NAS rears its head again
as soon as we were outside the Australian FIR, commonsense prevailed, the Captain was no longer constrained in operating the aircraft properly. Another example of mindless regulatory straighjackets.
Give you a head start...explain ADS-C and how it makes for tighter tolerances for separation as opposed to full procedures...Surveillance as opposed to Procedures....that sounds like an argument for E
Ledsled,
Having a bit of fun, I was.
Oh, I get it. Provided the aircraft don't actually hit each other, there's no problem. In any other class of airspace, all hell breaks loose when the aircraft come within a few miles of each other, but because nobody is trying to actually keep aircraft apart in E, all's well. Got it.
I forgot. My day job takes up so much of my time I can't sit on this computer 24/7 looking for this stuff. Please provide again. Or is this schoolboy "It's a secret" stuff?
You might like to address Rotorblades comments about the cluster_uck that is Willy airspace at the moment in relation to E. Sounds like the big-sky theory is alive and well around there.
So I'm a new IFR regional Hi-Cap captain. What would "implications" and the "many reasons" would you teach me when instructing me about departing into low-level E from a CTAF?
For your information, I have never attempted to edit one of your posts, it must be somebody else, if, in fact, it is happening at all, and not just a figment of your imagination.
I was merely suggesting an edit by you, to more accurately reflect a position taken by you.
I was merely suggesting an edit by you, to more accurately reflect a position taken by you.
refuses to acknowledge that the 2 NMACs we had in E airspace in 2003-4 shoots holes in his assertion that NMACs in E are "vanishingly small"
Rubbish again. Despite your opinions on the subject, those opinions were not shared by the NAS assessment team, and did not invalidate NAS 2b. By the way, it is the probability of an actual hit that is vanishingly small, but the likelihood of you ever coming to terms with rational risk analysis is, might I suggest, also vanishingly small.
Rubbish again. Despite your opinions on the subject, those opinions were not shared by the NAS assessment team, and did not invalidate NAS 2b. By the way, it is the probability of an actual hit that is vanishingly small, but the likelihood of you ever coming to terms with rational risk analysis is, might I suggest, also vanishingly small.
refuses to divulge any Cost-Benefit Analysis that supports E over D instead of C over D and
Rubbish, I have told you where and how to find it, and why I will not provide the info.
Rubbish, I have told you where and how to find it, and why I will not provide the info.
You might like to address Rotorblades comments about the cluster_uck that is Willy airspace at the moment in relation to E. Sounds like the big-sky theory is alive and well around there.
will not comment on the suggestion from MJBOW2 that, if ATC refuses to give an IFR a clearance into E after takeoff in a surveilled environment eg at Williamtown, that the aircraft just switch to VFR and blast off anyway without even considering what may be causing the controller to refuse the clearance.
You lot are all so tied up in your "Little Australia" world that you can't imagine an alternative way of doing business, there are many reasons why a pilot, having considered the implications, might decide to depart VFR.
You lot are all so tied up in your "Little Australia" world that you can't imagine an alternative way of doing business, there are many reasons why a pilot, having considered the implications, might decide to depart VFR.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is being cute with the truth Bloggs
He thinks that the 'design safety case' for NAS2b fits the bill. A CBA it is not. The safety case for rollback, he reckons was flawed, yet rollback occurred, the work on that remains on the Dept website, yet there were no volume specific safety cases.
FAA 'like' yeah right 
He won't show you the work for this latest exercise, because it does not exist [unless a mad scramble of beer coaster bits has been put in a folder and labelled].
NAS is old hat, stomped flat, but their still wearing it
and the polly cats are still admiring it [as a friend of mine would say] like floosies at Flemington.
He thinks that the 'design safety case' for NAS2b fits the bill. A CBA it is not. The safety case for rollback, he reckons was flawed, yet rollback occurred, the work on that remains on the Dept website, yet there were no volume specific safety cases.
FAA 'like' yeah right He won't show you the work for this latest exercise, because it does not exist [unless a mad scramble of beer coaster bits has been put in a folder and labelled].
NAS is old hat, stomped flat, but their still wearing it
and the polly cats are still admiring it [as a friend of mine would say] like floosies at Flemington.
Rule3, re your post 648 yes it is for real
In the UK CAA system non radar towers such as Plymouth are in G airspace with Controllers "controlling" IFR aircraft on to the approach and the ILS.
Controllers even "control" IFR aircraft in en-route radar G airspace when other aircraft in IMC are not reporting.
In practice they give a class E like service in G however they so resist change(the CAA) that no one is game to call it class E.
