Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

NAS rears its head again

Old 16th Apr 2010, 01:53
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MJBOW2(stroke)Dick

Yes I do disagree. Once again you have NO understanding.
Pat Mcgroin is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 02:07
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
mjbow2

You have answered it yourself.....yes 10 or twenty or even 100 a day are probably (I am guessing just as much as you are) managable without extra ATC's, and thats pretty much all we have. If it ever gets to 1000........then we need to revisit it.

You shot your own argument in the foot mate!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 02:12
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
mjbow2,

You made a lot of statements about US airspace and how you think we think it should be doine. That's of no interest here, we're talking about Australia...so I'll ignore those sections.

Why not A? Why not B? We could cover the entire continent with class B because it is 'safer' than E. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
Not really. But over the whole contineant? But as a replacement for E, yes, why not . Except for the exclusion of VFRs in A .. that could be an issue. But there's no reason we couldn't have B over D at Broome, for the same cost as E

Better still. Lets make it illegal for any aircraft to take off. This is the only way of guaranteeing no aircraft will ever collide with other traffic or the terrain.
Now you're just being silly
You know that all we want is for it to be safe as reasonably possible at a realistic price.

Hypothetically, would you be happy is we could provide C for the same price as E?

If not, why not?
If yes, can you provide us with an explanation of how you think it costs more to provide C than E.... because the Controllers have stated otherwise. Obviously you must have data that they are not privy to.
peuce is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 02:36
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When are the proponents of the Class E debate going to answer the questions asked by Mr Bloggs/ARFOR/Stanley/Howabout/Ozbusdriver etc?

Unfortunately there seems to be a smug resistence to do so, and knowing the way government organisations work, this deal will no doubt get up despite not having had the studies done and in conflict to the reports from other Class D airports.

So just humour everyone and answer the questions or just confirm the proof/studies do not exist.

SQ
squawk6969 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 02:39
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
mjbow2,

The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D Howabout is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?
I re-read your post and you, in fact, did state your objection to Class C ... above.

My answer ...
  1. the only reason we are having ANY controlled airspace further out is because CASA/OAR said we will. Can't say I've seen any justification either.
  2. So, if we are having a Controlled Airspace link, then, presumably, it has to be safer than what we have ... Class G(F) with a 30nm MBZ.
  3. Is Class E safer than that? No, as IFRs will be required to descend down through unknown VFR aircraft.
  4. Is Class C safer than the status quo? Yes, positive separation between all aircraft
  5. ATC have stated that they can provide Class C for the same cost as Class E

Seems quite logical to me
peuce is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 02:49
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mjbow
I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable.
Not preposterous at all. Existing class D and C towers utilise the same number of tower staff [for each specific location] whether they have overlying C to A085 or not. Simply put, the workload in the D is such that the additional C is no impost or saturation risk, particularly when having that approach/departures airspace enables the tower to ‘tactical plan with out the additional workload associated with a separate remote controller [either en-route or approach/departures] that requires a dialogue between tower and centre or TRACON for every movement, more importantly, assignment of separation responsibility where a conflict occurs close to the boundary of the airspace parcels.

Simply put combined tower/approach reduces complex co-ordination in the terminal area, which reduces time lost to other tasks [scanning, separation, VHF], and removes the ability of a ‘combined’ controller to tactically plan traffic solutions, enact them, and re-evaluate, monitor, re-evaluate in quick time without having to bring an adjoining controller in to the thought process and agreement loop.

The other side of this equation is of course the workload, training and co-ordination complexity for the overlying airspace controller [en-route or approach] who, in Australia will not be a TRACON/approach controller, rather a sector en-route controller with huge swathes of high level CTA, OCTA FIS and related workload already.

If you add low level Terminal area CTA to these airspace services, it is not rocket science to understand the exponential increase in diversity of responsibility, complexity, and most importantly possibility for distraction/error or otherwise unnecessary delays. This no reflection on the en-route controllers in Australia who are already providing very complex, busy and non-stop[listen to their frequencies on any given day] ATS services from the surface CTAF’s at KickaBobalong through to vector sequencing, time and speed control, STAR delivery etc into arrivals airspace to capital cities.
Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.
Of course it will Notwithstanding the first answer in this post, the thing you Nastronauts seem incapable of understanding, is that the volume of traffic is part of what determines the classification, the primary driver is passenger transport volume, and all of those aside, what determines the ‘appropriate’ classification to service the previous mentioned is of course the ATS infrastructure.

- Tower [how many frequencies and operating positions are necessary]
- Terminal area control CTA [can it be done from the tower, if not how many terminal area positions are needed remotely] etc etc
- Is surveillance available? Is it required?

I can say with a high degree of certainty:-

If the terminal area traffic above the tower zone is too busy and/or complex for the tower to manage, then it will certainly be orders of magnitude worse [incompatible] for a remote en-route sector
If Civil Air were right then the FAA could [U]divide up their enroute Class E into tiny sectors[/U, reclassify it Class C and employ thousands more controllers at no extra cost
A ridiculous analogy. The discussion for Australia is not about dividing up existing airspace volumes, it is about establishing tower services, and separately how best to service the climb and descent areas associated.

