NAS rears its head again
Notice there's an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP 03-10) befor OAR ... to have Class E Airspace lowered throughout the country.
Guess they're waiting to see how BRM/KTA goes first ...
Guess they're waiting to see how BRM/KTA goes first ...
Is it down to FL145? How many more sectors will that require? Greg Russell must be rubbing his hands together with glee! More bonuses, as Dick always says.
Drifters to FL145. Yikes!
Drifters to FL145. Yikes!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Where can I buy one of those tactical radars like the military boys have? 
hang on...might be a business opportunity here
Want to order one Bloggs?
hang on...might be a business opportunity here
Want to order one Bloggs?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) would be nice, covers 37,000km2!
But is a tad expensive:
I dont know about you but i dont have that much spare change, its a lot of 5c pieces
But is a tad expensive:
has cost approximately $A1.8 billion
I dont know about you but i dont have that much spare change, its a lot of 5c pieces
1991..almost twenty years!
The end game is controlled airspace for Broome and Karratha. ICAO D towers work and have been working since BEFORE they became ICAO D towers. All our D towers are surrounded by class C airspace to protect RPT.
Why are Broome and Karratha receiving a tower service? To regulate the tourist GA VFR industry or the growing RPT industry? Why install a service that is hamstrung wrt VFR yet must provide total separation for RPT. If Broome and Karratha are surrounded by class E or even E with a broadcast zone...ATC cannot provide a separation service for RPT. ATC do not have control over where VFR go in E...if they have no control they cannot separate...it is that simple. ATC do not provide information to pilots to enhance their situation awareness...ATC SEPARATE PILOTS to maintain a standard...Flight Services provided pilots with information that enhanced situational awareness and they did a bloody good job! Stop confusing the situation. Air Traffic Control control!!!! they do not advise!!!!
If the top guys in the CASA and AirServices cannot explain this change to the system?...you have to ask yourself....why change it in the first place?
The end game is controlled airspace for Broome and Karratha. ICAO D towers work and have been working since BEFORE they became ICAO D towers. All our D towers are surrounded by class C airspace to protect RPT.
Why are Broome and Karratha receiving a tower service? To regulate the tourist GA VFR industry or the growing RPT industry? Why install a service that is hamstrung wrt VFR yet must provide total separation for RPT. If Broome and Karratha are surrounded by class E or even E with a broadcast zone...ATC cannot provide a separation service for RPT. ATC do not have control over where VFR go in E...if they have no control they cannot separate...it is that simple. ATC do not provide information to pilots to enhance their situation awareness...ATC SEPARATE PILOTS to maintain a standard...Flight Services provided pilots with information that enhanced situational awareness and they did a bloody good job! Stop confusing the situation. Air Traffic Control control!!!! they do not advise!!!!
If the top guys in the CASA and AirServices cannot explain this change to the system?...you have to ask yourself....why change it in the first place?
"Idealogy Evangelistic Zealots......"
I know that's not a sentence, but, after 19 years, with no suitable replacement of services, what else can one say..??
We are back to the days of the 'Southern Cloud' - in that in many parts of OZ, which are quite busy aviation wise, there are now no services except for some mish-mash of 'when workload permits' - IF one can make contact that is!
Even the HF 'service' ain't what it used to be.....
And just to 'rub it in' .....It ISN'T safer, and it DOESN'T cost us less..!!
I know that's not a sentence, but, after 19 years, with no suitable replacement of services, what else can one say..??
We are back to the days of the 'Southern Cloud' - in that in many parts of OZ, which are quite busy aviation wise, there are now no services except for some mish-mash of 'when workload permits' - IF one can make contact that is!
Even the HF 'service' ain't what it used to be.....
And just to 'rub it in' .....It ISN'T safer, and it DOESN'T cost us less..!!
Icarus, you've quoted selectively. Oz next said that Flight Service provided information to pilots (to allwo them to self-segregate). His point is that E airspace is a hotch-potch of the two systems.
Given that there is no Cost-Benefit Analysis for E over D, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is being introduced because of ideological dogma, aided by political interference in the policy-making process of the Government.
Given that there is no Cost-Benefit Analysis for E over D, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is being introduced because of ideological dogma, aided by political interference in the policy-making process of the Government.
You have NO idea of the 'legal' lay of the land for Australian controllers post incident or accident
Actually, I do, and obviously quite a bit more than you are prepared to give me credit for ----- and that is the whole point of my last post.
Because of the way Australian law has been constructed, ATC persons here are at much greater personal and professional legal risk than in many countries, with which we would compare ourselves. My reference to Civilair was not a mistake.
