NAS Website
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 28s
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helloooooooooo, is any Smith out there????????????
I am sure that four seven eleven is not the only airspace user in Australia who is dying to find out what proceedures will be adopted to allow your implemention of stage 1 in December 2002.
On the subject of VFR climb for IFR aircraft within class E airspace, I would like to table some points for discussion.
1.How many pilots of high performance aircraft out there would accept climb through the level of an opposite direction aircraft which may be difficult to see?
The reason we separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft is usually because of aircraft performance, as in speed of aircraft. Additionally, most IFR RPT aircraft have very limited vision over the nose during climb out therefore making spotting aircraft at a distance difficult.
If a clearance is not available, then the controller is not doing this for their amusement. There is a reason. Maybe an oposite direction aircraft at a level within class E airspace which is going to conflict with the climbing aircraft.
Usually closing speed will be at least in the vicinity of 360 knots if not more. That is at least 1 mile every 10 seconds. Not much time to do anything if you lose sight of the other aircraft.
Addtionally, on the dotars site under the new traffic management proceedures for class E airspace it proposes:
ATC already has a separation standard for visual separation below FL125, assigned to the pilot of one aircraft to sight and maintain his own separation with the other aircraft.
I am aware that E airspace will extend higher than FL125 but this does not appear to be happening in December
Now you are proposing that the pilots mutually accept the responsibility for separation.
Sounds to me like there will be more transmissions, more confusion and once the dust has settled you will have passed by radar anyway.
Furthermore, the ability for VFR climb in class E airspace.
I don't believe that at the present time, IFR RPT can proceed VFR so how is to help the likes of Eastern, Rex etc?
As for PVT, AWK & CHT, if you nominate IFR then you obviously are after an ATS service be it Traffic or Separation to ensure your passengers arrive at their destination as safely as possible. If a clearance is not available, then you obviously have a conflict of some description. Should you downgrade to VFR and climb to you level within Class E airspace, then be ready to absorbe a traffic statement about what your confliction was. Now you have increased your workload because not only are you flying the aircraft, you have to look out and ensure that you do not hit the aircraft which was denying you a clearance. Why not ask for a radar vector to remain clear?
Pop Up Clearances.
This will be dependent on where the class E corridor is and if under radar coverage and traffic within the corridor.
Difficult to argue until we know where the corridors will be.
Finally.
Didn't VFR used to operate on full reporting in the 80's.
I thought this was airspace reform.
In closing, can anyone shed some light on what
are?????????
I am sure that four seven eleven is not the only airspace user in Australia who is dying to find out what proceedures will be adopted to allow your implemention of stage 1 in December 2002.
On the subject of VFR climb for IFR aircraft within class E airspace, I would like to table some points for discussion.
1.How many pilots of high performance aircraft out there would accept climb through the level of an opposite direction aircraft which may be difficult to see?
The reason we separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft is usually because of aircraft performance, as in speed of aircraft. Additionally, most IFR RPT aircraft have very limited vision over the nose during climb out therefore making spotting aircraft at a distance difficult.
If a clearance is not available, then the controller is not doing this for their amusement. There is a reason. Maybe an oposite direction aircraft at a level within class E airspace which is going to conflict with the climbing aircraft.
Usually closing speed will be at least in the vicinity of 360 knots if not more. That is at least 1 mile every 10 seconds. Not much time to do anything if you lose sight of the other aircraft.
Addtionally, on the dotars site under the new traffic management proceedures for class E airspace it proposes:
VMC climb and decent procedures to enable self-separation between IFR aircraft subject to specified criteria This is an IFR procedure where ATC delegate responsibility for separation to the two aircraft subject to their mutual acceptance and satisfying other criteria
I am aware that E airspace will extend higher than FL125 but this does not appear to be happening in December
Now you are proposing that the pilots mutually accept the responsibility for separation.
Sounds to me like there will be more transmissions, more confusion and once the dust has settled you will have passed by radar anyway.
Furthermore, the ability for VFR climb in class E airspace.
Ability for VFR climb in Class E airspace after departure pending availability of an airways clearance. This procedure will be available to aircraft which have filed IFR details and operating in VMC. ATC will provide flight following and known traffic.
As for PVT, AWK & CHT, if you nominate IFR then you obviously are after an ATS service be it Traffic or Separation to ensure your passengers arrive at their destination as safely as possible. If a clearance is not available, then you obviously have a conflict of some description. Should you downgrade to VFR and climb to you level within Class E airspace, then be ready to absorbe a traffic statement about what your confliction was. Now you have increased your workload because not only are you flying the aircraft, you have to look out and ensure that you do not hit the aircraft which was denying you a clearance. Why not ask for a radar vector to remain clear?
