NAS rears its head again
OZ,
How do you work that out??
"airmanship" is certainly not part of the process for airspace classification embodied within the Airspace Act and Regulation, including the Airspace Policy Statement.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I will admit that I continuously witness quite appalling lapses in what I regard as expected standards of airmanship ---- applied common sense ----- but it is probably all to true of common sense is that it is not all that common.
How do you work that out??
"airmanship" is certainly not part of the process for airspace classification embodied within the Airspace Act and Regulation, including the Airspace Policy Statement.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I will admit that I continuously witness quite appalling lapses in what I regard as expected standards of airmanship ---- applied common sense ----- but it is probably all to true of common sense is that it is not all that common.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was quite impressed with ozineurope's previous response. It's worth re-posting as others come on line in the evening, otherwise it'll be lost - no doubt to the satisfaction of the E protagonists. I'm keeping it civil Lead.
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.
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.
Arfor, you rock! Nice scenario and "transcript"...even though your impressive effort was unfortunately just preaching to the converted I suspect. Many ways to skin the feline whilst avoiding the alternative of A/G self-separation chit-chats on a control frequency in a terminal environment.
In relation to the more recent safety/risk/accountability discussion above, for the sake of the argument imagine the following situation, coming from a botom-of-the-food-chain grass roots level;
- A VFR makes a broadcast out of the blue on centre frequency (inbound to Broken Hill in non-radar G)
- A few minutes later a BE20 IFR gives a taxi call BHI-AD
Many of my ex-colleagues (subject to workload and complexity of course) would append to "no reported IFR traffic" the additional comment "and just confirming have you copied the VFR inbound from the West?" Most of the time the IFR responds with "ta centre, spoken to him" but when they haven`t it is muchos gracias for the heads-up...yeah, it`s supposed to work a certain way but the point is that sometimes it doesn`t.
Overservicing? Professional courtesy? Inferred Duty of Care? Potential court of law, "Litigation American style" modern day arse-guarding?
You guys tell me...
In relation to the more recent safety/risk/accountability discussion above, for the sake of the argument imagine the following situation, coming from a botom-of-the-food-chain grass roots level;
- A VFR makes a broadcast out of the blue on centre frequency (inbound to Broken Hill in non-radar G)
- A few minutes later a BE20 IFR gives a taxi call BHI-AD
Many of my ex-colleagues (subject to workload and complexity of course) would append to "no reported IFR traffic" the additional comment "and just confirming have you copied the VFR inbound from the West?" Most of the time the IFR responds with "ta centre, spoken to him" but when they haven`t it is muchos gracias for the heads-up...yeah, it`s supposed to work a certain way but the point is that sometimes it doesn`t.
Overservicing? Professional courtesy? Inferred Duty of Care? Potential court of law, "Litigation American style" modern day arse-guarding?
You guys tell me...
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".
Risk is also not a good term..You can only identify the probability of an event occuring. Probability is not a risk, it is the outcome of an event occuring. Risk is the act of IGNORING that probability.
When I was studying engineering at QIT. Materials Testing 101. Probability of detecting a faulty part can be calculated. A random number can be generated that will result in samples being taken, proving that testing a batch run can be classified as meeting specifications. This specification changes according to the level of safety required in the manufactured part being free of defects. The ultimate level of safety lies with manufacture of aviation components...all parts are tested and certified for aviation use.
In current terms, the probability of the software for Toyota vehicle controls , failing in service would be a defined figure. Testing would be set according to a random list. If those random samples passed then the software would be cleared as safe....In a run of millions, the probability, although very small, proves that a signifcant number of cars will be defective and, ultimately, DANGEROUS. In aviation that level of failure is set at ZERO! and we now have bean counters RISKING against the probability of a failure????(Affordable SAFETY
)As an engineer, I understand, very clearly, the implications of managed risk. Bean counters have pushed the level of design with its inherant levels of safety within the margins of error of what used to be a factor of 5 to 10% overdesigned because of the limits of testing, to a couple of points of a percent...and we are now seeing extraordinary failures of structures that, previously, were over designed...just to save a few bucks...which team are you barracking for, Leadsled?
