Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mjbow2
Tug on the heart strings did we Mr Experienced Virgin Airline Pilot?
Does not show much experience or professionalism does it?
Who mentioned CTAF? ahh you did. Don't take quotes out of context to misinterpret the facts. If you want a normal service ask. If out of hours service was provided this incident would not have happened.
Ok time for the Muppett show (Howabout, Bloggs I think I am getting the humour thing - and it does help
)
How does it work? Please use the incident in question
Tug on the heart strings did we Mr Experienced Virgin Airline Pilot?
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.
Freedom 7
Quote:
Who is going to issue the Landing clearance/MA? - ML Radar
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.
Quote:
Who is going to issue the Landing clearance/MA? - ML Radar
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.
Ok time for the Muppett show (Howabout, Bloggs I think I am getting the humour thing - and it does help
)
just ask how it works.
Hey Mr 'P',
No one's supposed ta know 'bout that.......SSSSHHHHhhh.......
They tell me its OK for picking up boats orf the coast as well.......now there's a thought!!
No one's supposed ta know 'bout that.......SSSSHHHHhhh.......
They tell me its OK for picking up boats orf the coast as well.......now there's a thought!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Sorry mjbow2 - with the mind set in the cockpit that night, that CFIT was going to happen and E airspace wouldn't have prevented it, He even could have been taken out by a VFR aircraft transiting the airspace!
Tell me, have the mountains in Tasmania grown in the last 20 years?
We operated for many years in Tasmania with minimal racking aids other than the VAR's at LT, DPO and HB. Tracking WY - HB was via the WY NDB to TTR Locator. Both HB and LT towers were H24, and the FSU's at WY and DPO were available to cover RPT movements.
Through proper training, route checking and experience, passengers were safely transported from A to B.
You appear not to appreciate the urgency of the RA between the 737/Tobago. Don't DJ train you to respond to RA's? The situation was serious - the TCAS calculated an impact time and avoiding action was required. This is the greatest danger with E airspace, the uncertainity of VFR aircraft doing there own thing, and the reliance of TCAS to prevent the loss of lives.
Sorry mjbow2 - with the mind set in the cockpit that night, that CFIT was going to happen and E airspace wouldn't have prevented it, He even could have been taken out by a VFR aircraft transiting the airspace!
Tell me, have the mountains in Tasmania grown in the last 20 years?
We operated for many years in Tasmania with minimal racking aids other than the VAR's at LT, DPO and HB. Tracking WY - HB was via the WY NDB to TTR Locator. Both HB and LT towers were H24, and the FSU's at WY and DPO were available to cover RPT movements.
Through proper training, route checking and experience, passengers were safely transported from A to B.
You appear not to appreciate the urgency of the RA between the 737/Tobago. Don't DJ train you to respond to RA's? The situation was serious - the TCAS calculated an impact time and avoiding action was required. This is the greatest danger with E airspace, the uncertainity of VFR aircraft doing there own thing, and the reliance of TCAS to prevent the loss of lives.
Moderator
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.
You may professionally debate the issue but personal vitreol and irrelevent comment will continue to be removed. Those who resort to personal attacks and sm@rt ass comments are merely confirming their inability to discuss/debate a matter in a mature, rational and professional manner.
This applies to any thread, not just this thread.
WE call that affordable safety!!
Just been in the dungeon, and found an old ERSA from 1989 showing Launceston Tower H24. Wonder who would have reduced the towers hours then? Wonder why they would have reduced the tower hours?
mjbow2 how many CFIT incidents in Tasmania over the last 50 years?
Just been in the dungeon, and found an old ERSA from 1989 showing Launceston Tower H24. Wonder who would have reduced the towers hours then? Wonder why they would have reduced the tower hours?
mjbow2 how many CFIT incidents in Tasmania over the last 50 years?
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.
If, what Ben Sandilands says, is true:
In the case of at least Launceston and Hobart, the Minister has today directed that this means the use of controlled separation as soon as possible.
