NAS Website
Grandpa Aerotart
I think the system needs reform too...I think we need more towers, RADAR, that GPS pretend radar thingamyjig, Satelite VHF coverage everywhere, real FSOs manning real FSUs...in other words reverse the damage that has been forced on aviation since Bosch and Dicks input started.
Oh and don't think about charging the industry because it's the Govts responsibility to provide the basic infrastructure to allow private enterprise to flourish.
THAT'S WHY WE PAY TAXES YOU CKSUKERS
You people have just about destroyed the aviation industry...why don't we all go on strike and just refuse to play their stupid games.
Chuck.
Oh and don't think about charging the industry because it's the Govts responsibility to provide the basic infrastructure to allow private enterprise to flourish.
THAT'S WHY WE PAY TAXES YOU CKSUKERS
You people have just about destroyed the aviation industry...why don't we all go on strike and just refuse to play their stupid games.
Chuck.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Let's hope this Mr Smith is more able to answer questions than the last one!!
It is interesting to see that there has been no sign of Dick Smith on PPRuNe since he was unable to provide answers to the infamous 'seven questions' and so many others. His version of events is now being squarely refuted by the 'official' version on the Airspace Reform website, and not a peep.
Well, Messrs Smith? Who has been telling the truth?
Mr Dick Smith
If the Airspace Reform website is spreading false information about you and affecting your public credibility, is it not time to set the record straight? Perhaps produce the documentary evidence to back up your claims about the LAMP safety case, for instance?
Suggestions that the rejected safety case was, after all, no more than 'feedback' on a 'design' case would be very serious indeed, would they not?
Mr Mike Smith
Now that the "proven US model" mantra has been demonstrated to be less than the whole truth, do you intend to ensure that a safety case on this unproven, unique airspace system is completed? The fallacy that we can adopt a 'hybrid' just because each system from which components of the 'hybrid' are drawn is 'safe’, is utterly ridiculous.
For example: The Americans drive relatively safely on the right hand side of the road. We do it on the left. Hands up anyone called Smith who will participate in the 'hybrid' system?!
Without a safety case of some sort, it appears that we would be in breach of the ICAO methodology cited in the NAS document:
It would be interesting to hear your comments.
Let's hope this Mr Smith is more able to answer questions than the last one!!
It is interesting to see that there has been no sign of Dick Smith on PPRuNe since he was unable to provide answers to the infamous 'seven questions' and so many others. His version of events is now being squarely refuted by the 'official' version on the Airspace Reform website, and not a peep.
Well, Messrs Smith? Who has been telling the truth?
Mr Dick Smith
If the Airspace Reform website is spreading false information about you and affecting your public credibility, is it not time to set the record straight? Perhaps produce the documentary evidence to back up your claims about the LAMP safety case, for instance?
Suggestions that the rejected safety case was, after all, no more than 'feedback' on a 'design' case would be very serious indeed, would they not?
Mr Mike Smith
Now that the "proven US model" mantra has been demonstrated to be less than the whole truth, do you intend to ensure that a safety case on this unproven, unique airspace system is completed? The fallacy that we can adopt a 'hybrid' just because each system from which components of the 'hybrid' are drawn is 'safe’, is utterly ridiculous.
For example: The Americans drive relatively safely on the right hand side of the road. We do it on the left. Hands up anyone called Smith who will participate in the 'hybrid' system?!
Without a safety case of some sort, it appears that we would be in breach of the ICAO methodology cited in the NAS document:
ICAO provides two methodologies for "determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.
Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe.
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.
Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
And power the radio with????
Your attitude is why PPLs will out lobby you and win the CTAF argument. Your attitude is why I'm inclined to help them. Was probably you at Mildura.
The other day I asked to see the safety case on CTAFs Vs MBZs. CASA couldn't provide the statistics although they did try.
I asked how many 'no-radio' incidents happened at 'expensive' airports. CASA hadn't even looked at this.
Someone in a post above said 'go out and see how it is in the real world'. In the real world we have Pvt, Awk and even Charter operators avoiding the radio to save what little profit they have made from that run. Mandating radio won't change that. MBZs won't change that. Only changing the way airports are funded will change that.
Real world!!!
And power the radio with????