Sadly, the same goes for pilots and LAMEs, with out complex, convoluted and contradictory framework of criminal law ( and the ridiculous extensions of "strict liability" beyond any reasonable traditional concept of criminal behavior) surrounding just about everything we do.
Direct No Speed
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.
Owen,
Why don't you try to make a constructive contribution, instead of you usual snide remarks, and you pathetic attempts to play the man and not the ball.
Bloggs,
All Government policy making is political, that's how the system works, and always has done.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
And whose fault would that be?
Not if proper process and ICAO rules sets are followed i.e. G that was G, F that was F, E that was E [and only used where invisaged in SARP's], and D that was D [not the scramble for GAAPism's so the GAAP's don't come to a stand still because of their proximity to Primaries] and GAAP was GAAP with the same protections that existed for ATC in that environment ... all gone!
There is no comparision with the mess you amateurs have created. A bit like the 'Show Cause' system
I'm sure it was not. The fact that your reference was wrong is the important bit
Give us one example of the controllers association asserting anything other than reality [with regards to airspace services]. WRT Liability, the ANSP interpretation is EXACTLY the same interpretation as the high court in Australia.
Yes, and only the deaf, dumb and blind would not see the difference in infrustructure, service rules [US pilot collision avoidance responsibility in VMC in ALL classes of airspace], and airspace and ATM regulatory differences between the two.
I understand why you and Mr Smith [past form] would want to push the 'industrial' line [run outa puff and fluff on everything else] so:-
Show ONE example of what you are accusing the ATC association of!
As for
Nice try, but again no Cigar. This is not about policy, the policy is clear [as reported and linked in this thread], this is about abuse of process and political interference in policy adherence and legislated process. We could perhaps couch that as re-election expediency
If you cannot see the difference, then perhaps you have pulled your Tootle Pip one too many times
Because of the way Australian law has been constructed
ATC persons here are at much greater personal and professional legal risk than in many countries
with which we would compare ourselves.
My reference to Civilair was not a mistake.
and the asserted liability (as opposed to real world liability) had been a very effective political/industrial line from Civilair since the 1980s, despite more recent favorable High Court judgments around liability issues.
In the US, liability of FAA or individual controllers is a non-issue, just as Rec. pilots are a non-issue in E.
I understand why you and Mr Smith [past form] would want to push the 'industrial' line [run outa puff and fluff on everything else] so:-
Show ONE example of what you are accusing the ATC association of!
As for
All Government policy making is political, that's how the system works, and always has done.
If you cannot see the difference, then perhaps you have pulled your Tootle Pip one too many times
And now we enter the crux of the argument...a political imperative!
Not because it's safe, or cost effective...because it is political.
Who applied the pressure? Whoes policy is it? Certainly not Anderson, or Albanese. They do not know a SODPROP from a TURBOPROP unless someone tells them..as is always with Parliament.
Ego is a dirty word...especially if it is all that drives a "Policy Change"
Why would the OAR institute a broadcast zone for class E?...Why the workround...if the program needs a work round then it needs rewriting or scrapping and reverting back to what works. FAA D towers of the same level of activity as BRM have approach radar services.
Please Mr Smith et al..point me to an aerodrome in the US that is as busy as Broome that has non surveillance E and no approach...what is it called..a TRACON facility..an aerodrome that I can verify as same.. a hint..we already know the number of movments for RPT into Broome. If you use the same formual as the FAA what would be the level of service provided for the environs around this D tower...it certainly will not be E.
Not because it's safe, or cost effective...because it is political.
Who applied the pressure? Whoes policy is it? Certainly not Anderson, or Albanese. They do not know a SODPROP from a TURBOPROP unless someone tells them..as is always with Parliament.
Ego is a dirty word...especially if it is all that drives a "Policy Change"
Why would the OAR institute a broadcast zone for class E?...Why the workround...if the program needs a work round then it needs rewriting or scrapping and reverting back to what works. FAA D towers of the same level of activity as BRM have approach radar services.
Please Mr Smith et al..point me to an aerodrome in the US that is as busy as Broome that has non surveillance E and no approach...what is it called..a TRACON facility..an aerodrome that I can verify as same.. a hint..we already know the number of movments for RPT into Broome. If you use the same formual as the FAA what would be the level of service provided for the environs around this D tower...it certainly will not be E.
Icarus2001
When in G and when requested and when work permitting...and only if there is a surveillance facility.
If you refer to IFR? it is only other IFR as traffic and known VFR...not many known VFR doing flight following in G. Outside of surveillance, it's a pig and a poke for your penny
When in G and when requested and when work permitting...and only if there is a surveillance facility.
If you refer to IFR? it is only other IFR as traffic and known VFR...not many known VFR doing flight following in G. Outside of surveillance, it's a pig and a poke for your penny