Albanese’s intervention, which is clearly intended to close down a politically sensitive situation, goes right over the top of CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation, which was set up to take safety related decisions concerning air traffic procedures off AirServices Australia, thus removing the potential for conflict between the commercial objectives of the air traffic control provider and the regulatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Albanese’s intervention, which is clearly intended to close down a politically sensitive situation, goes right over the top of CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation, which was set up to take safety related decisions concerning air traffic procedures off AirServices Australia, thus removing the potential for conflict between the commercial objectives of the air traffic control provider and the regulatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Noosa
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAhh Mr Peuce,
Its always been things OTHER than 'logical studies and CBA's'.......
(They were only produced to 'prove' the argument....you know, get the result we want...)
Things like ... IDEOLOGY ... DOLLARS ... or, in a nutshell ...
'I wanna do it MY way' ....... E airspace E airspace E airspace
In machine telegraphy, E E E means 'ERROR'......now is that a hint or what..??
'Evolved Safety'... is what we used to have ?? And when it was 'reduced' to a lean machine, to service IFR only - basically - and 'AFIZ's, it worked very economically.
Read the history of Aus. Aviation.
Hi Cap'n, - re 'Alphabet soup airspace. Illogical categories of airspace with inappropriate rules for each category. Exactly why ICAO is getting rid of it.'
Is there a possibility here that we could RETURN to CTA / OCTA ??
LET's ALL "MOVE FORWARD", and do it NOW!!.....( apols to Julia)......
Its always been things OTHER than 'logical studies and CBA's'.......
(They were only produced to 'prove' the argument....you know, get the result we want...)
Things like ... IDEOLOGY ... DOLLARS ... or, in a nutshell ...
'I wanna do it MY way' ....... E airspace E airspace E airspace
In machine telegraphy, E E E means 'ERROR'......now is that a hint or what..??
'Evolved Safety'... is what we used to have ?? And when it was 'reduced' to a lean machine, to service IFR only - basically - and 'AFIZ's, it worked very economically.
Read the history of Aus. Aviation.
Hi Cap'n, - re 'Alphabet soup airspace. Illogical categories of airspace with inappropriate rules for each category. Exactly why ICAO is getting rid of it.'
Is there a possibility here that we could RETURN to CTA / OCTA ??
LET's ALL "MOVE FORWARD", and do it NOW!!.....( apols to Julia)......
Thank you Clarity,
I don't know if your statement is in reference to Dick Smith's threat to take "legal action" against the Government ... or as a suggestion to use as a tool to enforce the Government to revert to using rational process in administering airspace.
Although I got lost after the first hirtherto, whereas and who-so-ever ... it is certainly appears to be an interesting Constitutional instrument.
If only I had the money to do something with it?
P.S. Griffo, yes there's always been half a cup of politics in the airspace design recipe. It would be nice to be able to bake the cake ... politics-free, but can we ever realistically see that happening?
A Writ of Mandamus could be of use
Although I got lost after the first hirtherto, whereas and who-so-ever ... it is certainly appears to be an interesting Constitutional instrument.
If only I had the money to do something with it?
P.S. Griffo, yes there's always been half a cup of politics in the airspace design recipe. It would be nice to be able to bake the cake ... politics-free, but can we ever realistically see that happening?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with tail wheel. Good post Peuce and right on the beam. We attack the arguments, not the proponents. Arguing facts is positive; attacking personalities is just evidence of a lack of knowledge, an inability to coherently argue a case, both, or, dare I say, the route to be taken when one's been comprehensively buggered but won't admit to it.
Interesting missive from Sandilands. I wonder where he gets his information. I've seen nothing anywhere else (not even on a Current Affair - for the benefit of F7). It will be very interesting to see how the Minister's concerns are addressed.
I've just dragged out the Launy/Hobart VTC and it seems to me that if MLAT (or whatever abbreviation is correct) is employed for an approach service, then the airspace architecture doesn't need to be changed; the hours just need to be extended.. The 'dream' of Class E, justified by a 2008 incident and the availability of MLAT (WMLAT/WAM/whatever?) appears to me to be rather opportunistic and cynical.
The fact is, that if the Sandilands report is correct, all that's required are personnel, training, approach qualifications and, either the facility to provide the service from Melbourne or do it from the tower. No, 'all that's required' doesn't imply it's simple - just that E wouldn't make it any easier.
