NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, many of the posts here refer to "un-alerted see and avoid", and nobody has seriously advocated "un-alerted" see and avoid, quite the contrary, as I have pointed out in writing, on many occasions.
- How do IFR and VFR receive ‘alerting’ in non-radar Class E?
- How do ATC [in a non-radar environment] confirm aircraft departing Class D [in to Class E] have the TXPDR selected ON for operation in Class E?
To briefly answer your ‘assertion/s’. Also from the O’Neill report:-
The NAS 2b safety case conducted prior to the implementation of these changes seems to have consisted primarily of subjecting those aspects of the 2b changes that were not consistent with the system in use in the United States, to examination by a panel of experts who discussed their likely safety acceptability.
And, the nub of this discussion:-
There is no evidence that there was any attempt to subject proposed changes to formal quantitative analysis.
CASA provided input to the safety case
most notably in a minute of 12 September 2003. Extracts from that document stated:
• “CASA believes the US FAA NAS to be safer than the existing Australian airspace management system based on a simple comparative analysis of mid air collision statistics between the two countries”
• “The detailed evaluation of the presented design safety case evidences that the Stage 2b implementation will bring about an increase in risk beyond that which exists in Australia today.”
• “If the NASIG claim that it is necessary to the full implementation of NAS that Australia transition through this higher risk stage is valid, then clearly
the sooner NAS Stage Four is implemented and the potential safety benefits realised, the sooner this risk is removed”.
• “CASA believes the US FAA NAS to be safer than the existing Australian airspace management system based on a simple comparative analysis of mid air collision statistics between the two countries”
• “The detailed evaluation of the presented design safety case evidences that the Stage 2b implementation will bring about an increase in risk beyond that which exists in Australia today.”
• “If the NASIG claim that it is necessary to the full implementation of NAS that Australia transition through this higher risk stage is valid, then clearly
the sooner NAS Stage Four is implemented and the potential safety benefits realised, the sooner this risk is removed”.
Back to the ‘rollback’
One issue that should be addressed is why more empirically based data modeling procedures were not examined in more detail. Thus an examination could have been made of the relationship between traffic flows and types of aircraft in various types of airspace and resultant incidents both in Australia and internationally. While it is by no means clear that this approach would definitely have been successful in producing highly accurate estimates, given the well-known difficulties associated with pure modeling approaches, a significant attempt to explore this option would seem to have been warranted.
You said:
anybody who believes a 1 in 1 to a 2 in 1 error rate for pilots executing ATC instructions is a reasonable error rate must have two willies, you can't get that stupid playing with one.
Just as much as ascribing an error rate of (by remarkable contrast) 1 in 1,000,000 to ATC persons.
Error estimates for 2 VFR scenarios in E and C airspaces under Radar 45 Conditions
Generally the probabilities appear to show convincingly that VFR pilots are much less likely to make errors in Class C airspace.
In fact the table seems to show that VFR pilot errors are in some instances almost 85,000 times more likely in Class E airspace, a difference that is likely to have had very significant effects on the estimates of the relative safety of the two classes of airspace.
The problem with this conclusion is that the probabilities in the shaded cells, although entered into the fault tree, were not in fact estimated by the panel but directly assigned by AA staff. In other words, in these cases AA merely decided that these probabilities were remote and arbitrarily assigned them a value of 1 in 1,000,000.
The problem with this conclusion is that the probabilities in the shaded cells, although entered into the fault tree, were not in fact estimated by the panel but directly assigned by AA staff. In other words, in these cases AA merely decided that these probabilities were remote and arbitrarily assigned them a value of 1 in 1,000,000.
Perhaps the data capture of that particular question was displayed in a potentially confusing way which resulted in an anomalous scoring by expert panellist?
You also say:
To further suggest that such figures do not materially alter the outcome of the analysis is (at best) revealing the writer has no in-depth knowledge of the various qualitative and quantitative methods of risk assessment.
AA expressed confidence that although the absolute values of the risk estimates may not be reliable, the relative results (i.e. between airspace types) were.
That same political pressure cooker might well be on the heat today
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARFOR, I am kicking it into touch.
Dick won't come back because I don't think he can.
However, despite some of the emotion, Lead remains a credible jouster.
We can, at least, have a rational debate with Lead and keep it civil.
