NAS rears its head again
Peuce
You state,
Unfortunately, this did not happen. There was nothing in the model which used data from similar airspace – even as a reference point.
Most of the studies I’ve seen are based on perception, not on fact and certainly not on science that could be supported by objective data.
You state,
I also assume that this model was produced ... taking into account, amongst other things, experiences elsewhere... which would cover off your requirement.
Most of the studies I’ve seen are based on perception, not on fact and certainly not on science that could be supported by objective data.
Dick,
So then, presumably, you've seen the Broome assessment?
Would you like to share it?
Unfortunately, this did not happen. There was nothing in the model which used data from similar airspace – even as a reference point
Would you like to share it?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
As regards your following comment, I actually agree with you; but for different reasons:
I'd say that what actually happened was that the Board was horrified when they were confronted by, and finally realised, the risk level generated by terminal Class E. After all, these guys were just suits with no understanding of airspace. The penny finally dropped, and they were petrified that they could be held responsible (and liable - maybe personally so) in the event of a Tobago and B737 digging a joint hole in the landscape. They needed an excuse to reverse a dumb decision and present a plausible reason to the 'amiable dolt' of a Minister. I agree that the excuse of 'lack of due process' was a smokescreen. But when the realisation hit, with respect to personal responsibility (Airservices was the airspace regulator then, which means the Board would have been fried), they had a case of serious, communal diarrhoea.
To add to Blogg's quote, as follows:
When it came to Launy, from the perspective of the Board, I think that the blue lights were a'sh*ttin' as well. In short, 'get us out of this disaster - any way you can - just make it plausible.'
In respect of your other statement on UK airspace, Dick old fruit, I feel there is a level of inconsistency in your statements. You say:
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a statement of yours during the great NAS debate that actually supported aircraft being on the control frequency, when passing from E/C into G and back to E/C, as efficient and sensible.
ARFOR, the memory is dimming, but do you recall that one?
As regards your following comment, I actually agree with you; but for different reasons:
When Airservices reversed the E over D airspace of NAS-2B, they did so because the Board was told that the correct process of safety analysis was not completed before Airservices agreed to change the airspace. It was not that the airspace was not safe, it was the fact that the processes had not been followed and this could leave the Board liable.
The Board made the decision to reverse the airspace, and then had their “experts” complete a safety study to support the Board decision.
The Board made the decision to reverse the airspace, and then had their “experts” complete a safety study to support the Board decision.
To add to Blogg's quote, as follows:
The alarm bells are ringing, the red lights are flashing.
In respect of your other statement on UK airspace, Dick old fruit, I feel there is a level of inconsistency in your statements. You say:
For example, they actually control IFR airline aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.
ARFOR, the memory is dimming, but do you recall that one?
Last edited by Howabout; 30th Apr 2010 at 07:21.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do indeed Howabout.
Effectively a RAS service in Australian G - ICAO F:-
which I have to be honest, I think is the optimum service for OCTA areas [not where Hi-Cap Air Carrier operate though]
Mr Smith
Interesting admissions in the last page or so.
The Real figures? As opposed to what?
NO FIGURES, just a belief in an incompatible reference system?
No Assessments and/or CBA's that take in to account all of the 'specific' factors [differences and nuances] apparent that [if considered properly] would rule out the 'reference system approach'?
You well know this. Hiding behind your 'skeptic assoc' does not wash I'm afraid. If you were a true and impartial 'skeptic' you would INSIST on open, transparent and honest assessment processes rather than a 'cut and paste' [hello LeadSled] from the US that does not fit on the Broome or Karratha or Avalon or Williamtown pages.
Have there been Volume Specific Scientifically based Risk Assessments AND Cost Benefit Analysis conducted on Broome and Karratha, that follow the legislated 'required' process, and that support the current CASA ACP's for E over D?
Just a yes or no answer to the last para/question thankyou.
Effectively a RAS service in Australian G - ICAO F:-
ICAO Annex 11
2.6 Classification of airspaces
Class F. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.
2.6 Classification of airspaces
Class F. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.
Mr Smith
Interesting admissions in the last page or so.
I have a feeling you want the theoretical study to exist so it can confirm what your “belief system” says the result should be.