E is not necessarily the only alternative, which I (personally) think is the whole object of this exercise. In short, the incident and the availability of WAM are 'stalking horses' for E. Just my reading of the tea-leaves after having read the letter to the PM on the website. I must, however, admit to admiration as to the timing and the strategic stampeding of the cattle one week into an election campaign. It's a consummate playing of the political card and, despite my disagreement with the desired outcome, it's very smart politics.
D1, you are showing your age! From memory, and correct me if I am wrong, WYD was the last operational VAR site - it was certainly in Tassie. Jeez, it was whiz-bang stuff when I was a kid. My old man was probably one of the last qualified LAMEs on the kit. I remember sitting in the cockpit of a TAA DC-4 freighter (smelt of cow-dung on a 30 deg DAR wet season day) as he tried to explain the theory to a 10 year old kid.
No doubt, if Sandilands is correct, the next couple of days will be interesting.
Freedom 7; my older sister (the one married to my uncle) was a big John Glenn fan. She's dropped her fascination with Peuce and wonders whether you'd be interested in a liaison. Something about astronauts' endurance etc.
Interesting missive from Sandilands. I wonder where he gets his information. I've seen nothing anywhere else (not even on a Current Affair - for the benefit of F7). It will be very interesting to see how the Minister's concerns are addressed.
I've just dragged out the Launy/Hobart VTC and it seems to me that if MLAT (or whatever abbreviation is correct) is employed for an approach service, then the airspace architecture doesn't need to be changed; the hours just need to be extended.. The 'dream' of Class E, justified by a 2008 incident and the availability of MLAT (WMLAT/WAM/whatever?) appears to me to be rather opportunistic and cynical.
The fact is, that if the Sandilands report is correct, all that's required are personnel, training, approach qualifications and, either the facility to provide the service from Melbourne or do it from the tower. No, 'all that's required' doesn't imply it's simple - just that E wouldn't make it any easier.
E is not necessarily the only alternative, which I (personally) think is the whole object of this exercise. In short, the incident and the availability of WAM are 'stalking horses' for E. Just my reading of the tea-leaves after having read the letter to the PM on the website. I must, however, admit to admiration as to the timing and the strategic stampeding of the cattle one week into an election campaign. It's a consummate playing of the political card and, despite my disagreement with the desired outcome, it's very smart politics.
D1, you are showing your age! From memory, and correct me if I am wrong, WYD was the last operational VAR site - it was certainly in Tassie. Jeez, it was whiz-bang stuff when I was a kid. My old man was probably one of the last qualified LAMEs on the kit. I remember sitting in the cockpit of a TAA DC-4 freighter (smelt of cow-dung on a 30 deg DAR wet season day) as he tried to explain the theory to a 10 year old kid.
No doubt, if Sandilands is correct, the next couple of days will be interesting.
Freedom 7; my older sister (the one married to my uncle) was a big John Glenn fan. She's dropped her fascination with Peuce and wonders whether you'd be interested in a liaison. Something about astronauts' endurance etc.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony (the Big One),
We have always had controlled separation at Launy and Hobart international
Howabout, Do it from the Tower. They do it now, they have Approach ratings, they are there. What is required is Certification and Licencing of the WAMLAT system so the ATC's can provide more controlled separation and actually use the technology that is there today. The ATC's use this info now but for procedural separation.
There is no staff, training time or facilities to have Local APP cells or Centre based TCU's to satisfy Tony's wish in the immediate future. (more on this later)
Anyway, Whats her name? She must be able to don 3 beanies. Us North Island ring'ins have taken the 2 heads thing to new standards
and I can hold long enough to not wee in the suit
In the case of at least Launceston and Hobart, the Minister has today directed that this means the use of controlled separation as soon as possible.
The fact is, that if the Sandilands report is correct, all that's required are personnel, training, approach qualifications and, either the facility to provide the service from Melbourne or do it from the tower. No, 'all that's required' doesn't imply it's simple - just that E wouldn't make it any easier.
There is no staff, training time or facilities to have Local APP cells or Centre based TCU's to satisfy Tony's wish in the immediate future. (more on this later)
Anyway, Whats her name? She must be able to don 3 beanies. Us North Island ring'ins have taken the 2 heads thing to new standards
and I can hold long enough to not wee in the suit
Now, getting back to the subject .... Dick Smith's letter ...