Before I go, would one of you guys who belong to the 'dozens and dozens' please put your hand/s up and back Dick's assertion that E is cheaper than C. With your real name, of course, because without that you wouldn't have any credibility.
I am sure you will agree Dick.
Dick won't come back because I don't think he can.
However, despite some of the emotion, Lead remains a credible jouster.
We can, at least, have a rational debate with Lead and keep it civil.
Before I go, would one of you guys who belong to the 'dozens and dozens' please put your hand/s up and back Dick's assertion that E is cheaper than C. With your real name, of course, because without that you wouldn't have any credibility.
I am sure you will agree Dick.
Freedom7
May I take a stab in the dark without stealing too much of your thunder in relation to the hypothetical Broome scenario?
E airspace
- IFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- VFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- Tower controller happily processing the known IFR inbound
C airspace
- The controller gives the VFR aircraft the option of tracking either via overhead Broome or remaining laterally OCTA for the purpose of separation assurance between ALL aircraft operating or proposing to operate within the controlled airspace volume. Not hard, either the VFR stays OCTA or the IFR is given a technical requirement to be through a level below the VFR by a certain distance from Broome. It`s called procedural (non-radar) separation. Happens every day, guys and gals, believe it or not.
Oh, I`m sorry, my bad, I apologise for the fact that I forgot some people want to fly where they want when they want...like, hypothetically , someone flying from Lord Howe to the Australian mainland in a single engined aircraft and then complaining about not receiving direct tracking to destination within the Sydney basin touting the possibility of an engine failure as justification. Just hypothetically...
May I take a stab in the dark without stealing too much of your thunder in relation to the hypothetical Broome scenario?
E airspace
- IFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- VFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- Tower controller happily processing the known IFR inbound
C airspace
- The controller gives the VFR aircraft the option of tracking either via overhead Broome or remaining laterally OCTA for the purpose of separation assurance between ALL aircraft operating or proposing to operate within the controlled airspace volume. Not hard, either the VFR stays OCTA or the IFR is given a technical requirement to be through a level below the VFR by a certain distance from Broome. It`s called procedural (non-radar) separation. Happens every day, guys and gals, believe it or not.
Oh, I`m sorry, my bad, I apologise for the fact that I forgot some people want to fly where they want when they want...like, hypothetically , someone flying from Lord Howe to the Australian mainland in a single engined aircraft and then complaining about not receiving direct tracking to destination within the Sydney basin touting the possibility of an engine failure as justification. Just hypothetically...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The world at large
Age: 62
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, are you refering to class C over D at place like Broome with no terminal radar?
Let's say there is a VFR aircraft at 6500' going from south to north about 20 miles to the east of Broome at the closest point. At about the same time you have an IFR Kingair on descent from the east, inbound to Broome as well as local flights and circuit traffic. It's sky clear.
Do you still believe that there would be no extra workload for the controller at Broome if C was allocated rather than E?
Pull my other leg!
Let's say there is a VFR aircraft at 6500' going from south to north about 20 miles to the east of Broome at the closest point. At about the same time you have an IFR Kingair on descent from the east, inbound to Broome as well as local flights and circuit traffic. It's sky clear.
Do you still believe that there would be no extra workload for the controller at Broome if C was allocated rather than E?
Pull my other leg!
Or... I could get the VFR guy to report a position, not sure if they are allowed to use composite sep standards in OZ at the present time, and have the IFR guy lock onto a radial , play unders and overs etc etc...not really additional work for me, a bit more for the pilot but that's life. There are a multitude of sep standards that can be used, I haven't used them for a very long time and I don't have a copy of MATS in front of me...but you can look them up and get someone here to give you a rundown of them.
Or I could use what Konstantin said...remain OCTA to the bugshmasher, job done!
BTW passing traffic and then having them bleat on at each other whilst the VFR guy tries to work out where north is far more stressful and R/T time consuming, not to mention the IFR guy requesting separation from the VFR guy. I could spend that time doing something far more productive, like reading the paper or working out what 5 letter word 26 across is
I hate to break the news to you, but separating traffic is far easier and quicker than telling them about each other, many years of bitter experience have shown this to be true...whether or not you like to hear it.