Tiny airports such as Gatwick are class D.
Heathrow is supposed to be class A however you can fly VFR in the airspace.
Yes, those in charge are incompetent.
In the UK CAA system non radar towers such as Plymouth are in G airspace with Controllers "controlling" IFR aircraft on to the approach and the ILS.
Controllers even "control" IFR aircraft in en-route radar G airspace when other aircraft in IMC are not reporting.
In practice they give a class E like service in G however they so resist change(the CAA) that no one is game to call it class E.
Tiny airports such as Gatwick are class D.
Heathrow is supposed to be class A however you can fly VFR in the airspace.
Yes, those in charge are incompetent.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NAStronauts must be winning if the plethora of new posters is logarithmatically proportional to your cut and paste arguements. Some, of previous note, are private VFR day pilots with an axe to grind over their previous failures.
I am not sure how many are posting or even reading, however a quiet discussion with one of them the other day (yes single digit just like Leadslead, few years younger) and this topic came up. The comment was along the lines of and I can not reapat word for word, but let us sum it up as....not qualified to comment. Perhaps those who work these places in Jets and ATC are best to answer that.
Interesting concept wouldn't you say.
SQ
In the UK CAA system non radar towers such as Plymouth are in G airspace with Controllers "controlling" IFR aircraft on to the approach and the ILS.
Controllers even "control" IFR aircraft in en-route radar G airspace when other aircraft in IMC are not reporting.
In practice they give a class E like service in G however they so resist change(the CAA) that no one is game to call it class E.
Tiny airports such as Gatwick are class D.
Heathrow is supposed to be class A however you can fly VFR in the airspace.
Yes, those in charge are incompetent.
Controllers even "control" IFR aircraft in en-route radar G airspace when other aircraft in IMC are not reporting.
In practice they give a class E like service in G however they so resist change(the CAA) that no one is game to call it class E.
Tiny airports such as Gatwick are class D.
Heathrow is supposed to be class A however you can fly VFR in the airspace.
Yes, those in charge are incompetent.
Let's just make all airspace occupied by RPT Class D (yes, you VFR fundamentalists can still go about your selfish "business" unhindered but at least I will know where you are so that I have a fighting chance of avoiding a Launy Tobago) and be done with it!
We don't even need ADS-B; Multilateration works great. How about showing some vision, Dick, and support it?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rule 3- the airspace design that seems incredulous to you- where IFRs are vectored around VFR (?) 'paints' in the UK, is EXACTLY what happens in the US NAS class E. Ask one of your current colleagues.
This is the airspace design that the Nastonauts are proposing to introduce. The BIG DIFFERENCE in places like Broome, of course, is that there is no radar coverage to have to worry about vectoring IFRs around 'paints'!!
Incredible? Well, that's one word for it.
As for the UK- calling an airspace a letter, is different to mandating what actual service occurs in that airspace- a la class G in oz (class F). Dick, if you want to blame ATS administrations for using weasil words, blame their political masters who have made it an art form. eg. ministerial 'directions' that do nothing other than placate vocal constituents.
This is the airspace design that the Nastonauts are proposing to introduce. The BIG DIFFERENCE in places like Broome, of course, is that there is no radar coverage to have to worry about vectoring IFRs around 'paints'!!
Incredible? Well, that's one word for it.
As for the UK- calling an airspace a letter, is different to mandating what actual service occurs in that airspace- a la class G in oz (class F). Dick, if you want to blame ATS administrations for using weasil words, blame their political masters who have made it an art form. eg. ministerial 'directions' that do nothing other than placate vocal constituents.
Found on the DICK Smith Flyer (in relation to Avalon):
So much for anonymous posters...
oooh and further:
Dick:
OAR:
The fourth paragraph of your letter indicates that Mr Smith has obtained advice from ‘experts’ supporting his opinion. Given the circumstances of your correspondence, we are surprised that these experts are not named, that their credentials are not provided and that we have not been provided with a copy of their assessments.
oooh and further:
Dick:
4. “Acting inconsistently with the government’s 2007 Policy Statement”
The summary points listed here are a mis-representation of the AAPS, namely:
a) the Policy statement directs a risk and cost benefit based approach to regulation: Not simply to copy the US NAS
a) the Policy statement directs a risk and cost benefit based approach to regulation: Not simply to copy the US NAS
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith,
hahahahahaha,
sorry, was your post not a joke?
Why didnt you ask me (as someone who controlled the heathrow class A CTZ for 7 years)
Oh no you cant. You can fly IFR or SVFR, as its a class A control Zone.
