NAS apathy
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke to Mike Smith at Avalon. While I felt his tone was a little too high and mighty he did make some valid points on NAS and I remain happy that it isn't going to change anything for the worse.
One thing I didn't like. He really doesnt want cockpit displays in GA aircraft using ADSB. He also feels Private operators should (will end up??) pay for the unit and installation.
Now AsA have intimated that ADSB will be waaay cheaper than replacing soon to be obsolete radar heads, not to mention increasing coverage. So i hope Mr m Smith sticks to NAS and stays out of this debate, otherwise we will see another 'mandatory ELT' debacle and ADSB will falter!!!!
Chuck
One thing I didn't like. He really doesnt want cockpit displays in GA aircraft using ADSB. He also feels Private operators should (will end up??) pay for the unit and installation.
Now AsA have intimated that ADSB will be waaay cheaper than replacing soon to be obsolete radar heads, not to mention increasing coverage. So i hope Mr m Smith sticks to NAS and stays out of this debate, otherwise we will see another 'mandatory ELT' debacle and ADSB will falter!!!!
Chuck
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Mike also want to bring in alot more "E" airspace once ADS-B is in place.
It is my understanding that he believes IFR will have ADS-B so they can be controlled in "E" and VFR will be transparent to the system, ie: no ADS-B or optional ADS-B.
Also the education program will consist of training pilots to call on the radio specific phrasiology consisting of where they are, and what they are doing, this will negate any reason to talk to each other for separation as we will know what each aircraft in doing.
All very interesting.
It is my understanding that he believes IFR will have ADS-B so they can be controlled in "E" and VFR will be transparent to the system, ie: no ADS-B or optional ADS-B.
Also the education program will consist of training pilots to call on the radio specific phrasiology consisting of where they are, and what they are doing, this will negate any reason to talk to each other for separation as we will know what each aircraft in doing.
All very interesting.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just like to clarify my view of ADS-B which a couple of posts have refered to. Firstly, I would be happy to see CDTI installed into any aircraft whose owners want it, I just don't believe that any scheme to fund its instalation is likely to extend beyond a basic fit, CDTI would be an option at the owners expence.
I certainly believe that ADS-B in all aircraft, not just IFR, has a lot of potential benefit, my point is that Class E airspace is the most effective way of managing a situation where all IFR and most VFR are known to the system. IFR can be seperated from each other and get traffic information about know VFR as far as practicable, the ICAO and FAA interpretation of Class E airspace. No service (therefore cost) is imposed on the VFR in this airspace.
Mike
I certainly believe that ADS-B in all aircraft, not just IFR, has a lot of potential benefit, my point is that Class E airspace is the most effective way of managing a situation where all IFR and most VFR are known to the system. IFR can be seperated from each other and get traffic information about know VFR as far as practicable, the ICAO and FAA interpretation of Class E airspace. No service (therefore cost) is imposed on the VFR in this airspace.
Mike
All for info:
The next NSW RAPAC will be held in Sydney this Thursday, and the word is that RHS himself will be there to defend NAS and answer questions from all (unless he reads this and pikes out). Also copies of the November 2003 AIP charts will be revealed.
When: Thursday 20th February 11am
Where: Building 250 Airservices Control Tower annex, Sydney airport.
I understand that the entrance is off Gen. Holmes Drive, just past the control TWR, and that the car park is south of the Hertz area on the Sydways map covering the area. Maybe someone who has been there before can shed more light.
The "Industry only" meeting is at 11am (everyone except DoD AA and CASA) followed by a combined meeting at 1300. Suggest attend the first because some parties may not hang around for the second
The next NSW RAPAC will be held in Sydney this Thursday, and the word is that RHS himself will be there to defend NAS and answer questions from all (unless he reads this and pikes out). Also copies of the November 2003 AIP charts will be revealed.
When: Thursday 20th February 11am
Where: Building 250 Airservices Control Tower annex, Sydney airport.
I understand that the entrance is off Gen. Holmes Drive, just past the control TWR, and that the car park is south of the Hertz area on the Sydways map covering the area. Maybe someone who has been there before can shed more light.
The "Industry only" meeting is at 11am (everyone except DoD AA and CASA) followed by a combined meeting at 1300. Suggest attend the first because some parties may not hang around for the second
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new AIP Sup has been posted on the Airservices websit:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ip2/sup/h6.pdf
It is interesting that we have been given a threat of complience with this AIP. If we do not conduct ourselves accordingly, we will be charged more. Obviously our friends at the LASH have done some bean counting and they have realised that this new airspace will cost more money!!!