So, you now have your ATC who named himself give you an answer...will you now answer the questions given to you above, no equivocation, no "I heard from someones brothers cousin", and especially no "I believe", or "they do it that way in the states" Just answer the questions that have been put to you.
Howabout!! G'day from the Emerald Isle! I had lunch in Galway this very afternoon, actually had lunch in Doolin, just up the coast from Galway, but then spent an enjoyable arvo wandering around the streets
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
konstatin
There is no thunder to steel.
You have provided an incomplete scenario. I will not second guess your scenario to have others state I have orchestrated it for my benefit.
Why?
For the purpose of Separation maybe?
Hypothetically,
E airspace
BANG
C airspace
Aircraft Separated or 'assured' for the SAME COST, no delays, less transmissions and as an added bonus no Bang.
I can understand individuals own experience but, There is a misconception out there that procedural and/or C airspace is restrictive and should be abolished for the purpose and gain of what exactly???
There is no thunder to steel.
You have provided an incomplete scenario. I will not second guess your scenario to have others state I have orchestrated it for my benefit.
The controller gives the VFR aircraft the option of tracking either via overhead Broome or remaining laterally OCTA
for the purpose of separation assurance between ALL aircraft operating or proposing to operate within the controlled airspace volume.
Oh, I`m sorry, my bad, I apologise for the fact that I forgot some people want to fly where they want when they want...like, hypothetically , someone flying from Lord Howe to the Australian mainland in a single engined aircraft and then complaining about not receiving direct tracking to destination within the Sydney basin touting the possibility of an engine failure as justification. Just hypothetically...
Hypothetically,
E airspace
- IFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- VFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- Tower controller happily processing the known IFR inbound
- VFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- Tower controller happily processing the known IFR inbound
C airspace
Aircraft Separated or 'assured' for the SAME COST, no delays, less transmissions and as an added bonus no Bang.
I can understand individuals own experience but, There is a misconception out there that procedural and/or C airspace is restrictive and should be abolished for the purpose and gain of what exactly???
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I hate to break the news to you, but separating traffic is far easier and quicker than telling them about each other, many years of bitter experience have shown this to be true...whether or not you like to hear it.
To add to the argument however, the scenario I described in G a few posts back would have been far better for all concerned if it was E, so is there a case for more E to lower levels in the busier regional areas? At least then we would all have been positively told where to go
.
Freedom7, hope we are not talking at cross purposes, please allow me to clarify;
- I was basing my discussion on the scenario as posed at Broome by Dick a few posts above, nothing inferred towards yourself - "stealing thunder" was merely an acknowledgement that you had yourself offered to respond to that scenario (or a more specific version thereof?)
- In my E airspace example I left out what I thought was a self evident inference of a potential "bang"
- Tracking via overhead Broome vs OCTA were just two means of how to solve that particular conflict in C
- My last para alluded to the expectation of some people to being able to proceed A DCT B (eg 20 miles abeam Broome) without accepting that this could adversely impact on the processing of other aircraft - whether complicating the situation in C or potentially generating a near miss or worse in E
I am in full agreement with your concluding statements, of course.
Cheers "k"
- I was basing my discussion on the scenario as posed at Broome by Dick a few posts above, nothing inferred towards yourself - "stealing thunder" was merely an acknowledgement that you had yourself offered to respond to that scenario (or a more specific version thereof?)
- In my E airspace example I left out what I thought was a self evident inference of a potential "bang"
- Tracking via overhead Broome vs OCTA were just two means of how to solve that particular conflict in C
- My last para alluded to the expectation of some people to being able to proceed A DCT B (eg 20 miles abeam Broome) without accepting that this could adversely impact on the processing of other aircraft - whether complicating the situation in C or potentially generating a near miss or worse in E
I am in full agreement with your concluding statements, of course.
Cheers "k"
Mike Barry
You may be an ATC who has named yourself, but it’s quite clear you don’t have a clue.
For example, you state
Mike, they would have to be pretty amazing “binos” that you could see a small aircraft twenty miles away.
Then you go on to state,
If you’re not sure of such a basic issue, how can you say that there is no more workload in Class C – where you have to separate IFR and VFR and Class E where you do not have to?
You go on to say
In fact, I think you will find that ATCs who do have a copy of MATS in front of them are the ones telling me that Class C without radar is far more complex to control than Class E.
