Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania.
"Continuous Two Way"
If "Regional" examples are anything to go by, it means non-stop yacking, so that some aircraft who might like to comply with CARs 166 can't get a word in edgeways.
This is probably allied to the "Marconi" theory of lift ---- when the lips stop flapping, the aeroplane quits flying.
As to your fundamental ignorance of simple and straightforward statistical terms, we all know you don't have a clue, but I, for one, am somewhat mystified as to why you want to keep underlining said ignorance.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 19th Jul 2010 at 09:19.
Plumbum?
Just man the TWR and with the installed equipment, there is no problem. C over D...its very simple with radar and wamlat.
Anyway...you guys missed the boat...even if the wranga wanted to change anything..she is now hamstrung by the caretaker provisions of the election period....you guys are spouting nothing but hot air and windbaggery of the poorest standard.
Just man the TWR and with the installed equipment, there is no problem. C over D...its very simple with radar and wamlat.
Anyway...you guys missed the boat...even if the wranga wanted to change anything..she is now hamstrung by the caretaker provisions of the election period....you guys are spouting nothing but hot air and windbaggery of the poorest standard.
Ledsled,
Bloggs,
If "Regional" examples are anything to go by, it means non-stop yacking, so that some aircraft who might like to comply with CARs 166 can't get a word in edgeways.
Just keep ducking, just keep ducking... Stay on the ball, sled me old. No clue about "Continuous Two Way"? I hope you don't operate VFR in E... Methinks you're not the expert you make yourself out to be if you can't answer such a fundamental question.
Oh, I understand Vanishingly small means "jeez, it just happened when it wasn't supposed to, for the next thousand years!" 
"Continuous Two Way"
If "Regional" examples are anything to go by, it means non-stop yacking, so that some aircraft who might like to comply with CARs 166 can't get a word in edgeways.
As to your fundamental ignorance of simple and straightforward statistical terms, we all know you don't have a clue, but I, for one, am somewhat mystified as to why you want to keep underlining said ignorance.
Stationair8,
With a website like that it is!
Reminds me of that other exquisite publication of a few years back during one of the previous NAS debacles: Aiming Higher alias "The Flaming Liar".
Reminds me of that other exquisite publication of a few years back during one of the previous NAS debacles: Aiming Higher alias "The Flaming Liar".
I
I certainly do, and I get so uptight about the "safety" of E, that it always put my pulse rate up from 58 to at least 58.5.
It's a very great pity that you and your cohorts apparently don't have any experience outside you local " little Australia" comfort zone, part of the point John McCormick was making last Wednesday at the SCC --- then you might find how myopic your local focus is, and how much better a number of countries do it, compared to Australia.
Actually, your "fun" definition of Vanishingly Small is quite incorrect, once again underlining your fundamental ignorance of even quite basic statistical method.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The only definition I know of ( my words) re: Continuous Two Way Communications means the ability of two stations to communicate, when required, without a technical break. Which means no "out of range", however you want to put it. It includes HF voice, despite all its shortcomings.
That comes from UK CAA CAPs, when I find a copy, maybe I will get around to scanning it and posting.
Only in Australia would anybody get so wound up about it, rather than accepting the obvious everyday meaning.
hope you don't operate VFR in E.
It's a very great pity that you and your cohorts apparently don't have any experience outside you local " little Australia" comfort zone, part of the point John McCormick was making last Wednesday at the SCC --- then you might find how myopic your local focus is, and how much better a number of countries do it, compared to Australia.
Actually, your "fun" definition of Vanishingly Small is quite incorrect, once again underlining your fundamental ignorance of even quite basic statistical method.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The only definition I know of ( my words) re: Continuous Two Way Communications means the ability of two stations to communicate, when required, without a technical break. Which means no "out of range", however you want to put it. It includes HF voice, despite all its shortcomings.
That comes from UK CAA CAPs, when I find a copy, maybe I will get around to scanning it and posting.
Only in Australia would anybody get so wound up about it, rather than accepting the obvious everyday meaning.