Pop Up Clearances.
Provision of a pop-up clearance for climb and decent through Class E airspace, or to cross Class E corridors, in IMC conditions.
Difficult to argue until we know where the corridors will be.
Finally.
VFR on top" services (known in Australia as full position VFR) will be available. ATC will provide flight following and known traffic. Normal ATS charges will apply.
I thought this was airspace reform.
In closing, can anyone shed some light on what
Revised altimetry procedures
Grandpa Aerotart
Revised altimetry may be to do with setting 1013/area/station QNH as soon as cleared through transition as opposed to when passing transition. I believe, from mates who've recently been issued British ATPLs, this is how they do it under JARs.
I for one will not be accepting 'own seperation' with other IFR aircraft under any circumstances...anyone else remember that full page picture of relative size of a Mirage Fighter in the closing few seconds before a head on that was in the old crash comic years ago?
Smiths the silence is deafening!!
Didn't cross all your 'T's and dot all your 'i's?
Your adjenda looking a bit battered?
Just remember this as you try to save money and reduce service...The 'big sky' theory doesn't work anymore since the advent of GPS...these days if you don't see you WILL hit!
Chuck.
I for one will not be accepting 'own seperation' with other IFR aircraft under any circumstances...anyone else remember that full page picture of relative size of a Mirage Fighter in the closing few seconds before a head on that was in the old crash comic years ago?
Smiths the silence is deafening!!
Didn't cross all your 'T's and dot all your 'i's?
Your adjenda looking a bit battered?
Just remember this as you try to save money and reduce service...The 'big sky' theory doesn't work anymore since the advent of GPS...these days if you don't see you WILL hit!
Chuck.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the NASH is becoming the Llamp.
In Llamp, VFR climb in E was allowed as long as all 3 parties agreed, ATC, and the 2 aircraft concerned. This could not happen if more than 2 aircraft where involved.
I wonder how much more will change, then we can call it the LASH!!
twodogsflying looking for a good LASHing!!
or
Whip me, Beat me, LASH me, but respect me in the morning!!
In Llamp, VFR climb in E was allowed as long as all 3 parties agreed, ATC, and the 2 aircraft concerned. This could not happen if more than 2 aircraft where involved.
I wonder how much more will change, then we can call it the LASH!!
twodogsflying looking for a good LASHing!!
or
Whip me, Beat me, LASH me, but respect me in the morning!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC Climb
Ensor… with respect, I think you are missing the point here:
Firstly I don’t believe that anyone would do anything different to what they do now… if you get DTI on someone coming the other way that would be a conflict, would you climb through his level? I doubt it. It would not be any different to now!
The reason we separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft is usually because of aircraft performance, as in speed of aircraft. Additionally, most IFR RPT aircraft have very limited vision over the nose during climb out therefore making spotting aircraft at a distance difficult.
If a clearance is not available, then the controller is not doing this for their amusement. There is a reason. Maybe an oposite direction aircraft at a level within class E airspace which is going to conflict with the climbing aircraft.
Usually closing speed will be at least in the vicinity of 360 knots if not more. That is at least 1 mile every 10 seconds. Not much time to do anything if you lose sight of the other aircraft.
Your example is one that would not occur very often, more likely I suggest where two aircraft are proceeding in the same direction with different performance levels. At present it is not uncommon for a high(er) performance aircraft to be held down below a preceeding aircraft until procedural or radar sep is obtained. With this procedure, traffic info would be provided and it would then be up to the pilot/s to decide if a VMC climb would be suitable. If VMC exist then I suggest that a procedure that allows the following higher performer to proceed thru the level of the preceeding aircraft is one that should be endorsed. After all, if you get DTI in G today, most of us would do the same thing.
That’s exactly what pilots do today in Class G
And what if there is NO radar ??
Heaps!
You are correct that IFR RPT cannot cancel IFR – but the ability for them to proceed in VMC with traffic info is now available in G. This procedure makes EXACTLY the same flexibility available to those same crews when in Class E and VMC exists. So whats the problem?
If an IFR clearance is not available, you will be advised as to the reason – The reason will in many cases be traffic – DTI if you like. It is then up to you what you want to do, as it is now in G.
I suggest that there is very little difference in workload to what you have now in accepting DTI in G and acting accordingly – it is your choice, always has and always will be!