You state
Oh, Mike, now I understand what you are saying! Class C has no extra workload if you tell the VFR aircraft to remain OCTA!
Anyway, Mike, I admire you for using your own name. Now we simply need to get an ATC who is familiar with Australian standards in both Class E and Class C non-radar airspace to answer the question.
And by the way, telling the VFR aircraft to track from twenty miles out to overhead Broome does add to costs. So forget this claim that Class C costs the same as Class E. This may be to ATCs who tell the VFR to keep out of controlled airspace, but certainly not to all the aircraft that are given extra tracking distances.
I confirm again that I cannot get any ATCs to come on this site with their true beliefs about the workload of C compared to E because they will risk losing their jobs by doing so.
You may be an ATC who has named yourself, but it’s quite clear you don’t have a clue.
For example, you state
I'd call the tower and have him separate visually,,that's why he has binos in the tower cab
Then you go on to state,
not sure if they are allowed to use composite sep standards in OZ at the present time
You go on to say
There are a multitude of sep standards that can be used, I haven't used them for a very long time and I don't have a copy of MATS in front of me
You state
Or I could use what Konstantin said...remain OCTA to the bugshmasher, job done!
Anyway, Mike, I admire you for using your own name. Now we simply need to get an ATC who is familiar with Australian standards in both Class E and Class C non-radar airspace to answer the question.
And by the way, telling the VFR aircraft to track from twenty miles out to overhead Broome does add to costs. So forget this claim that Class C costs the same as Class E. This may be to ATCs who tell the VFR to keep out of controlled airspace, but certainly not to all the aircraft that are given extra tracking distances.
I confirm again that I cannot get any ATCs to come on this site with their true beliefs about the workload of C compared to E because they will risk losing their jobs by doing so.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dog House
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to the argument however, the scenario I described in G a few posts back would have been far better for all concerned if it was E, so is there a case for more E to lower levels in the busier regional areas? At least then we would all have been positively told where to go
If the ablity to be in a controlled environment is there, why not have it?
If the ATC is in the Tower providing a service, why not have it?
ps.
I'm still waiting (so is everyone else) Dick.................its great to see you ask for professional ATCs to coment and then slam their credibility
Last edited by CrazyMTOWDog; 22nd Mar 2010 at 02:36. Reason: Didnt' see Dicks post
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, they would have to be pretty amazing “binos” that you could see a small aircraft twenty miles away.
Personal weapon of choice, better than 20 nm
In fact, I think you will find that ATCs who do have a copy of MATS in front of them are the ones telling me that Class C without radar is far more complex to control than Class E.
konstantin,
Thanks, after some trivial imput I now understand the AIRP#NIS incident. I don't get out much
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I confirm again that I cannot get any ATCs to come on this site with their true beliefs about the workload of C compared to E because they will risk losing their jobs by doing so.
To paraphrase Basil, 'Brilliant Sybil, just brilliant; Mastermind - special category - stating the bleeding obvious.'
How does that sit, Dick, with your previous comments to the effect that those that disagree with your views are not credible 'because you will not reveal your real names?' And other previous statements that imply that if these guys really believed in something, then surely they would post 'under their real names' if it was the truth.
It seems to be OK to bag someone when they disagree with you, but not OK to do the same to someone who (allegedly) agrees with you.
Plus Mr Barry just did it!! And confirmed, under his real name, that it's not cheaper to provide an E service in comparison to full IFR to VFR separation under C procedures.
Mr Barry, thanks for your comments. Indeed an impressive CV. OS beat me to the punch! Please stay engaged.
Glad you enjoyed your lunch! I don't know if you know the Railway Hotel in Galway, or what it's like these days (now known as the Meryck - I think), but my uncle was the head wine honcho there for years, years ago. Had the 'pleasure' of being delivered to Normandy on D-Day via glider.
Anyway, sorry guys, that's thread drift; I know.
This is all incredibly pathetically childish.
Why is it that such as important issue as the air safety of Australians is presented by people who hide their real names?
Because they think the whole issue is a joke - that's why !
If they were genuine they would not only put their real names on Pprune- they would also contact the media to get their views across.
They don't because it is all a con!
Why is it that such as important issue as the air safety of Australians is presented by people who hide their real names?