Ledsled,
Yes Yes Yes, come on, cut the warries (JMac has already spun me the VFR-in-E-over-LAX furphy, where VFR have to be on freq, talking, with a transponder - good idea that) and tell us what is meant by "Continuous Two Way", you know, the procedure you use every time you fly in E.
Oooh, OK, I'll try that tomorrow with MEL Centre, since the same rule applies to IFR, and see how far I can get.
OK, I'll bite. What is "Vanishingly small " in statistical terms? I'll use it in a letter to the Tassie editor tomorrow.
Yes Yes Yes, come on, cut the warries (JMac has already spun me the VFR-in-E-over-LAX furphy, where VFR have to be on freq, talking, with a transponder - good idea that) and tell us what is meant by "Continuous Two Way", you know, the procedure you use every time you fly in E.
Continuous Two Way Communications means the ability of two stations to communicate, when required, without a technical break.
Actually, your "fun" definition of Vanishingly Small is quite incorrect
(JMac has already spun me the VFR-in-E-over-LAX furphy, where VFR have to be on freq, talking, with a transponder - good idea that)
Get out and smell the roses.
The transponder requirement over KLAX has nothing to do with E airspace, and everything to do with the transponder veil that surround all Class B airspace in the US.
Sure, there is a frequency to be on, but read the KLAX local chart for VFR lanes ( through the B) --- then tell us all where the "mandatory" talking is !!
Have a look at where the E starts, height-wise, over KLAX.
KLAX and KSFO are the two areas I know really well, both in large and small aircraft, ( and so does John McCormick) you are looking at it from your myopic "little Australia" perspective --- but what else would we expect.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How to avoid the Launy hold and peek!
The missed approach from the 32L ILS is :- Track 313, climb to A031 ............
.... and where did the Virgin 73 hold? .... hmmmm ..... why ..... one might hypothesise that the FMS flew the MA then said, "well what now" ... crew response .... Enter Hold
... none of this would have happened if the MA was - track 313 to A041, passing A031 turn left, track to the LT VOR, then to NIE
by doing so, provide a vertical and lateral race track to and from the IAF for the ILS
BUT HEY, NOBODY FROM ATSB, CASA OR ASA ASKED THOSE WHO KNOW THE AIRSPACE FOR ANY INPUT.
Perhaps a plate amendment might be a far more effective fix rather than a one in one out Class E million dollar ****-up
.... and where did the Virgin 73 hold? .... hmmmm ..... why ..... one might hypothesise that the FMS flew the MA then said, "well what now" ... crew response .... Enter Hold
... none of this would have happened if the MA was - track 313 to A041, passing A031 turn left, track to the LT VOR, then to NIE
by doing so, provide a vertical and lateral race track to and from the IAF for the ILS
BUT HEY, NOBODY FROM ATSB, CASA OR ASA ASKED THOSE WHO KNOW THE AIRSPACE FOR ANY INPUT.
Perhaps a plate amendment might be a far more effective fix rather than a one in one out Class E million dollar ****-up
Ledsled,
I shall consult my brain's trust on the RT but the transponder requirement (1201) is for the lane, not because the aircraft is in B specifically. What this shows that "standard ICAO" airspace is an oxymoron. Countries quite rightly chuck in extra requirements or change the basic ICAO guidelines as they see fit (as Peter Cromarty well knows from his UK time). The fundamentalists who say E is this, E is that and it can't be anything else should get their heads out of the sand as the yanks have done.
Anyway, back to Launy. What we have there, at last (one wonders if it was introduced only because of the publicity of the VFR airprox - certainly, the portable radar was) is surveillance in the form of MLat. What a golden opportunity to get VFR in the system and improve safety for all. But no, it's not about that, is it Ledsled and Dick? It's about the Free in GE brigade being able to go wherever and whenever they please and to hell with anybody in their way. VFR are not "allowed" to be actively involved, are they?
To take up a point you raised earlier:
G is the same as E WRT radio (more stringent, actually) and transponder use above 10k. But more importantly, IFR calls in G are designed specifically for VFR to build a traffic picture. In E, our calls are not. Until we call the tower, we make NO position calls that would benefit VFR. She's eyeballs out and hope for the best. Good system...not.
