****
Operations Manager
Office of Airspace Regulation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Ph (02) 6217 1413
Seriously can someone briefly fill tell me what these changes are all about, as I am pretty sure that noone in EK has any idea about them. I hope we don't have to lob into Alice Springs one night
Seriously can someone briefly fill tell me what these changes are all about, as I am pretty sure that noone in EK has any idea about them. I hope we don't have to lob into Alice Springs one night
It is CASA's attempt to de-harmonise Australia with the rest of the aviation world
- They wish to implement non-surveillance Class E Airspace above Class D Towers ... initally Broome, Karattha and Avalon
- That means that IFRs are separated from each other ... and VFRs are unknown (and therefore "not there")
- CASA eventually saw that non-surveillance Class E may have some problems ... with high capacity Jet IFRs descending through invisible VFRs and Controllers directing IFRs into the path of invisible VFRs
- CASA, using some exceptionally lateral thinking, found a way around it ... they created Class E+ .... in which VFRs are required to broadcast to ATC and follow all ATC instructions.
- The silly amongst us thought that, instead of stubbornly sticking to their near religious idealism, CASA might have been better off making the airspace Class D or C
- CASA will be holding meetings in Broome & Karattha on 15th & 17th June ... to take questions.
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
For those who don't have the time, or stomach, to read through the thread ... here is my take on it:
It is CASA's attempt to de-harmonise Australia with the rest of the aviation world
It is CASA's attempt to de-harmonise Australia with the rest of the aviation world
- They wish to implement non-surveillance Class E Airspace above Class D Towers ... initally Broome, Karattha and Avalon
- That means that IFRs are separated from each other ... and VFRs are unknown (and therefore "not there")
- CASA eventually saw that non-surveillance Class E may have some problems ... with high capacity Jet IFRs descending through invisible VFRs and Controllers directing IFRs into the path of invisible VFRs
- CASA, using some exceptionally lateral thinking, found a way around it ... they created Class E+ .... in which VFRs are required to broadcast to ATC and follow all ATC instructions.
- The silly amongst us thought that, instead of stubbornly sticking to their near religious idealism, CASA might have been better off making the airspace Class D or C
- CASA will be holding meetings in Broome & Karattha on 15th & 17th June ... to take questions.
Somehow I was thinking that a few individuals were so influencial that they were dictating matters to the regulator. Just goes to show how one can misread threads.