Because they think the whole issue is a joke - that's why !
If they were genuine they would not only put their real names on Pprune- they would also contact the media to get their views across.
They don't because it is all a con!
Frank
You started your post with an insult, then finished with a comment re throwing a net over me. From the latter I wondered if you had interpreted the incident as 1000ft.
Anyway lets not argue minor points. I agree the ABIT was a bit pie in the sky. The aircraft involved was a straight hang glider, not a powered trike. I was simply trying to make the point that in Class E airspace, there can be no radio no transponder traffic, particularly in NE Victoria, where they operate up to 10k. Large numbers during the Summer months in particular.
I think you mentioned earlier a guesstimate re the numbers, and said they needed to be factored into any risk assessment. I agree
You started your post with an insult, then finished with a comment re throwing a net over me. From the latter I wondered if you had interpreted the incident as 1000ft.
Anyway lets not argue minor points. I agree the ABIT was a bit pie in the sky. The aircraft involved was a straight hang glider, not a powered trike. I was simply trying to make the point that in Class E airspace, there can be no radio no transponder traffic, particularly in NE Victoria, where they operate up to 10k. Large numbers during the Summer months in particular.
I think you mentioned earlier a guesstimate re the numbers, and said they needed to be factored into any risk assessment. I agree
And, I'll bite......
Why is it that almost 20 years 'down the track' from your first 'cuts', that we are still in an unfinished limbo in which NO service is now 'the norm' in many areas where a FIS was once provided?
(e.g. Try rather LARGE portions of WA... as well as other states)
"Your Safety Will Be Unhanced And It Will Cost You Less".......
What a Mantra.....and wot a load of.......
You took away something that we had - and have given us nothing in return!
And none of it is overall cheaper......
Your last words....about a 'con' seem to really ring true....now.
Rant over.......
Why is it that almost 20 years 'down the track' from your first 'cuts', that we are still in an unfinished limbo in which NO service is now 'the norm' in many areas where a FIS was once provided?
(e.g. Try rather LARGE portions of WA... as well as other states)
"Your Safety Will Be Unhanced And It Will Cost You Less".......
What a Mantra.....and wot a load of.......
You took away something that we had - and have given us nothing in return!
And none of it is overall cheaper......
Your last words....about a 'con' seem to really ring true....now.
Rant over.......
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith can you really be as stupid as your last post indicates?
I think not which leaves me wondering at your agenda when you repeatedly bash this same drum. Ppruners have been sacked and suffered significant financial hardship as a result of posting their opinion on Pprune - and on FAR LESS controversial subjects than this.
Last warning - Leave the subject of peoples real identities alone - or I will bin you AGAIN
I think not which leaves me wondering at your agenda when you repeatedly bash this same drum. Ppruners have been sacked and suffered significant financial hardship as a result of posting their opinion on Pprune - and on FAR LESS controversial subjects than this.
Last warning - Leave the subject of peoples real identities alone - or I will bin you AGAIN
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's ensure readers understand that 'the scenario' Mr Smith put forward for Broome [per below] is not difficult for procedural D/C controller/s, rather 'explaining' in written terms the way these separation/workload issues are managed is the difficult part.
It’s a fair question!
Let’s see if we can work through the scenario’s:-
Assumptions [worst case]
1. The crossing VFR [let’s call it VH-V.F.R]
- No flight plan lodged with ATC
- No navaid’s receivers on-board
- No PCAS, ACAS or ADS-B OUT or IN
2. The arriving IFR [let’s call it VH-M.S.U]
- VOR, LOC, DME, GPS
- No PCAS, ACAS or ADS-B OUT or IN
Broome
Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
is equipped with:-
- 25NM MSA A022
- 10NM MSA A015
Lets assume Tower operate D/C up to A085, Centre C above
Conditions
- Information ‘Delta’ current, Runway 28 in use [worse case profile for the Beech, straight in approach], CAVOK
- + Two Cessna’s in the circuit
- + Two helicopters [one outbound, one inbound] to/from the NW
Difficult to display without terminal area maps [which both pilots and ATC will have in towered airspace], but let try to build the picture.