Your attitude is why PPLs will out lobby you and win the CTAF argument. Your attitude is why I'm inclined to help them. Was probably you at Mildura.
The other day I asked to see the safety case on CTAFs Vs MBZs. CASA couldn't provide the statistics although they did try.
I asked how many 'no-radio' incidents happened at 'expensive' airports. CASA hadn't even looked at this.
Someone in a post above said 'go out and see how it is in the real world'. In the real world we have Pvt, Awk and even Charter operators avoiding the radio to save what little profit they have made from that run. Mandating radio won't change that. MBZs won't change that. Only changing the way airports are funded will change that.
Real world!!!
Open Mic
A tip - you would have more credibility at your briefings if you did not parrot the same things as your counterpart with the same surname.
I'm also curious re the MBZ vs CTAF debate. At a recent briefing you parroted exactly what Dick did - claims that MBZs were not safer than CTAFs etc., yet your previous employer (while you were with them?) said the opposite:
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Your comments?
Also CASA have included MBZs in the heirachy of risk mitigators (and not UNICOMs):
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comments also?
A tip - you would have more credibility at your briefings if you did not parrot the same things as your counterpart with the same surname.
I'm also curious re the MBZ vs CTAF debate. At a recent briefing you parroted exactly what Dick did - claims that MBZs were not safer than CTAFs etc., yet your previous employer (while you were with them?) said the opposite:
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comment 47 – Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ) – Non-ICAO – MOS Part 71 paragraph 2.2.10 (page 2-4)
CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace. When MTAFs (later renamed MBZs) were introduced under the Airspace Management and Air Traffic Services (AMATS) project on 12 December 1991, no risk assessment was conducted. The MTAFs replaced the pre-existing AFIZs. In 1994/95, CAA and a risk consultancy firm developed the Airspace Risk Model (ARM), which was later incorporated into an ICAO airspace planning manual. Initially, the ARM was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, an MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four.
CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace. When MTAFs (later renamed MBZs) were introduced under the Airspace Management and Air Traffic Services (AMATS) project on 12 December 1991, no risk assessment was conducted. The MTAFs replaced the pre-existing AFIZs. In 1994/95, CAA and a risk consultancy firm developed the Airspace Risk Model (ARM), which was later incorporated into an ICAO airspace planning manual. Initially, the ARM was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, an MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four.
Also CASA have included MBZs in the heirachy of risk mitigators (and not UNICOMs):
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comment 21 – Impact analysis of options – Economic impact – NPRM page 15, paragraph 5.5, fourth dot point.
CASA Response
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers. CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:
a) UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;
b) UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;
c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;
d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;
CASA Response
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers. CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:
a) UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;
b) UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;
c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;
d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;
Grandpa Aerotart
I reckon the greatest thing about PPrune is that these bozos don't get to slip this stuff through unchallenged anymore....and I believe they hate that with a passion.
Incompetence always requires secrecy to work in the short term and a lack of accountability to be hidden in the long term.
Hail the Internet!
Stone the Smiths and all who abide by them!!
Chuck.
PS Can anyone tell me what was wrong with the system we have had up to now?
And don't bother with the "we can't afford it' line because nobody believes that political, self serving BS.
With all the huge problems this industry faces with under staffed, under financed CASA etc etc why are we farking around with this rubbish....could it be they are trying to divert our attention?
Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind
Incompetence always requires secrecy to work in the short term and a lack of accountability to be hidden in the long term.
Hail the Internet!
Stone the Smiths and all who abide by them!!
Chuck.
PS Can anyone tell me what was wrong with the system we have had up to now?
And don't bother with the "we can't afford it' line because nobody believes that political, self serving BS.
With all the huge problems this industry faces with under staffed, under financed CASA etc etc why are we farking around with this rubbish....could it be they are trying to divert our attention?
Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 26th Aug 2002 at 17:45.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu,
I'll have a go at answering your question. Just my opinion though. There are probably lots of other far more valid arguments.
"Why do we need to change airspace?"