Could it be that if you do simple figures for risk of E above D, that the risk is so small that it would be clearly acceptable by most people, and that’s why none of the scientific organisations and contractors who do these studies actually give the real figure?
NO FIGURES, just a belief in an incompatible reference system?
No Assessments and/or CBA's that take in to account all of the 'specific' factors [differences and nuances] apparent that [if considered properly] would rule out the 'reference system approach'?
You well know this. Hiding behind your 'skeptic assoc' does not wash I'm afraid. If you were a true and impartial 'skeptic' you would INSIST on open, transparent and honest assessment processes rather than a 'cut and paste' [hello LeadSled] from the US that does not fit on the Broome or Karratha or Avalon or Williamtown pages.Have there been Volume Specific Scientifically based Risk Assessments AND Cost Benefit Analysis conducted on Broome and Karratha, that follow the legislated 'required' process, and that support the current CASA ACP's for E over D?
Just a yes or no answer to the last para/question thankyou.
Last edited by ARFOR; 30th Apr 2010 at 08:04. Reason: addition
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Dick, it's just not worth responding right now. It's the eve of Sat/Sun and I don't have the energy left to debate illogical argument.
Haveagoodweegend.
No doubt, we will engage foils again sometime over the next couple of days.
Haveagoodweegend.
No doubt, we will engage foils again sometime over the next couple of days.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith.
Alerted 'see and avoid' is a heck of a lot better than unalerted 'see and avoid', but it does not guarantee that paint will not be swapped, or britches filled.
Now why would anyone make airspace E rather than G ?
As I see it, it is because the traffic warrants an increase in protection to IFRs, but unsurveilled E is effectively the same as G, except that the risk to IFR has increased.
the pilot was using radio alerted see and avoid. Remember that was the one that the old BASI loved so much.
Now why would anyone make airspace E rather than G ?
As I see it, it is because the traffic warrants an increase in protection to IFRs, but unsurveilled E is effectively the same as G, except that the risk to IFR has increased.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dog House
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy, the pilot was using radio alerted see and avoid. Remember that was the one that the old BASI loved so much.
Still waiting for that copy..............
Dick,
On the other hand you and Ledsled are quite happy to have me blast off in busy E airspace, VFR because a clearance is not available, all on the pretext of avoiding a midair by looking out the window. Crazy. What separation standard would you suggest I use in this situation? You see (well, obviously you don't) just because I know exactly where to look (so-called Alerted See and Avoid) I must Avoid first whilst looking, because there's a good chance I'll never see him, or pick him up too late to do anything about dodging him.
What about Class G – that is where in the terminal environment, the separation responsibility – when in cloud – can rest on the shoulders of a minimum hours IFR pilot, ie. there is no separation standard for when in IMC and there is nothing to stop a low-time pilot – or even high time pilot - setting a risky separation “standard”. That’s what happened at Orange a couple of years ago, where an airline aircraft was attempting an approach from the east when in cloud and a bank run pilot was attempting an approach from the west – both estimating the circuit area at about the same time.
Dick,
Re; "Crazy, the pilot was using radio alerted see and avoid. Remember that was the one that the old BASI loved so much."
AAhhhh - That would have been 'the one' provided by that old 'Flight Service' thingy...???
When same aircraft were not in CTA that is.......
and tks again for the ........
Re; "Crazy, the pilot was using radio alerted see and avoid. Remember that was the one that the old BASI loved so much."
AAhhhh - That would have been 'the one' provided by that old 'Flight Service' thingy...???
When same aircraft were not in CTA that is.......
and tks again for the ........
Talk to me if you really want any of this info.
I get great enjoyment baiting people who do not even have the self confidence to openly talk about these important safety issues.
Yes, I know, you "might lose your job if you linked your real name with your views on public safety".
That's rubbish and I reckon you all know it.
For others, please phone me if you do have a genuine interest in these matters.
I get great enjoyment baiting people who do not even have the self confidence to openly talk about these important safety issues.
Yes, I know, you "might lose your job if you linked your real name with your views on public safety".
That's rubbish and I reckon you all know it.
For others, please phone me if you do have a genuine interest in these matters.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
An A typical cop out 
If you had answers to support your position [that would stand up to scrutiny] you would post them in an instant.
You have said on this thread
Is this your exit strategy? Dismiss, Attack, Get banned??