Done by the tower? E or C = same number of tower staff!

Done by the Centre? E or C = same number of en-route staff? Maybe not!

It is possible that the TMA airspace above A045 – A085 [if done remotely] will require console positions in the centres be split irrespective of E or C [due the IFR/IFR separation and co-ordination complexity].

The reduction in VFR responsibility in E [via remote centre] is not outweighed when compared with the tower applied C option. Nor is the risk mitigation anywhere even close to that of local tower controllers with local TMA knowledge. Centre based Class E in climb and descent areas above busy ICAO D towers does not fly from a safety, efficiency, or cost point of provision points of view.
The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?
Quite apart from all of the other cost of provision and safety advantages discussed in this thread:-

Services application - C or D over D - Further out, larger lateral ‘separation standard’ options exist. In other words it is easier, safer and with less opportunity for short notice [no tactical options] ‘surprise’ factor of Class E. The pilot-to-pilot-to-ATC impact of additional frequency loading [chatter involved with self separation] with class E is a safety negative to adjoining services [en-route or tower as the case maybe] that should not be underestimated.
ARFOR is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 03:18
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
What ARFOR said, plus .. for those interested, here are links to:

The Australian Aviation Act 2007


ComLaw Management - Series- Airspace Act 2007

Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010 (which is a requirement of the Act, every 3 years)

Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010

Some of these quotes from the documents have been posted before, but I found them interesting:

CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, and the OAR must approach the development of its advice on airspace regulation on the same basis......

The administration of Australian-administered airspace:
+ shall be in the best interests of Australia;
+shall consider the current and future needs of the Australian aviation industry;
+ shall adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia‟s aviation environment; and
+ shall take advantage of advances in technology wherever practicable.....

Class F: IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive a flight information service if requested. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace. (REALLY????)......

Changes to an existing airspace classification or designation should be the consequence of a clear and consistent risk management process.....

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......

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 decisions taken on Broome & Karattha will ultimately provide eveidence on how well we are being served by our Government.
peuce is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 04:08
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LeadSled
Obviously the CASA CEO and the head of OAR haven't read you chaps forensic dissection of the legislation, and are still working under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.
Quotable Quote number 4

Keep em' coming
ARFOR is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 05:33
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lead,

Obviously the CASA CEO and the head of OAR haven't read you chaps forensic dissection of the legislation, and are still working under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.
Cute old fruit.

Given that you could not answer my post on the lack of direction in either the Act, Regulation or Statement (post #427) regarding US NAS, and there is none, I find your approach most disappointing. I did not put you in the category of the Great Benefactor and regarded your contributions as a bit more positive; and honest. Argument 'won on merit' comes to mind.

However, the statement above is a shocker. In short, you are quite happy for the CEO of CASA and the head of the OAR to work under
the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.
And before you jump in, you could not refute my assertions regarding Act, Regulation or Statement intent. However, to achieve your aims you seem to be willing to ignore fact, accept 'misapprehension,' and use that 'misapprehension' to secure your aims.

Deductive reasoning Lead: You cannot refute post #427, otherwise you would have two-days ago; you are willing to perpetuate the myth that NAS is the end-state; and, furthermore, you are happy to have senior officials of CASA act in a state of 'misapprehension' to achieve your goals.

If you can defeat my argument at post #427, my position is is destroyed. Do it Lead. If you can't, then your credibility, IMHO, ain't what I thought it was.

Last edited by Howabout; 16th Apr 2010 at 05:50.
Howabout is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 07:19
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 538
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I wonder how the jet jockeys feel about this scenario:
Class D to A025, Class E above.
VFR traffic requests clearance to transit at A020 but is denied clearance due jet on same track on descent. VFR climbs to A035 and no longer needs a clearance, still a confliction, but it must be safe because the NAStronauts say it is.
topdrop is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 09:12
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yep the C150 is vannishingly small when obsured by the bug guts on ya B717 windscreen..............until
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 09:32
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And about transponders, the intruder was outputting the wrong altitude?

And this
Investigation and aftermath

The National Transportation Safety Board investigation found that N4891F, the Piper, had deviated into the LAX Terminal Control Area. It was out of radio contact with air traffic control, which had been distracted by another flight entering his control area without having received clearance.
Moreover, the Piper was not equipped with a Mode C transponder, which would have indicated its altitude, and LAX had not been equipped with automatic warning systems. Finally, apparently neither pilot sighted the other aircraft because neither attempted any evasive maneuvers, even though they were in visual range. When an autopsy revealed significant arterial blockage in the heart of the Piper's pilot, there was public speculation that he had suffered a heart attack, causing incapacitation and contributing to the collision; however, further forensic evidence discounted this, and error on the part of the Piper pilot was determined to be the main contributing factor to the collision.[5]
As a result of this accident and other near mid-air collisions (NMAC) in terminal control areas, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all commercial aircraft be equipped with traffic alert and collision avoidance systems (TCAS), and required that light aircraft operating in dense airspaces be equipped with "Mode C" transponders that could report three-dimensional position.[8]
A jury ruled that the Aeroméxico plane bore no fault, instead deciding that Kramer and the FAA each acted equally negligently and had equal responsibility. U.S. District Judge David Kenyon agreed with the notion that the FAA shared responsibility.
So for those wondering about survellance being important, how about we ask Bloggs and friends?
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 09:48
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lead,

I don't want to screw up a progressing thread; so, I'll just say Lead:

Post #427 and post #457.