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 23rd Mar 2010 at 08:43.
Leadsled,
I've left my wig and gown somewhere, so I won't try to debate those critical law issues with you.... as I'd surely loose.
HOWEVER, as an aviation tragic, whose seen probably more Australian and International aviation operations than you realise ... I can't help but feel that, even if us fundamentalists have got it wrong, and E is just as "safe" as C in the discussed areas ... and if we've got it wrong, and it does cost more to man C than E ....what is the magnitude of the difference?
Is it SO great that you wouldn't support Class C ... just in case? Are you so sure of your precise calculations and risk management formulas ( wherever they are) that you'd bet OUR arses on your ability to get the risk/benefit figures (where ever they are) correct down to the 5th decimal place?
If so, you certainly have a lot of faith in yourself and the OAR?
I've left my wig and gown somewhere, so I won't try to debate those critical law issues with you.... as I'd surely loose.
HOWEVER, as an aviation tragic, whose seen probably more Australian and International aviation operations than you realise ... I can't help but feel that, even if us fundamentalists have got it wrong, and E is just as "safe" as C in the discussed areas ... and if we've got it wrong, and it does cost more to man C than E ....what is the magnitude of the difference?
Is it SO great that you wouldn't support Class C ... just in case? Are you so sure of your precise calculations and risk management formulas ( wherever they are) that you'd bet OUR arses on your ability to get the risk/benefit figures (where ever they are) correct down to the 5th decimal place?
If so, you certainly have a lot of faith in yourself and the OAR?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
Let's put the written words of, The Act, The AAPS, and CASA's CRMF on the table for interested readers!
I am reliably informed [by the legislated documents below] that your claim is incorrect!
A 'legislated' and well understood concept!
Incorrect!
The Airspace Act 2007
ComLaw Management - Series- Airspace Act 2007
Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010
Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010
And;
And;
And;
Common Risk Management Framework for Airspace and Air Traffic Management
Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010 [bottom of page]
The nub of the discussion Leadsled!
E costs verses C costs [at volume specific locations]! Reducing adverse risk for NO COST!
The concerned experts here are calling for exactly what the Gov't, The Act, The Minister [AAPS], and the CASA [CRMF] all require!
And;
How long has D with overlying C operated safety and efficiently in Australia? A very long time!
And;
And;
It is abundantly clear the processes that need to be followed, and ultimately who is responsible for 'negligent' non-compliance! 
Where is the 'proper', 'publiclly available' safety analysis work for YMAV, YWLM, YBRM and YPKA that transparently compares [as per the reg's above] options such as E or D or C in specific airspace volumes?
Let's put the written words of, The Act, The AAPS, and CASA's CRMF on the table for interested readers!
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
The Airspace Act 2007
ComLaw Management - Series- Airspace Act 2007
8 Minister must make Australian Airspace Policy Statement
(2) (c) describe the processes to be followed for changing the classifications or designations of particular volumes of Australian-administered airspace
(4) The statement must be consistent with the Chicago Convention. However, if Australia has notified differences under Article 38 of that Convention, the statement must be consistent with those differences.
(2) (c) describe the processes to be followed for changing the classifications or designations of particular volumes of Australian-administered airspace
(4) The statement must be consistent with the Chicago Convention. However, if Australia has notified differences under Article 38 of that Convention, the statement must be consistent with those differences.
Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010
Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace
15 Changes to an existing airspace classification or designation should be the consequence of a clear and consistent risk management process.
16 CASA‟s risk management process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated.
17 The process for change will commence with CASA identifying the volumes of airspace it will be reviewing in accordance with section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007.
18 The review process will then lead to the completion of a risk assessment of the particular volume of airspace under review.
