NAS Website
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read the pilot package;
RE the QNH; it seems pretty clear that there will be no change if you're IFR...
Yet my ATC training package said that this change was for all below the transition altitude...?
ATC have been taught, implied or whatever if someone asks for AQNH tell them to call flightwatch or give them AWIB or AERIS frequency... Much quicker just to give them the AQNH, I'd bet...
Which is it?
Will the request AQNH call be replaced by 'radio check'? We'll see on the weekend I guess.
Bottle of Rum.
RE the QNH; it seems pretty clear that there will be no change if you're IFR...
Yet my ATC training package said that this change was for all below the transition altitude...?
ATC have been taught, implied or whatever if someone asks for AQNH tell them to call flightwatch or give them AWIB or AERIS frequency... Much quicker just to give them the AQNH, I'd bet...
Which is it?
Will the request AQNH call be replaced by 'radio check'? We'll see on the weekend I guess.
Bottle of Rum.
Creampuff
Thanks for posting the Hansard text.
Bit of ducking and weaving there, Open Mic ???
Really? My information is that what you were trying to implement here with this VFR climb procedure is vastly different from the US system.
Feel free to correct me -
Thanks for posting the Hansard text.
Bit of ducking and weaving there, Open Mic ???
Mr Smith—Not that I am aware. The National Airspace System called up the US practice, and we intend to implement the US practice for visual climb or VFR climb in class E airspace by IFR planned aircraft.
There are several procedures that the FAA promulgates for doing that, and those are the procedures that we will be adopting in Australia.
There are several procedures that the FAA promulgates for doing that, and those are the procedures that we will be adopting in Australia.
Feel free to correct me -
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Round and Round we go!
I've been involved in some of the industry meetings (some time ago) and following and watching the 'New Airspace" drama it seems for close on five years folks. Still the same to and fro over miniscule changes and still no results, well a bit more confusion.
When are we (industry participants) going to realise we are never going to replicate the American or European systems, and we will always need to compromise, either because of cost or technology.
The recent changes are minor and will have no effect on safety.
The past working groups had it right (the LAMPS model) and should have left it there.
I really don't know why DS bothers, this is an industry with a twenty year olds body and an octagenarian's view of the world. How about we get on with something important, like getting rid of NDB's for GPS systems, turbines for pistons, EFIS for analogue, instead of the same old outdated tried but true.
That's all folks.
I've been involved in some of the industry meetings (some time ago) and following and watching the 'New Airspace" drama it seems for close on five years folks. Still the same to and fro over miniscule changes and still no results, well a bit more confusion.
When are we (industry participants) going to realise we are never going to replicate the American or European systems, and we will always need to compromise, either because of cost or technology.
The recent changes are minor and will have no effect on safety.
The past working groups had it right (the LAMPS model) and should have left it there.
I really don't know why DS bothers, this is an industry with a twenty year olds body and an octagenarian's view of the world. How about we get on with something important, like getting rid of NDB's for GPS systems, turbines for pistons, EFIS for analogue, instead of the same old outdated tried but true.
That's all folks.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ulm,
You mentioned RPT "think[ing] they 'need' ATC". Perception is everything. What they think they need is part of a safety case. If someone else doesn't think RPT needs ATC, then they are welcome to try and convince them otherwise. Getting them to agree to it is another matter.
It is not just the RPT operators that you need convince. The local councils of those airports you mentioned also have vested interests in the ATC services. You need to convince them too.
Your Porsche analogy isn't very accurate. I'm not the one with the Porsche. The few Porsche owners are the ones who have convinced the many ute owners on this dirt road that they need a 6-lane freeway from North America rather than just a sealed road and the trucking company operating on the same road should be the one to pay for it.
Can we afford a freeway and do we need one? How much will this cost us, both for implementation and ongoing running costs? Is it the right system for us?
The charging structure is vastly different in the US. I wouldn't expect many aircraft in the US would file VFR and actually fly unannounced IFR. How many aircraft do this in Australia to avoid fees and what impact would this have on a safety case? Australia also has a few pilots who avoid radio calls to escape airport charges. How many? What impact would this have? Maybe it is insignificant. How can you be sure?
Sectional charts cover the entire US and are updated semi-annually. The sectional chart presents a lot more information than the Australian WAC. What is the impact of NAS on Australian pilots flying with WACs updated every four years or so?
Another issue is ATC rostering. When the weather is clear, many pilots will be flying VFR with a reduced number of ATC. When the weather changes, then there will be an increased need for ATC. How do you roster for this without having extra controllers on duty during fine weather days and doing very little other than just being there in case "you need it" and not earning revenue? Seems to me to be a waste of resources.
These are just some questions that highlight the fact that you just can't selectively take pieces from a "proven North American" model and drop them into another system without supporting research. Maybe it can happen, but wouldn't you rather know as best you can before it was actually implemented?
You mentioned RPT "think[ing] they 'need' ATC". Perception is everything. What they think they need is part of a safety case. If someone else doesn't think RPT needs ATC, then they are welcome to try and convince them otherwise. Getting them to agree to it is another matter.
It is not just the RPT operators that you need convince. The local councils of those airports you mentioned also have vested interests in the ATC services. You need to convince them too.
