Dick Smith and Broome Airport
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never heard it from me Dick. In fact I bet you never actually did hear it from anyone. But hindsight is a funny thing hey.
OK so give us details of the track-destination of the VFR and I'll give you the procedural fix. Without maps or lat sep diagrams, I'll just use 32 years of ATC experience ranging from radar towers, radar TMA, procedural TMA, GAAP TWR, procedural tower, airspace design, SID/STAR design, Red Bull procedures design, Ab initio training, radar training and commonsense. Oh and a dash of international airspace design exposure as well.
And no the IFR would not hold it would get a visual approach becuase the I dont need to see the VFR when I establish lateral/horizontal/vertical separation.
Jeez some people thing we were just put here to get in their way.
OK so give us details of the track-destination of the VFR and I'll give you the procedural fix. Without maps or lat sep diagrams, I'll just use 32 years of ATC experience ranging from radar towers, radar TMA, procedural TMA, GAAP TWR, procedural tower, airspace design, SID/STAR design, Red Bull procedures design, Ab initio training, radar training and commonsense. Oh and a dash of international airspace design exposure as well.
And no the IFR would not hold it would get a visual approach becuase the I dont need to see the VFR when I establish lateral/horizontal/vertical separation.
Jeez some people thing we were just put here to get in their way.
Dick,
And how, pray tell, do you expect IFR-RPT-me to do any better if the VFR was in E? Just say "stuff it, we're going down through your level. We'll pick you up sooner or later."? I would be causing chaos on the Centre freq as I organised my own separation until I picked him up visually (unlikely until I was on top of him). Maybe I would hold myself up and cost a hundred or kilos of CO2. I know. I'll change to VFR. That'll fix it.
Admit it, you don't know what goes on in the real AUS world. Your attempt to implant a totally different NAS into ours will end in tears, just like it has done in the past.
Oz, pull the other one, if the VFR remains east of the highway it will be up to 15 nm from the tower when abeam.
The controller would have to have good eyes!
And what happens if he can't sight the VFR?
Get the IFR to start orbiting?
That's why C requires radar in other astute aviation countries.
The VFR was not inbound- it was heading north.
The controller would have to have good eyes!
And what happens if he can't sight the VFR?
Get the IFR to start orbiting?
That's why C requires radar in other astute aviation countries.
The VFR was not inbound- it was heading north.
Admit it, you don't know what goes on in the real AUS world. Your attempt to implant a totally different NAS into ours will end in tears, just like it has done in the past.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 20th May 2010 at 11:00. Reason: Removed reference to the Tobago pilot. Sorry for any offence.
Max, Moorabbin could go out to 7nm - it does not because of the reasons I have stated.
Bloggs, I have just spoken to the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launy incident. He is fed up with being defamed by you and asks that you phone him on 0428 142 361 so he can confirm that he heard the airline on both the area and tower frequencies and at all times had the airline in sight and that at no time was there chance of a collision.
Hopefully then you will stop spouting on in such a negative way about a system that can bring safety advantages to our country without being modified in the way that Blockla does not like.
And if you rely on the myth that when you now descend in G to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for your inbound calls (with the correct frequency dialled in and the volume up) you are kidding yourself and your passengers.
Bloggs, I have just spoken to the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launy incident. He is fed up with being defamed by you and asks that you phone him on 0428 142 361 so he can confirm that he heard the airline on both the area and tower frequencies and at all times had the airline in sight and that at no time was there chance of a collision.
Hopefully then you will stop spouting on in such a negative way about a system that can bring safety advantages to our country without being modified in the way that Blockla does not like.
And if you rely on the myth that when you now descend in G to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for your inbound calls (with the correct frequency dialled in and the volume up) you are kidding yourself and your passengers.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 20th May 2010 at 10:06.
Now, who do we take the word of? Someone who was almost involved in a collision with an RPT jet or the official report?
It was an AIRPROX:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...305235_001.pdf
It was an AIRPROX:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...305235_001.pdf
Yes, and the ATSB did not recommend or even suggest that the E airspace category be changed.