Again… what if there is no radar service? Much of this country will never have radar coverage, so the procedures have to be designed to cater for that situation. There is no good reason for enforcing procedural sep in E when VMC exists. As has been said elsewhere it would only slow everything down when there is not a need. Of course when the weather is bad, that is another story.
As for “pop-up clearances” they really should not be a drama. They work fine in othr parts of the world, but I think that neither pilots or controllers have got used to the concept in this country as yet. And in Class E they only apply to IFR.
On the subject of VFR climb for IFR aircraft within class E airspace, I would like to table some points for discussion.
1.How many pilots of high performance aircraft out there would accept climb through the level of an opposite direction aircraft which may be difficult to see?
1.How many pilots of high performance aircraft out there would accept climb through the level of an opposite direction aircraft which may be difficult to see?
The reason we separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft is usually because of aircraft performance, as in speed of aircraft. Additionally, most IFR RPT aircraft have very limited vision over the nose during climb out therefore making spotting aircraft at a distance difficult.
If a clearance is not available, then the controller is not doing this for their amusement. There is a reason. Maybe an oposite direction aircraft at a level within class E airspace which is going to conflict with the climbing aircraft.
Usually closing speed will be at least in the vicinity of 360 knots if not more. That is at least 1 mile every 10 seconds. Not much time to do anything if you lose sight of the other aircraft.
Now you are proposing that the pilots mutually accept the responsibility for separation.
Sounds to me like there will be more transmissions, more confusion and once the dust has settled you will have passed by radar anyway.
I don't believe that at the present time, IFR RPT can proceed VFR so how is to help the likes of Eastern, Rex etc?
You are correct that IFR RPT cannot cancel IFR – but the ability for them to proceed in VMC with traffic info is now available in G. This procedure makes EXACTLY the same flexibility available to those same crews when in Class E and VMC exists. So whats the problem?
As for PVT, AWK & CHT, if you nominate IFR then you obviously are after an ATS service be it Traffic or Separation to ensure your passengers arrive at their destination as safely as possible. If a clearance is not available, then you obviously have a conflict of some description. Should you downgrade to VFR and climb to you level within Class E airspace, then be ready to absorbe a traffic statement about what your confliction was. Now you have increased your workload because not only are you flying the aircraft, you have to look out and ensure that you do not hit the aircraft which was denying you a clearance. Why not ask for a radar vector to remain clear?
I suggest that there is very little difference in workload to what you have now in accepting DTI in G and acting accordingly – it is your choice, always has and always will be!
Again… what if there is no radar service? Much of this country will never have radar coverage, so the procedures have to be designed to cater for that situation. There is no good reason for enforcing procedural sep in E when VMC exists. As has been said elsewhere it would only slow everything down when there is not a need. Of course when the weather is bad, that is another story.
As for “pop-up clearances” they really should not be a drama. They work fine in othr parts of the world, but I think that neither pilots or controllers have got used to the concept in this country as yet. And in Class E they only apply to IFR.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn....
Triadic
Ensor’s example occur’s all the time!!!
You should know how many 2 way tracks into and out of regional ports exist!!!
There is the problem!!
Pilots (I assume you are not!!) are rightly concerned about climbing or descending through (NON-SPECIFIC) reported traffic.
The DTI (Non-RADAR) must provide the pilots with the confidence that climb without separation will be such that they could not hit in a pink fit (ACCURATE TRAFFIC INFO). It is not good enough to rely on “see and avoid” as anyone with real life experience in the cockpit or flight deck will attest, it is all to late if the traffic is close and not seen VERY Early.
Weather does change the story but not as much as you suggest!!!
As for DTI in “G”, perhaps you could explain why it is even classified as “G” and not “F” or “E”(within radar coverage) ???
Open Mic
Perhaps you should consider changing to Comm Failure and divert to the nearest no-radio "free-for-all"!!!!
Ensor’s example occur’s all the time!!!
You should know how many 2 way tracks into and out of regional ports exist!!!
Again… what if there is no radar service? Much of this country will never have radar coverage, so the procedures have to be designed to cater for that situation. There is no good reason for enforcing procedural sep in E when VMC exists. As has been said elsewhere it would only slow everything down when there is not a need. Of course when the weather is bad, that is another story.
Pilots (I assume you are not!!) are rightly concerned about climbing or descending through (NON-SPECIFIC) reported traffic.