Even the US mentions SVFR.
Very few 'radar towers' as you like to call them about.
The Approach service provided by approach controllers in the main ATSCs, Luton, Stansted, Heathrow, Thames (London City, Biggin Hill, Southend), Gatwick all in the NERC Centre plus others in SCOATC i.e. Manchester, Glasgow. People without a radar cant vector.
We are the ones who provide the radar vectoring to ILS finals. using appropriate R/V Charts, descent points, terrain clearance. Its called:
SAFELY, ORDERLY and EXPEDITIOUS.
And thats less safe how???? its all above the LSALT.
Its safer then, under your ideas, to just pass traffic to the IFR and let him blast through it?
Its what radar is for, to deconflict traffic with as little hazard to mainstream RPT traffic. whilst still keeping class G (the open FIR) for pilots who dont need their hands held for their flight.
At anytime the pilot can say he doesnt want the RAS, and only wants RIS or FIS.
Tiny, as opposed to what, Broome? Tamworth?
Sydney is tiny compared to places like Dallas or LA.
Other class D control zones are Stansted, Luton, London City, Birmingham, Manchester. Your point being?
It just proves that the UK can manage traffic better & integrate safely VFR
& IFR.
If you mean in the UK, you obviously havent got a clue - as you havent got a clue in all your statements on my post. You could've just asked me I would've told you .
Im sorry but they are not providing e like in G. So dont bring your E class fetish into it. In E you dont give vectors or routings around VFR. So the UK actually super over-providing, almost a C service in G, wow! bonus points.
Surely thats not incompetency, surely thats service provision above & beyond the call of duty.
By your logic controllers should give the lowest amount of service possible in each airspace class rather than the highest or more than is required.
I think this has disproved your last post as complete horse faeces. And your whole narrow-minded approach is to prove that your idea is great and everyone elses' is crap(except the US - who we hope dont pull up their pants because the sun would disappear, cause thats obviously where it comes from in the world according to Dick)
The UKs not perfect, but it works for us(when I was there). It allows suitable access to all areas with adequate safeguards and backups.
One more touch on incompetency - Whos the more incompetent a company who when you highlight a safety deficiency/concer in the system:
a/ says thanks for highlighting it and investigates the matter (NATS)
or
b/ labels you a troublemaker, threatens you with remedial action and does nothing about it? (ASA)
hahahahahaha,
sorry, was your post not a joke?
Heathrow is supposed to be class A however you can fly VFR in the airspace
Oh no you cant. You can fly IFR or SVFR, as its a class A control Zone.
Even the US mentions SVFR.
non radar towers
The Approach service provided by approach controllers in the main ATSCs, Luton, Stansted, Heathrow, Thames (London City, Biggin Hill, Southend), Gatwick all in the NERC Centre plus others in SCOATC i.e. Manchester, Glasgow. People without a radar cant vector.
We are the ones who provide the radar vectoring to ILS finals. using appropriate R/V Charts, descent points, terrain clearance. Its called:
SAFELY, ORDERLY and EXPEDITIOUS.
Controllers even "control" IFR aircraft in en-route radar G airspace when other aircraft in IMC are not reporting
Its safer then, under your ideas, to just pass traffic to the IFR and let him blast through it?
Its what radar is for, to deconflict traffic with as little hazard to mainstream RPT traffic. whilst still keeping class G (the open FIR) for pilots who dont need their hands held for their flight.
At anytime the pilot can say he doesnt want the RAS, and only wants RIS or FIS.
Tiny airports such as Gatwick are class D
Sydney is tiny compared to places like Dallas or LA.
Other class D control zones are Stansted, Luton, London City, Birmingham, Manchester. Your point being?
It just proves that the UK can manage traffic better & integrate safely VFR
& IFR.
Yes, those in charge are incompetent
In practice they give a class E like service in G
Surely thats not incompetency, surely thats service provision above & beyond the call of duty.
By your logic controllers should give the lowest amount of service possible in each airspace class rather than the highest or more than is required.
I think this has disproved your last post as complete horse faeces. And your whole narrow-minded approach is to prove that your idea is great and everyone elses' is crap(except the US - who we hope dont pull up their pants because the sun would disappear, cause thats obviously where it comes from in the world according to Dick)
The UKs not perfect, but it works for us(when I was there). It allows suitable access to all areas with adequate safeguards and backups.