Jaba,
I too was a bit surprised when I read the Virgin crew firstly held at the altitude they did and secondly held where they did. I would have been tootling along at 7000ft or so down to the south east ready to do my next ILS after JQ got out of the way or at least to the overhead then hold on final. So let's introduce blanket Class E (and make no mistake, this will end up everywhere, surv or not, if Dick gets his way) to fix this problem. Hugely hypocritical of Dick to not therefore demand an immediate return to C over D to prevent a recurrence of the Tobago Airprox.
If declining pilot standards caused this issue, then surely the same declining pilot standards will increase the probability of a "silent" VFR not assimilating IFR traffic in E and having a midair?
You can't have it both ways, NAStronauts. Your current argument is irrational. As for vanishingly small, that fairly describes the level of logic of the argument.
Oh, and by the way, where's the CBA on E over D verses C over D?
I shall consult my brain's trust on the RT but the transponder requirement (1201) is for the lane, not because the aircraft is in B specifically. What this shows that "standard ICAO" airspace is an oxymoron. Countries quite rightly chuck in extra requirements or change the basic ICAO guidelines as they see fit (as Peter Cromarty well knows from his UK time). The fundamentalists who say E is this, E is that and it can't be anything else should get their heads out of the sand as the yanks have done.
Anyway, back to Launy. What we have there, at last (one wonders if it was introduced only because of the publicity of the VFR airprox - certainly, the portable radar was) is surveillance in the form of MLat. What a golden opportunity to get VFR in the system and improve safety for all. But no, it's not about that, is it Ledsled and Dick? It's about the Free in GE brigade being able to go wherever and whenever they please and to hell with anybody in their way. VFR are not "allowed" to be actively involved, are they?
To take up a point you raised earlier:
At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.
Jaba,
I too was a bit surprised when I read the Virgin crew firstly held at the altitude they did and secondly held where they did. I would have been tootling along at 7000ft or so down to the south east ready to do my next ILS after JQ got out of the way or at least to the overhead then hold on final. So let's introduce blanket Class E (and make no mistake, this will end up everywhere, surv or not, if Dick gets his way) to fix this problem. Hugely hypocritical of Dick to not therefore demand an immediate return to C over D to prevent a recurrence of the Tobago Airprox.
If declining pilot standards caused this issue, then surely the same declining pilot standards will increase the probability of a "silent" VFR not assimilating IFR traffic in E and having a midair?
You can't have it both ways, NAStronauts. Your current argument is irrational. As for vanishingly small, that fairly describes the level of logic of the argument.
Oh, and by the way, where's the CBA on E over D verses C over D?
Thread Starter
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
Big news in the Hobart Mercury and Launceston Examiner today.
Expert slams Tassie airports Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania
Dick Smith says Tasmanian flights need better radar approach rules Airport radar `needs upgrade' - Local News - News - Politics - The Examiner Newspaper
At 10.16pm on 1 May 2008,
Expert slams Tassie airports Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania
Dick Smith says Tasmanian flights need better radar approach rules Airport radar `needs upgrade' - Local News - News - Politics - The Examiner Newspaper
At 10.16pm on 1 May 2008,
in pitch darkness and
in bad weather, two jets – a Virgin 737 with 121 people
on board and a Jetstar A320 with 101 people on board -
were about to land at Launceston Airport.
There was, however, fog down to 200 feet so both
aircraft climbed away to circle for another attempt. The
aircraft were operating in an archaic, “do-it-yourself”
1920s-style airspace system where each pilot had to radio
the other pilot and work out how their aircraft should avoid
collision.
In other countries, the air traffic control radar operator
would give instructions to keep the aircraft apart.
When, by sheer luck, the Jetstar pilots saw the Virgin
Blue’s landing lights coming towards them through a break
in the fog, they climbed past its altitude to miss both the
other jet and terrain.