Cost is one reason, which is heavily touted, but you already know that. The other (more important) reasons are associated with advances in technology and information requirements; better weather forecasting and reporting methods, more reliable aircraft, better communications and communications coverage, better navaids, better emergency location devices and safety/risk assessment, better radars, improved ATS procedures, spreading population, changing pilot and public attitudes and so forth. The current airspace design is a holdout from the 1950s and 60s. It is not that it is massively inefficient. It works, but it could be better. If we are to embrace the benefits of future technologies such as ADS-B, Mode S, etc, then we need to change. It won't be too long either before there is less emphasis on the machine/human-human/machine interface with growing development in the human/machine-machine/human interface. That will bring a new set of problems that will only be exacerbated with the current airspace design.
From the days when FS used to impose conditions on pilots (Remember the "Request intentions." phrase?); we have now moved to pilots having more say in the conditions they are prepared to accept to continue flight and ATS has taken more of a backseat role as an information provider and decision supporter rather than a joint decision maker. That is not to say that ATS do not have decisions to make. Rather, the decisions made by ATS and pilots have diverged. It was once a situation where all pilots were serviced with similar information regardless of whether they were in an Electra or a Cherokee. In fact, everyone in aviation, including ATS used to have similar information in front of them. Now it is a case where there is so much more information that there is an enormous aspect to information processing, selection and disbursement. Now, we have some pilots wanting considerably more information, and some pilots wanting considerably less, with the remainder spread out and occupying the area in between. ATS have a different set of information needs. Defense have other information requirements. Somehow, everyone wants the information tailored to their particular needs, and they need to be able to work in essentially the same environment.
The challenge is to design an airspace that takes advantage of these changes and allows us to benefit from future developments, while augmenting the information flow to the cockpit and ATS for improved decision-making. At the same time, we need an airspace design that opens aviation navigation to as many pilots, people, aircraft and areas of Australia as possible at an acceptable cost to all. It also has to conform to an internationally acceptable standard - ICAO.
In the context of this discussion in the mix of aircraft in Class G, very few feel the services offered by ATS are worth the cost. VFR private (or like) operations need only a small amount of information to be relayed to and from, while the RPT/IFR operations want a lot. NAS is trying to minimise the information need by trying to separate the pilots with tactics like VFR aircraft "encouraged to avoid IFR routes". LAMP went slightly the other way with larger MBZs and additional radio calls.
One of the problems with NAS as I see it, basing on the "proven North American model" is that in the US and Canada, there are a range of other "silent", less obvious sources of information supporting the airspace and information infrastructure - charts, AWIB, greater radar saturation, etc. - that are not available to the same extent in Australia.
I'm not particularly pro-NAS or pro-LAMP. There are aspects of both that I like. Rather, I'm a relatively silent, but diehard pro-consultation advocate. LAMP was taking time, but at least I felt confident in the change process that a workable result could be achieved in due course. (As you mention, the current airspace design is serving its purpose. There was/is no particular imperative I can see for rushing headlong towards the implementation of a new airspace design.)
The same does not seem to be happening with NAS. The further we get along with NAS, the more holes we see in both the consultation process and acceptable methods for change. As holes are discovered, they appear to be getting filled with putty and glossed over (or ignored). NAS started as a half-baked plan and appears to be progressing downhill rapidly. It doesn't inspire much confidence from me.
Hope this makes sense and helps out.
I'll have a go at answering your question. Just my opinion though. There are probably lots of other far more valid arguments.
"Why do we need to change airspace?"
Cost is one reason, which is heavily touted, but you already know that. The other (more important) reasons are associated with advances in technology and information requirements; better weather forecasting and reporting methods, more reliable aircraft, better communications and communications coverage, better navaids, better emergency location devices and safety/risk assessment, better radars, improved ATS procedures, spreading population, changing pilot and public attitudes and so forth. The current airspace design is a holdout from the 1950s and 60s. It is not that it is massively inefficient. It works, but it could be better. If we are to embrace the benefits of future technologies such as ADS-B, Mode S, etc, then we need to change. It won't be too long either before there is less emphasis on the machine/human-human/machine interface with growing development in the human/machine-machine/human interface. That will bring a new set of problems that will only be exacerbated with the current airspace design.