Google map will do for this purpose: -
Google Maps - may have to zoom out/in and centre so you are able to see Broome and the Great Northern Highway to the East
Broome International Airport is on the peninsula to the west of centre, scale 40 ish’ miles
Hypothetical transcript
0400z
CEN – TWR “estimate MSU, Broome 0430, inbound on the 090 bearing, assigned A090”
TWR – CEN “MSU, A090”
0410z
E.L.C “Broome tower, Helicopter E.L.C is Willies Creek A015, inbound received ‘Delta’”
TWR “Helicopter E.L.C, Broome tower, track direct Broome, maintain A015, report at Cable Beach”
E.L.C [reads back]
0412z
A.B.B “A.B.B Base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B, clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]
0414
E.L.L “Broome tower, Helicopter E.L.L is ready at the Helipad, for a NW departure”
TWR “Helicopter E.L.L Broome tower, traffic upwind, a Cessna remaining in the left circuit, climb to A055, depart on track, clear for take-off”
E.L.L [reads back]
0415z
V.F.R “Broome tower gidday, Cessna 206, V.F.R is 35NM to the south east, tracking northbound, maintaining A065, received delta, request clearance”
TWR “V.F.R Broome tower afternoon, cross control area tracking northbound remaining at least 1NM east of the Great Northern Highway at all times, maintain A065”
V.F.R [reads back]
A.B.B “A.B.B base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]
0417z
A.B.C “Broome tower, A.B.C Ready runway 28 for circuits”
TWR “A.B.C Broome tower, follow the company Cessna early left downwind, clear for take-off make left turn”
A.B.C [reads back clearance]
E.L.C “E.L.C approaching Cable beach”
TWR “E.L.C, clear visual approach, join circuit close right base for the helipad”
E.L.C [reads Back]
0418z
A.B.B “A.B.B, base touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B, follow the company Cessna on crosswind, clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]
0420z
E.L.C “E.L.C Right base”
TWR “ E.L.C, at the Helipad, clear to land”
E.L.C [reads back]
A.B.C “A.B.C Base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.C, helicopter traffic on opposite base is for the helipad, runway 28 clear touch and go”
A.B.C [reads back]
0421z
M.S.U “Broome tower afternoon, MSU, 31DME inbound 090, approaching A090 visual, received delta [ATIS]”
TWR “MSU Broome tower, afternoon, descend 075, report established west of the Great Northern Highway for further descent”
M.S.U “MSU, A075, wilco”
0421z til 0424z [more circuit calls]
0425z
M.S.U “M.S.U is west of the Great Northern Highway, maintaining A075”
TWR “M.S.U descent A025 visual, report approaching”
M.S.U “M.S.U A025”
TWR “V.F.R, established clear of Broome controlled airspace, frequency change approved”
V.F.R “V.F.R Frequency changed approved once OCTA, seeya”
TWR “ Cheers”, break A.B.B clear touch and go”
Etc Etc
In the illustration above, the two aircraft that conflict at 20nm East are resolved using only those transmissions above in red. Easy and SAFE
Worthy of note, controllers have published separation diagrams at the ready that provide them quick reference to VFR geographical verses IFR route and distance separation options.
Add to that the fact that the local controllers develop in-depth knowledge of the topography, and the ‘solutions to most tracking and separation problems.
Far better to have a local controller know what they are doing is right, apply the solution with a minimum of frequency use, rather than a non-local [but competent] pilot’s trying to work it out on the fly at short notice, broadcasting over the top of ATC trying to work out how to miss each other.
If I have got this little scenario wrong, ATC contributors will correct my mistakes.
Let's say there is a VFR aircraft at 6500' going from south to north about 20 miles to the east of Broome at the closest point. At about the same time you have an IFR Kingair on descent from the east, inbound to Broome as well as local flights and circuit traffic. It's sky clear.
Do you still believe that there would be no extra workload for the controller at Broome if C was allocated rather than E?
Do you still believe that there would be no extra workload for the controller at Broome if C was allocated rather than E?
