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

Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?

Old 22nd Apr 2010, 09:34
  #41 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Jet ', I can see with pilots like you why AsA have not upgraded places like Ballina and Orange from G to clearly safer mandatory transponder E.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 09:43
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
LeadSled
If the aerodrome traffic only justifies a D tower, by definition (low level) C cannot be justified over D, it is simply impossible for the approach and departure traffic, clear of the circuit area, the D zone, to present a greater collision risk than in the immediate D zone of the aerodrome.
Its not only about collision risk, it is about mitigating risk with the available infrastructure, resourcing and traffic levels. In that regard the US and Australia are about as similar as chalk and cheese.

Keep demonstrating your ignorance, it is certainly helping.
ARFOR is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 09:49
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,017
Ledsled,

Not assertions, just facts.
You've got a bit of a cheek; we've been asking for the CBA on E verses C from you for weeks and you refuse to supply the facts, you just make assertions.

Indeed, if the "TMA" airspace justified C, the tower airspace would also need to be C or B, and not D.
You're a fast reader (or else you have a line to Terry Hills), coz that's just wot Dick said on the NAS thread.

In any event, none of you have justified the continual assertion that VFR (with mandatory transponder) in E represents a greater threat than VFR in G, in the same volume of airspace.
Yes we have. For thousandth time, VFR in G is required to have a radio and announce.

I'll ask you again: what's with this non-USNAS/ICAO CNS/ATM bla bla bla nonsense about mandatory transponders in E? What facts justify that crazy rule?

And, of course, per. the Ministerial directive, for C there has to be terminal radar ---- which makes for some interesting potential civil liabilities in the current non-radar C.
Oh come on. A flawed reason ("that's the way it's done in the US") causes the Minister to issue an unnecessary edict (where's your risk analysis facts that say radar in C is required?) and now you're saying it could be used against AsA?

none of you blokes have proffered anything to actually justify (as opposed to assert) that C over D is justified.
We didn't, but God has. He almost had a 737 creamed by a Tobago. Read the warning signs, or are you too blinkered to see the wood for the trees?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 09:58
  #44 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Rubbish, I have spoken to the Tobago pilot on several occasions. He heard the jet on both the area and the tower frequencies, had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.

The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston.

The RPT crew never sighted the Tobago so if the pilot had flown in exactly the same place a month before without a transponder and un announced no incident would have been recorded.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:01
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 39
Posts: 154
Led,
When somebody doesn't turn up for work
this is not a usual situation though, and then it is TIBA airspace.

We need to stick to what is usual, or what should be.

E should have a controller (thus can be called controlled airspace).

Rb
rotorblades is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:10
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Rubbish, I have spoken to the Tobago pilot on several occasions. He heard the jet on both the area and the tower frequencies, had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.
Then why was it recorded as an AIRPROX? If there was no risk of collision why was there a TCAS RA? Someone is talking rubbish alright.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:11
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 136
Hmmmm, obviously a lot of European countries disagree led. Lots of C over D here, or dont we count cause we are not from the US? Where there is not a D zone many are F which means one at a time, no CTAF-R here to aid the traffic flow!
ozineurope is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:15
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,017
Rubbish? Let's examine the facts, shall we (Paying attention, Ledsled?)?

had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.
Not only was he confused about what was going on:

While the radio transmissions from the crew of the 737 may have assisted the Tobago pilotís situational awareness, it was also influenced by his sighting of the aircraft, his belief that there was 2 degrees difference between the aircraft tracks and his belief that the 737 was tracking direct to right base for runway 32L. Although the pilot had the 737 in sight and was initially of the opinion that it would pass with sufficient spacing to the right of his aircraft, he became concerned when the 737 appeared to turn to the right across his path.

The investigation could not conclusively determine why the 737 appeared to make such a heading change. Although the pilot of the Tobago has a clear recollection of a significant right turn having been made by the 737, the FDR data at Appendix A shows the 737ís consistent and straight track over the ground. The minor heading change was possibly due to wind effect. The head-on aspect of the two aircraft may have given the illusion of a more significant heading alteration having been made.
he didn't talk:

After the Tobago pilot heard the crew of the 737 report the TCAS RA event to ATC, he advised ATC that his was the aircraft involved and that he had been operating in accordance with NAS procedures. The controller advised him that he should maintain a listening watch on the relevant ATC frequency and announce himself to traffic that he may be in conflict with.

The pilot advised that he:
"thought that I wasnít supposed to speak on the frequency now."

Educational material associated with the NAS phase 2b implementation stated that an:

"important change is that the pilot of a VFR flight should not make broadcasts on ATC frequencies."