19 The risk assessment should take into account the types of aircraft involved, the density of air traffic, the meteorological conditions, and such other factors as may be relevant.
20 On completion of the risk assessment process, CASA shall outline its proposals on the overall safety requirement for a particular airspace classification or designation.
21 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals.
22 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, then make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
15 Changes to an existing airspace classification or designation should be the consequence of a clear and consistent risk management process.
16 CASA‟s risk management process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated.
17 The process for change will commence with CASA identifying the volumes of airspace it will be reviewing in accordance with section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007.
18 The review process will then lead to the completion of a risk assessment of the particular volume of airspace under review.
19 The risk assessment should take into account the types of aircraft involved, the density of air traffic, the meteorological conditions, and such other factors as may be relevant.
20 On completion of the risk assessment process, CASA shall outline its proposals on the overall safety requirement for a particular airspace classification or designation.
21 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals.
22 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, then make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
Government’s Policy Objectives
25 The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.
26 The Government expects that CASA will continue the reform of Australia‟s airspace and move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice.
27 The Government has also identified three specific airspace policy objectives in relation to the administration and use of Australian-administered airspace which are detailed in paragraphs 28 to 34 and outlined below:
support for ICAO‟ Global Air Traffic Management (ATM) Operational Plan and use of ICAO airspace classifications;
enhanced ATM services at regional aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services, as determined by CASA; and
effective cooperation between CASA and Australia's air navigation service providers, including Airservices and Defence.
Support for ICAO’s Global Air Traffic Management Operational Plan and Use of ICAO Airspace Classifications
28 The undertaking of airspace administration will reflect the Australian Government‟ commitment to the ICAO Global ATM Operational Plan.
29 The ICAO Global ATM Operational Plan is the international vision for an integrated, harmonised and globally interoperable ATM system and includes a component on airspace management and organisation‟
30 The Government fully supports the use of the internationally-recognised ICAO airspace classification system (Class A to G airspace) in airspace administration.
Regional Aerodromes
31 The Government is committed to ensuring that effective ATM infrastructure and systems are used to protect and enhance air safety, with ATM services being extended to more regional areas as appropriate, where there has been or is likely to be growing passenger transport services.
32 CASA should ensure that appropriate airspace arrangements are in place at major regional aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services which respond to changes in aviation activity over time such as changes in traffic density, the mix of aircraft types and increases in passenger transport services.
Cooperation with Australia’s Air Navigation Service Providers
33 The Government is committed to the continuing development of a seamless, harmonised national ATM system. The classification and designation of airspace is seen as an essential component of that system.
34 CASA is to work closely with Australia‟s air navigation service providers to ensure that the needs of all airspace users are properly considered; the provision of ATM services are properly coordinated; and the administration of Australia‟s airspace is both safe and efficient.
25 The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.
26 The Government expects that CASA will continue the reform of Australia‟s airspace and move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice.
27 The Government has also identified three specific airspace policy objectives in relation to the administration and use of Australian-administered airspace which are detailed in paragraphs 28 to 34 and outlined below:
support for ICAO‟ Global Air Traffic Management (ATM) Operational Plan and use of ICAO airspace classifications;
enhanced ATM services at regional aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services, as determined by CASA; and
effective cooperation between CASA and Australia's air navigation service providers, including Airservices and Defence.
Support for ICAO’s Global Air Traffic Management Operational Plan and Use of ICAO Airspace Classifications
28 The undertaking of airspace administration will reflect the Australian Government‟ commitment to the ICAO Global ATM Operational Plan.
29 The ICAO Global ATM Operational Plan is the international vision for an integrated, harmonised and globally interoperable ATM system and includes a component on airspace management and organisation‟
30 The Government fully supports the use of the internationally-recognised ICAO airspace classification system (Class A to G airspace) in airspace administration.
Regional Aerodromes
31 The Government is committed to ensuring that effective ATM infrastructure and systems are used to protect and enhance air safety, with ATM services being extended to more regional areas as appropriate, where there has been or is likely to be growing passenger transport services.