That's alright, we will carry on in your absence
For others, please phone me if you do have a genuine interest in these matters
If you had answers to support your position [that would stand up to scrutiny] you would post them in an instant.
You have said on this thread
Yes, I understand that whistle blowers can post on PPRuNe to get important information across without prejudicing their jobs.
Yes, I know, you "might lose your job if you linked your real name with your views on public safety".
That's rubbish and I reckon you all know it.
That's rubbish and I reckon you all know it.
That's alright, we will carry on in your absence
Dick,
Couldn't have said it better myself, old chap.
So what was the separation standard I would use to rocket off into J curve E, VFR, without a clearance?
That's rubbish and I reckon you all know it.
So what was the separation standard I would use to rocket off into J curve E, VFR, without a clearance?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
A remarkable statement! You say:
Dick, these people have no problems with talking about 'these important safety issues.' Your problem, IMHO, is that you can't answer legitimate questions. It doesn't matter, Dick, if this is an anonymous forum. The substance of the debate is fact, nothing more, nothing less - respond with fact and you will be given due respect; respond with obfuscation and, well...
As for 'baiting,' that's a hoot. I doubt anyone thinks you are capable of 'baiting' Dick. Your 'baiting,' in my opinion, is nothing more than a frustrated effort to discredit people who actually know what they are talking about.
Once again, I will keep it civil; but, in my opinion, you really don't cut the mustard as an 'aviation expert.'
Notwithstanding, Dick, I appreciate the opportunity to engage. I am taking Mrs Howabout to an Ethiopian restaurant this evening and have a few garden chores to do beforehand. I've timed it so we get back in time to watch the Reds. At least the second half.
A remarkable statement! You say:
I get great enjoyment baiting people who do not even have the self confidence to openly talk about these important safety issues.
As for 'baiting,' that's a hoot. I doubt anyone thinks you are capable of 'baiting' Dick. Your 'baiting,' in my opinion, is nothing more than a frustrated effort to discredit people who actually know what they are talking about.
Once again, I will keep it civil; but, in my opinion, you really don't cut the mustard as an 'aviation expert.'
Notwithstanding, Dick, I appreciate the opportunity to engage. I am taking Mrs Howabout to an Ethiopian restaurant this evening and have a few garden chores to do beforehand. I've timed it so we get back in time to watch the Reds. At least the second half.
Has anyone ever been involved in setting up a desktop simulation?
Been studying this subject and it would appear the basis is listing all outcomes, assigning a random number to each event, then plugging in a random number generator and keep running the generator until a pattern starts to emerge. The pattern is your statistical model...highly scentific..
Basic premise is to plug in what HAS HAPPENED before in a certain time period with a specific number of movements then calculate the outcome as a percentage of the total and then assign a random number...could be very large number...ASIR reports say that there are 18 VCAs a year..there are 300,000 movements...sooo...assign 18 numbers randomly from 1 to 300,000 and then run a random number generator and see how many times these numbers come up..keep running until a pattern emerges...say over ten years and 3,000,000 events...the percentage of that outcome is the risk...sounds pretty basic.
However, in the case of VCAs very rarely is a VCA occurance enacted exactly the same way...each VCA would then have individual descriptions of how each pilot came to break into the zone...different spot on the boundary different conditions different destinations, different pilots and differing pressures or distractions and you can see the number starts looking very random.
Also, what has happened before has no bearing on what will happen again...these are all random events...hard to model for this type of thing...
Now, looking at RPT on the exact same track and the exact same timetable, going from point A to point B with differing effects for weather alone and aircraft weight and you start to see a pattern that could just about detect how each individual pilot flying actually handles the aircraft..
Does this sound about right?
If I am right then you CAN predict what an RPT will do most all the time...you cannot predict with ANY certainty what a GA PPL will do if left to their own devices...so...the outcome that would be safest is to include some amount of directional control or even knowledge of direction to keep all the wheels spinning and the outcome of swapping paint will be "vanishingly small"
A GA VFR on a random track through non-controlled airspace also habituated by controlled IFR RPT...did someone say install VFR lanes?
Been studying this subject and it would appear the basis is listing all outcomes, assigning a random number to each event, then plugging in a random number generator and keep running the generator until a pattern starts to emerge. The pattern is your statistical model...highly scentific..