The DTI (Non-RADAR) must provide the pilots with the confidence that climb without separation will be such that they could not hit in a pink fit (ACCURATE TRAFFIC INFO). It is not good enough to rely on “see and avoid” as anyone with real life experience in the cockpit or flight deck will attest, it is all to late if the traffic is close and not seen VERY Early.
Weather does change the story but not as much as you suggest!!!
As for DTI in “G”, perhaps you could explain why it is even classified as “G” and not “F” or “E”(within radar coverage) ???
Open Mic
Perhaps you should consider changing to Comm Failure and divert to the nearest no-radio "free-for-all"!!!!
Last edited by Capcom; 3rd Sep 2002 at 12:54.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which implementation plan and when?
Open Mic
Could you please confirm that the Stage 1 implementation is to be in accordance with the NAS Expanded Information and Revised Implementation Program for National Airspace System Australia (NAS) 18 March 2002 at http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspaceref...nformation.htm which states:
Can you confirm that this supersedes the DRAFT plan at http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/I_Timetable.htm which said:
I gather this means that the “draft” items (Multicom, VFR and altimetry procedures) have now been canned in favour of airspace and CTAF and MBZ realignment in the “Revised Implementation Program”?
Is there really going to be an airspace change in December?
To make it easier and safer, could you perhaps publish all of the draft, revised and other implementation programs in the same part of the document? I am sure that many people missed the ‘draft’ bit and thought they were looking at the actual implementation program.
Does this mean I’ve been wasting my time reading up on US VFR climb procedures? Or was that Canadian?
Could you please confirm that the Stage 1 implementation is to be in accordance with the NAS Expanded Information and Revised Implementation Program for National Airspace System Australia (NAS) 18 March 2002 at http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspaceref...nformation.htm which states:
2.14 Implementation
A delayed
implementation schedule allowing more time for education is as follows:
STAGE 1 December 2002
Class A and C airspace will be realigned. Class E airspace will also be established above 8,500' and FL145 as appropriate. The existing directed traffic information service in Class G airspace will remain unchanged. CTAF/MBZ operations and procedures will be realigned with FAA practice.
A delayed
implementation schedule allowing more time for education is as follows:STAGE 1 December 2002
Class A and C airspace will be realigned. Class E airspace will also be established above 8,500' and FL145 as appropriate. The existing directed traffic information service in Class G airspace will remain unchanged. CTAF/MBZ operations and procedures will be realigned with FAA practice.
Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
Is there really going to be an airspace change in December?
To make it easier and safer, could you perhaps publish all of the draft, revised and other implementation programs in the same part of the document? I am sure that many people missed the ‘draft’ bit and thought they were looking at the actual implementation program.
Does this mean I’ve been wasting my time reading up on US VFR climb procedures? Or was that Canadian?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC Climb
Capcom - with the greatest respect for your usually thought provoking posts, may I suggest that you really either don't understand what is proposed or perhaps don't want to ??
Certainly there are many 2 way tracks and like I said you have to make a judgement call each time you get DTI just as you do now - whats the problem? It would depend on schedules etc as to when you usually passed much of the other similar traffic - no? Otherwise there is little reason to believe that 50% of the traffic is same direction and the other 50% opposite. I think that on the some of the busy tracks/locations you will see sometime soon the establishment of diversion tracks so as to provide lateral sep for climb and descent.
For info I have over 20years turboprop and jet time (most of it OCTA) and don't have a problem with what is proposed. Maybe I just understand it better than you???
Read my previous post again... the passing of traffic in E will be little different from what you do now in G - how simple is that?
I do agree that what we have now is much closer to F than G, but the powers that set the rules way back said no to F. Mind you I still think they were wrong. There is a place for F, we just have to work on it.
Neither G, F or E require a radar service. The class of airspace (A thru G) usually indicates the level of service - how that service is provided is up to the State.
4711 - I am sure that the info will come thru in a timely manner. It is not worth getting your blood pressure up as yet.
I think it matters not which items come first, so long as we all get to understand them and what is required. None of the ones you mention in either option should present a problem, so long as education can be completed in time.
VMC climb will be a bonus - Its not hard and it is not any less safe than present procedures in G.
Certainly there are many 2 way tracks and like I said you have to make a judgement call each time you get DTI just as you do now - whats the problem? It would depend on schedules etc as to when you usually passed much of the other similar traffic - no? Otherwise there is little reason to believe that 50% of the traffic is same direction and the other 50% opposite. I think that on the some of the busy tracks/locations you will see sometime soon the establishment of diversion tracks so as to provide lateral sep for climb and descent.