One more touch on incompetency - Whos the more incompetent a company who when you highlight a safety deficiency/concer in the system:
a/ says thanks for highlighting it and investigates the matter (NATS)
or
b/ labels you a troublemaker, threatens you with remedial action and does nothing about it? (ASA)
They Control aircraft in un -controlled airspace and you say that is not incompetent!
Our G is not ICAO F as we are obsessed with mandated radio and mandated VFR radio calls in our G wheras in ICAO F no radio is required fo VFR.
Are you suggesting we should have a non radar tower such as Broome the same way as Plymouth- with ATC actually controlling aircraft in G?
And dimensions of about 3nm X 2000'.
Our G is not ICAO F as we are obsessed with mandated radio and mandated VFR radio calls in our G wheras in ICAO F no radio is required fo VFR.
Are you suggesting we should have a non radar tower such as Broome the same way as Plymouth- with ATC actually controlling aircraft in G?
And dimensions of about 3nm X 2000'.
Dick,
Call it what you like, on several occasions over my flying career, that has ensured that I have got to where I am in my life ie still alive (here to annoy you ), by not running into a VFR because I actually found out about them before running into them. Good system, methinks. 
Our G is not ICAO F as we are obsessed with mandated radio and mandated VFR radio calls in our G
), by not running into a VFR because I actually found out about them before running into them. Good system, methinks.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 26th Apr 2010 at 01:10.
RE-read rotorblade's post, Mr Smith. He is saying even though the airspace is G, ATC OVERservice!
C like services in G...can he be more clear than that?
It matters not if its G or whatever you wish to call "un-controlled airspace" The radar surveillance is in place, all VFR are visible and therefore a target and can be passed as traffic...If VFR choose a full service, a directed service or no service...it is their call...sounds simple enough...because there is a means of surveillance...
So the UK actually super over-providing, almost a C service in G, wow! bonus points.
Surely thats not incompetency, surely thats service provision above & beyond the call of duty.
Surely thats not incompetency, surely thats service provision above & beyond the call of duty.
It matters not if its G or whatever you wish to call "un-controlled airspace" The radar surveillance is in place, all VFR are visible and therefore a target and can be passed as traffic...If VFR choose a full service, a directed service or no service...it is their call...sounds simple enough...because there is a means of surveillance...
On weekends no radar surveillance at Plymouth but ATC in the tower still provide a control service in G and separate IFR from other IFR's they know about.
Their CAA clearly lacks the leadership to allocate an ICAO airspace classification to the airspace- no doubt scared of being attacked by anonymous dopes on PPRUNE.
They just go on calling it G. You don't get that type of incompetence in the USA.
Bloggs, our G is not F! There is in fact no ICAO airspace classification below D that includes VFR in the system. This is for good proven safety reasons- if a system relies on VFR calling in the blind, accidents will result because there is no proof that the radio is actually working, let alone on the correct frequency!
I will say it again - the UK CAA is the most incompetent aviation regulator in the world. The UK once had a viable GA and Airline aircraft manufacturing industry- all now destroyed by an out of touch regulator.
Their airspace system is clearly the worst in the world after one other.
Their CAA clearly lacks the leadership to allocate an ICAO airspace classification to the airspace- no doubt scared of being attacked by anonymous dopes on PPRUNE.
They just go on calling it G. You don't get that type of incompetence in the USA.
Bloggs, our G is not F! There is in fact no ICAO airspace classification below D that includes VFR in the system. This is for good proven safety reasons- if a system relies on VFR calling in the blind, accidents will result because there is no proof that the radio is actually working, let alone on the correct frequency!
I will say it again - the UK CAA is the most incompetent aviation regulator in the world. The UK once had a viable GA and Airline aircraft manufacturing industry- all now destroyed by an out of touch regulator.
Their airspace system is clearly the worst in the world after one other.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Apr 2010 at 06:39.
But their CAA clearly lacks the leadership to allocate an ICAO airspace classification to the airspace- no doubt scared of being attacked by anonymous dopes on PPRUNE.
Yes, the more I see and think about all this, it's obvious that this has nothing to do with safety or service. It's all about being Free in GE.
Bloggs ,why don,t you go flying in the UK
No transponder or radio requirement for VFR in G- mixing with IFR. There is not even a requirement for VFR to monitor an ATC frequency when en-route in G.
I am proud I introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR in E. - it means when we upgrade G to E we introduce an extra safety mitigator.
No transponder or radio requirement for VFR in G- mixing with IFR. There is not even a requirement for VFR to monitor an ATC frequency when en-route in G.