From the days when FS used to impose conditions on pilots (Remember the "Request intentions." phrase?); we have now moved to pilots having more say in the conditions they are prepared to accept to continue flight and ATS has taken more of a backseat role as an information provider and decision supporter rather than a joint decision maker. That is not to say that ATS do not have decisions to make. Rather, the decisions made by ATS and pilots have diverged. It was once a situation where all pilots were serviced with similar information regardless of whether they were in an Electra or a Cherokee. In fact, everyone in aviation, including ATS used to have similar information in front of them. Now it is a case where there is so much more information that there is an enormous aspect to information processing, selection and disbursement. Now, we have some pilots wanting considerably more information, and some pilots wanting considerably less, with the remainder spread out and occupying the area in between. ATS have a different set of information needs. Defense have other information requirements. Somehow, everyone wants the information tailored to their particular needs, and they need to be able to work in essentially the same environment.
The challenge is to design an airspace that takes advantage of these changes and allows us to benefit from future developments, while augmenting the information flow to the cockpit and ATS for improved decision-making. At the same time, we need an airspace design that opens aviation navigation to as many pilots, people, aircraft and areas of Australia as possible at an acceptable cost to all. It also has to conform to an internationally acceptable standard - ICAO.
In the context of this discussion in the mix of aircraft in Class G, very few feel the services offered by ATS are worth the cost. VFR private (or like) operations need only a small amount of information to be relayed to and from, while the RPT/IFR operations want a lot. NAS is trying to minimise the information need by trying to separate the pilots with tactics like VFR aircraft "encouraged to avoid IFR routes". LAMP went slightly the other way with larger MBZs and additional radio calls.
One of the problems with NAS as I see it, basing on the "proven North American model" is that in the US and Canada, there are a range of other "silent", less obvious sources of information supporting the airspace and information infrastructure - charts, AWIB, greater radar saturation, etc. - that are not available to the same extent in Australia.
I'm not particularly pro-NAS or pro-LAMP. There are aspects of both that I like. Rather, I'm a relatively silent, but diehard pro-consultation advocate. LAMP was taking time, but at least I felt confident in the change process that a workable result could be achieved in due course. (As you mention, the current airspace design is serving its purpose. There was/is no particular imperative I can see for rushing headlong towards the implementation of a new airspace design.)
The same does not seem to be happening with NAS. The further we get along with NAS, the more holes we see in both the consultation process and acceptable methods for change. As holes are discovered, they appear to be getting filled with putty and glossed over (or ignored). NAS started as a half-baked plan and appears to be progressing downhill rapidly. It doesn't inspire much confidence from me.
Hope this makes sense and helps out.
Last edited by Lodown; 26th Aug 2002 at 21:18.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened at Mildura
It was November 1999. 10:30 am. The airport closed at 11:00 and a hell of a lot of aircraft were inbound, including a Hazo metro.
The radio was 'active' but most aircraft were only calling when they joined and when they turned base. It was working.
(of course there were the usual idiots reporting the colour of their undies, and their friends undies in the plane behind. One 'older' gentlemean was even asking everyone if they had heard everyone else!!!!)
A big crowded circuit was quite hapilly landing about one aircraft every 30 seconds or so.
Then the Metro reported a 5 mile straight in approach.
Once sighted the aircraft on downwind extended to come in behind the faster Metro. The Metro landed and another aircraft called base, a blue Cherokee 180. Trouble was it turned a 'normal' base with six or seven aircraft still strung out on final behind the now landed Metro (including me). of course the 'turning base' calls didn't point this out.
A Grumman slowed to come in behind the Cherokee and all looked OK. But then a second Grumman, following the 'Cherokee Base' turned final, right on top of the first Grumman. I figure there was 20 feet between them. An aircraft on 'Metro final' alerted the lead Grumman. The 'Cherokee final' Grumman was obviously confused and asked 'ABC (grumman) what are your intentions' (it was above ABC.)
The lead Grumman (female pilot) said 'landing' (she couldn't see the red Grumman from where she was). The trail Grumman said something about cutting him off (interesting observation) and backed off. (probably couldn't see the other either).
All landed with no incident although there was a heated exchange between the two Grumman pilots.
But, back to the regs. The Metro had absolutely no right to do a straight in in those circumstances and in my opinion nearly caused a fatal accident.
I have often considered a CAIR report, but I think my rather blunt comments to the Metro drivers (in front of their boarding passengers) probably did the trick.
So, how is an MBZ going to change this?????
