NAS rears its head again
Direct .thanks for reminding me.
It explains this thread - but not good in a democracy where professionals cannot state their true beliefs openly to the media.
Imagine if an accident takes place because of the current CASA decision re Broome and ATC's come out of the woodwork saying they could not state their true beliefs on safety openly to the media and traveling public because they did not have an independent income.
I don't believe the public would accept such a claim.
Australians risked their lives in war so, among other things,we could speak up and say the truth when it was important to do so.
Public safety is surely a time when there should be no fear in openly stating the truth.
Much Ado , surely this is an important issue to canvas in public and on Pprune -the fact that professionals can't , without fear or favour, speak out about aviation safety.
It explains this thread - but not good in a democracy where professionals cannot state their true beliefs openly to the media.
Imagine if an accident takes place because of the current CASA decision re Broome and ATC's come out of the woodwork saying they could not state their true beliefs on safety openly to the media and traveling public because they did not have an independent income.
I don't believe the public would accept such a claim.
Australians risked their lives in war so, among other things,we could speak up and say the truth when it was important to do so.
Public safety is surely a time when there should be no fear in openly stating the truth.
Much Ado , surely this is an important issue to canvas in public and on Pprune -the fact that professionals can't , without fear or favour, speak out about aviation safety.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Mar 2010 at 10:28.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Lead, and you know I respect your objective approach; notwithstanding that we disagree.
However, some of the comments that are coming from your side of the fence are doing damage to rational debate.
We had a forum here where there was a degree of mutual respect. Yep, a little testy at times, but still worthwhile. I learned a bit too from your posts!
Unfortunately, it's degenerated to the usual emotive rubbish that's historically been fuelled by 'if you won't post your name, you're not believable.'
Sorry, Lead; I sincerely regret that you get pigeon-holed in that domain. I know you argue from conviction and always try to be objective; as much as I regard your arguments as being flawed.
You're dead-set wrong on E airspace, but at least there's a degree of civility in the debate.
However, some of the comments that are coming from your side of the fence are doing damage to rational debate.
We had a forum here where there was a degree of mutual respect. Yep, a little testy at times, but still worthwhile. I learned a bit too from your posts!
Unfortunately, it's degenerated to the usual emotive rubbish that's historically been fuelled by 'if you won't post your name, you're not believable.'
Sorry, Lead; I sincerely regret that you get pigeon-holed in that domain. I know you argue from conviction and always try to be objective; as much as I regard your arguments as being flawed.
You're dead-set wrong on E airspace, but at least there's a degree of civility in the debate.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked Hedland tower in the 80s when there was even less good gear around than today. Nothing but VOR/DME/NDB and we owned from the SFC up to FL250 in the despised (by some) upside down wedding cake of CTA and OCTA. All positive control and everyone was separated from everyone.
In the time I was there I cannot remember (and remember Alzheimers improves long term memory) ever denying a VFR aircraft a clearance through/into/across the CTA or CTR. Because, as others have mentioned, I had local knowledge and I devised clearances that allowed all the IFR and VFR to share the airspace and get where they wanted to go.
The coast, railway lines, roads, rivers (even when they were dry), the crushers to name a few were used in conjunction with the radials and DME to establish procedural separation between the aircraft. Then inside 10 miles we used the binos and our eyes. That posting enabled me to use those same things in a radar environment when 3nm was just too much when I could still use north and south of the river or the road or the railway line.
It costs the same for a controller to do A,B,C,D,E,F and G airspace. There is no difference to us, only the rules and protection that is afforded to those using the airspace.
Now I work in Germany and it costs the same for a controller to do the work independant of the airspace classification. Get it there is no lesser charge just because the letter changes. There is only a change in the service you receive- positive separation or see and be seen. That is the choice.
Ideology has no place in aviation safety. If you want my name use the PM function and I will gladly supply it.
In the time I was there I cannot remember (and remember Alzheimers improves long term memory) ever denying a VFR aircraft a clearance through/into/across the CTA or CTR. Because, as others have mentioned, I had local knowledge and I devised clearances that allowed all the IFR and VFR to share the airspace and get where they wanted to go.
The coast, railway lines, roads, rivers (even when they were dry), the crushers to name a few were used in conjunction with the radials and DME to establish procedural separation between the aircraft. Then inside 10 miles we used the binos and our eyes. That posting enabled me to use those same things in a radar environment when 3nm was just too much when I could still use north and south of the river or the road or the railway line.