Also, why are we asking of an "IFR Pick-Up" if the terminology from the controller is Standby for "Clearance".
Is it a "Pick-Up" or a "Clearance"?
And, what reference to ICAO is there for a "Pick-Up"?
Annex reference please!!
ALSO- WHAT TRAINING WILL BE SUPPLIED AND TO WHOM??????
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ip2/sup/h6.pdf
It is interesting that we have been given a threat of complience with this AIP. If we do not conduct ourselves accordingly, we will be charged more. Obviously our friends at the LASH have done some bean counting and they have realised that this new airspace will cost more money!!!
Also, why are we asking of an "IFR Pick-Up" if the terminology from the controller is Standby for "Clearance".
Is it a "Pick-Up" or a "Clearance"?
And, what reference to ICAO is there for a "Pick-Up"?
Annex reference please!!
ALSO- WHAT TRAINING WILL BE SUPPLIED AND TO WHOM??????
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guard
One of the back ups in the US system is the fact that all facilities monitor 121.5 and 243. This is a good safeguard, as if a pilot is on the wrong frequency and is monitoring Guard, as most airlines do, then they can be contacted. It would be a good idea to ask the authorities if this will be part of any changes for the new system as Australian towers etc do not monitor these frequencies.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the IFR guy cannot get a "Pick-Up" and he climbs to a VFR level and waits.
What calls does he make and on what frequency?
What frequency is the VFR traffic on?
Somehow, I do not think this AIP SUP has been fully thought out!
What calls does he make and on what frequency?
What frequency is the VFR traffic on?
Somehow, I do not think this AIP SUP has been fully thought out!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heheheh
Took the bait, there ya go gaunty. (If Barra were so quick they'd be extinct)
Anyway, my problem with the comments were.
1. GA don't need it and it will be waaaay too expensive.
My perspective. You are having a hard time convincing some here that NAS will be safe. Now I have said, and I say again, I am 98% sure it will be. However there are some very intelligent and persuasive people here who are not at all convinced and I don't think you can just ignore that.
I agree that GA probably don't need it. But in my view it is the answer to the DTI that people here fear they will lose. As well as that it will make ops safer out of small airports where RPT and GA mix. The more aircraft that have it the safer it will be.
Now AsA want it. It will save them mega bucks on radars and give us virtual radar everywhere. In another thread Woomera elludes to the cost of SAR. Well if you have a 'puta that knows where every aircrat is, there is another cost. So if AsA want it and RPT want it, and the government can be convinced we should have it, then AsA can pay.
2. Even if GA get it they should only get the black box and no CDTI.
Why??? Anyone with half an ounce of engineering knowledge knows that once you have paid to install a complex bit of equipment the extra cost of the bells and whistles is almost irrelavent. Now if we look at CDTI and the safety it will give to aircraft operating away from your 'random flight path' areas (ie, the whole coast, 50% of SE Oz and most MBZ and CTAF) the increase in safety is well worth it. Even at BKT i wonder if what happened would have happened if both aircraft had full ADSB with displays.
3. GA should pay for fitting.
Yeah right. Just like mandatory fitted ELTs. It just won't happen!!!!
So then we lose the advantages just because of some blinkered liberal 'user pays' ideology. Utter cr@p.
Again I will leave Woomera to argue the 'social benefit' bits, but it seems to me ADSB offers a hell of a lot to fix the criticisms of NAS, can save AsA trck loads and really increase safety in our skies.
If you get it right!!!! And, just cos it ain't in the yank model don't mean it's wrong, why can't we have a better NAS than them???. So, either stick to NAS, or think outside the box!!!
Took the bait, there ya go gaunty. (If Barra were so quick they'd be extinct)
Anyway, my problem with the comments were.
1. GA don't need it and it will be waaaay too expensive.
My perspective. You are having a hard time convincing some here that NAS will be safe. Now I have said, and I say again, I am 98% sure it will be. However there are some very intelligent and persuasive people here who are not at all convinced and I don't think you can just ignore that.
I agree that GA probably don't need it. But in my view it is the answer to the DTI that people here fear they will lose. As well as that it will make ops safer out of small airports where RPT and GA mix. The more aircraft that have it the safer it will be.