It was November 1999. 10:30 am. The airport closed at 11:00 and a hell of a lot of aircraft were inbound, including a Hazo metro.
The radio was 'active' but most aircraft were only calling when they joined and when they turned base. It was working.
(of course there were the usual idiots reporting the colour of their undies, and their friends undies in the plane behind. One 'older' gentlemean was even asking everyone if they had heard everyone else!!!!)
A big crowded circuit was quite hapilly landing about one aircraft every 30 seconds or so.
Then the Metro reported a 5 mile straight in approach.
Once sighted the aircraft on downwind extended to come in behind the faster Metro. The Metro landed and another aircraft called base, a blue Cherokee 180. Trouble was it turned a 'normal' base with six or seven aircraft still strung out on final behind the now landed Metro (including me). of course the 'turning base' calls didn't point this out.
A Grumman slowed to come in behind the Cherokee and all looked OK. But then a second Grumman, following the 'Cherokee Base' turned final, right on top of the first Grumman. I figure there was 20 feet between them. An aircraft on 'Metro final' alerted the lead Grumman. The 'Cherokee final' Grumman was obviously confused and asked 'ABC (grumman) what are your intentions' (it was above ABC.)
The lead Grumman (female pilot) said 'landing' (she couldn't see the red Grumman from where she was). The trail Grumman said something about cutting him off (interesting observation) and backed off. (probably couldn't see the other either).
All landed with no incident although there was a heated exchange between the two Grumman pilots.
But, back to the regs. The Metro had absolutely no right to do a straight in in those circumstances and in my opinion nearly caused a fatal accident.
I have often considered a CAIR report, but I think my rather blunt comments to the Metro drivers (in front of their boarding passengers) probably did the trick.
So, how is an MBZ going to change this?????
So what point do you wish to make?
But, back to the regs. The Metro had absolutely no right to do a straight in in those circumstances and in my opinion nearly caused a fatal accident.
If you were the Metro PF what would you have done?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lodown,
A truer and more balanced assessment I have not heard.
Ever thought of a job with Airservices or CASA? But then again, by virtue of such reasonableness, you have just ruled yourself out.
I think there is little point arguing that some reform of airspace is not required. Those that do don’t appreciate how much has changed in technology, work practices and competition over the last decade or so. This is not a criticism of them, simply a statement that while they have been looking after (their) business, doing what they do, other influences (as you have outlined) have been at work altering the nature of the business they are in.
Unfortunately as a result of the dabbling of a certain individual over the last decade, the reasons and intentions for reform have engendered (rightly so) enormous distrust and scepticism within the industry. The industry is quite simply sick of the plethora of PR bull dressed up as documentation and “education” (and the workload and costs associated with it) only to have it canned and resurrected under yet another acronym a year or two later. No wonder they question the need for reform! It is not reform. It is simply part of the ongoing self promotion and political interference dressed up as reform. NAS is “today’s” acronym.
I believe LAMP's downfall was not as a result of what it wasn’t achieving but what it was. There was the real possibility that it might achieve what the “strolling adventurer and amateur aviator” could not. That would have meant no more chance at aeronautical immortality, no more airspace soapbox to stand on, no more limelight. This would of course also have been a problem for all the Dick- proclaimed experts and coat-tailing bureaucrats who have been rewarded/appointed for perpetuating the myth. Whilst the Emperor may not be in the palace unfortunately, as we have seen, there are still many of these individuals occupying positions of influence.
In any real test of ability they would have been flat out finding the "playing field" let alone making the starting team.
Mike,
Interesting choice of questions that you have decided to answer! Your choice, but it does little for your, or the project’s, credibility.
Snarek,
Much as I concur with your sentiments regarding the actions of the Metro, no regulations were broken (although there is a requirement to notify your intention for a SIA during the inbound broadcast at or near15nm). The metro was only required to give way to aircraft established on base or finals. In terms of appropriate airmanship…based on what you say here…couldn’t agree more. The same however can be said of the light aircraft involved in the consequential breakdown. If they are incapable of adjusting to changed circumstances then they shouldn’t be flying.
In regards to MBZ or no MBZ justification it is completely irrelevant. Failure to comply with either regulatory or airmanship standards is not related to a class of airspace. For everyone of those that fail to comply there are a multitude that do.
