Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania.
Kangaroo Court,
Because keeping the tower open is cheaper and achieves the same aim. For goodness sake, the system does not need a full-blown radar approach service if there are two flippin' jets arriving at the airport.
If Dick gets his way, the cost of keeping the tower open (or CASA having the balls to mandate the tower being open for jet operations) will pale into insignificance compared to creating and manning the extra ATC consoles just to provide ATC remote "approach" services at jet airports around the country, even if only at surveilled airports.
The other big issue is ATC control of an IFR that also has to manage a CTAF arrival. That will unnecessarily increase risk.
This is simply another disgraceful attempt by the NAStronauts to get E airspace, nothing else. Why else would they not just scream "keep the tower open"?
As for the Virgin pilot mentioned above, I'd strongly suggest you take a look at the standards of your pilots before sledging the airspace system. I'm not a rocket scientist, but it strikes me that holding in the middle of the Missed Approach path at the Missed Approach altitude is not the smartest idea in the world.
And CASA/Jmac, grow some balls and mandate tower services for jet ops where a tower is established.
Tell me again why anyone is opposed to ATC and radar coverage for RPT arrivals and departures? You've got to pay the piper eventually...or risk hitting one-right?
If Dick gets his way, the cost of keeping the tower open (or CASA having the balls to mandate the tower being open for jet operations) will pale into insignificance compared to creating and manning the extra ATC consoles just to provide ATC remote "approach" services at jet airports around the country, even if only at surveilled airports.
The other big issue is ATC control of an IFR that also has to manage a CTAF arrival. That will unnecessarily increase risk.
This is simply another disgraceful attempt by the NAStronauts to get E airspace, nothing else. Why else would they not just scream "keep the tower open"?
As for the Virgin pilot mentioned above, I'd strongly suggest you take a look at the standards of your pilots before sledging the airspace system. I'm not a rocket scientist, but it strikes me that holding in the middle of the Missed Approach path at the Missed Approach altitude is not the smartest idea in the world.
And CASA/Jmac, grow some balls and mandate tower services for jet ops where a tower is established.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 21st Jul 2010 at 02:46. Reason: bit on bottom added.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a reader of solid journalism, Bloggs, I know what goes on. I also watch A Current Affair! I do get all the information! I am probably better informed than you are! In between putting my bets on the dogs, getting pissed, watching porn, beating the wife and trying to shag that Sheila next door, I know this stuff!
I place more faith in the aviation experts than I do with your stupid rants. High quality news programs confirm this; even though I flick back and forth between these superior programs, the third race at the local dog-park and that chick with the nice ones.
The fact is, Bloggs, that a highly respected newspaper agrees with aviation experts. Where does that leave you?
By the way, my sister that's married to my brother agrees.
I place more faith in the aviation experts than I do with your stupid rants. High quality news programs confirm this; even though I flick back and forth between these superior programs, the third race at the local dog-park and that chick with the nice ones.
The fact is, Bloggs, that a highly respected newspaper agrees with aviation experts. Where does that leave you?
By the way, my sister that's married to my brother agrees.
By the way, my sister that's married to my brother agrees.
Freedom7, hang in there. We have to make our own fun as the NAStronauts have suddenly run for cover (again). Maybe they're working on all those CBAs that will conclusively show that remote radar approach services in the boonies, and E airspace over the top of non-radar control towers will deliver vanishingly small chances of midairs whilst at the same time save squillions of dollars!
Howabout,
I've long since given up on using sarcasm, subtlty, tongue-in-cheek and irony to make a point in PPRUNE ... they mostly don't get it ... because they're all so het up.
But your point is interesting. No matter the facts, the "big noise" stirring the masses, will usually ellicit the required knee jerk reaction from the pollies and feds. It's very difficult to counter.
P.S.
E Airspace rules, OK !
I've long since given up on using sarcasm, subtlty, tongue-in-cheek and irony to make a point in PPRUNE ... they mostly don't get it ... because they're all so het up.