No doubt the passengers had no idea that both aircrews
– already under high mental loading from flying a difficult
bad weather instrument approach at the lowest level –
were not able to use the excellent radar system which
covers the airport, as the correct controlled airspace
system under the previous Government’s policy was never
introduced.
What’s more concerning is that after an unexplainable
two year delay, the final Government Report on the
incident published by the supposedly “independent”
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (“ATSB”) was changed
after secret submissions. The Report made no safety
recommendations at all and ignored the perilous neglect of
not using our existing radar to keep our skies safer.
Why did the ATSB fail to make the obvious
recommendation – that the radar should be used at
Launceston as well as Hobart Airport to save passengers’
lives?
A dossier on such lack of leadership and dangerous
failings in our skies, including a detailed letter to our Prime
Minister Julia Gillard on the subject, is published on my air
safety reform site.Introduction
on board and a Jetstar A320 with 101 people on board -
were about to land at Launceston Airport.
There was, however, fog down to 200 feet so both
aircraft climbed away to circle for another attempt. The
aircraft were operating in an archaic, “do-it-yourself”
1920s-style airspace system where each pilot had to radio
the other pilot and work out how their aircraft should avoid
collision.
In other countries, the air traffic control radar operator
would give instructions to keep the aircraft apart.
When, by sheer luck, the Jetstar pilots saw the Virgin
Blue’s landing lights coming towards them through a break
in the fog, they climbed past its altitude to miss both the
other jet and terrain.
No doubt the passengers had no idea that both aircrews
– already under high mental loading from flying a difficult
bad weather instrument approach at the lowest level –
were not able to use the excellent radar system which
covers the airport, as the correct controlled airspace
system under the previous Government’s policy was never
introduced.
What’s more concerning is that after an unexplainable
two year delay, the final Government Report on the
incident published by the supposedly “independent”
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (“ATSB”) was changed
after secret submissions. The Report made no safety
recommendations at all and ignored the perilous neglect of
not using our existing radar to keep our skies safer.
Why did the ATSB fail to make the obvious
recommendation – that the radar should be used at
Launceston as well as Hobart Airport to save passengers’
lives?
A dossier on such lack of leadership and dangerous
failings in our skies, including a detailed letter to our Prime
Minister Julia Gillard on the subject, is published on my air
safety reform site.Introduction
Launy tower used to be open 24 hours a day until the early 1990's when the experts decided it should close at 10pm .
A question for Mr Smith, who actually signed of to reduce the tower hours in the early 1990's and for what reason?
Wasn't the grand plan to actually close the tower permantly?
A question for Mr Smith, who actually signed of to reduce the tower hours in the early 1990's and for what reason?
Wasn't the grand plan to actually close the tower permantly?
This is how I look at it.
From my experience in ATS, IFR pilots have been successfully self-separating themselves during instrument approaches in G(F) since Moses was a child. In the majority of cases they use vertical arrangements to assure separation.
So, it's not an inherently un-safe procedure.
Now we have 2 fast IFRs, who probably haven't had as much experience in self-separating ... stuff it up. There was no separation assured.
The questions for me now are:
Is it ATSB's responsibility to ask those questions?
If it is ...then obviously they have decided that self-separation is OK
From my experience in ATS, IFR pilots have been successfully self-separating themselves during instrument approaches in G(F) since Moses was a child. In the majority of cases they use vertical arrangements to assure separation.
So, it's not an inherently un-safe procedure.
Now we have 2 fast IFRs, who probably haven't had as much experience in self-separating ... stuff it up. There was no separation assured.
The questions for me now are:
- Should IFR Jet RPT aircraft be self-separating?
- If yes, should re-training of the offending pilots be sufficient? Or, should we put in place a 'system' to protect them, if they similarly stuff up again?
- If they shouldn't self-separate, how do we arrange for the provision of appropriate ATS intervention at that location?
Is it ATSB's responsibility to ask those questions?
If it is ...then obviously they have decided that self-separation is OK
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sue CASA for manslaughter?