It’s a bit like saying “I saw someone run a red light so why have them”.
A truer and more balanced assessment I have not heard.
Ever thought of a job with Airservices or CASA? But then again, by virtue of such reasonableness, you have just ruled yourself out.
I think there is little point arguing that some reform of airspace is not required. Those that do don’t appreciate how much has changed in technology, work practices and competition over the last decade or so. This is not a criticism of them, simply a statement that while they have been looking after (their) business, doing what they do, other influences (as you have outlined) have been at work altering the nature of the business they are in.
Unfortunately as a result of the dabbling of a certain individual over the last decade, the reasons and intentions for reform have engendered (rightly so) enormous distrust and scepticism within the industry. The industry is quite simply sick of the plethora of PR bull dressed up as documentation and “education” (and the workload and costs associated with it) only to have it canned and resurrected under yet another acronym a year or two later. No wonder they question the need for reform! It is not reform. It is simply part of the ongoing self promotion and political interference dressed up as reform. NAS is “today’s” acronym.
I believe LAMP's downfall was not as a result of what it wasn’t achieving but what it was. There was the real possibility that it might achieve what the “strolling adventurer and amateur aviator” could not. That would have meant no more chance at aeronautical immortality, no more airspace soapbox to stand on, no more limelight. This would of course also have been a problem for all the Dick- proclaimed experts and coat-tailing bureaucrats who have been rewarded/appointed for perpetuating the myth. Whilst the Emperor may not be in the palace unfortunately, as we have seen, there are still many of these individuals occupying positions of influence.
In any real test of ability they would have been flat out finding the "playing field" let alone making the starting team.
Mike,
Interesting choice of questions that you have decided to answer! Your choice, but it does little for your, or the project’s, credibility.
Snarek,
Much as I concur with your sentiments regarding the actions of the Metro, no regulations were broken (although there is a requirement to notify your intention for a SIA during the inbound broadcast at or near15nm). The metro was only required to give way to aircraft established on base or finals. In terms of appropriate airmanship…based on what you say here…couldn’t agree more. The same however can be said of the light aircraft involved in the consequential breakdown. If they are incapable of adjusting to changed circumstances then they shouldn’t be flying.
In regards to MBZ or no MBZ justification it is completely irrelevant. Failure to comply with either regulatory or airmanship standards is not related to a class of airspace. For everyone of those that fail to comply there are a multitude that do.
It’s a bit like saying “I saw someone run a red light so why have them”.
Re the MBZ vs. CTAF safety debate. The ATSB released their report for comment this week.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/atsb/discuss/mbz.cfm
Interesting reading, and to my mind a not unexpected result.
Extract from the Executive Summary (my bolding):
http://www.atsb.gov.au/atsb/discuss/mbz.cfm
Interesting reading, and to my mind a not unexpected result.
Extract from the Executive Summary (my bolding):
The rate of total reported occurrences in MBZs has increased significantly over the period studied. This appears to be primarily the result of a significant increase in the rate of reported airspace-related occurrences involving RPT aircraft operating within MBZs. This pattern is generally reflected in the reporting rates of all RPT occurrences within Australian airspace, and is not specific to airspace-related occurrences within MBZs. These changes may be indicative of an improving reporting culture within the Australian aviation industry (including those operating within MBZs) rather than an increasing occurrence rate.
The percentage of reported airspace-related occurrences which result in an airmiss has not changed significantly over the period studied.
The percentage of reported airspace-related occurrences which result in an airmiss has not changed significantly over the period studied.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus
I don't know. Perhaps you could tell us???
From my perspective there are a number of options...
1. Join overhead at 1500 and radio intentions so everyone could extend downwind. (cost at least $20 in fuel, better to kill 5 people)
2. Stay away at that one time every two years. (gee, can't do that, better to kill 5 people)
3. Wait and get permission to land once the airport was closed for the airshow (gee a 1 hour delay, better to kill 5 people).
4. Slow down and join downwind (another $20, better to kill 5 people).
5. Do a straight in and nearly kill 5 people.
6. Cop a CAIR report, or better still a complaint to CASA, lose AOC and never get to kill anyone again.
Bear in mind that incident, A/C, time etc is still in my log, so if it was you don't **** me off!!!!! There is no statute on complaints to CASA.