Let’s see if we can work through the scenario’s:-
Assumptions [worst case]
1. The crossing VFR [let’s call it VH-V.F.R]
- No flight plan lodged with ATC
- No navaid’s receivers on-board
- No PCAS, ACAS or ADS-B OUT or IN
2. The arriving IFR [let’s call it VH-M.S.U]
- VOR, LOC, DME, GPS
- No PCAS, ACAS or ADS-B OUT or IN
Broome
Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
is equipped with:-
- 25NM MSA A022
- 10NM MSA A015
Lets assume Tower operate D/C up to A085, Centre C above
Conditions
- Information ‘Delta’ current, Runway 28 in use [worse case profile for the Beech, straight in approach], CAVOK
- + Two Cessna’s in the circuit
- + Two helicopters [one outbound, one inbound] to/from the NW
Difficult to display without terminal area maps [which both pilots and ATC will have in towered airspace], but let try to build the picture.
Google map will do for this purpose: -
Google Maps - may have to zoom out/in and centre so you are able to see Broome and the Great Northern Highway to the East
Broome International Airport is on the peninsula to the west of centre, scale 40 ish’ miles
Hypothetical transcript
0400z
CEN – TWR “estimate MSU, Broome 0430, inbound on the 090 bearing, assigned A090”
TWR – CEN “MSU, A090”
0410z
E.L.C “Broome tower, Helicopter E.L.C is Willies Creek A015, inbound received ‘Delta’”
TWR “Helicopter E.L.C, Broome tower, track direct Broome, maintain A015, report at Cable Beach”
E.L.C [reads back]
0412z
A.B.B “A.B.B Base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B, clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]
0414
E.L.L “Broome tower, Helicopter E.L.L is ready at the Helipad, for a NW departure”
TWR “Helicopter E.L.L Broome tower, traffic upwind, a Cessna remaining in the left circuit, climb to A055, depart on track, clear for take-off”
E.L.L [reads back]
0415z
V.F.R “Broome tower gidday, Cessna 206, V.F.R is 35NM to the south east, tracking northbound, maintaining A065, received delta, request clearance”
TWR “V.F.R Broome tower afternoon, cross control area tracking northbound remaining at least 1NM east of the Great Northern Highway at all times, maintain A065”
V.F.R [reads back]
A.B.B “A.B.B base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]
0417z
A.B.C “Broome tower, A.B.C Ready runway 28 for circuits”
TWR “A.B.C Broome tower, follow the company Cessna early left downwind, clear for take-off make left turn”
A.B.C [reads back clearance]
E.L.C “E.L.C approaching Cable beach”
TWR “E.L.C, clear visual approach, join circuit close right base for the helipad”
E.L.C [reads Back]
0418z
A.B.B “A.B.B, base touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B, follow the company Cessna on crosswind, clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]
0420z
E.L.C “E.L.C Right base”
TWR “ E.L.C, at the Helipad, clear to land”
E.L.C [reads back]
A.B.C “A.B.C Base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.C, helicopter traffic on opposite base is for the helipad, runway 28 clear touch and go”
A.B.C [reads back]
0421z
M.S.U “Broome tower afternoon, MSU, 31DME inbound 090, approaching A090 visual, received delta [ATIS]”
TWR “MSU Broome tower, afternoon, descend 075, report established west of the Great Northern Highway for further descent”
M.S.U “MSU, A075, wilco”
0421z til 0424z [more circuit calls]
0425z
M.S.U “M.S.U is west of the Great Northern Highway, maintaining A075”
TWR “M.S.U descent A025 visual, report approaching”
M.S.U “M.S.U A025”
TWR “V.F.R, established clear of Broome controlled airspace, frequency change approved”
V.F.R “V.F.R Frequency changed approved once OCTA, seeya”
TWR “ Cheers”, break A.B.B clear touch and go”
Etc Etc
In the illustration above, the two aircraft that conflict at 20nm East are resolved using only those transmissions above in red. Easy
and SAFE Worthy of note, controllers have published separation diagrams at the ready that provide them quick reference to VFR geographical verses IFR route and distance separation options.
Add to that the fact that the local controllers develop in-depth knowledge of the topography, and the ‘solutions to most tracking and separation problems.
Do you still believe that there would be no extra workload for the controller at Broome if C was allocated rather than E?
If I have got this little scenario wrong, ATC contributors will correct my mistakes.
Last edited by ARFOR; 22nd Mar 2010 at 09:38. Reason: Google Link - transcript omission
C has been established to be safer than E, so why are you wanting it so desperately?
Why do you resort to using inflammatory language? Is it because you have nothing further to say? Is it your way of saying I won't answer your questions because I don't actually have any evidence?