It costs the same for a controller to do A,B,C,D,E,F and G airspace. There is no difference to us, only the rules and protection that is afforded to those using the airspace.
Now I work in Germany and it costs the same for a controller to do the work independant of the airspace classification. Get it there is no lesser charge just because the letter changes. There is only a change in the service you receive- positive separation or see and be seen. That is the choice.
Ideology has no place in aviation safety. If you want my name use the PM function and I will gladly supply it.
You're dead-set wrong on E airspace, but at least there's a degree of civility in the debate.
Izzzatso!!! Only if many organizations and authorities around the world are wrong, starting with ICAO.
I have never ceased to be amazed at the vociferous objection to change in matters aviation in Australia, my first realization of this being the domestic pilots campaign against the use of weather radar. There are just so many other examples, over the years. In fact, there have been few technological advances that have nor been objected to by a particular group of domestic pilots.
In the main it is only domestic pilots, and then largely only members of the AFAP, who have long resisted harmonizations with the rest of the world. AIPA had little to say about NAS, how could they, working in all varieties of airspace, including the dreaded E, around the world on a daily basis.
As Dick Smith continually tries to point out, ATC direct costs are not the only costs attributable to airspace categorization, the Airservices practice of giving absolute priority over VFR also presents serious problems ---- very little VFR traffic is "private flight". So one category of commercial operations suffers unnecessary costs. No such discrimination exists in US, as one example. That Airservices only derives revenue from one has only added to the blatant discrimination against VFR.
The extract from a letter in a previous post, about the savage enforcement within Airservices may well be true as part of th explanation ( in DCA days the trappers were referred to as the Airstapo) ----- as is the Australian practice of all aviation law (and not just major offenses)--- right down to inadvertent clerical errors -- being criminal law ----- with widespread "strict liability", meaning there is only an extremely limited defense.
However, on matters of airspace categorization, it is fundamentally untenable to suggest that Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step. That the rest of the world had got it wrong.
Perhaps some of you should read the views of CASA's John McCormick, about Australian aviation, viz-a-vie the rest of the world, and our real place in "the big picture". It's all on the CASA web site. I agree with his remarks.
Tootle pip!!
PS: OAR is part CASA, not "the Department", the Civil Aviation Act is not the only legislation administered by CASA.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why in Europe does C overly D CTRs where the traffic mix is such that it warrants? To protect the passengers is my guess. Dont believe me - then check out the Luftraumstruktur/Sichtflugregeln in Deutschland as an example.
The airspace is a lot busier than Oz but they seem to cope with the impost.
The airspace is a lot busier than Oz but they seem to cope with the impost.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The world at large
Age: 63
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be an ATC who has named yourself, but it’s quite clear you don’t have a clue.
For example, you state
Quote:
I'd call the tower and have him separate visually,,that's why he has binos in the tower cab
Mike, they would have to be pretty amazing “binos” that you could see a small aircraft twenty miles away.
For example, you state
Quote:
I'd call the tower and have him separate visually,,that's why he has binos in the tower cab
Mike, they would have to be pretty amazing “binos” that you could see a small aircraft twenty miles away.
I must have been pretty slick to have got away with being clueless all these years. It strikes me that when ever you have started losing a rational argument, you lash out into personal attacks. A pity, but there you go...look up Zealot in your dictionary, then look in the mirror. What do you see?BTW I used to work in Perth Tower once upon a time, and watched by the naked eye a B767 to 67nm on the GEL track, as someone posted before, those Steiner glasses are the bees knees and obviously even better than the MK 1 eyeball.
As for the rest of your post, others have already pointed out the error of your ways, so now I'm off back to work, moving traffic both ways across the Atlantic and sequencing a/c into the London terminal area, that's if I can find a clue somewhere
ps I do note with interest that if an anti NAS poster doesn't name him/herself, they are a "Coward" but if they are pro NAS and don't identify themselves, then they are good people worried about their jobs...can't really have it both ways old son
Last edited by Mike Barry; 22nd Mar 2010 at 20:15. Reason: forgot a bit at the end
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The world at large
Age: 63
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey TT
No worries mate...I just got tired of the incessant whining about identities...
the greenhouse has survived it's first real test...thunderstorms and squall lines, happily no hail!
Take care
the greenhouse has survived it's first real test...thunderstorms and squall lines, happily no hail!
Take care
Mike , I apologise but do you really expect me to believe a real ATC would use bino's to separate an IFR from a VFR 20 miles east of Broome tower?
If not why did you make such a claim ?.
I bet you don't have any class C without radar in Europe.