Earth calling Lead.

Answer the questions, Please Lead, shatter my credibility.
Howabout is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 10:05
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a result of this accident and other near mid-air collisions (NMAC) in terminal control areas, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all commercial aircraft be equipped with traffic alert and collision avoidance systems (TCAS), and required that light aircraft operating in dense airspaces be equipped with "Mode C" transponders that could report three-dimensional position.
Sad isn't it that some countries need corpses before they act.

This [in this thread] from a junior NAStronaut
The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss just as in the low level ADSB debates.
Silly people!

ADS-B not only enhances on-board anti collision systems, it also provides an ultra low cost ATS tool for [amongst other things] ensuring transponders are on.

That said, without primary radar, no-radio/no TXPDR VCA's cannot be totally ruled out.

I would like to see TXPDR's [including ES ADS-B OUT] wired in to all aircraft with an air switch, and a pullable circuit breaker only [in case of malfunction or fire] to minimise switch on omission. By doing so, whilst masters are on, the ADS-B is outputting the required ground signals, and when at flying speed, outputting required airborne signals.
ARFOR is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 10:40
  #395 (permalink)  
 
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
The ADSB debate in question was whether or not the gullible believed in "tooth fairy" promises of free installation. Not "commo" misinformation about junor NAStronauts?

I don't recall anybody being against the principle as an evolutionary progression from mode C transponder where it is currently required.

it also provides an ultra low cost ATS tool
Which it is.... For Airservices. But only if the poor bloody aircraft owner pays for ADSB OUT. (refer "tooth fairy promises before going off about how it could have been).

I would like to see TXPDR's [including ES ADS-B OUT] wired in to all aircraft with an air switch, and a pullable circuit breaker only [in case of malfunction or fire] to minimise switch on omission. By doing so, whilst masters are on, the ADS-B is outputting the required ground signals, and when at flying speed, outputting required airborne signals.
And we should all have a microchip implant in our brain so we can be charged $$$$'s for the privelege of someone "watching" someone who doesn't want to be watched in the GAFA.

need corpses before they act
Probably is why there is no ATC at Goodooga. Obviously a breakdown in duty of care responsibilities by your reckoning.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 10:52
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
‘Wide of the mark platitudes’

Mr Arouet

This discussion thread is regarding CTA/R operations, not ‘Goodooga’ or ‘KickaBobalong’ in remote area class G.
ARFOR is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 11:09
  #397 (permalink)  
Pardoned PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: GlassGumtree
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So Frank,

If I understand correctly - you subscribe the 'affordable safety' party?

So if the Government (read CASA, AsA and the RAAF) were to provide every aircraft in Australia with an ADSB-out fitment at zero-0-no cost to you (the owners) you would be happy with that?

I am not talking about toothfairies or dicksmithfairies - lets be sensible - yes or no?

Simple question..

TT
TrafficTraffic is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 12:07
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
TT,

I think Frank has answered that question:

...the privelege of someone "watching" someone who doesn't want to be watched in the GAFA.
peuce is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 12:18
  #399 (permalink)  
Pardoned PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: GlassGumtree
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank-you Peuce,


Yes perhaps Frank could explain why anybody would not want to be watched?

Perhaps if he was on a Chinese Coal carrier taking a shortcut I could understand....

TT
TrafficTraffic is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2010, 12:53
  #400 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
As long as there is a CB to pull when I don't want to be watched.

This thread is NOT about big brother intrusion into our flying across the broad spectrum of aviation pursuits - or it shouldn't be - its about controlling the airspace where larger aircraft full of fare paying passengers travel. We have enough to worry about in terms of our freedoms to fly for fun without a MAC between an aircraft with 170 bums and one with 2 providing politicians with an opportunity to strip any more away in the name of dredging for votes.

IFR (mostly but not exclusively) GA MUST be able to avail itself of 'the system' when it wants to/needs to BUT GA must fit in with the big end of the industry rather than the other way around.

What is so terrible about wedges of class C steps funnelling RPT aircraft into Class D towers and Class C above say 10000'?

Personally I find the attitude of people like DS, et al, to be amazingly arrogant. I also find it utterly STUNNING that such a small group can be so instrumental in causing SO MUCH grief over so many years.

Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 16th Apr 2010 at 13:22.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.