"Please do not make broadcast transmissions or engage in chatter on an ATC
frequency. The safety of others depends on you not doing this.

Pilots are not precluded from responding to any ATC or pilot transmission when they believe their safety is at risk from another aircraft."
So here we have a lighty pilot, who went so close to a jet that it set off a TCAS RA, telling you there was never any chance of a collision, and because of your repeated assertions over the years (which you got put into the NAS training material - or was it the other Smith?) that they are not to announce and he thought it'd be OK.

So my life, the lives of my crew and my more than 100 pax are in the hands of a VFR pilot. Thanks a lot. E airspace. You have to love it.

The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston.
Read the warning signs, Dick. The TCAS RAs are telling us something; it's just that YOU are so blind that you will not see the light until a bingle happens. You'll then blame me and the other pilot for not looking out.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:15
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.
Was this his professional opinion?
Pera is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:39
  #50 (permalink)  

Metrosexual
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 624
Jet ', I can see with pilots like you why AsA have not upgraded places like Ballina and Orange from G to clearly safer mandatory transponder E.
Dick - I suggest that you have no idea what kind of pilot I am. I can tell you that I am just a spoke in a wheel, and I'm not the sort of pilot who willingly breaks rules, or defies company policies or SOPs - so don't be sarcastic - it doesn't suit you.

You said:
if you are on an IFR flight plan and you havenít got a clearance, keep climbing when in VMC. Thatís the only safe and sensible thing to do.
Can you post a reference to the regs/jepps that permits an IFR aircraft to climb into Class E airspace without an ATC clearance?

And I'm not talking IFR pickup malarkey either - I told you the head kickers above me that make company policy prohibit that - not even as a way to wrangle a clearance out of ATC.
Jet_A_Knight is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:44
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Mr Smith
The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston
Transponders are required in Class C as it was before your Class E experiment, and since the experiment was terminated.
ARFOR is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 10:52
  #52 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston.

The RPT crew never sighted the Tobago so if the pilot had flown in exactly the same place a month before without a transponder and un announced no incident would have been recorded.
I'd like everyone to take their time and ponder this for a while
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 11:09
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
I just can't find an "Out of Sight - Out of Mind" emoticon.
Perhaps the Mods might add one for us.
peuce is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 11:28
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 48
Posts: 242
peuce

the best I could find...will this do?
squawk6969 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 11:34
  #55 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work?

In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation?

Yes , of course you do!

For those interested, transponders were not required for VFR in non radar class C before the NAS changes.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 11:49
  #56 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Jet. in Jepps I think you will find that there is no such definition as an "IFR aircraft".

In the USA you may give a taxi call in G to ATC when on an IFR flight plan but you are not considered IFR until you are given your IFR clearance.
Thats why you can climb in E in VMC before being given your IFR clearance--- yes just as we climb in G now waiting for our IFR clearance.

In Australia , to stop E working correctly it was decided that once an IFR flight planned aircraft gave a taxi call to ATC it was then considered to be IFR which meant it could not enter class E in VMC without a clearance unless it cancelled IFR.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:01
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
It is IFR flight. Not Aircraft, or Plan.

Can you name any Hi-cap RPT/PTO operators that may operate VFR flight rules?
ARFOR is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:06
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
I will not hit a VFR ... I will not hit a VFR...I will not hit a VFR...

peuce is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:11
  #59 (permalink)  

Metrosexual
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 624
In this neck of the woods you operate IFR or VFR. Or VFR with the IFR Pickup.

So it's not the fault of the Jet_A_Knight that ASA don't put E down to the Ground!

Funny you should mention Orange.... a few years ago, when I was a little 'greener', I busted through the bottom of Class E blasting out of bad low level weather on departure Orange in an empty turboprop (like you're suggesting now) - and yep - I had to explain myself to the CP before he got the ESIR.

You have yet to acknowledge that under the current rules, in Australia, climbing into Class E without a clearance, is a violation of controlled airspace.

Maybe you should reconsider your statement about climbing into Class E regardless of clearances - unless you mean it as a civil disobedience/protest kind of action.
Jet_A_Knight is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:26
  #60 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
ARFOR in effect they all do in relation to safety- that is they fly so called IFR in G with just a traffic information service.

This is not allowed in the USA.

I made the mistake of believing we would want to keep the advantages of our proven class G for RPT traffic when VMC exists with the extra advantages of controlled airspace when IMC exists.

Stupid me- of course we should take the disadvantages of each and throw commonsense to the wind.
Dick Smith is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.