- thats because without radar you have no way of verifying where the VFR is if out of site.
If not why did you make such a claim ?.
I bet you don't have any class C without radar in Europe.
- thats because without radar you have no way of verifying where the VFR is if out of site.
Leadsled & Dick,
You are always trying to bring the argument around to "resistence to change" on the part of a nasty group within the Industry.
You naughty boys know that is just being mischievious. Unless I'm mistaken, we have been discussing whether the steps into Broome and Karattha should be either "C" or "E" ... not whether they shouldn't be changed. I think most have accepted that both locations will become controlled. The only question is, what type of control?
You also talk of the cost to VFRs in being re-routed in C. The reality is, wherever there is a conflict between two aircraft (and they know about it) there will be a cost to either one , or both, re-routing to some degree. Whether it's self separation, or Controller separation. So that cost is irrelevant to this discussion.
So now we only have the debateable issues of safety and controller cost. Leadsled has said that both C and E are equally safe ... in the right place. Leadsled says E is the appropriate safety net at Broome , others think otherwise. It's a very thin line ... could go either way.
So, let's decide on Controller cost. Dick says C is more expensive, the Controllers have said bollocks. Leadsled, I think, has been quite on the issue.
So, it's marginal ... whichever way you look at it.
Considering the recent "comments/rulings" on what constitutes Negligence, and he marginal differences in the arguments, I say, would it not be safer(in all respects) to err towards C?
You are always trying to bring the argument around to "resistence to change" on the part of a nasty group within the Industry.
You naughty boys know that is just being mischievious. Unless I'm mistaken, we have been discussing whether the steps into Broome and Karattha should be either "C" or "E" ... not whether they shouldn't be changed. I think most have accepted that both locations will become controlled. The only question is, what type of control?
You also talk of the cost to VFRs in being re-routed in C. The reality is, wherever there is a conflict between two aircraft (and they know about it) there will be a cost to either one , or both, re-routing to some degree. Whether it's self separation, or Controller separation. So that cost is irrelevant to this discussion.
So now we only have the debateable issues of safety and controller cost. Leadsled has said that both C and E are equally safe ... in the right place. Leadsled says E is the appropriate safety net at Broome , others think otherwise. It's a very thin line ... could go either way.
So, let's decide on Controller cost. Dick says C is more expensive, the Controllers have said bollocks. Leadsled, I think, has been quite on the issue.
So, it's marginal ... whichever way you look at it.
Considering the recent "comments/rulings" on what constitutes Negligence, and he marginal differences in the arguments, I say, would it not be safer(in all respects) to err towards C?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but do you really expect me to believe a real ATC would use bino's to separate an IFR from a VFR 20 miles east of Broome tower
] 30+nm out. Happens everyday. At night with lights, they will 'see' inbound' [larger] aircraft at 100nm out. Mind you, at that distance, I guess they look pretty low on the horizon initially Again, I am sure I will be corrected if wrong, but there are occasions where visual [controller applied] separation can be achieved by sighting one of the two aircraft concerned. i.e. visual observation [azimuth] outside the procedural tolerances [+1nm] of the other conflicting aircraft. I think that would normally apply between an arriving and departing conflict
Considering the recent "comments/rulings" on what constitutes Negligence,
The High Court judgment referred to was 1982, hardly recent.
Particularly in light of other judgments subsequent to 1982, and the "legal" emergence of decisions that have validated policies and practices based on risk management standards, as opposed to the rather absolutist position stated in the 1982 Gibbs decision --- ie: the progressive recognition by the High Court that there is no such thing as "absolute safety", and not striving to institute "absolute safety" does not constitute negligence.
Put another way, accepting a risk exists, which is quite foreseeable and can be potentially eliminated --- but deciding to live with a risk ---- is not negligence, per se.
Indeed, may I quote the Chief Justice of NSW: "Negligence is the last refuge of the scoundrel".
That quote far more recent than 1982. The various State and Federal court's approach to "negligence" has changed markedly since the era of the Gibbs HCA.
Tootle pip!!
PS1: The oft quoted BASI report that recommended to CASA positive air traffic control for all RPT services was acquitted on the basis that "risk management" of air safety, as opposed to absolute air safety, was now Government policy.
PS2: If Broome had the same level of overflying traffic as almost any airfield in Germany, and given the nature of the overflying traffic, it would probably be C, even if the D airfield wasn't there at all. In other words, the existence of the D airfield is not related to the decision as to classification of the overlaying airspace. Have a look for the E over D in Germany.