For info I have over 20years turboprop and jet time (most of it OCTA) and don't have a problem with what is proposed. Maybe I just understand it better than you???
Read my previous post again... the passing of traffic in E will be little different from what you do now in G - how simple is that?
I do agree that what we have now is much closer to F than G, but the powers that set the rules way back said no to F. Mind you I still think they were wrong. There is a place for F, we just have to work on it.
Neither G, F or E require a radar service. The class of airspace (A thru G) usually indicates the level of service - how that service is provided is up to the State.
4711 - I am sure that the info will come thru in a timely manner. It is not worth getting your blood pressure up as yet.
I think it matters not which items come first, so long as we all get to understand them and what is required. None of the ones you mention in either option should present a problem, so long as education can be completed in time.
VMC climb will be a bonus - Its not hard and it is not any less safe than present procedures in G.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alphabet airspace
why bother with all the different types??
A C and F is all you need.
It's a bluddy sight simpler than all that tosh that goes on nowadays..
I'm with whoever said bring back full reporting, sartimes, Flight Service, outstations, briefing offices etc.
Mind you that was back when we were a first world country with an aviation record the envy of the civilized world, and a govenment who put the welfare of the population before mere monetary means.
I have a couple of questions for all those flying out there...
Is it now cheaper to fly around than it was in the 80's when we had loads of FSO's and ATCs and everyone received a service?
Do you feel safer?
cheers
A C and F is all you need.
It's a bluddy sight simpler than all that tosh that goes on nowadays..
I'm with whoever said bring back full reporting, sartimes, Flight Service, outstations, briefing offices etc.
Mind you that was back when we were a first world country with an aviation record the envy of the civilized world, and a govenment who put the welfare of the population before mere monetary means.
I have a couple of questions for all those flying out there...
Is it now cheaper to fly around than it was in the 80's when we had loads of FSO's and ATCs and everyone received a service?
Do you feel safer?
cheers
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic
Very sensible post indeed. I'm just disappointed that the same website could have two conflicting 'implementation schedules' for later this year.
One correction (since there is no 'official' information.....as yet):
Worth noting that what is (or perhaps isn't) in the November/December Phase 1 programs is VFR climb , not VMC climb. VMC climb and desecent are in the NAS document but not as part of Phase 1.
(Open Mic can you confirm that?)
Very sensible post indeed. I'm just disappointed that the same website could have two conflicting 'implementation schedules' for later this year.
One correction (since there is no 'official' information.....as yet):
VMC climb will be a bonus - Its not hard and it is not any less safe than present procedures in G.
(Open Mic can you confirm that?)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 28s
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,
My point is why introduce airspace which will require more complex proceedures than those which we currently have.
For Example.
In Class G airspace whilst in you DH8B etc, you receive traffic information on what has been assessed as a conflict. You discuss with the other pilot how you will separate yourselves and be on you ways. (Separation may be via maintaining a level beneath until clear or by climbing through the level of the traffic because you can see and avoid)
Now we introduce Class E airspace. You call for your clearance and are advised that "Clearance not available due BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" You are provided with a traffic statement which informs you of the traffic. You both are happy to mutually accept separation responsibility and you are on your ways. Should there have been bad weather and you are unable to climb in VMC then you have maintained a level beneath the other aircraft until advised you are clear by the controller.
What benefit is Class E airspace then?????????
I can see none as you are doing the same thing you would in class G.
What service do you expect to receive from Class E airspace ??????
As the majority of Class E airspace at present is below FL125 then ATC can assign visual separation responsibility to the pilot of an aircraft climbing into the airspace and at the present time only one aircraft needs to accept responsibility. The present system is not a lot different from that proposed.
As for you comment about what if there is no radar. How can we make the airspace workable without radar anyway?
VMC climb I hear you say.
Why not leave it as is with proceedures that have worked for years.
My point is why introduce airspace which will require more complex proceedures than those which we currently have.
For Example.
In Class G airspace whilst in you DH8B etc, you receive traffic information on what has been assessed as a conflict. You discuss with the other pilot how you will separate yourselves and be on you ways. (Separation may be via maintaining a level beneath until clear or by climbing through the level of the traffic because you can see and avoid)
Now we introduce Class E airspace. You call for your clearance and are advised that "Clearance not available due BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" You are provided with a traffic statement which informs you of the traffic. You both are happy to mutually accept separation responsibility and you are on your ways. Should there have been bad weather and you are unable to climb in VMC then you have maintained a level beneath the other aircraft until advised you are clear by the controller.