"Incredibly pathetically childish". What a fabulous contribution to the discussion.
You're perfectly willing to accept this from controllers who you claim support you, yet taunt those of us who post here using pseudonyms for the very same reason. Feel free to call them "cowards", I know you want to.
Why do you resort to using inflammatory language? Is it because you have nothing further to say? Is it your way of saying I won't answer your questions because I don't actually have any evidence?
"Incredibly pathetically childish". What a fabulous contribution to the discussion.
I confirm again that I cannot get any ATCs to come on this site with their true beliefs about the workload of C compared to E because they will risk losing their jobs by doing so
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all incredibly pathetically childish.
Why is it that such as important issue as the air safety of Australians is presented by people who hide their real names?
Because they think the whole issue is a joke - that's why !
If they were genuine they would not only put their real names on PPRuNe- they would also contact the media to get their views across.
They don't because it is all a con!
Why is it that such as important issue as the air safety of Australians is presented by people who hide their real names?
Because they think the whole issue is a joke - that's why !
If they were genuine they would not only put their real names on PPRuNe- they would also contact the media to get their views across.
They don't because it is all a con!
You see, old mate, posts like that do you no favours. The people that post here are concerned with aviation safety; otherwise they wouldn't make the effort.
As for the comment that 'the whole issue is a joke,' it seems to me that you are demeaning yourself unnecessarily by making such a gratuitous observation
Nobody, me included, wants to see an Australian icon embarrassing himself with what appears to be a dummy-spit. What I regard as the emotive stuff should be beneath you. I am consistently disappointed that emotion seems to overtake practicality, given your substantial achievements.
Regretfully, I suppose we just keep arguing the toss.
Food for thought.......
PSA Flight 182 vs a C-172 in California........
PSA Flight 182 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At around 9am local time on a clear day.....
Could this happen in 'E'..?
Would this happen in 'C'..?
Which is 'safer', and, from what we are told, costs the same to administer???
Why would anyone 'bother' with 'E'..???
PSA Flight 182 vs a C-172 in California........
PSA Flight 182 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At around 9am local time on a clear day.....
Could this happen in 'E'..?
Would this happen in 'C'..?
Which is 'safer', and, from what we are told, costs the same to administer???
Why would anyone 'bother' with 'E'..???
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
CaptainMidnight;
We seem to be minor players in this thread so I won't labour the point. The fact is that many gliders can and do operate up to FL350, (as in 35,000ft), winter soaring in class E airspace. Most I imagine are radio equipped but having no means of generating electricity are limited to activities which are generally mentioned in NOTAMS.
You mention,
The thing is it is not a guesstimate but actual figures quoted from the latest RAA magazine.
They like gliders (under the self adminsitration of GFA, HGF, etc), need to be factored into this debate because they are a fact of life. They are additional to RAA figures.
I am an ardent supporter of "alerted see and avoid" so have misgivings about people flying where radio or a TXP are mandatory and would be sensible for safe flight.
Again, at great risk of showing my age, I was of the belief that radio was mandatory for flight above A050 (5,000ft). But I owned an Auster with no electrics then, so perhaps I am a dinoursaur. But do people have to make me extinct before I'm even dead.
If I were a frog I would be a protected species.
Sorry if I offended.
We seem to be minor players in this thread so I won't labour the point. The fact is that many gliders can and do operate up to FL350, (as in 35,000ft), winter soaring in class E airspace. Most I imagine are radio equipped but having no means of generating electricity are limited to activities which are generally mentioned in NOTAMS.
You mention,
I think you mentioned earlier a guesstimate re the numbers, and said they needed to be factored into any risk assessment. I agree
They like gliders (under the self adminsitration of GFA, HGF, etc), need to be factored into this debate because they are a fact of life. They are additional to RAA figures.
I am an ardent supporter of "alerted see and avoid" so have misgivings about people flying where radio or a TXP are mandatory and would be sensible for safe flight.
Again, at great risk of showing my age, I was of the belief that radio was mandatory for flight above A050 (5,000ft). But I owned an Auster with no electrics then, so perhaps I am a dinoursaur. But do people have to make me extinct before I'm even dead.
If I were a frog I would be a protected species.
Sorry if I offended.