Your Porsche analogy isn't very accurate. I'm not the one with the Porsche. The few Porsche owners are the ones who have convinced the many ute owners on this dirt road that they need a 6-lane freeway from North America rather than just a sealed road and the trucking company operating on the same road should be the one to pay for it.
Can we afford a freeway and do we need one? How much will this cost us, both for implementation and ongoing running costs? Is it the right system for us?
The charging structure is vastly different in the US. I wouldn't expect many aircraft in the US would file VFR and actually fly unannounced IFR. How many aircraft do this in Australia to avoid fees and what impact would this have on a safety case? Australia also has a few pilots who avoid radio calls to escape airport charges. How many? What impact would this have? Maybe it is insignificant. How can you be sure?
Sectional charts cover the entire US and are updated semi-annually. The sectional chart presents a lot more information than the Australian WAC. What is the impact of NAS on Australian pilots flying with WACs updated every four years or so?
Another issue is ATC rostering. When the weather is clear, many pilots will be flying VFR with a reduced number of ATC. When the weather changes, then there will be an increased need for ATC. How do you roster for this without having extra controllers on duty during fine weather days and doing very little other than just being there in case "you need it" and not earning revenue? Seems to me to be a waste of resources.
These are just some questions that highlight the fact that you just can't selectively take pieces from a "proven North American" model and drop them into another system without supporting research. Maybe it can happen, but wouldn't you rather know as best you can before it was actually implemented?
Last edited by Lodown; 27th Nov 2002 at 19:31.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS implementation
Interesting to hear a REX pilot on the airwaves today asking where the NOTAM was advising of change of FIS frequency to 125.8
He suggested to Centre that Jepps haddent been notified of the change (AIP certainly knew about it)
He suggested to Centre that Jepps haddent been notified of the change (AIP certainly knew about it)
Chimbu,
Ref your post re the future MidAir, AOPA won't be complaining: their maniacal management are the ones pushing all this nonsense!
Ulm,
Your comments/suggestions re being given ADSB are a great but farcical idea. The most danger to fare-paying pax comes the AOPA brigade, which include Citation drivers, roaring around unannouced in E airspace. Being VFR or pop-up IFR, they will hardly be keeping an ADSB setup serviceable when it goes U/S, even if they got it for free. I note that the FAA in Alaska, where they paid for ADSB for all the aircraft in the area up there to trial the system, is now pushing for industry to pay up to keep it going.
The ridiculous anachronism about E airspace is that ATC apply full separation standards until we're OCTA then they wash their hands of us: VMC Climb (which by it's very name is crap, implying that "since I'm in VMC all collision risk is removed") merely allows ATC to wash their hands of it earlier. So why have them in the first place?? And why would you want to LOWER E airspace below current (FL200) levels just to force ATC standards for more time? Non-radar E airspace doesn't work unless all players have ADSB so sensible sep standards can be applied. I note that the only non-radar E airspace are the corridors where traffic could hardly be described as overwhelming: wait until it is implemented in busy airspace and the wheels will fall off. ATC sep standards MUST be reduced to those that we use OCTA to make it work: but then why have it in the first place?
The whole thing is non-sensical and merely a stunt by the Smith Family to set up airspace for the "turn-the-key-and-go" brigade.
Ref your post re the future MidAir, AOPA won't be complaining: their maniacal management are the ones pushing all this nonsense!
Ulm,
Your comments/suggestions re being given ADSB are a great but farcical idea. The most danger to fare-paying pax comes the AOPA brigade, which include Citation drivers, roaring around unannouced in E airspace. Being VFR or pop-up IFR, they will hardly be keeping an ADSB setup serviceable when it goes U/S, even if they got it for free. I note that the FAA in Alaska, where they paid for ADSB for all the aircraft in the area up there to trial the system, is now pushing for industry to pay up to keep it going.
The ridiculous anachronism about E airspace is that ATC apply full separation standards until we're OCTA then they wash their hands of us: VMC Climb (which by it's very name is crap, implying that "since I'm in VMC all collision risk is removed") merely allows ATC to wash their hands of it earlier. So why have them in the first place?? And why would you want to LOWER E airspace below current (FL200) levels just to force ATC standards for more time? Non-radar E airspace doesn't work unless all players have ADSB so sensible sep standards can be applied. I note that the only non-radar E airspace are the corridors where traffic could hardly be described as overwhelming: wait until it is implemented in busy airspace and the wheels will fall off. ATC sep standards MUST be reduced to those that we use OCTA to make it work: but then why have it in the first place?
The whole thing is non-sensical and merely a stunt by the Smith Family to set up airspace for the "turn-the-key-and-go" brigade.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly, if AIP knew about the frequency change you'd expect JEP to have been vigilant enough to pick it up. After all isn't it the situation that all they really do is copy the AIP info, repackage and charge a fairly decent premium for selling back to us the same info.
Jeppesen does pick up AIP including SUPPs, but they normally can't react quickly to late changes put out by Airservices ie. AIP SUPPs. They should include them (or at least reference to them) in their change bulletins though, therefore anyone using Jepps must check this bulletin along with Airservices NOTAMs. And ideally their AIP SUPPs as well, in case Jepp have not actioned them.