What benefit is Class E airspace then?????????
I can see none as you are doing the same thing you would in class G.
What service do you expect to receive from Class E airspace ??????
As the majority of Class E airspace at present is below FL125 then ATC can assign visual separation responsibility to the pilot of an aircraft climbing into the airspace and at the present time only one aircraft needs to accept responsibility. The present system is not a lot different from that proposed.
As for you comment about what if there is no radar. How can we make the airspace workable without radar anyway?
VMC climb I hear you say.
Why not leave it as is with proceedures that have worked for years.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic
OK I’ll cop that on the chin!!!.
I do agree that at the moment “See and Avoid” is the sole savior in the context of IFR and VFR outside RADAR coverage. That is the problem!!!
I completely reject your assertion that I am not aware of what is being proposed!!!
Do I like it?, ABSOLUTELY BLOO’DY NOT!!!
What concerns me the most is the context in which IFR will be expected to climb and descend in VMC without DTI.
Perhaps My interpretation of the change is different from yours!!. If I am wrong???
- IFR DTI in VMC will continue to be available instead of “Nil DTI” for IFR in VMC as was suggested by Open Mic and the NAS team.
It was my understanding that they considered this to be the “pill” to minimise ATS usage (i.e. NO DTI).
That is technically true!. The state (Fed Gov’t) would seem to have a cost imperative!!!
So given the opportunity, do you have confidence that the classes of airspace’s and the resulting geography boundaries will be objectively assessed and therefore correctly defined and serviced????
It concerns me greatly those that have been selected for NAS work would seem to be "contract" staff!!!!
It is for this reason I have advocated a careful (Independent and Transparent) analysis of exactly where traffic densities (IFR AND VFR) would dictate the need for RADAR coverage. This will provide a basis for “RADAR E” protection for those IFR’s in and around those who don’t want to use a radio in areas of medium traffic densities involving climb and descent phases.
E Non-RADAR (Above A085) and F in the more remote areas where traffic is likely sparse and more often than not cruising. This might be acceptable if we assume the Government will not cough up for little used infrastructure and services in remote areas!!!. (Telstra- come on down???)
Will the Fed’s do the right thing? I personally think it will require further loss of life before they give up OUR dollars to provide these infrastructures. In the mean time confidence in aviation is further damaged, families are grieving and no one wins (Except the mean and tricky money grubbing Pukes in Canberra)!!.
Why does this guy get so animated about this I hear you ask?
- I want the industry (particularly GA) that has given me so much to be there into the future for our kids!
- I want participants in our industry to have real tangible confidence that safety levels are such that GA has a place into the future without having to fly on a wing and a prayer and pay *****’ loads for bug.ger all!
- I do not want people to experience as I have a windscreen full of “blur” and spend the rest of their flying careers knowing how close they and their pax had come to meeting the almighty and waiting for that or worse to happen again!
What is in it for Me?
Nothing other than the hope that one day I will be able to sleep at night knowing I have done my best to prevent the likes of pollies and self-interested, self-absorbed amateurs setting up innocent’s for the above when it is clearly preventable!!!
AN ARMY OF 1….
OK I’ll cop that on the chin!!!.
I do agree that at the moment “See and Avoid” is the sole savior in the context of IFR and VFR outside RADAR coverage. That is the problem!!!
I completely reject your assertion that I am not aware of what is being proposed!!!
Do I like it?, ABSOLUTELY BLOO’DY NOT!!!
What concerns me the most is the context in which IFR will be expected to climb and descend in VMC without DTI.
Perhaps My interpretation of the change is different from yours!!. If I am wrong???
- IFR DTI in VMC will continue to be available instead of “Nil DTI” for IFR in VMC as was suggested by Open Mic and the NAS team.
It was my understanding that they considered this to be the “pill” to minimise ATS usage (i.e. NO DTI).
Neither G, F or E require a radar service. The class of airspace (A thru G) usually indicates the level of service - how that service is provided is up to the State.
So given the opportunity, do you have confidence that the classes of airspace’s and the resulting geography boundaries will be objectively assessed and therefore correctly defined and serviced????
It concerns me greatly those that have been selected for NAS work would seem to be "contract" staff!!!!
It is for this reason I have advocated a careful (Independent and Transparent) analysis of exactly where traffic densities (IFR AND VFR) would dictate the need for RADAR coverage. This will provide a basis for “RADAR E” protection for those IFR’s in and around those who don’t want to use a radio in areas of medium traffic densities involving climb and descent phases.