Now AsA want it. It will save them mega bucks on radars and give us virtual radar everywhere. In another thread Woomera elludes to the cost of SAR. Well if you have a 'puta that knows where every aircrat is, there is another cost. So if AsA want it and RPT want it, and the government can be convinced we should have it, then AsA can pay.
2. Even if GA get it they should only get the black box and no CDTI.
Why??? Anyone with half an ounce of engineering knowledge knows that once you have paid to install a complex bit of equipment the extra cost of the bells and whistles is almost irrelavent. Now if we look at CDTI and the safety it will give to aircraft operating away from your 'random flight path' areas (ie, the whole coast, 50% of SE Oz and most MBZ and CTAF) the increase in safety is well worth it. Even at BKT i wonder if what happened would have happened if both aircraft had full ADSB with displays.
3. GA should pay for fitting.
Yeah right.
Just like mandatory fitted ELTs. It just won't happen!!!!So then we lose the advantages just because of some blinkered liberal 'user pays' ideology. Utter cr@p.
Again I will leave Woomera to argue the 'social benefit' bits, but it seems to me ADSB offers a hell of a lot to fix the criticisms of NAS, can save AsA trck loads and really increase safety in our skies.
If you get it right!!!! And, just cos it ain't in the yank model don't mean it's wrong, why can't we have a better NAS than them???. So, either stick to NAS, or think outside the box!!!
Niles Crane
The notebox in the AIP SUP has Dick all over it - his words and thinking. And it is the first time I have ever seen such a thing in an AIP SUP, which after all is a formal notification of a change to AIP, with the same standing as a NOTAM. Just goes to show who is pulling the strings.
There is no obligation to adopt the procedure. The same controller normally works both the E & G, and if you operate in G rather than E, as you are being provided with a lower level of service, you would think you should be charged less
Interesting how the IFR cruising in E gets traffic information on the "IFR Pickup" and vice versa, instead of IFR-IFR separation which is a class E requirement. With the stroke of a pen ....
The notebox in the AIP SUP has Dick all over it - his words and thinking. And it is the first time I have ever seen such a thing in an AIP SUP, which after all is a formal notification of a change to AIP, with the same standing as a NOTAM. Just goes to show who is pulling the strings.
There is no obligation to adopt the procedure. The same controller normally works both the E & G, and if you operate in G rather than E, as you are being provided with a lower level of service, you would think you should be charged less
Interesting how the IFR cruising in E gets traffic information on the "IFR Pickup" and vice versa, instead of IFR-IFR separation which is a class E requirement. With the stroke of a pen ....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Lodown , it's not a mutation, simply a procedure used over there, but renamed.
Capt 0001 misses the point that until the IFR requiring a pickup, is, in fact, picked up, he is VFR and thus only gets information. That may, of course, include headings to steer away from the traffic or indeed, if the relevant traffic is IFR, the ATCO would be obliged to separate the IFR from the pickup.
As an aside, I strongly object to the issue of AIP SUP's to change procedures without any background or education. They end up being written by those I refer to as "professional Notam writers" without any semblance of user guidance on either side of the fence.
It will surprise some readers that the NAS in the USA actually works quite well with levels of service and traffic levels unheard of here. However, one of the major problems we have is getting over to folks the background and culture behind the procedures and how it works in practice. We have already overcome a major hurdle with many ATCO's providing service on a 'can do' basis to allcomers.
However, no-one will be surprised that when I took up this issue with a believing insider, it was pointed out that they're expressly forbidden from doing anything like even attempting to explain anything; just stick out an AIC!!
And so we plod on.
G'day
Capt 0001 misses the point that until the IFR requiring a pickup, is, in fact, picked up, he is VFR and thus only gets information. That may, of course, include headings to steer away from the traffic or indeed, if the relevant traffic is IFR, the ATCO would be obliged to separate the IFR from the pickup.
As an aside, I strongly object to the issue of AIP SUP's to change procedures without any background or education. They end up being written by those I refer to as "professional Notam writers" without any semblance of user guidance on either side of the fence.
It will surprise some readers that the NAS in the USA actually works quite well with levels of service and traffic levels unheard of here. However, one of the major problems we have is getting over to folks the background and culture behind the procedures and how it works in practice. We have already overcome a major hurdle with many ATCO's providing service on a 'can do' basis to allcomers.
However, no-one will be surprised that when I took up this issue with a believing insider, it was pointed out that they're expressly forbidden from doing anything like even attempting to explain anything; just stick out an AIC!!
And so we plod on.