But your point is interesting. No matter the facts, the "big noise" stirring the masses, will usually ellicit the required knee jerk reaction from the pollies and feds. It's very difficult to counter.
P.S.
But what is Mr Smith's real agenda?
How about sending it to Karratha. "Not a hope in hell, Bloggs. No votes/Greens there. Besides, where's Karatha?".
PS: Tailwheel, would you mind leaving these posts on the BB? We may be re-hashing old topics but that's exactly what the NAStronauts are doing.
PS: Tailwheel, would you mind leaving these posts on the BB? We may be re-hashing old topics but that's exactly what the NAStronauts are doing.
Hey Griffo,
You still got that Jindalee thingy over your side?
Couldn't we use it for KTA/BRM?
I seem to remember it used to be pretty spiffy at tracking road trains along the NW Coastal Highway!
You still got that Jindalee thingy over your side?
Couldn't we use it for KTA/BRM?
I seem to remember it used to be pretty spiffy at tracking road trains along the NW Coastal Highway!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce,
Bloggs nailed it:
In short, and despite the frustrations, we keep on the logic line. We have an occasional blow-off of steam, but we stay rational. Humour helps and the opposition is pretty dry and boring on that front.
BTW, I have another sister that's married to my mother's brother. She likes your handle and wonders whether you'd be interested.
Bloggs nailed it:
We have to make our own fun as the NAStronauts have suddenly run for cover (again).
BTW, I have another sister that's married to my mother's brother. She likes your handle and wonders whether you'd be interested.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce
Who or what has changed your mind? For a while there you were actually supporting common sense use of radar and dare I say it, Dick Smith.
As for a CBA- not one scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis has been done for C over D. Not one! If it were you could NOT assign a lower level of risk mitigation (Class D) in the highest risk area and then put a higher level of risk mitigation (Class C) where the risk is actually less. Its a remarkably simple concept Peuce and I know you understand it but you push a fundamentalist line that can only survive if you ignore the truth.
Howabout
You Class E deniers have never objected to the vast swathes of Class G we fly though hundreds of times to get to airports like Balina and Proserpine etc. Your fairytale belief system however says it would be inherently unsafe if we turned it into Class E. Remarkable insanity!
The chaser
,
Interesting you did not refer to these 'proper Aerostudies' as scientific Cost Benefit Analysis'.
What an astonishing thing to say. So you would you support US NAS Class C at Launceston and Hobart. That’s fantastic. Both Class C and B have class E surrounding and above them. I would fully agree to having Class C at these airports, as long as it was supported by a scientifically validated CBA.
I am one of the crews that operate at C over D. Every single pilot I fly with hate them. We cannot fathom why all this reporting of altitude an distance etc is required when there is a perfectly good radar that could be used. Its insanity.
If you really believe giving the tower huge amounts of airspace so they can procedurally separate then why don’t we use procedural separation at Sydney and Melbourne etc. It’s obvious, the busier an airport gets the harder it is to procedurally separate. The fact is that radar separation is far more efficient than procedural
Dog one
Dog one its obvious had there been Class E on descent to Hotham, the pilot would never have been allowed to fly off course to the approach IAF. This has been pointed out many times before.
You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
Dog one, How about this for common sense! The difference between Karratha, Broome and Tasmania is the mountainous terrain in Tassie and there is outstanding surveillance there already so why not use it properly.
Freedom 7
Are you for real? Who normally issues a landing clearance at a CTAF? No one, Its a CTAF! You fundamentalists will launch any specious obfuscation possible to muddy the waters without actually thinking about what you're saying.
And Capn Bloggs is still spruiking the same old line
You don't get to make up facts. Bloggs, Freedom 7 instead of letting your imagination run wild, just ask how it works. They have been doing it with the NAS airspace for years in the United States. Clearly neither of you have any experience with the proposed airspace.
Who or what has changed your mind? For a while there you were actually supporting common sense use of radar and dare I say it, Dick Smith.