32 CASA should ensure that appropriate airspace arrangements are in place at major regional aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services which respond to changes in aviation activity over time such as changes in traffic density, the mix of aircraft types and increases in passenger transport services.
Cooperation with Australia’s Air Navigation Service Providers
33 The Government is committed to the continuing development of a seamless, harmonised national ATM system. The classification and designation of airspace is seen as an essential component of that system.
34 CASA is to work closely with Australia‟s air navigation service providers to ensure that the needs of all airspace users are properly considered; the provision of ATM services are properly coordinated; and the administration of Australia‟s airspace is both safe and efficient.
Airspace Strategy
35 The Government requires CASA to carry out its responsibilities as the airspace regulator in accordance with the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007.
36 This legislative framework enables CASA to examine and determine future Australian airspace requirements and has established that safety of air navigation is the most important consideration.
37 The Government‟s airspace strategy, to be implemented by CASA, involves the adoption of a risk-based approach to determining Australia‟s future airspace needs.
38 The implementation of this strategy requires the identification of risks to aviation safety using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and ultimately the safety judgment of CASA as the airspace regulator.
39 The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
40 ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) also provide an important basis for airspace administration. The airspace strategy requires any deviations from ICAO SARPs to be well justified, documented, and formally notified to ICAO as a difference.
35 The Government requires CASA to carry out its responsibilities as the airspace regulator in accordance with the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007.
36 This legislative framework enables CASA to examine and determine future Australian airspace requirements and has established that safety of air navigation is the most important consideration.
37 The Government‟s airspace strategy, to be implemented by CASA, involves the adoption of a risk-based approach to determining Australia‟s future airspace needs.
38 The implementation of this strategy requires the identification of risks to aviation safety using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and ultimately the safety judgment of CASA as the airspace regulator.
39 The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
40 ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) also provide an important basis for airspace administration. The airspace strategy requires any deviations from ICAO SARPs to be well justified, documented, and formally notified to ICAO as a difference.
41 The airspace strategy requires transparency so that the aviation industry has clear insight into the way in which airspace administrative decisions will be developed, taken and implemented including industry and agency consultation. The strategy does however recognise there will be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative.
42 The airspace strategy is a proactive one based on a dedicated CASA work program, identifying priority locations where airspace should be reviewed, and consistent with the review requirements of the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulations 2007.
43 The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives.
42 The airspace strategy is a proactive one based on a dedicated CASA work program, identifying priority locations where airspace should be reviewed, and consistent with the review requirements of the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulations 2007.
43 The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives.
Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010 [bottom of page]
6.0 Framework Structure
Outline
6.1 Each agency will maintain a risk management system which is in conformance with published Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standards as updated - currently AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 (see Appendix 2 for an outline of the risk management process).
6.2 As indicated in the standards mentioned above, all risk management systems will be premised on the concept of As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
Outline
6.1 Each agency will maintain a risk management system which is in conformance with published Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standards as updated - currently AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 (see Appendix 2 for an outline of the risk management process).
6.2 As indicated in the standards mentioned above, all risk management systems will be premised on the concept of As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
There are however limits to the extent to which the government, industry and the community will pay, to reduce adverse risks
E costs verses C costs [at volume specific locations]! Reducing adverse risk for NO COST!
The concerned experts here are calling for exactly what the Gov't, The Act, The Minister [AAPS], and the CASA [CRMF] all require!
6.3 The Defence Aviation Risk Management process conforms to the standards that apply to the civil risk management regimes. These civil risk management systems are to be accessible to the public.
Analyse Risks
9.4 To facilitate risk analysis an appropriate data exchange should take place between agencies. Most risk identification and analysis methods are dependent on data to drive underlying assumptions. The results of the analysis must then be assessed against appropriate criteria to determine if the risk levels are intolerable.