G'day
Last edited by Feather #3; 18th Feb 2003 at 23:50.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt 0001 misses the point that until the IFR requiring a pickup, is, in fact, picked up, he is VFR and thus only gets information.
Can someone please explain to me how a flight planned under the IFR is VFR until it gets picked up.
This maybe a trivial question, but my brain still hurts.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt 0001 misses the point that until the IFR requiring a pickup, is, in fact, picked up, he is VFR and thus only gets information. That may, of course, include headings to steer away from the traffic or indeed
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather #3
Unfortunately Lowdown is right (I suspect he has first hand knowledge based on his previous posts) this is not the US system.
You are perpetuating the same lie(s) that NAS has pushed from day one. In the US an IFR aircraft without a clearance wishing to carry out this procedure becomes VFR and operates on a VFR basis. In Australia this is not able to happen under the present legislation (particularly for RPT) and an IFR aircraft remains an IFR aircraft operating in VMC (be it marginal or otherwise) with “claytons” IFR procedures. We are now burdened with this half-@rsed attempt, explained in a half-@rsed AIP Supp, to disguise the ineptitude.
I also understand that you are incorrect about the issue of the Supp. being generated by “professional NOTAM writers”. This disgracefully worded, hastily cobbled together, ill conceived document was, I understand, generated by Indiana himself after he was unable to get agreement within the project. Airservices should be ashamed that this is being passed off as an official operational document. No “professional NOTAM writer” would touch this with a barge pole!
Ulm,
I find it interesting that many of those who subscribe to the big sky theory and oppose the use of radio and transponders are now sticking their hands up and demanding free ADS-B sets and gadgets on the basis that it will increase safety. Suddenly because they can sniff a potential freebie the sky has become decidedly smaller.
PS
I thought an “IFR pick up” was the result of too many square bears in a singles bar!
Unfortunately Lowdown is right (I suspect he has first hand knowledge based on his previous posts) this is not the US system.
You are perpetuating the same lie(s) that NAS has pushed from day one. In the US an IFR aircraft without a clearance wishing to carry out this procedure becomes VFR and operates on a VFR basis. In Australia this is not able to happen under the present legislation (particularly for RPT) and an IFR aircraft remains an IFR aircraft operating in VMC (be it marginal or otherwise) with “claytons” IFR procedures. We are now burdened with this half-@rsed attempt, explained in a half-@rsed AIP Supp, to disguise the ineptitude.
I also understand that you are incorrect about the issue of the Supp. being generated by “professional NOTAM writers”. This disgracefully worded, hastily cobbled together, ill conceived document was, I understand, generated by Indiana himself after he was unable to get agreement within the project. Airservices should be ashamed that this is being passed off as an official operational document. No “professional NOTAM writer” would touch this with a barge pole!
Ulm,
I find it interesting that many of those who subscribe to the big sky theory and oppose the use of radio and transponders are now sticking their hands up and demanding free ADS-B sets and gadgets on the basis that it will increase safety. Suddenly because they can sniff a potential freebie the sky has become decidedly smaller.
PS
I thought an “IFR pick up” was the result of too many square bears in a singles bar!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm............messy!!
I certainly stand corrected on a re-read of both the SUP & Lodown's point on the VFR/IFR vs VMC/IFR argument. It is not exactly the same, however looking at the service provided to the IFR Pick-up and given that he must remain in VMC, I have a real difficulty with objections as noted. Surely you will be getting the very services which are being removed in G [under the NAS proposal]; DTI and VFR advisories?
OTOH, if your collective objection is to any change to the status quo , then that's another matter.
G'day
PS I should remind all that I support the status quo as it works well and we all understand it, but I don't see that the NAS wouldn't work here either without loss of safety margins. What I do object to is a mish-mash featuring the worst of both worlds and a couple of way-out concepts included!!
I certainly stand corrected on a re-read of both the SUP & Lodown's point on the VFR/IFR vs VMC/IFR argument. It is not exactly the same, however looking at the service provided to the IFR Pick-up and given that he must remain in VMC, I have a real difficulty with objections as noted. Surely you will be getting the very services which are being removed in G [under the NAS proposal]; DTI and VFR advisories?
OTOH, if your collective objection is to any change to the status quo , then that's another matter.
G'day
PS I should remind all that I support the status quo as it works well and we all understand it, but I don't see that the NAS wouldn't work here either without loss of safety margins. What I do object to
is a mish-mash featuring the worst of both worlds and a couple of way-out concepts included!!