Now why would that be? Could it be that they considered the airspace category satisfactory? Obviously!
Now why would that be? Could it be that they considered the airspace category satisfactory? Obviously!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No- none of the present GAAP zones go further because they dont need to. They are designed around the circuit area and the transit lanes to/from associated training areas.
Dont get sucked in - JT, AF, PF, MB, BK have nothing to do with BM or KA and the associated airsapce proposed for those towers.
Dont get sucked in - JT, AF, PF, MB, BK have nothing to do with BM or KA and the associated airsapce proposed for those towers.
I have just spoken to the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launy incident. He is fed up with being defamed by you and asks that you phone him on 0428 142 361 so he can confirm that he heard the airline on both the area and tower frequencies and at all times had the airline in sight and that at no time was there chance of a collision.
In Launy the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies
I reiterate what I said a couple of posts back. It is unacceptable to have the outcome of an encounter decided solely by one party, who may well be the less-experienced of the two. I have said in other posts that the Tobago pilot was misled by the NAS 2b literature which said "Don't Talk"; I see someone has seen the light and, as of 3 June, ditched the famous "don't talk" clause in AIP (ENR 1.1 56.5).
The irony about Launy was that, had the 737 crew known about the Tobago, the outcome would have been totally different, much safer and at no cost to anyone. Some of us have been banging on for years that both aircraft have to know about each other for See and Avoid to work, but you simply refuse to accept this, preferring the "stealth" technique - listen and avoid. It just doesn't work, but that is exactly the system you are foisting on us. At least someone in OAR understands the issue and created a Broadcast Area for VFR, non-standard as it is.
Lastly, I do not intend to defame anyone. If the pilot feels defamed by what I say, I apologise. I am merely trying to point out the problems with the system using Launy as a case-in-point. And I will say again: in my opinion, the Launy incident was a totally unacceptable result of the flawed unsurveilled E-over-D concept.
Dick,
So what's the option? For goodness sake, you're running around yelling and screaming but not proposing any solutions that are better than the current setup (I contend they are worse)!
Oh, by the way, correct freq and volume up is easily checked by the VFR using a bit of airmanship and doing a quick check-call with Centre, and when they get to the "vicinity"
of the airfield, talk to the CAGRO (remembering there is a requirement to broadcast at 30nm at BME).
And if you rely on the myth that when you now descend in G to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for your inbound calls (with the correct frequency dialled in and the volume up) you are kidding yourself and your passengers.
Oh, by the way, correct freq and volume up is easily checked by the VFR using a bit of airmanship and doing a quick check-call with Centre, and when they get to the "vicinity"
of the airfield, talk to the CAGRO (remembering there is a requirement to broadcast at 30nm at BME).
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully then you will stop spouting on in such a negative way about a system that can bring safety advantages to our country without being modified in the way that Blockla does not like.
Your VFR vs IFR East of Broome is a furphy; changing the airspace category in which the conflict occurs does nothing for the safe resolution of that conflict. If the VFR can't see the traffic, it doesn't make it safe or obvious that they are nowhere near each other...
The same manner in which the VFR 'can separate/segregate itself in E' is available as the standard applied in D or C only another standard is used until one or both sight each other.
The difference is that in C or D the VFR is known to all parties 'and visual acquisition must occur before the verticals are given away'. and nobody is relying on the VFR monitoring and making the right decision or simply ploughing on as I couldn't see the traffic so it must be safe.
1st .... OZINEUROPE ... thanks for getting me ot of that jam. I didn't know we were betting sheep stations on my non-controlling skills.
2nd ... DICK ...
With all due respect to the pilot involved, he really couldn't swear on a stack of Bibles that a collision was not possible. He doesn't know what the other pilot was thinking, knew, was about to do, was considering doing ... unless he talked to him. It's the "unknown" of Class E that's the problem ... like Class G .... which has the same problem. That's why we are trying to make BRM/KTA BETTER than current.