Can someone actually point to another country that actually allows self separation for 2 airliners where radar coverage exists? Which country actually allows this? Answer this Class E deniers!
It is stunning that the ATSB has not recommended the proper use of radar and now multilateration. If I were a family member of the Mount Hotham or Benalla victims I would have sued CASA for failure to implement the life saving use of radar which would have clearly prevented both those accident.
It has been on the government agenda for over 10 years and been resisted by incompetent bureaucrats for far too long.
Do we really need to kill 222 people in mid air collision in radar covered airspace to prove the stupidity of the ATSB, CASA and Air Services Australia?
What is so painfully obvious that all you class E deniers fail to see is that the closest we have come to a mid air collision with an airliner and/or a CFIT in recent times have involved IFR, not VFR aircraft in radar covered non controlled airspace.
Orange -IFR/IFR (airliner)
Canberra - IFR/terrain (airliner)
Benalla -IFR/ terrain
Mount Hotham - IFR/terrain
Launceston - IFR/IFR (airliner)
All of these incidents and accidents have happened in uncontrolled radar covered airspace that Australia has refused to upgrade to controlled airspace. Astonishing stupidity.
When CASA kills, yes kills hundreds of people in radar covered class G airspace because you lot refused to employ common sense I just hope I am not your pilot.
I have instructed my family to sue CASA and Airservices should I be involved in a midair collision or CFIT accident in radar covered Class G airspace for failure to implement NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.
You are so concerned about VFR aircraft in clear weather that you fail to see the REAL threat... IFR/IFR-and terrain in bad weather. Remarkable stupidity.
Upgrade to NAS now, before its too late.
MJBOW2
Airline Pilot
It is stunning that the ATSB has not recommended the proper use of radar and now multilateration. If I were a family member of the Mount Hotham or Benalla victims I would have sued CASA for failure to implement the life saving use of radar which would have clearly prevented both those accident.
It has been on the government agenda for over 10 years and been resisted by incompetent bureaucrats for far too long.
Do we really need to kill 222 people in mid air collision in radar covered airspace to prove the stupidity of the ATSB, CASA and Air Services Australia?
What is so painfully obvious that all you class E deniers fail to see is that the closest we have come to a mid air collision with an airliner and/or a CFIT in recent times have involved IFR, not VFR aircraft in radar covered non controlled airspace.
Orange -IFR/IFR (airliner)
Canberra - IFR/terrain (airliner)
Benalla -IFR/ terrain
Mount Hotham - IFR/terrain
Launceston - IFR/IFR (airliner)
All of these incidents and accidents have happened in uncontrolled radar covered airspace that Australia has refused to upgrade to controlled airspace. Astonishing stupidity.
When CASA kills, yes kills hundreds of people in radar covered class G airspace because you lot refused to employ common sense I just hope I am not your pilot.
I have instructed my family to sue CASA and Airservices should I be involved in a midair collision or CFIT accident in radar covered Class G airspace for failure to implement NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.
You are so concerned about VFR aircraft in clear weather that you fail to see the REAL threat... IFR/IFR-and terrain in bad weather. Remarkable stupidity.
Upgrade to NAS now, before its too late.
MJBOW2
Airline Pilot
Last edited by mjbow2; 20th Jul 2010 at 04:22.
It has been on the government agenda for over 10 years and been resisted by incompetent bureaucrats for far too long.
All of these incidents and accidents have happened in uncontrolled radar covered airspace that Australia has refused to upgrade to controlled airspace. Astonishing stupidity.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce
I would welcome with open arms a scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis to determine airspace design.
Common sense tells us that if a scientifically validated Cost Benefit Analysis were done in this country we would NEVER have Class C over D or C over E. If our airspace design wasn't so bloody dangerous at regional airports it would be world class joke!
And yes, there is an extraordinarily cost effective class of controlled airspace available for all radar covered areas. Arguably a pittance more to run than class G. Its called Class E.
Upgrade to NAS now!
I would welcome with open arms a scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis to determine airspace design.
