NAS Website
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight
Your assumption about 28 November is probably correct. What I found absolutely frustrating about this process is that we are forced to make 'assumptions'. That seems to be the price for having 'enthusiastic amateurs' running the show.
If they still haven't got the dates and changes figured out, what hope is there that a proper education process will be finalised in time?
If you look at the official information, all we can know for sure is that an as yet undetermined set of changes may yet occur on an as yet undetermined date. Is this good enough?
Small point: I notice you say "1 December 2002" when in fact the reference is "Stage 1 December 2002". The lack of punctuation could lead one to believe that the "1" refers to either "Stage 1" or "1 December". Looking at later references, it becomes apparant that one could make the 'assumption' that it is in fact Stage 1, which will occur at an indeterminate time, perhaps in December. Everyone clear on that?
Your assumption about 28 November is probably correct. What I found absolutely frustrating about this process is that we are forced to make 'assumptions'. That seems to be the price for having 'enthusiastic amateurs' running the show.
If they still haven't got the dates and changes figured out, what hope is there that a proper education process will be finalised in time?
If you look at the official information, all we can know for sure is that an as yet undetermined set of changes may yet occur on an as yet undetermined date. Is this good enough?
Small point: I notice you say "1 December 2002" when in fact the reference is "Stage 1 December 2002". The lack of punctuation could lead one to believe that the "1" refers to either "Stage 1" or "1 December". Looking at later references, it becomes apparant that one could make the 'assumption' that it is in fact Stage 1, which will occur at an indeterminate time, perhaps in December. Everyone clear on that?
Very true. And there is a lot of work to be done on design & development of airspace, pilot & ATC procedures, consultation etc. before the close-off date for the June 2003 charts which apparently is next January, though I'm told in reality it is early December due to the Christmas/New Year break, mil. stand down from mid December, most players on recreation leave till late January, etc. etc.
They had better get their skates on
I take your point over the confusion, particularly as you highlight in your previous post that their website has two different lists of happenings supposedly taking place in December.
They had better get their skates on
I take your point over the confusion, particularly as you highlight in your previous post that their website has two different lists of happenings supposedly taking place in December.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarification at last!!!
Open Mic
A sterling job!! The same level of clarity prevails.
The website now appears to confirm that the previous 'draft' stage 1 changes have been canned (they have disappeared from the site)
So, reading the website, the following are NOT happening as stage one:
Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
The remaining STAGE 1 changes are:
In keeping with the process so far, all reference to training and education has been removed, and a timetable without times/dates has been published. Timeless table
One problem, however: The implentation timetable contradicts the content of the implementation section mentioned earlier.
Enthusiasm reigns supreme!!
A sterling job!! The same level of clarity prevails.
The website now appears to confirm that the previous 'draft' stage 1 changes have been canned (they have disappeared from the site)
So, reading the website, the following are NOT happening as stage one:
Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
The remaining STAGE 1 changes are:
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.Implementation
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.Implementation
One problem, however: The implentation timetable contradicts the content of the implementation section mentioned earlier.
Enthusiasm reigns supreme!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class B Requirements
Anyone know the US requirements for establishing Class B airspace as opposed to Class C?
What are the determining factors for upgrading Class C to Class B?
Just interested because a crucial part of NAS seems to be avoiding the implementation of "North American" Class B with the associated mandatory transponder requirements and (eventually) higher upper limits.
What are the determining factors for upgrading Class C to Class B?
Just interested because a crucial part of NAS seems to be avoiding the implementation of "North American" Class B with the associated mandatory transponder requirements and (eventually) higher upper limits.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Class B
Put simply, we don't have an airport here which matches the US criteria for Class B.
In earlier studies, Seattle Seatac came the closest to SYD in terms of operations, but everything else pales to insignificance.
The perspective that some pursue on their posts that there is a lot of traffic in Oz is a fallacy; get out more - we're small beer.
Having said that, I'm more than aware that it only takes two to 'tango' and that should be avoided at all times, but not at all costs which some would argue.
G'day
Put simply, we don't have an airport here which matches the US criteria for Class B.
In earlier studies, Seattle Seatac came the closest to SYD in terms of operations, but everything else pales to insignificance.
The perspective that some pursue on their posts that there is a lot of traffic in Oz is a fallacy; get out more - we're small beer.
Having said that, I'm more than aware that it only takes two to 'tango' and that should be avoided at all times, but not at all costs which some would argue.