9.5 This agreement embraces the notion that the magnitude of the change proposal under consideration will drive the level of analysis (and reporting). Determination of magnitude will be driven by the internal protocols within each agency’s risk management system. However the following principles will need to be incorporated within the individual systems:
a. scale of the proposal, e.g. users, airframes, geographic region impacted;
b. complexity of proposal, e.g. interaction with other systems, services;
c. duration, i.e. temporary or ongoing;
d. originality, i.e. has it been proven anywhere else in Australia or overseas or there is already established knowledge about the topic e.g. ICAO standards or requirements.
9.4 To facilitate risk analysis an appropriate data exchange should take place between agencies. Most risk identification and analysis methods are dependent on data to drive underlying assumptions. The results of the analysis must then be assessed against appropriate criteria to determine if the risk levels are intolerable.
9.5 This agreement embraces the notion that the magnitude of the change proposal under consideration will drive the level of analysis (and reporting). Determination of magnitude will be driven by the internal protocols within each agency’s risk management system. However the following principles will need to be incorporated within the individual systems:
a. scale of the proposal, e.g. users, airframes, geographic region impacted;
b. complexity of proposal, e.g. interaction with other systems, services;
c. duration, i.e. temporary or ongoing;
d. originality, i.e. has it been proven anywhere else in Australia or overseas or there is already established knowledge about the topic e.g. ICAO standards or requirements.
And;
Evaluate Risks
9.7 The qualitative criteria used by agencies, which are usually expressed in terms of consequence and likelihood matrix, may be specific to the agency given their differing roles. However, safety criteria must be premised on the basis of the effect on aircrew, other safety critical staff, the travelling public and the community.
9.8 Large scale assessments will embrace formal Cost Benefit Analysis including full economic, social and environmental impacts.
Treat Risks
9.9 In identifying risk treatments, the agencies will identify a hierarchy of preference for treatment. The highest priority will be given to solutions which seek to eliminate the negative risk.
9.7 The qualitative criteria used by agencies, which are usually expressed in terms of consequence and likelihood matrix, may be specific to the agency given their differing roles. However, safety criteria must be premised on the basis of the effect on aircrew, other safety critical staff, the travelling public and the community.
9.8 Large scale assessments will embrace formal Cost Benefit Analysis including full economic, social and environmental impacts.
Treat Risks
9.9 In identifying risk treatments, the agencies will identify a hierarchy of preference for treatment. The highest priority will be given to solutions which seek to eliminate the negative risk.
12 Conflict Resolution
12.1 The Aviation Implementation Group will oversight the application of this agreement.
12.1 The Aviation Implementation Group will oversight the application of this agreement.
Where is the 'proper', 'publiclly available' safety analysis work for YMAV, YWLM, YBRM and YPKA that transparently compares [as per the reg's above] options such as E or D or C in specific airspace volumes?
Last edited by ARFOR; 23rd Mar 2010 at 13:50. Reason: Spelling, format and fix a link
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And every day in Australia procedural towers are applying the same standards that were applied 30 years ago in Hedland, why? Because they work and they allow the most efficient use of the airspace whilst affording protection to the airspace users.
When you've sat on APP (radar) and called traffic 3 or 4 times to the VFR so that he hopefully wont hit the other Baron/C441/C310/Dash8/etc etc and he still cant see him at 1nm at 11o'clock at the same level, you realise how flawed see and avoid airspace actually is.
So you give up passing traffic- put 500ft between them and no one dies.
When you've sat on APP (radar) and called traffic 3 or 4 times to the VFR so that he hopefully wont hit the other Baron/C441/C310/Dash8/etc etc and he still cant see him at 1nm at 11o'clock at the same level, you realise how flawed see and avoid airspace actually is.
So you give up passing traffic- put 500ft between them and no one dies.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The world at large
Age: 63
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
If not why did you make such a claim ?