Common sense tells us that if a scientifically validated Cost Benefit Analysis were done in this country we would NEVER have Class C over D or C over E. If our airspace design wasn't so bloody dangerous at regional airports it would be world class joke!
And yes, there is an extraordinarily cost effective class of controlled airspace available for all radar covered areas. Arguably a pittance more to run than class G. Its called Class E.
Upgrade to NAS now!
MJBow2,
Class act, mate. You say that but you fly in it.
Wrong.
As for Benalla and Mt Hotham, if you're prepared to cough up a million or so for another console just to "protect" those operations from CFIT, then go for it.
Canberra? You are aware that the MSAWS of TAAATS is available in any class of airspace (being part of the FIS), are you not? The service is not dependent on E.
C over D "bloody dangerous". Please explain.
For the NAStronauts generally, hundreds of thousands of IFR flights have successfully self-separated in Australia's G+ over decades, and saved millions and millions of dollars. All RPT would have had the benefit of a Flight Service station to keep tabs on what was going on. But that was all chucked out when Dick arrived with his fabled non-radar E that did away with FSSs; let's not mention it would have gridlocked the airspace system.
Now, we have a "breakdown of separation", with you all screaming from the rooftops. But when the lighty almost cleaned up the 737 at the very same place we are talking about here (after only a couple of months of E airspace), you screamed that "they missed, didn't they?!!!!, what is the problem??!!. There are no separation standards in E!!". There are none in G, actually, either, for that matter). This incident was a result of a failure of the system. The lighty incident was the result of a fundamentally flawed system that provided NO protection from the outset. It is a bit rich implying we had only one VFR/IFR conflict ion but we've had 5 IFR incidents. The reason for only 1 VFR/IFR airprox is that the airspace type was SHUT DOWN soon after. You are statistical fraudsters, bending and twisting the arguments to suit your Free in GE paranoia. VCA's? Why don't we add a 10nm buffer to all CTA to reduce the risk to IFR RPT pax?
The other aspect of your scare-mongering is that MLat has only been in operation in Tas for a few months. Give the system a break, for goodness sake!
I am not opposed to radar/surv E, provided VFR advises the controller he's there for a transponder check (let's use the technology to protect everybody). I do not agree, however, that an A380 should have to dodge a VFR in E. You can't ride a horse on a freeway, so get/keep out of the way of a multi-hundred pax jet.
So, C/D during tower hours, surv-E outside (which means VFR advise ATC they are there - you know, "Continuous Two Way"). Oh, and a bit of re-training for certain IFR pilots on keeping out of each other's way!
I suppose we do have Dick to thank. If it was not for him introducing non-radar E in 2003, the lighty/737 airprox wouldn't have happened, the temporary radar wouldn't have been put in, and MLat wouldn't have been set up. I wonder what it's going to take to get the same in BME and KTA? I know - put in some non-surv E over the top and have an airprox. Oops, isn't that what OAR are going to do?
I have instructed my family to sue CASA and Airservices should I be involved in a midair collision or CFIT accident in radar covered Class G airspace for failure to implement NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.
NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.
As for Benalla and Mt Hotham, if you're prepared to cough up a million or so for another console just to "protect" those operations from CFIT, then go for it.
Canberra? You are aware that the MSAWS of TAAATS is available in any class of airspace (being part of the FIS), are you not? The service is not dependent on E.
if a scientifically validated Cost Benefit Analysis were done in this country we would NEVER have Class C over D or C over E. If our airspace design wasn't so bloody dangerous at regional airports it would be world class joke!
For the NAStronauts generally, hundreds of thousands of IFR flights have successfully self-separated in Australia's G+ over decades, and saved millions and millions of dollars. All RPT would have had the benefit of a Flight Service station to keep tabs on what was going on. But that was all chucked out when Dick arrived with his fabled non-radar E that did away with FSSs; let's not mention it would have gridlocked the airspace system.