Eurocontrol application of risk management processes in CNS/ATM resourcing, and the publication of risk management targets, and regularly publishing actually achieved performance, against the published planning benchmarks is really worth a little study ---- in ensuring they do not have resources inversely proportional to the risk, as we continually see here.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ie: the progressive recognition by the High Court that there is no such thing as "absolute safety", and not striving to institute "absolute safety" does not constitute negligence.
What is being argued is As Low As Reasonably Practicable i.e. Safer C for the cost of E, not as you wrongly suggest, 'absolute safety'.
You well know the difference Leadsled!
In this context, Justice Gibbs pronouncement is valid, and dare I say it, any contemporary Justice would find the same in this airspace context.
Its a very simple concept
Last edited by ARFOR; 23rd Mar 2010 at 03:39. Reason: spelling
not striving to institute "absolute safety" does not constitute negligence.
So, the CASR is only guidelines? Strict Liability does not apply?..I WAS managing the risk, your honour.
So class E costing is a risk managment exercise as opposed to absolute safety implied by class C?
So class E costing is a risk managment exercise as opposed to absolute safety implied by class C?
The State is betting the farm that because of the low perceived risk of a mid air collision in the environs of terminal airspace there is only a need for class E rules.
Accidents WILL happen but to allow an accident to happen because of managing a risk?????
Better hope the insurance is paid up...because a even small risk is too much.
Why the hell did you think 2B was wound back the first time...RISK!
Geeeze, fellas, what would the High Court of Australia (HCA) know, compared with the views on the law as expressed by some of you here.
Just for a start, there is no such thing as "absolute safety", and that has been recognized by the HCA. Risk Management standards such as (but not limited to) ASNZ 4360 only go back to 1999 or so. Long after 1982.
Amendments to the Trade Practices Act, to recognize the legitimacy of high risk commercial activities is far more recent than 1982. The whole thrust of HCA judgments, and considerable bodies of legislation, have changed radically (and for the better -- reintroducing personal responsibility for personal behavior, as but one example) since 1982. Although in an entirely different area, recent HCA judgments effectively disallowing certain aspects of NSW OH&S legislation ---- legislation that implied absolute safety is achievable ---- are relevant.
In short, a decision by CASA, based on current legislation, that E over D is what is required in Broome or Karratha, in that it satisfies the risk management criteria as embodies in the airspace regulation,ie: the minimum classification that meets the separation assurance criteria, is a lawful decision.
Such a decision (if the processes have been correctly applied) would not be found to be negligent, because of claims by some that "C over D is safer". If you understand the legislation, (remember it is no longer up to Airservices and their rather strange internal risk management system, as it was with the NAS 2b rollback) all OAR is doing is as required by the Parliament --- they are not making personal judgments about airspace classification ---- but complying with the Airspace Act 2007.
In this respect, it is very similar to the "new" Design, Certification and Manufacturing Rules, where and unlike pre. 1998 rules there is no "----- and CASA is satisfied". Neither CASA nor its employees can be found negligent for following processes laid down by Parliament --- if they have properly followed the processes.
If you want to sue Parliament for alleged negligent regulation --- good luck.
Tootle pip!!
ARFOR,
I rather think you are referring to ALARP as embodied in the Airservices SMS as per the NAS 2b era, that no longer applies ---- ALARP as a concept is still with us, but in proper risk analysis, it does not mean quite the same thing as during the period prior to the Airspace Act, and as applied by Airservices.
Just for a start, there is no such thing as "absolute safety", and that has been recognized by the HCA. Risk Management standards such as (but not limited to) ASNZ 4360 only go back to 1999 or so. Long after 1982.
Amendments to the Trade Practices Act, to recognize the legitimacy of high risk commercial activities is far more recent than 1982. The whole thrust of HCA judgments, and considerable bodies of legislation, have changed radically (and for the better -- reintroducing personal responsibility for personal behavior, as but one example) since 1982. Although in an entirely different area, recent HCA judgments effectively disallowing certain aspects of NSW OH&S legislation ---- legislation that implied absolute safety is achievable ---- are relevant.
In short, a decision by CASA, based on current legislation, that E over D is what is required in Broome or Karratha, in that it satisfies the risk management criteria as embodies in the airspace regulation,ie: the minimum classification that meets the separation assurance criteria, is a lawful decision.