I don't know. Perhaps you could tell us???
From my perspective there are a number of options...
1. Join overhead at 1500 and radio intentions so everyone could extend downwind. (cost at least $20 in fuel, better to kill 5 people)
2. Stay away at that one time every two years. (gee, can't do that, better to kill 5 people)
3. Wait and get permission to land once the airport was closed for the airshow (gee a 1 hour delay, better to kill 5 people).
4. Slow down and join downwind (another $20, better to kill 5 people).
5. Do a straight in and nearly kill 5 people.
6. Cop a CAIR report, or better still a complaint to CASA, lose AOC and never get to kill anyone again.
Bear in mind that incident, A/C, time etc is still in my log, so if it was you don't **** me off!!!!! There is no statute on complaints to CASA.
Ulm take a tablet and have a little rest.
So the metro nearly killed five people? Nothing to do with the loss of visual seperation of the two aircraft in question?
Anyway that is off topic. I was actually asking snarek what he would have done.
Still no sight of Mr Smith.
So the metro nearly killed five people? Nothing to do with the loss of visual seperation of the two aircraft in question?
Anyway that is off topic. I was actually asking snarek what he would have done.
Still no sight of Mr Smith.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee ULM, I thought you were of the school of thought that money was more important than safety? What if there had been a temporary tower at MIA that day, for say- $5 per head?
Are you starting to see the big picture of SAFETY now, or just when it applies to you?
Are you starting to see the big picture of SAFETY now, or just when it applies to you?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still no sign of the Smiths?
Well, I think they're a little preoccupied as the first stage (November 28) of the implementation is fast unravelling.
No safety case.
No procedures.
No notification of change to CASA or Airservices (I checked).
No documentation.
No Pilot education.
No controller training.
No one to undertake the aforementioned tasks.
No idea!
The Dodgy Brothers of project management!
Well, I think they're a little preoccupied as the first stage (November 28) of the implementation is fast unravelling.
No safety case.
No procedures.
No notification of change to CASA or Airservices (I checked).
No documentation.
No Pilot education.
No controller training.
No one to undertake the aforementioned tasks.
No idea!
The Dodgy Brothers of project management!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A collection of interesting quotes from various sources:
Ulm: Bear in mind that incident, A/C, time etc is still in my log, so if it was you don't **** me off!!!!! There is no statute on complaints to CASA.
AIR NAVIGATION ACT 1920 - SECT 19BC
Reporting of incidents
SECT. (1) If:
(a) an incident occurs and the aircraft involved in, or affected by, the incident is an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an incident occurs in Australian territory and the aircraft involved in, or affected by, the incident is not an Australian aircraft;
each responsible person who is aware of the incident must give the Director written notice of the occurrence of the incident within 48 hours after the incident occurs.
(3) A person who intentionally or recklessly contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: 30 penalty units.
Reporting of incidents
SECT. (1) If:
(a) an incident occurs and the aircraft involved in, or affected by, the incident is an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an incident occurs in Australian territory and the aircraft involved in, or affected by, the incident is not an Australian aircraft;
each responsible person who is aware of the incident must give the Director written notice of the occurrence of the incident within 48 hours after the incident occurs.
(3) A person who intentionally or recklessly contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: 30 penalty units.
Ulm: From my perspective there are a number of options...
1. Join overhead at 1500 and radio intentions so everyone could extend downwind.
1. Join overhead at 1500 and radio intentions so everyone could extend downwind.
Ulm: I simply don't got a radio in my 1944 ex-Mil bugsmasher (got no power either). What do you suggest I do??? This is an honest question.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo....
Neddy
Assuming the events went as reported there are 2 issues here only:-
1. Are multiple pilots attempting ATC from the cockpit going to visualise, understand in the same way and thus fly based on the same perceived sequence??
2. Assuming everyone knows about everyone else and has the 3D picture in the same way, will they see and correctly identify the aircraft they are following??.
This is by no means questioning the pilots involved rather the guesswork they were all doing at the time!!
The AA5 pilots I have no doubt were very nearly statistics due to the inadequacy of “See and Avoid” as a primary means of separation. Any system must give pilots a RELIABLE chance. See and Avoid fails sufficiently often to have me convinced that without 3rd party alerting in the terminal area, YOU ARE ONLY RELYING ON LUCK!!