Basic premise is to plug in what HAS HAPPENED before in a certain time period with a specific number of movements then calculate the outcome as a percentage of the total and then assign a random number...could be very large number...ASIR reports say that there are 18 VCAs a year..there are 300,000 movements...sooo...assign 18 numbers randomly from 1 to 300,000 and then run a random number generator and see how many times these numbers come up..keep running until a pattern emerges...say over ten years and 3,000,000 events...the percentage of that outcome is the risk...sounds pretty basic.
However, in the case of VCAs very rarely is a VCA occurance enacted exactly the same way...each VCA would then have individual descriptions of how each pilot came to break into the zone...different spot on the boundary different conditions different destinations, different pilots and differing pressures or distractions and you can see the number starts looking very random.
Also, what has happened before has no bearing on what will happen again...these are all random events...hard to model for this type of thing...
Now, looking at RPT on the exact same track and the exact same timetable, going from point A to point B with differing effects for weather alone and aircraft weight and you start to see a pattern that could just about detect how each individual pilot flying actually handles the aircraft..
Does this sound about right?
If I am right then you CAN predict what an RPT will do most all the time...you cannot predict with ANY certainty what a GA PPL will do if left to their own devices...so...the outcome that would be safest is to include some amount of directional control or even knowledge of direction to keep all the wheels spinning and the outcome of swapping paint will be "vanishingly small"
A GA VFR on a random track through non-controlled airspace also habituated by controlled IFR RPT...did someone say install VFR lanes?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I dont believe incompetency is quite the right word for it. Are they bang on ICAO rules, no. Is any country - no, not even Australia & the USA.
You say a RAS service in is compliant with ICAO & the next line say separation standard in uncontrolled airspace is incompetent. I believe they dont call ita RAS anymore a deconfliction service instead:
And saying international pilots need to know the there are the same rules wherever you go. Do most international pilots flying in oz airspace know what TIBA is, unlikely.
Most aircraft going into airports in the UK (IFR ) are radar-vectored to an ILS, for separation, sequencing etc. Dont have too many RNAV approaches etc. Unfortunately, sometimes the vectoring has to be conducted through G airspace. It is all above LSALT and within published RVAs, but none of the majors airports have the need for vectoring in G and the few exceptions like Plymouth have little RPT traffic. Once again if PLymouth have no radar feed they cant radarvector (its in the name!). An approach service can be done from the tower, by plymouth APPROACH. If the tower controller is approach trained & plymouth approach rated he can do both tasks from the same desk.
I quite honestly couldnt care at flying rats testicle, plymouth means nothing to me nor in the context of NAS. Neither does a RAS or anything done in UK airspace. They elected to go the way they did because of the traffic situation, the availability of radar & numbers of controllers. PIlots can opt out of the deconfliction service, it is just available for use if pilots want that extra level of service & protection.
ICAO is designed for the lowest common denominator not the highest. Every country picks & chooses which bits they like & dont, or ammend, the others.
If you are flying in another country then you have to be aware of their local rules, wherever you go not just the UK.
And Dick, a little less of the anti-pom bigotry on your comments of the state of UK Aviation industry, has nothing to do with the CAA, more of the UK government. This isnt the place for racism or xenophobia.
Now, bring it back to NAS & what Australia needs for its traffic situation, vs just inplementing what someone else does. And whatever is decided upon, ATC numbers need increasing. They are low & only getting worse.
I don’t believe the CAA is incompetent because “they offer a RAS service to aircraft in G”. Such a service would be fully compliant with ICAO. However, when they actually offer an Air Traffic Control separation service in uncontrolled airspace, that’s incompetent
You say a RAS service in is compliant with ICAO & the next line say separation standard in uncontrolled airspace is incompetent. I believe they dont call ita RAS anymore a deconfliction service instead:
Deconfliction Service:
A Deconfliction Service is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions. Under a Deconfliction Service the following conditions apply:
The service may be requested under any flight rules or meteorological conditions.
Controllers can expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations which may require flight in IMC. Controllers should be aware that pilots may not be qualified to fly in IMC. Should this situation arise the controller will be informed by the pilot.
There is no legal requirement for a pilot flying outside controlled airspace to comply with instructions because of the advisory nature of the service. However, should a pilot choose not to comply with advisory avoiding action then he will become responsible for his own separation and any avoiding action that may subsequently prove necessary.