Such a decision (if the processes have been correctly applied) would not be found to be negligent, because of claims by some that "C over D is safer". If you understand the legislation, (remember it is no longer up to Airservices and their rather strange internal risk management system, as it was with the NAS 2b rollback) all OAR is doing is as required by the Parliament --- they are not making personal judgments about airspace classification ---- but complying with the Airspace Act 2007.
In this respect, it is very similar to the "new" Design, Certification and Manufacturing Rules, where and unlike pre. 1998 rules there is no "----- and CASA is satisfied". Neither CASA nor its employees can be found negligent for following processes laid down by Parliament --- if they have properly followed the processes.
If you want to sue Parliament for alleged negligent regulation --- good luck.
Tootle pip!!
What is being argued is As Low As Reasonably Practicable i.e. Safer C for the cost of E, not as you wrongly suggest, 'absolute safety'.
I rather think you are referring to ALARP as embodied in the Airservices SMS as per the NAS 2b era, that no longer applies ---- ALARP as a concept is still with us, but in proper risk analysis, it does not mean quite the same thing as during the period prior to the Airspace Act, and as applied by Airservices.
Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Mar 2010 at 05:55.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The State is betting the farm that because of the low perceived risk of a mid air collision in the environs of terminal airspace there is only a need for class E rules.
We can talk all we like about 'risk management,' but it will not wash in court, before a jury, in the event of a MAC. 'So, Mr OAR, are you telling me you took a risk that was avoidable and, as a result of taking that avoidable risk, people died? Is this what you're telling the court?'
Yeah, right. A smart lawyer, and I'm sure there are some that are following this very thread, would go straight to the BITRE website - a Government agency (all I did was Google 'value of life+aviation'). They'd extract the 'value of life' figure for aviation accidents ($2.17m), multiply that by the number of fatalities, ask for clarification as to exactly how much was saved by giving VFR open slather, and whoever signs off on this garbage would be finding an open window on a very tall building.
'Well Your Honour, there was this C182 that had to remain OCTA, and that cost him an extra $35 in AVGAS and then there was a PA28 that was forced to track overhead, instead of direct, and that accrued an extra $15 to his fuel bill and then there was.....'
There'll be no running and no hiding.
Clinton, just read your post afterwards. What's your opinion?
Last edited by Howabout; 23rd Mar 2010 at 06:42.
Clinton,
I will have to try and find my copy of the speech, just to satisfy you, I actuall went to the trouble of printing it off.
As I recall, it was in the context of legislative change in NSW, that substantially reduced the avenues for negligence actions in accident cases in NSW, particularly motor vehicle accidents. Changes that had certain factions of the local bar in uproar.
It was/is obviously a favorite topic, I have personally listened to him on the subject.
I am sure you would agree that the tone of court judgments in the area, whilst not entirely consistent, have certainly changed since the Gibbs High Court.
As a related matter, have a look at Jones v. Bartlett [2000] HCA 56 at 23.
As good a definition of Safe/Safety as I have seen, given that "safe" or "safety" are rather useless terms --- despite the great majority "knowing what is safe/safety" it is an emotive term without dimension. I can measure risk, I can't measure "safe", and as the saying goes: "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it".
Tootle pip!!
I will have to try and find my copy of the speech, just to satisfy you, I actuall went to the trouble of printing it off.
As I recall, it was in the context of legislative change in NSW, that substantially reduced the avenues for negligence actions in accident cases in NSW, particularly motor vehicle accidents. Changes that had certain factions of the local bar in uproar.
It was/is obviously a favorite topic, I have personally listened to him on the subject.
I am sure you would agree that the tone of court judgments in the area, whilst not entirely consistent, have certainly changed since the Gibbs High Court.
As a related matter, have a look at Jones v. Bartlett [2000] HCA 56 at 23.
As good a definition of Safe/Safety as I have seen, given that "safe" or "safety" are rather useless terms --- despite the great majority "knowing what is safe/safety" it is an emotive term without dimension. I can measure risk, I can't measure "safe", and as the saying goes: "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope - radar coverage in DE is not absolute, there are many gaps in coverage due terrain. There are also areas where there is no primary coverage, much the same as no radar if you do not have a working TPDR.
The amount of traffic is not the only consideration wehn discussing airspace classes, it is a combination of the mix and the amount.
Eurocontrol only 'own' airspace down to FL285 so probably not a real good guide as to the type of airspace they would have over a D zone.
The amount of traffic is not the only consideration wehn discussing airspace classes, it is a combination of the mix and the amount.
Eurocontrol only 'own' airspace down to FL285 so probably not a real good guide as to the type of airspace they would have over a D zone.