As for a CBA- not one scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis has been done for C over D. Not one! If it were you could NOT assign a lower level of risk mitigation (Class D) in the highest risk area and then put a higher level of risk mitigation (Class C) where the risk is actually less. Its a remarkably simple concept Peuce and I know you understand it but you push a fundamentalist line that can only survive if you ignore the truth.
Howabout
I just do not understand your slavish adherence to an airspace classification that relies on chance when it comes to IFR/VFR separation.
The chaser
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
2. USNAS .... Class C or B
As those are the two options in real life.
As has been demonstated in proper Aerostudies of late
Interesting you did not refer to these 'proper Aerostudies' as scientific Cost Benefit Analysis'.
What an astonishing thing to say. So you would you support US NAS Class C at Launceston and Hobart. That’s fantastic. Both Class C and B have class E surrounding and above them. I would fully agree to having Class C at these airports, as long as it was supported by a scientifically validated CBA.
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.
If you really believe giving the tower huge amounts of airspace so they can procedurally separate then why don’t we use procedural separation at Sydney and Melbourne etc. It’s obvious, the busier an airport gets the harder it is to procedurally separate. The fact is that radar separation is far more efficient than procedural
Dog one
Could you enlighten us unworthy pilots how radar would have prevented the Hotham accident.
What is different about the airmiss between the 737 and A320, and the 737 and the light aircraft. The death toll in the former would have been about 180.
What is different about the airmiss between the 737 and A320, and the 737 and the light aircraft. The death toll in the former would have been about 180.
You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
Dog one, How about this for common sense! The difference between Karratha, Broome and Tasmania is the mountainous terrain in Tassie and there is outstanding surveillance there already so why not use it properly.
Freedom 7
Who is going to issue the Landing clearance/MA? - ML Radar
And Capn Bloggs is still spruiking the same old line
The other big issue is ATC control of an IFR that also has to manage a CTAF arrival. That will unnecessarily increase risk.
MJBOW2,
Take your blinkers off and use a bit of commonsense: make it Class D all the way to Class A. Alphabet soup airspace. Illogical categories of airspace with inappropriate rules for each category. Exactly why ICAO is getting rid of it.
Please tell me you're joking! No chance? That's not what the ATSB said. And funny about the RA. Yes, they eventually missed by a few hundred feet. Was it planned that way? If it was, any system that relies on a pilot avoiding a jet by a few hundred feet when the jet crew doesn't even know he's there is fundamentally flawed. This point alone demonstrates that you NAStronauts have no credibility.
How does it work, MJBOW2? And when considering your answer, I will not be cancelling IFR just to make it work.
If it were you could NOT assign a lower level of risk mitigation (Class D) in the highest risk area and then put a higher level of risk mitigation (Class C) where the risk is actually less. Its a remarkably simple concept
You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
instead of letting your imagination run wild, just ask how it works. They have been doing it with the NAS airspace for years in the United States. Clearly neither of you have any experience with the proposed airspace.
You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
Mjbow2,
Wash your mouth out with soap!
Only joking....
Actually, I don't support or oppose people ... I support or oppose their arguments. Dick's a good bloke and I think he believe's his arguments are correct and right. That's why it's no use having a go at someone who believes they are doing the right thing. In fact, he could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong. The only way to test our arguments is to place them in front of our peers and let them be the judge.
The challenge is ... to be able to withdraw when it appears that you're ideas are supported by a very small minority ... although, once again, the majority could be wrong, I suppose. However, our democracy allows the majority to rule ... even if they are wrong.
Enough fluff, to your points:
My current thinking is that, if we have surveillance, it would be prudent to use it, as I said earlier, for some form of ATS ... greater than ICAO Class G. What that form takes, depends on the requirements of that particular volume. Requirements include traffic mix, density, numbers ... balanced off against the economic and resource cost. That seems to be a fairly logical process to me.
What I don't agree with is the declaration of blanket Class E airspace where we have surveillance. That's just funamentalist stuff, as far as I'm concerned.