I can't speak for the ATSB, nor can you. I would imagine that they observe and monitor trends ... and form their opinions from that. Just as they didn't recommend the closure of CG Tower as soon as there was a prang there ... a much more serious event indeed.
Quite true ... that's why we're looking for an improvement. We don't want to have to .....rely on the myth that when we descend in E to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for our inbound calls, with the correct frequency dialled in, the volume up and their transponders on and calibrated. We want ATC to know about everyone ... why wouldn't we?
2nd ... DICK ...
...he can confirm that he heard the airline on both the area and tower frequencies and at all times had the airline in sight and that at no time was there chance of a collision.
...and the ATSB did not recommend or even suggest that the E airspace category be changed.Now why would that be? Could it be that they considered the airspace category satisfactory? Obviously!
And if you rely on the myth that when you now descend in G to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for your inbound calls (with the correct frequency dialled in and the volume up) you are kidding yourself and your passengers.
Bloggs, the ATSB report states "The pilot of the Tobago was monitoring the Launceston and Melbourne Centre ATC frequencies-"
Thats pretty clear to me.
And Peuce if you want to know about everyone you need both primary and secondary radar- thats what Andersons class C direction covers.
Thats pretty clear to me.
And Peuce if you want to know about everyone you need both primary and secondary radar- thats what Andersons class C direction covers.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
peuce..... 
What did you say that for....now you will have Frank banging on about big brother and civil rights and so on...
We want ATC to know about everyone ... why wouldn't we?
Bloggs, the ATSB report states "The pilot of the Tobago was monitoring the Launceston and Melbourne Centre ATC frequencies-"
Thats pretty clear to me.
Thats pretty clear to me.
Dick,
And what did he actually hear? It's in the report. He certainly didn't hear any calls from ML Centre or did he get
He merely heard the first call by the 737 to Launy "ATC" and then subsequent calls about the 737's options for getting to the airport. They were not "radio-alerted traffic advisories".
Bloggs, the ATSB report states "The pilot of the Tobago was monitoring the Launceston and Melbourne Centre ATC frequencies-"
Thats pretty clear to me.
Thats pretty clear to me.
a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies
Dick,
Geez, that would be nice Dick, but REALITY 101 ... CBA.
AND, you are wrong. We've been running Procedural (position report based) Control for eons. We still do it in the GAFA. And we know everyone ... that we are supposed to know.
You don't seem to want to accept (the reality) that procedural control exists.
Jaba .... Frank has a right to his opinion, so I'll just have to weather the inevitable storm. But, in this day and age of more complex and faster aircraft, I don't think we can continue to plead freedom and privacy, at the expense of safety ... at least not in all locations.... and I consider BRM/KTA to be one of those locations.
And Peuce if you want to know about everyone you need both primary and secondary radar- thats what Andersons class C direction covers.
AND, you are wrong. We've been running Procedural (position report based) Control for eons. We still do it in the GAFA. And we know everyone ... that we are supposed to know.
You don't seem to want to accept (the reality) that procedural control exists.
Jaba .... Frank has a right to his opinion, so I'll just have to weather the inevitable storm. But, in this day and age of more complex and faster aircraft, I don't think we can continue to plead freedom and privacy, at the expense of safety ... at least not in all locations.... and I consider BRM/KTA to be one of those locations.
Moderator
Welcome back to Episode 647 of Circular Arguments & Mobile Goalposts
We have certainly hijacked Mike's original thread.
It kind of reminds me of the Cronulla riots ...
Biffo and mayhem, moving from the beach, to the suburban streets, to the shops, to the trains ... any opportunity to carry on the dust up.
It kind of reminds me of the Cronulla riots ...
Biffo and mayhem, moving from the beach, to the suburban streets, to the shops, to the trains ... any opportunity to carry on the dust up.
Moderator
It kind of reminds me of the Cronulla riots ...
And I don't intend spending a few hours each day arbitrating in a street brawl!