E Non-RADAR (Above A085) and F in the more remote areas where traffic is likely sparse and more often than not cruising. This might be acceptable if we assume the Government will not cough up for little used infrastructure and services in remote areas!!!. (Telstra- come on down???)
Will the Fed’s do the right thing? I personally think it will require further loss of life before they give up OUR dollars to provide these infrastructures. In the mean time confidence in aviation is further damaged, families are grieving and no one wins (Except the mean and tricky money grubbing Pukes in Canberra)!!.
Why does this guy get so animated about this I hear you ask?
- I want the industry (particularly GA) that has given me so much to be there into the future for our kids!
- I want participants in our industry to have real tangible confidence that safety levels are such that GA has a place into the future without having to fly on a wing and a prayer and pay *****’ loads for bug.ger all!
- I do not want people to experience as I have a windscreen full of “blur” and spend the rest of their flying careers knowing how close they and their pax had come to meeting the almighty and waiting for that or worse to happen again!
What is in it for Me?
Nothing other than the hope that one day I will be able to sleep at night knowing I have done my best to prevent the likes of pollies and self-interested, self-absorbed amateurs setting up innocent’s for the above when it is clearly preventable!!!
AN ARMY OF 1….
Last edited by Capcom; 4th Sep 2002 at 13:01.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAPCOM
NAS aside, AsA are looking a remote area infrastructure under ADSB. But I know how you feel, I spent 15 years bulding microwave radios in the NT and northern SA. Telstra has already been brought down, in the bush at least.
A question. Won't ADSB at least give a partial cure to your 'blur in the windscreen'. If we can get it into every lightie that it. It will give AsA traffic and you and every lightie TCAS like warnings possible ven with height, range and bearing.
I think ADSB is viable and necessary, the radars you talk of will never be erected at 'The Monument'. So shouldn't we all be getting behind ADSB and insisting the Govt pay for a full fleet fitout.
AK
NAS aside, AsA are looking a remote area infrastructure under ADSB. But I know how you feel, I spent 15 years bulding microwave radios in the NT and northern SA. Telstra has already been brought down, in the bush at least.
A question. Won't ADSB at least give a partial cure to your 'blur in the windscreen'. If we can get it into every lightie that it. It will give AsA traffic and you and every lightie TCAS like warnings possible ven with height, range and bearing.
I think ADSB is viable and necessary, the radars you talk of will never be erected at 'The Monument'. So shouldn't we all be getting behind ADSB and insisting the Govt pay for a full fleet fitout.
AK
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek, what makes you think the Government is going to spend 1c for our ADSB installation. They paid a s**t load of money on buying back illegal guns, but they paid nothing for our legal domestic DME, just because the TV barons wanted the frequency. The Government even collected a s**t load of money from the TV barons and still paid us no compensation. I may look like Santa Clause but I don't believe in him anymore.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh heh.
Well Santa, because if Uncle John Anderson and his little elf Bernie wants us nasty evil 'Joe Lighties' to fit them, instead of flying round in Captn Bloggs' (and other similar Gods of RPT) personal airspace unseen and unheard, then him and his little band of elves are just gonna have to give em to us for Christmas.
Cos I ain't paying for one!!!
Either that and he can go replace all his ageing RADAR heads with brand new Thomson CSF rubbish (and associated kickbacks and rorts).
That option is much much more expensive and simply just not as good.
Chuck
Well Santa, because if Uncle John Anderson and his little elf Bernie wants us nasty evil 'Joe Lighties' to fit them, instead of flying round in Captn Bloggs' (and other similar Gods of RPT) personal airspace unseen and unheard, then him and his little band of elves are just gonna have to give em to us for Christmas.
Cos I ain't paying for one!!!
Either that and he can go replace all his ageing RADAR heads with brand new Thomson CSF rubbish (and associated kickbacks and rorts).
That option is much much more expensive and simply just not as good.
Chuck
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any news????.... Dick, Mick... take your pick..........
Does anyone have any idea of how the new hybrid airspace thingy is going?
New procedures? Changes? Which changes ? (the draft or the 'real' ones?)The website seems to be locked in time!
Seems we're fast running out of Smiths!
New procedures? Changes? Which changes ? (the draft or the 'real' ones?)The website seems to be locked in time!
Seems we're fast running out of Smiths!
I hear some more bumpf is to be added to the NAS website this week, and that the changes on 28 November will be done by AIP SUP. Funny about that - the last I heard only about 25-30% of licensed pilots subscribed to SUPs, so I hope there is a bit more publicity than just that.