Cost Benefit Analyses .... I agree with you. If we haven't done CBAs for C over D etc ... and there's broad agreement that we have a problem with C over D ... then go for it.
Some may think there's no logic in having a higher category over a lower category, but it seems to work. It's horses for courses. One way of looking at it is ... down low where we have to move a greater number of VFRs amongst IFRs ...the more flexible options of D are more useful. Up higher, with less VFRs, the greater restrictions affect fewer aircraft. So, from my point of view, I can live with that.
As to having procedural C over D, managed by a Tower ... where there is radar coverage in the C ... that definitely is a problem child. Logically, you would think that you could just give the C to the bloke that works the radar and all would be solved. Unfortunately, in your scenario, the complications include the fact that the Radar C guy above would have to be Approach trained, rated and current. Also, additional coordination would be required with the Tower, and, presumably, that would have to come at a much later time in the arrival sequence. Or, you could train the Tower guy to Approach standards. These all have logistical and economic costs associated with them. But I'm happy to support a CBA that looks at it.
This argument doesn't quite hold water as the 2 jets saw, and knew about each other at Launy also. There was never a real chance of a prang. So ... same, same.
And I don't think you could call most of us "Class E Deniers" . We, like yourself, just want to see the CBAs before throwing an E blanket over Australia.
Who or what has changed your mind? For a while there you were actually supporting common sense use of radar and dare I say it, Dick Smith.
Only joking....
Actually, I don't support or oppose people ... I support or oppose their arguments. Dick's a good bloke and I think he believe's his arguments are correct and right. That's why it's no use having a go at someone who believes they are doing the right thing. In fact, he could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong. The only way to test our arguments is to place them in front of our peers and let them be the judge.
The challenge is ... to be able to withdraw when it appears that you're ideas are supported by a very small minority ... although, once again, the majority could be wrong, I suppose. However, our democracy allows the majority to rule ... even if they are wrong.
Enough fluff, to your points:
My current thinking is that, if we have surveillance, it would be prudent to use it, as I said earlier, for some form of ATS ... greater than ICAO Class G. What that form takes, depends on the requirements of that particular volume. Requirements include traffic mix, density, numbers ... balanced off against the economic and resource cost. That seems to be a fairly logical process to me.
What I don't agree with is the declaration of blanket Class E airspace where we have surveillance. That's just funamentalist stuff, as far as I'm concerned.
Cost Benefit Analyses .... I agree with you. If we haven't done CBAs for C over D etc ... and there's broad agreement that we have a problem with C over D ... then go for it.
Some may think there's no logic in having a higher category over a lower category, but it seems to work. It's horses for courses. One way of looking at it is ... down low where we have to move a greater number of VFRs amongst IFRs ...the more flexible options of D are more useful. Up higher, with less VFRs, the greater restrictions affect fewer aircraft. So, from my point of view, I can live with that.
As to having procedural C over D, managed by a Tower ... where there is radar coverage in the C ... that definitely is a problem child. Logically, you would think that you could just give the C to the bloke that works the radar and all would be solved. Unfortunately, in your scenario, the complications include the fact that the Radar C guy above would have to be Approach trained, rated and current. Also, additional coordination would be required with the Tower, and, presumably, that would have to come at a much later time in the arrival sequence. Or, you could train the Tower guy to Approach standards. These all have logistical and economic costs associated with them. But I'm happy to support a CBA that looks at it.
You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
And I don't think you could call most of us "Class E Deniers" . We, like yourself, just want to see the CBAs before throwing an E blanket over Australia.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as long as it was supported by a scientifically validated CBA
The fact is that radar separation is far more efficient than procedural
Economies of scale etc The additional infrustructure [if deemed necessary] is better added to the existing APP service than establishing duplicate services and rosters. IMHO
Movement at the station it seems
Minister intervenes and orders full radar separation of passenger jets using Launceston Airport – Plane Talking
Won't the report be interesting reading