Now, we have a "breakdown of separation", with you all screaming from the rooftops. But when the lighty almost cleaned up the 737 at the very same place we are talking about here (after only a couple of months of E airspace), you screamed that "they missed, didn't they?!!!!, what is the problem??!!. There are no separation standards in E!!". There are none in G, actually, either, for that matter). This incident was a result of a failure of the system. The lighty incident was the result of a fundamentally flawed system that provided NO protection from the outset. It is a bit rich implying we had only one VFR/IFR conflict ion but we've had 5 IFR incidents. The reason for only 1 VFR/IFR airprox is that the airspace type was SHUT DOWN soon after. You are statistical fraudsters, bending and twisting the arguments to suit your Free in GE paranoia. VCA's? Why don't we add a 10nm buffer to all CTA to reduce the risk to IFR RPT pax?
The other aspect of your scare-mongering is that MLat has only been in operation in Tas for a few months. Give the system a break, for goodness sake!
I am not opposed to radar/surv E, provided VFR advises the controller he's there for a transponder check (let's use the technology to protect everybody). I do not agree, however, that an A380 should have to dodge a VFR in E. You can't ride a horse on a freeway, so get/keep out of the way of a multi-hundred pax jet.
So, C/D during tower hours, surv-E outside (which means VFR advise ATC they are there - you know, "Continuous Two Way"). Oh, and a bit of re-training for certain IFR pilots on keeping out of each other's way!
I suppose we do have Dick to thank. If it was not for him introducing non-radar E in 2003, the lighty/737 airprox wouldn't have happened, the temporary radar wouldn't have been put in, and MLat wouldn't have been set up. I wonder what it's going to take to get the same in BME and KTA? I know - put in some non-surv E over the top and have an airprox. Oops, isn't that what OAR are going to do?
Last edited by tail wheel; 20th Jul 2010 at 05:35.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2,
I think the professionals, as opposed to 'aviation expert(s)' might disagree. I'd wager my house that the cost of providing E as opposed to G would be significant. However, if the move was made why not go C, which provides a higher level of protection for RPT? The professionals have repeatedly informed us that the delta between E and C is non-existent or, at worst, 'vanishingly small.'
I just do not understand your slavish adherence to an airspace classification that relies on chance when it comes to IFR/VFR separation; a metaphorical spin of the roulette wheel if you like. I am reminded of born-again Christians that have just attended a Billy Graham rally.
By the way, I think there was a typo in one of your previous entries:
I think that maybe you might have meant 'Downgrade to NAS now!'
And yes, there is an extraordinarily cost effective class of controlled airspace available for all radar covered areas. Arguably a pittance more to run than class G. Its called Class E.
I just do not understand your slavish adherence to an airspace classification that relies on chance when it comes to IFR/VFR separation; a metaphorical spin of the roulette wheel if you like. I am reminded of born-again Christians that have just attended a Billy Graham rally.
By the way, I think there was a typo in one of your previous entries:
Upgrade to NAS now!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2
You are a funny ol' thing
USNAS or DickNAS? .. as we all know the two are light years apart in real terms.
In the case of Launy and Hobart, what do you recommend:-
1. DickNAS .... Class E over little D; or
2. USNAS .... Class C or B
As those are the two options in real life.
As has been demonstated in proper Aerostudies of late, the current
3. Australian/ICAO C over D is safe, efficient and not in need of change ask some of the crews who operate through on a regular basis if they think C over D (done from the tower) is less than best.
As for sueing, who should folks sue if Airlines cannot stick to operating during published service hours, or their bean counters decline offers of out of hours service coverage?
Hmmm, thought not
You are a funny ol' thing
USNAS or DickNAS? .. as we all know the two are light years apart in real terms.
In the case of Launy and Hobart, what do you recommend:-
1. DickNAS .... Class E over little D; or
2. USNAS .... Class C or B
As those are the two options in real life.
As has been demonstated in proper Aerostudies of late, the current
3. Australian/ICAO C over D is safe, efficient and not in need of change
ask some of the crews who operate through on a regular basis if they think C over D (done from the tower) is less than best.As for sueing, who should folks sue if Airlines cannot stick to operating during published service hours, or their bean counters decline offers of out of hours service coverage?
Hmmm, thought not