G'day
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class B
North American Class C also has a mandatory mode c transponder requirement.
The difference between B and C includes but is not limited to
1. B has a 25 mile radius and a ceiling of 10000' where C has a 10 mile radius and 4000' ceiling.
2. All a/c in B are separated from each other
3. Only IFR a/c in C are separated from each other, VFR a/c are given advisories and traffic alerts only.
4. B requires a specific clearance to enter where C requires only that you establish two way radio communication which the FAA specifies as the controller having repeated your tail number back to you.
The difference between B and C includes but is not limited to
1. B has a 25 mile radius and a ceiling of 10000' where C has a 10 mile radius and 4000' ceiling.
2. All a/c in B are separated from each other
3. Only IFR a/c in C are separated from each other, VFR a/c are given advisories and traffic alerts only.
4. B requires a specific clearance to enter where C requires only that you establish two way radio communication which the FAA specifies as the controller having repeated your tail number back to you.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to look at it another way.. maybe in Oz we only need class B and class F - I am sure that would do the job.
Maybe you could then call it "controlled" or "uncontrolled" .. sound familiar?
Maybe you could then call it "controlled" or "uncontrolled" .. sound familiar?
Back to the top again -
Open Mic
When you gave your NAS brief at one of the RAPACs, you said something along the lines of "...forget Dick, he has no influence over the NAS implementation, and is he not driving it ...".
Could you confirm or otherwise that over the last few weeks (and as recently as the last couple of days) your implementation group has had to re-write the VFR climb in E procedures at least twice, because a certain high profile (though not lately) identity was not happy with them - they were not what he wanted?
Could you also comment on whether the latest procedures are significantly different from US FARs, and if so, how this impacts on CASA's advice that no safety case was required for NAS if it was compliant with US FARs?
Open Mic
When you gave your NAS brief at one of the RAPACs, you said something along the lines of "...forget Dick, he has no influence over the NAS implementation, and is he not driving it ...".
Could you confirm or otherwise that over the last few weeks (and as recently as the last couple of days) your implementation group has had to re-write the VFR climb in E procedures at least twice, because a certain high profile (though not lately) identity was not happy with them - they were not what he wanted?
Could you also comment on whether the latest procedures are significantly different from US FARs, and if so, how this impacts on CASA's advice that no safety case was required for NAS if it was compliant with US FARs?
I think Open Mic is a misnomer. More like PTT stuck in the off position.
What is the situation with the NAS website? The timetable page has airspace structure on it, no sign of a timetable. There are references to the "North American model". That is about as useful as "the Australasian model" or "the antipodean model".
My world atlas shows North America running from Mexico to Alaska. Which bits do we get?
What is the situation with the NAS website? The timetable page has airspace structure on it, no sign of a timetable. There are references to the "North American model". That is about as useful as "the Australasian model" or "the antipodean model".
My world atlas shows North America running from Mexico to Alaska. Which bits do we get?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus and Cap'n Midnight
I am afraid you're whistling in the wind. It seems the way of the Smiths is to enter into the fray and - particularly in the case of Smith the elder - to make various statements and accusations. However, when challenged to provide any evidence to back themselves up, they retreat silently into the murk from which they emanated.
The contradictions and inaccuracies in the NASH website remain uncorrected and unexplained. The fact that the website appears to contradict nearly everything that Dick Smith claimed when 'selling' NAS appears also to go unexplained. Mr Smith was vociferous in his unsubstantiated and false accusations and abuse on previous threads when questioned about certain aspects of the process. Thousands of words were written, but ever since he was asked to provide a single shred of evidence - he has become strangely silent.
Safety cases, the 'North American' model, the 'proven' (and yet unique) model, the ever-changing but ever vague 'timetable'.... a continuing litany of inconsistencies.
Perhaps the truth is out there. It just seems that those with answers are unwilling to state their case.
Sad.
I am afraid you're whistling in the wind. It seems the way of the Smiths is to enter into the fray and - particularly in the case of Smith the elder - to make various statements and accusations. However, when challenged to provide any evidence to back themselves up, they retreat silently into the murk from which they emanated.
The contradictions and inaccuracies in the NASH website remain uncorrected and unexplained. The fact that the website appears to contradict nearly everything that Dick Smith claimed when 'selling' NAS appears also to go unexplained. Mr Smith was vociferous in his unsubstantiated and false accusations and abuse on previous threads when questioned about certain aspects of the process. Thousands of words were written, but ever since he was asked to provide a single shred of evidence - he has become strangely silent.