Last edited by Feather #3; 19th Feb 2003 at 04:55.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neddy
Didn't say the small end (or me) wanted a freebie. What I said was, you guys seem to be concerned over potential collisions wbetween VFR and IFR(???) aircraft. The ADSB system will fix this.
The only time I mentioned a freebie was when I said that AsA might as well pay for CDTI as well and get a big safety bonus at very little extra cost.
The real winners with ADSB will be the Regional guys operating in and out of CTAFs or below 10,000. Their gain will be peace of mind, more flexible operations and much higher safety levels.
You will only get that peace of mind if the vast majority of what flies is fitted. If you say 'user pays' and then define the user as the owner of the aircraft you fit it in, then most stuff below 5700KG won't be fitted and you are back to sweating in a CTAF.
So, since it is AsA that will save on radar upgrades, it is AsA that can pay to fit ADSB. It should be that way because the 'safety of the travelling public' is their concern, not the concern of a C150 owner!!!
And if you think you can force PVT opertors to fit it, 'mandatory ELTs' nyer nyer!!! :P
Didn't say the small end (or me) wanted a freebie. What I said was, you guys seem to be concerned over potential collisions wbetween VFR and IFR(???) aircraft. The ADSB system will fix this.
The only time I mentioned a freebie was when I said that AsA might as well pay for CDTI as well and get a big safety bonus at very little extra cost.
The real winners with ADSB will be the Regional guys operating in and out of CTAFs or below 10,000. Their gain will be peace of mind, more flexible operations and much higher safety levels.
You will only get that peace of mind if the vast majority of what flies is fitted. If you say 'user pays' and then define the user as the owner of the aircraft you fit it in, then most stuff below 5700KG won't be fitted and you are back to sweating in a CTAF.
So, since it is AsA that will save on radar upgrades, it is AsA that can pay to fit ADSB. It should be that way because the 'safety of the travelling public' is their concern, not the concern of a C150 owner!!!
And if you think you can force PVT opertors to fit it, 'mandatory ELTs'
nyer nyer!!! :P
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back a few posts, Open Mic said:
"IFR can be seperated from each other and get traffic information about know VFR as far as practicable, the ICAO and FAA interpretation of Class E airspace. No service (therefore cost) is imposed on VFR in this airspace. "
Can anybody out there tell me what the cost difference will be? What air navigation charges do VFR currently pay to Airservices for operations in class G, E, C or any other class of airspace for that matter? (I admit that I think I already know the answer)
If it looks like snake oil, smells like snake oil, and feels like snake oil. it must be...
"IFR can be seperated from each other and get traffic information about know VFR as far as practicable, the ICAO and FAA interpretation of Class E airspace. No service (therefore cost) is imposed on VFR in this airspace. "
Can anybody out there tell me what the cost difference will be? What air navigation charges do VFR currently pay to Airservices for operations in class G, E, C or any other class of airspace for that matter?
(I admit that I think I already know the answer)If it looks like snake oil, smells like snake oil, and feels like snake oil. it must be...
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ulm,
I don't give a flying twodogs about DTI, what I want to know when flying is where EVERYONE is!
The only way that can happen is if EVERYONE is on THE SAME FREQUENCY!!
And when has an IAP SUP been used to threaten all and sundry to comply othrwisw WW WILL CHARGE YOU MORE!
This is a joke. CASA should be screaming over this.
Political idiots (AOPA and sport aviation) playing politics and risking my life, just because they don't want to pay any airnav charges.
This bull@#$% will only stop when it rains aluminium.
WE ARE NOT THE USA - TRAFFIC DESNSITY IS NOT THE ONLY SAFETY MITAGATOR.
One very pissed off twodogs#$%^&*#
I don't give a flying twodogs about DTI, what I want to know when flying is where EVERYONE is!
The only way that can happen is if EVERYONE is on THE SAME FREQUENCY!!
And when has an IAP SUP been used to threaten all and sundry to comply othrwisw WW WILL CHARGE YOU MORE!
This is a joke. CASA should be screaming over this.
Political idiots (AOPA and sport aviation) playing politics and risking my life, just because they don't want to pay any airnav charges.
This bull@#$% will only stop when it rains aluminium.
WE ARE NOT THE USA - TRAFFIC DESNSITY IS NOT THE ONLY SAFETY MITAGATOR.
One very pissed off twodogs#$%^&*#