Ned, I have watched countless professional pilots in perfect conditions miss others in reasonable proximity and never see each other. Again not a criticism rather a fact of life!!
YOU CANNOT SEE EVERYTHING ALL OF THE TIME, especially in the terminal areas. Wings, cowlings, pillars, roof, floor, tail etc are made of NON-SEE through Aluminium!!!!!!!
ULM
Blood pressure OL’ Bean. Gotta protect that medical!!
Interesting that you make my argument regarding “Powering Aircraft systems”. It is a simple answer PRIM RADAR. It can see your Trike and everything else. Nothing else can!!
Oops, that must be “your tail” coming up in “your 12”!!!!
Erudite Posts All.
We are approaching the end game!!!
The same however can be said of the light aircraft involved in the consequential breakdown. If they are incapable of adjusting to changed circumstances then they shouldn’t be flying.
1. Are multiple pilots attempting ATC from the cockpit going to visualise, understand in the same way and thus fly based on the same perceived sequence??
2. Assuming everyone knows about everyone else and has the 3D picture in the same way, will they see and correctly identify the aircraft they are following??.
This is by no means questioning the pilots involved rather the guesswork they were all doing at the time!!
The AA5 pilots I have no doubt were very nearly statistics due to the inadequacy of “See and Avoid” as a primary means of separation. Any system must give pilots a RELIABLE chance. See and Avoid fails sufficiently often to have me convinced that without 3rd party alerting in the terminal area, YOU ARE ONLY RELYING ON LUCK!!
Ned, I have watched countless professional pilots in perfect conditions miss others in reasonable proximity and never see each other. Again not a criticism rather a fact of life!!
YOU CANNOT SEE EVERYTHING ALL OF THE TIME, especially in the terminal areas. Wings, cowlings, pillars, roof, floor, tail etc are made of NON-SEE through Aluminium!!!!!!!
ULM
Blood pressure OL’ Bean. Gotta protect that medical!!
Interesting that you make my argument regarding “Powering Aircraft systems”. It is a simple answer PRIM RADAR. It can see your Trike and everything else. Nothing else can!!
Oops, that must be “your tail” coming up in “your 12”!!!!
Erudite Posts All.
We are approaching the end game!!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More quotes.....
In Dick Smith’s words……..
In Deputy PM John Anderson’s words……
And now…….
So, what’s going on?
Who told the Minister that it was based on the US system?
At what point did this change?
Which system did the minister think he was accepting – the US or the hybrid system?
Has the Minister been put into a situation where he has inadvertently misled the Australian people?
“The NAS USA system….”
“…….yes, the idea of moving to the USA NAS system came from Qantas.”
“In relation to the US system and traffic information, our system will be identical – i.e. if the air traffic controller knows of the traffic this will be passed on (on a workload permitting basis) just as it is in the USA.”
“I also point out that this proposal to move to the USA NAS system was instigated by both Ian Lucas (Qantas Chief Pilot) and senior people at CASA. I happen to agree with them that this is the way to go.”
“In the long term, Governments must make decisions and that is what they have done this time. The decision is actually very conservative as no one could say that the US airspace system is unsafe.”
“It will follow the proven and very safe US system.”
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=52201
“…….yes, the idea of moving to the USA NAS system came from Qantas.”
“In relation to the US system and traffic information, our system will be identical – i.e. if the air traffic controller knows of the traffic this will be passed on (on a workload permitting basis) just as it is in the USA.”
“I also point out that this proposal to move to the USA NAS system was instigated by both Ian Lucas (Qantas Chief Pilot) and senior people at CASA. I happen to agree with them that this is the way to go.”
“In the long term, Governments must make decisions and that is what they have done this time. The decision is actually very conservative as no one could say that the US airspace system is unsafe.”
“It will follow the proven and very safe US system.”
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=52201
“This model is based on the airspace model used in the world's leading aviation nation, the United States.”
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=2
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=2
Who told the Minister that it was based on the US system?
At what point did this change?
Which system did the minister think he was accepting – the US or the hybrid system?
Has the Minister been put into a situation where he has inadvertently misled the Australian people?
Fowa Seven Won Won..