Still no detail has been forthcoming, only the same general stuff given at the early RAPAC briefings by the travelling roadshow.
Still no detail has been forthcoming, only the same general stuff given at the early RAPAC briefings by the travelling roadshow.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What 28 November changes????
CaptainMidnight
Are you sure about those dates? Is anybody?
the website has it as December for the draft changes:
and also for the 'other' changes:
Nothing about 28 November.
AT least CASA wouldn't dare try to prosecute anyone for non-compliance after November (or was it December?). Nobody will have any idea what the rules are anyway.
Are you sure about those dates? Is anybody?
the website has it as December for the draft changes:
Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
STAGE 1 December 2002
Class A and C airspace will be realigned. Class E airspace will also be established above 8,500' and FL145 as appropriate. The existing directed traffic information service in Class G airspace will remain unchanged. CTAF/MBZ operations and procedures will be realigned with FAA practice.
Class A and C airspace will be realigned. Class E airspace will also be established above 8,500' and FL145 as appropriate. The existing directed traffic information service in Class G airspace will remain unchanged. CTAF/MBZ operations and procedures will be realigned with FAA practice.
AT least CASA wouldn't dare try to prosecute anyone for non-compliance after November (or was it December?). Nobody will have any idea what the rules are anyway.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 November
Hi guys,
In a very large part of the rest of the world, the 28th of November 2002, marks the introduction of EMARSSH, a complete restructure of airways and introdution of RNP in various FIR's along the way.
In case you are interested, it stands for Europe/Middle East/Asia Route Structure South of the Himalayas.
Perhaps with that about to happen, and the charts being updated to the West and North of OZ, this would be an ideal time to get everything done, rather than implement changes incrementally.
good luck, it looks like a spiders web in our airspace!!
In a very large part of the rest of the world, the 28th of November 2002, marks the introduction of EMARSSH, a complete restructure of airways and introdution of RNP in various FIR's along the way.
In case you are interested, it stands for Europe/Middle East/Asia Route Structure South of the Himalayas.
Perhaps with that about to happen, and the charts being updated to the West and North of OZ, this would be an ideal time to get everything done, rather than implement changes incrementally.
good luck, it looks like a spiders web in our airspace!!
Four Seven Eleven
I only said 28 November because that is an AIRAC date, and I am making the assumption that when they say "1 December 2002" they are using a generalisation, or (more likely) they made a blue and picked the wrong date. As you probably know, ICAO recommends the use of AIRAC dates for the implementation of anything significant, and it usually means that most electronic systems and databases, publications etc. are in alignment. The next chart release, ERSA, AIP etc. is 28 November, so it makes sense to do whatever they are going to do on that date, rather than delay it for 2 days. Keyword = "sense"
Interesting about the Class E establishment above A085 & FL145 on the same date, which would require some charting I would think, which is a bit difficult to do in an A5 sized SUP. You can get away with doing some things by AIP SUP, but theoretically they are only supposed to be used for either activities or events taking place for a short period, or for permanent changes that require implementation ASAP for safety reasons. One item that will have to be addressed in their implementation safety case is the risk that pilots will not be aware of the changes due to not receiving/being aware of the SUP, or not checking NOTAMs. One way to mitigate that to a small degree is to post the SUP out to everyone who has an ARN. I don't know that qualifies as much of an education process though -
I only said 28 November because that is an AIRAC date, and I am making the assumption that when they say "1 December 2002" they are using a generalisation, or (more likely) they made a blue and picked the wrong date. As you probably know, ICAO recommends the use of AIRAC dates for the implementation of anything significant, and it usually means that most electronic systems and databases, publications etc. are in alignment. The next chart release, ERSA, AIP etc. is 28 November, so it makes sense to do whatever they are going to do on that date, rather than delay it for 2 days. Keyword = "sense"
Interesting about the Class E establishment above A085 & FL145 on the same date, which would require some charting I would think, which is a bit difficult to do in an A5 sized SUP. You can get away with doing some things by AIP SUP, but theoretically they are only supposed to be used for either activities or events taking place for a short period, or for permanent changes that require implementation ASAP for safety reasons. One item that will have to be addressed in their implementation safety case is the risk that pilots will not be aware of the changes due to not receiving/being aware of the SUP, or not checking NOTAMs. One way to mitigate that to a small degree is to post the SUP out to everyone who has an ARN. I don't know that qualifies as much of an education process though -