I am proud I introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR in E. - it means when we upgrade G to E we introduce an extra safety mitigator.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USA have their quirks too Dick - they vector and 'separate' IFR from VFR in Class E (as Jerricho has pointed out quite a few times) when ICAO clearly states that a separation service is not provided in that circumstance. Does that make the FAA incompetent too? How can you separate 2 aircraft if you can't verify one's level or tracking intentions?
No transponder or radio requirement for VFR in G- mixing with IFR. There is not even a requirement for VFR to monitor an ATC frequency when en-route in G
I am proud I introduced the mandatory transponder requirement for VFR in E. - it means when we upgrade G to E we introduce an extra safety mitigator.
The brutal reality is that even you realised that unknown, off-freq VFRs in E airspace was so stupid it would never be accepted by anybody, except perhaps Sled (I'm sure he has a study somewhere that says it is totally safe based on a few hundred lives every 30 years). I suppose we should give you credit for that. 
Dick Smith,
You said:
You can say it as many times as you like, but I will keep coming back to the Airspace Policy Statement 2010
Önce again, I say ... if it smells like F and it looks like F and it behaves like F ...
The current added radio requirements you allude to are a red herring.
If CASA bit the bullet and called it Class F ( or K, for that matter), I'm pretty sure they would still mandate the extra radio requirements ... so it's neither here nor there.
Really?
All airspace categories include VFRs ... to some extent.
To quote from the Dick Smith Flyer website, your future airspace vision includes:
Looks to me like VFRs are definite participants in your Vision System to me..
Don't be tempted to join the invisible man brigade ... as they ain't gunna go away!
You said:
our G is not F!
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.
Class G: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR and VFR flights receive a flight information service which includes directed traffic information to IFR flights on other IFR flights and known VFR flights.
Class G: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR and VFR flights receive a flight information service which includes directed traffic information to IFR flights on other IFR flights and known VFR flights.
The current added radio requirements you allude to are a red herring.
If CASA bit the bullet and called it Class F ( or K, for that matter), I'm pretty sure they would still mandate the extra radio requirements ... so it's neither here nor there.
There is in fact no ICAO airspace classification below D that includes VFR in the system
All airspace categories include VFRs ... to some extent.
To quote from the Dick Smith Flyer website, your future airspace vision includes:
CLASS G: ATC based separation services are not provided in this airspace. In addition to the directed traffic information services prescribed below, a Radar Advisory Service (RAS) will be available on a workload permitting basis to all aircraft within radar coverage on request. A hazard alerting service will also available on request to ATC or FIS for aircraft which are not receiving an ATC directed hazard service. An FIS will be available on request through the dedicated FIS frequency or ATC. UNICOMs will offer a cost/effective service to RPT and other operations in terminal areas (see below).
Don't be tempted to join the invisible man brigade ... as they ain't gunna go away!
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
unknown, off-freq VFRs in E airspace
If they are unknown, how do you quantify them except with extreme alarmist statements like that claiming that it is a known factor in risk management that you can't or won't quantify.
If VFR are mandated to have transponders in E,- It is LAW- LAW- LAW- isn't it?
How many of these criminals have been brought to justice Bloggs?
Perhaps the prosecutions will quantify your statements or at least make them relevant or comparable with known data about penetrations into say, controlled airspace.
VFR have a place in Australian airspace Bloggs despite your monastic attempts to rid this vermin from any sky you just happen to be flying in.
Get used to it. You don't own it!
I'm not going away because you don't like me. Get used to that too.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't Be Suckered Guys
Fellas,
This is a clear diversion; a red herring to divert attention from the main argument.
This UK thing is an irrelevance.
The argument is terminal E over D.
Dick's quite happy to engage you on this one because, in my opinion, it distracts from his inability to provide substantiation to the core argument here.
Terminal E over D! Don't be distracted!
You've been suckered for 24hrs.
Frank, I can't support your quote:
VFR are an intrinsic part of the system. A necessary and valuable part; no less important, in the greater scheme, than IFR. VFR is not vermin, but we need a rational system whereby everyone gets to go to bed at night.
This is a clear diversion; a red herring to divert attention from the main argument.
This UK thing is an irrelevance.
The argument is terminal E over D.
Dick's quite happy to engage you on this one because, in my opinion, it distracts from his inability to provide substantiation to the core argument here.
Terminal E over D! Don't be distracted!
You've been suckered for 24hrs.
Frank, I can't support your quote:
VFR have a place in Australian airspace Bloggs despite your monastic attempts to rid this vermin from any sky you just happen to be flying in.