Safety cases, the 'North American' model, the 'proven' (and yet unique) model, the ever-changing but ever vague 'timetable'.... a continuing litany of inconsistencies.
Perhaps the truth is out there. It just seems that those with answers are unwilling to state their case.
Sad.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour Has it
CASA have or are about to reject the VMC climb procedure for IFRs due to be introduced at the end of November.
Any truth to a sensible rumour such as that?
Smith, Smith??? anyone...
Bottle of Rum
Any truth to a sensible rumour such as that?
Smith, Smith??? anyone...
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously Mr Smith got a bit flustered, dealing with people who might know what they are talking about. He is, after all, only used to dealing with politicians.
SM4 Pirate
CASA rejected the VMC climb in E procedure safety case. I am told that it has had the points of concern addressed, and been resubmitted.
The AIP SUP relating to the procedure is said to be brief, ambigious and confusing - and that is to the people who understand exactly what is supposed to happen. Apparently a fistful of changes recommended by Airservices ATC specialists were rejected by the ARG, who refuse any amendment to the SUP wording, saying that all the issues would need to be addressed in the ATC & pilot education packages.
Also the procedures to be adopted vary extensively from that used in the USA.
The introduction of this VMC climb in E procedure has been pushed by the regionals for some years, but curiously they won't be able to use it. Evidently insurance companies refuse to allow the airlines to operate VFR category, which aircraft are required to be while adopting the procedure .....
CASA rejected the VMC climb in E procedure safety case. I am told that it has had the points of concern addressed, and been resubmitted.
The AIP SUP relating to the procedure is said to be brief, ambigious and confusing - and that is to the people who understand exactly what is supposed to happen. Apparently a fistful of changes recommended by Airservices ATC specialists were rejected by the ARG, who refuse any amendment to the SUP wording, saying that all the issues would need to be addressed in the ATC & pilot education packages.
Also the procedures to be adopted vary extensively from that used in the USA.
The introduction of this VMC climb in E procedure has been pushed by the regionals for some years, but curiously they won't be able to use it. Evidently insurance companies refuse to allow the airlines to operate VFR category, which aircraft are required to be while adopting the procedure .....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR... VMC
Thats why the procedure in Australia has been called "VMC" climb and not "VFR" which is what it is called in the US.
In Oz, RPT are required by CASA to operate IFR, so changing to VFR is not an option unless CASA change the rules.. hence we got VMC climb, which says it all and should keep everyone happy, except of course it is not in line with US practice... geeeeez!
In class G now, when VMC exists, the IFRs get traffic and keep themselves apart. The proposed procedure in E would have been much the same, but then the experts got at it!
Thats why the procedure in Australia has been called "VMC" climb and not "VFR" which is what it is called in the US.
In Oz, RPT are required by CASA to operate IFR, so changing to VFR is not an option unless CASA change the rules.. hence we got VMC climb, which says it all and should keep everyone happy, except of course it is not in line with US practice... geeeeez!
In class G now, when VMC exists, the IFRs get traffic and keep themselves apart. The proposed procedure in E would have been much the same, but then the experts got at it!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CIVIL AVIATION ORDERS PART 82 SECTION 82.3 Issue 4
CONDITIONS ON AIR OPERATORS' CERTIFICATES
AUTHORISING REGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
OPERATIONS IN OTHER THAN HIGH CAPACITY AIRCRAFT
7. Obligations in relation to flight category and aeroplane requirements
7 OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO FLIGHT CATEGORY AND AEROPLANE REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Subject to paragraph 7.4, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (IFR).
7.2 Subject to paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.
and for High Capacity AOC holders
= If you are RPT and capable of IFR you must plan IFR. Change to VFR is not permitted without CASA approval.
Hence the use of VMC in respect to the proposed ops in E.
CONDITIONS ON AIR OPERATORS' CERTIFICATES
AUTHORISING REGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
OPERATIONS IN OTHER THAN HIGH CAPACITY AIRCRAFT
7. Obligations in relation to flight category and aeroplane requirements
7 OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO FLIGHT CATEGORY AND AEROPLANE REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Subject to paragraph 7.4, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (IFR).
7.2 Subject to paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.
and for High Capacity AOC holders
7 OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO FLIGHT CATEGORY AND AEROPLANE REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (IFR).
7.2 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.
7.1 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (IFR).
7.2 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.
Hence the use of VMC in respect to the proposed ops in E.