With regard to the above quote, yes indeed I do, it is called visual separation...as I and many others have done in the past, unlike some, I don't actually espouse here what I don't believe
Anyway, your question has been answered, read ozineuropes posts for more info about separation in non radar locations.
You could actually try listening to the guys/gals that have actually been doing the controlling, they actually know what they are talking about, whether you like it or not.
ciao all, going nocom...
ARFOR,
Wonderful demonstration of your dexterity in cut and paste, but there is nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have said, on this or previous occasions. And the results for Broome and Karatha are (obviously) consistent with everything you have cut and pasted from the Airspace legislation.
I love one of the posts that says "risk" is not a good word, then goes on to "probability ----" ------ exactly, in the simplest possible terms, that is what we are talking about.
And I say again, ALARP as was(is?) applied by Airservices in their SMS manual is NOT the same as a "conventional" ALARP, they had their own version that did not recognize (as some of you blokes don't) "vanishingly small" (a statistical zero) as the cutoff for a calculated probability of collision. You cannot have "less than zero" probability ---- except in Science Fiction.
A short course in cost/benefit analysis wouldn't go astray either, see the Productivity Commission web site, there is plenty of info around. In particular, you should note carefully how "proponent bias" is factored in a proper CBA assessment, not to mention the full range of costs to be taken into consideration.
We all genuinely look forward to Clinton's views on liability for negligence, as it concerns public servants properly applying the law that they administer.
You should all go and look up Jones v. Bartlett ----- that will tell you what the High Court thinks "safe" means, for public policy purposes. It is a very interesting read, stated far more clearly than some of the new draft CASA regs.
Tootle pip!!
OZ,
You are falling into the common trap that techniques for measuring quality control effectiveness in mass production (reliability engineering) is essentially the same as ASNZ 4360 Risk Management, and it ain't so. An ex-CSIRO chap, who opposes ICAO cruising levels, and wants us to go back 20 years or so falls into the same trap. I, too, started life as some kind of an engineer.
Wonderful demonstration of your dexterity in cut and paste, but there is nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have said, on this or previous occasions. And the results for Broome and Karatha are (obviously) consistent with everything you have cut and pasted from the Airspace legislation.
I love one of the posts that says "risk" is not a good word, then goes on to "probability ----" ------ exactly, in the simplest possible terms, that is what we are talking about.
And I say again, ALARP as was(is?) applied by Airservices in their SMS manual is NOT the same as a "conventional" ALARP, they had their own version that did not recognize (as some of you blokes don't) "vanishingly small" (a statistical zero) as the cutoff for a calculated probability of collision. You cannot have "less than zero" probability ---- except in Science Fiction.
A short course in cost/benefit analysis wouldn't go astray either, see the Productivity Commission web site, there is plenty of info around. In particular, you should note carefully how "proponent bias" is factored in a proper CBA assessment, not to mention the full range of costs to be taken into consideration.
We all genuinely look forward to Clinton's views on liability for negligence, as it concerns public servants properly applying the law that they administer.
You should all go and look up Jones v. Bartlett ----- that will tell you what the High Court thinks "safe" means, for public policy purposes. It is a very interesting read, stated far more clearly than some of the new draft CASA regs.
Tootle pip!!
OZ,
You are falling into the common trap that techniques for measuring quality control effectiveness in mass production (reliability engineering) is essentially the same as ASNZ 4360 Risk Management, and it ain't so. An ex-CSIRO chap, who opposes ICAO cruising levels, and wants us to go back 20 years or so falls into the same trap. I, too, started life as some kind of an engineer.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled Thank you.
One of us needs to provide context via quote, lest it would be nothing more than uninformed pontification
You therefore are in support of the so called 'process' used to date for YBRM and YPKA! 
Are you really that blind? 
One of us needs to provide context via quote, lest it would be nothing more than uninformed pontification
there is nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have said, on this or previous occasions
And the results for Broome and Karatha are (obviously) consistent with everything you have cut and pasted from the Airspace legislation
And really, that is all any of us have provided on PPRUNE, our opinions. No matter how pretty the wrapping has been, the content has just been opinion.