As Howabout observed, what a great piece of timing that was.
How the Minister responds to the broadside will be known in good time, because he is currently "looking into it" .
Dick,
While you await the Government's reaction (knee-jerk or otherwise), I have a suggestion for you. While you're on a roll, why not use your considerable network of contacts and resources to push the Government on the real issue.
In this forum, you are often thwarted by the response ... "we'll work any type of airspace asked of us... provided the appropriate resources, equipment and training are provided".
One of the reasons that those goodies aren't forthcoming is that the Government virtually pilfers large amounts of money from the Industry annually and spirits it away into consolidated revenue... never to be seen by the Aviation sector again.
Most years the "dividend" paid to consolidated revenue has been around the $100M mark. Last financial year, during the GFC, ASA managed to get a raincheck from the Government.
The Airservces Australia Act 1995 Part 5, Division 3, Paragraph 53(3) states:
ASA consistently over charges the Industry by around $100m annually. This looks, sounds and smells like a tax to me. If not, then it's consistently dismal financial management.
Could you imagine how $100m a year could be used? Perhaps provide equipment and training to enable the Radar Approach rating of Tower Controllers. Perhaps fund the training of additional Controllers to man low level surveillance airspace?
Your current Tasmanian stir may get the Minister to decree that ATC must be provided for all Jet RPTs or similar. What will then happen is that ASA will say that they don't have the resources to do that ... but they'll include it in their forward planning.
My challenge to you is ... if you really want to make a difference and ensure there's available resources for new Airspace and ATC initiatives ... help us get our money back.
As Howabout observed, what a great piece of timing that was.
How the Minister responds to the broadside will be known in good time, because he is currently "looking into it" .
Dick,
While you await the Government's reaction (knee-jerk or otherwise), I have a suggestion for you. While you're on a roll, why not use your considerable network of contacts and resources to push the Government on the real issue.
In this forum, you are often thwarted by the response ... "we'll work any type of airspace asked of us... provided the appropriate resources, equipment and training are provided".
One of the reasons that those goodies aren't forthcoming is that the Government virtually pilfers large amounts of money from the Industry annually and spirits it away into consolidated revenue... never to be seen by the Aviation sector again.
Most years the "dividend" paid to consolidated revenue has been around the $100M mark. Last financial year, during the GFC, ASA managed to get a raincheck from the Government.
The Airservces Australia Act 1995 Part 5, Division 3, Paragraph 53(3) states:
A service charge must be reasonably related to the expenses incurred or to be incurred by AA in relation to the matters to which the charge relates and must not be such as to amount to taxation
Could you imagine how $100m a year could be used? Perhaps provide equipment and training to enable the Radar Approach rating of Tower Controllers. Perhaps fund the training of additional Controllers to man low level surveillance airspace?
Your current Tasmanian stir may get the Minister to decree that ATC must be provided for all Jet RPTs or similar. What will then happen is that ASA will say that they don't have the resources to do that ... but they'll include it in their forward planning.
My challenge to you is ... if you really want to make a difference and ensure there's available resources for new Airspace and ATC initiatives ... help us get our money back.
Good to see my tax dollars going into a balanced story by Auntie (Freedom 7, keep your mitts off her! ).
Did I see a picture of the dawghouse??!!!
).Did I see a picture of the dawghouse??!!!
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 23rd Jul 2010 at 01:34. Reason: spruced up the dawghouse pic.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bwhahahaha 
..... pissa Bloggsie
I can tell ya, he is giggling his head orf' bout' the 'ready fire aim' campaign, and the 'wise-up' that has occured by most all [including media] since
Gorn' very quiet in the last 24hours eh, and not a peap out of Albo's office
peuce
You asked about the out-of hours charges
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ct_may2010.pdf
..... pissa Bloggsie I can tell ya, he is giggling his head orf' bout' the 'ready fire aim' campaign, and the 'wise-up' that has occured by most all [including media] since
Gorn' very quiet in the last 24hours eh, and not a peap out of Albo's office
peuce
You asked about the out-of hours charges
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ct_may2010.pdf
3.4 The charge for terminal navigation facilities and services outside the rostered hours which are made available following a request by you is, in addition to the charges under clause 3.1:
Before or after normal hours Charge
Up to 30 minutes $37.00
Over 30 up to 60 minutes $76.00
Over 1 hour up to 3 hours or recall of staff $381.00
Each additional hour or part hour $95.00
Before or after normal hours Charge
Up to 30 minutes $37.00
Over 30 up to 60 minutes $76.00
Over 1 hour up to 3 hours or recall of staff $381.00
Each additional hour or part hour $95.00
Last edited by The Chaser; 22nd Jul 2010 at 14:02. Reason: Add the last bit
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That is bloody cheap motoring......so whats the fuss all about when its that economical. Hardly worth the fuss Dick!! It did keep the listeners entertained in Tassie for a day or two though.