The controller will be advised before a pilot changes heading or level.
Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with nonparticipating traffic and, wherever possible, shall seek to achieve separation which is not less than 5 nm or 3000 feet, except when specified otherwise by the CAA. However, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.
Controllers shall continue to provide information on conflicting traffic until the confliction is resolved.
A Deconfliction Service is an air traffic radar service in which the controller shall provide advice necessary to maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to resolve the confliction. Where time does not permit this procedure to be adopted, the controller shall pass advice on avoiding action followed by information on the conflicting traffic. Even though the service is an advisory one, controllers shall pass the 'advice' in the form of instructions. Under a Deconfliction Service the following conditions apply:
The service may be requested under any flight rules or meteorological conditions.
Controllers can expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations which may require flight in IMC. Controllers should be aware that pilots may not be qualified to fly in IMC. Should this situation arise the controller will be informed by the pilot.
There is no legal requirement for a pilot flying outside controlled airspace to comply with instructions because of the advisory nature of the service. However, should a pilot choose not to comply with advisory avoiding action then he will become responsible for his own separation and any avoiding action that may subsequently prove necessary.
The controller will be advised before a pilot changes heading or level.
Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with nonparticipating traffic and, wherever possible, shall seek to achieve separation which is not less than 5 nm or 3000 feet, except when specified otherwise by the CAA. However, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.
Controllers shall continue to provide information on conflicting traffic until the confliction is resolved.
Most aircraft going into airports in the UK (IFR ) are radar-vectored to an ILS, for separation, sequencing etc. Dont have too many RNAV approaches etc. Unfortunately, sometimes the vectoring has to be conducted through G airspace. It is all above LSALT and within published RVAs, but none of the majors airports have the need for vectoring in G and the few exceptions like Plymouth have little RPT traffic. Once again if PLymouth have no radar feed they cant radarvector (its in the name!). An approach service can be done from the tower, by plymouth APPROACH. If the tower controller is approach trained & plymouth approach rated he can do both tasks from the same desk.
Rotorblades, whether you like it or not, the last time I flew into Plymouth
ICAO is designed for the lowest common denominator not the highest. Every country picks & chooses which bits they like & dont, or ammend, the others.
If you are flying in another country then you have to be aware of their local rules, wherever you go not just the UK.
And Dick, a little less of the anti-pom bigotry on your comments of the state of UK Aviation industry, has nothing to do with the CAA, more of the UK government. This isnt the place for racism or xenophobia.
Now, bring it back to NAS & what Australia needs for its traffic situation, vs just inplementing what someone else does. And whatever is decided upon, ATC numbers need increasing. They are low & only getting worse.
but unsurveilled E is effectively the same as G, except that the risk to IFR has increased.
Old mate, by just what convoluted line of total ill-logic did you come to the conclusion that risk to IFR in E increases, compared to G. Whatever your are smoking, it must be strong stuff.
On a serious note, it is this kind of unsupportable ill-logical thinking that lies behind the hard core objections to any change in the old Australian airspace arrangements. As for most of you, all I see is a string of assertions about "safety", without any qualified support, no data, just more than personal opinions, howling down anything that doesn't conform to your opinions -- that Australia does it best ----- when it is rather obvious that Australia doesn't.
It is a great pity that most of you are unable to even read the published ATSB reports without a pre-bias that the VFR was wrong, and the RPT Captain could do no wrong, therefor a very careful consideration of the Captain's actions (particularly in the Brisbane case) is not something you have been able to do.
Bloggs,
Please tell me you are not really an RPT Captain, some of your statements really are "so interesting" ---- I find it more than somewhat difficult that such statements could come from a real life airline pilot.
Owen Stanley,
I will back Dick's experience as a pilot, across a variety of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and his knowledge of matters airspace design, acquired over many years of study of the subject, including being Chairman of the CAA Board, and his time on the CASA Board.
That you are a controller does not make you an expert on CNS/ATM design, any more than you (or Bloggs) being a pilot (with a current medical) flying in the airspace make you an expert on the subject. Dick has had some of the world's preeminent experts, both organizations and individuals, to guide him in his acquisition of knowledge in the field.
Owen, if you think you can match that sort of background and experience, please tell us why you think you can.
Tootle pip!!