The final arbiter on "truth" might end up being 12 random men and women, selected from the great unwashed. If that occurrs, then I have a feeling that their personal view of what's right and what's wrong might have greater sway than all the empirical formulae placed end to end across Australia.... no matter what a Judge's direction may be... the "vibe"if you like.
Although none of us wish things to go that far.
In all probability, there won't be any near misses, despite allowing Class E to be installed ... but I can't help feeling that we are just leaving that door a little bit ajar ... when we needn't.
The final arbiter on "truth" might end up being 12 random men and women, selected from the great unwashed. If that occurrs, then I have a feeling that their personal view of what's right and what's wrong might have greater sway than all the empirical formulae placed end to end across Australia.... no matter what a Judge's direction may be... the "vibe"if you like.
Although none of us wish things to go that far.
In all probability, there won't be any near misses, despite allowing Class E to be installed ... but I can't help feeling that we are just leaving that door a little bit ajar ... when we needn't.
Peuce,
I agree. The scientists can hide all they like behind the numbers and the "vanishing-small" probability of a midair in E. In the end though, nobody has put forward a cost-benefit analysis that overwhelming supports E in preference to C and therefore there is no valid argument for it. The Launy and Brisbane Airproxs provided a wakeup call for the E supporters. Wake Up!
I agree. The scientists can hide all they like behind the numbers and the "vanishing-small" probability of a midair in E. In the end though, nobody has put forward a cost-benefit analysis that overwhelming supports E in preference to C and therefore there is no valid argument for it. The Launy and Brisbane Airproxs provided a wakeup call for the E supporters. Wake Up!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CrazyMTOWDog
Sorry mate, that is the end game, period.
This has always been the agenda. And, regrettably, right now, the cabal that wants to mix high capacity IFR with VFR, with no separation, will probably get their way.
Unfortunately, professional pilots, and their crews and pax, will be condemned to operating in 'Russian Roulette airspace' because a few squeaky wheels, with political pull, got the oil.
Lead/Dick
Do you wish to see existing class C terminal airspace converted to E?
eg YMHB YMLT YMAY.
Do you wish to see existing class C terminal airspace converted to E?
eg YMHB YMLT YMAY.
This has always been the agenda. And, regrettably, right now, the cabal that wants to mix high capacity IFR with VFR, with no separation, will probably get their way.
Unfortunately, professional pilots, and their crews and pax, will be condemned to operating in 'Russian Roulette airspace' because a few squeaky wheels, with political pull, got the oil.
peuce
Your last post - in all likelyhood the big sky theory and TCAS will save the day, but I think both sides of the microphone (one more than the other!) can do without that extra Class E "Reason hole" lining up.
Well said.
Your last post - in all likelyhood the big sky theory and TCAS will save the day, but I think both sides of the microphone (one more than the other!) can do without that extra Class E "Reason hole" lining up.
Well said.
Leadsled,
You and Dick have raved on for years about the conspiracy against VFR, AsA managers lining their pockets yada yada yada, but what evidence of blatant discrimination do you have? And I assume that because it appears to be such a major issue for you, hundreds of VFRs are continually blocked from C? Is this what actually occurs?
Had it ever occurred to you that, especially in a surveillance environment, if ATC aren't prepared to allow a VFR into C, it is because there is so much heavy metal in there already and to do so would be foolhardy? Oh, that's right, you think it is the undeniable right of a little VFR to barge in and make a 500-pax A380 take avoiding action. Get real.
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.
Had it ever occurred to you that, especially in a surveillance environment, if ATC aren't prepared to allow a VFR into C, it is because there is so much heavy metal in there already and to do so would be foolhardy? Oh, that's right, you think it is the undeniable right of a little VFR to barge in and make a 500-pax A380 take avoiding action. Get real.