Even procedural (greater seperation) with the WAMLAT SA ....what more could you want!
Rolls Royce service at a Hyundai price....or indian taxi!
Bloggs....Thats almost a POTY mate, and thats kind of how I remember it too!
J
Even procedural (greater seperation) with the WAMLAT SA ....what more could you want!
Rolls Royce service at a Hyundai price....or indian taxi!
Bloggs....Thats almost a POTY mate
, and thats kind of how I remember it too!J
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There obviously is a lack of understanding how the current radar en-route / procedural tower system works by some.
High level aircraft inbound to the station normally transfer to Tower at 25nm where the pilot is advised that radar services are terminated. This does not mean that the aircraft become invisible to the en-route controller. Many times, the tower will use radar advice from centre after the aircraft has transferred to the tower to expedite the arrival.
Closer in to the station, the tower sometimes can provide a better service separating, especially with a mix of arriving and departing aircraft and reduce delays that would occur with a pure radar service.
Between the two facilities, it is a co-operative control system that works well with the resources we have. We can improve what we do, but the lead time for the resources means it just will not happen in the short term.
As for coverage for late arrivals, I have had Tiger, Virgin and Jetstar pilots ask for the tower to cover their operations on odd occasions. Just ask, we will try to be there for you.
High level aircraft inbound to the station normally transfer to Tower at 25nm where the pilot is advised that radar services are terminated. This does not mean that the aircraft become invisible to the en-route controller. Many times, the tower will use radar advice from centre after the aircraft has transferred to the tower to expedite the arrival.
Closer in to the station, the tower sometimes can provide a better service separating, especially with a mix of arriving and departing aircraft and reduce delays that would occur with a pure radar service.
Between the two facilities, it is a co-operative control system that works well with the resources we have. We can improve what we do, but the lead time for the resources means it just will not happen in the short term.
As for coverage for late arrivals, I have had Tiger, Virgin and Jetstar pilots ask for the tower to cover their operations on odd occasions. Just ask, we will try to be there for you.
3.4 The charge for terminal navigation facilities and services outside the rostered hours which are made available following a request by you is, in addition to the charges under clause 3.1:
Before or after normal hours Charge
Up to 30 minutes $37.00
Over 30 up to 60 minutes $76.00
Over 1 hour up to 3 hours or recall of staff $381.00
Each additional hour or part hour $95.00
Before or after normal hours Charge
Up to 30 minutes $37.00
Over 30 up to 60 minutes $76.00
Over 1 hour up to 3 hours or recall of staff $381.00
Each additional hour or part hour $95.00
For the sake of $76, two Airlines put themselves through this?
Imagine if they hadn't pulled it off
There's your headline Mr Smith!
Now that I'm over the initial shock ... what should, if anything, be done about these situations?
Should ASA pull up stumps at 6 ... and let the teams continue to bat ...unless asked to stay around ... thereby putting the safety onus on the Airlines?
Or, should CASA decree that ASA will keep umpiring till all RPT Jets are bowled out?
I don't know?
But I do know that, if I was a pax, I'd want the Umpire to stay around for a while.
Should ASA pull up stumps at 6 ... and let the teams continue to bat ...unless asked to stay around ... thereby putting the safety onus on the Airlines?
Or, should CASA decree that ASA will keep umpiring till all RPT Jets are bowled out?
I don't know?
But I do know that, if I was a pax, I'd want the Umpire to stay around for a while.
Last edited by peuce; 23rd Jul 2010 at 02:17. Reason: Mixed metaphors!