NAS apathy
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather #3 wrote:
The heading would only be on request, and then only advisory. The IFR in E with a clearance, would not be separated from the IFR pick-up, that's the point, otherwise you'd just issue the 'IFR pick-up' with a clearance and separate them.
You will get traffic on IFR in E and known VFR in E, whilst doing an IFR Pick-up. Known VFRs (i.e. ones getting a RIS and talking to the controller), will get traffic on you, IFRs with a clearance will get traffic on you, they then can ask us for avoiding action if necessary and we are able, i.e. in radar, shouldn’t be too hard, outside radar, just about forget it.
Problems:
1) Procedure introduced initially in RADAR (just about) only airspace, procedure stays forever. Will it be used in a radar environment, rarely (why cause you can see everything and only need 5 miles and headings are an option as above), will it be used later after E's rolled out into non radar areas (can’t vector off radar), definitely makes sense, procedural standards are larger, more opportunity to use it, possibly safer, if I need 15 DME and I’ve got 10 DME should be safe enough.
2) CASA yet won't allow Bigger RPTs to use the procedure (on good mail), but wait that's who its designed for, i.e. the ones that can't just go VFR... that's why we 'invented' this procedure.
Can anyone confirm the info I have about the US model, the IFR pick-up is given to a VFR aircraft (that has planned IFR, but currently isn't) operating in 'E', for 2 reasons:
1) wishing to enter a new class (A, C etc.) of airspace, where VFR or not would need a clearance to enter (vertical or lateral boundary) so would do so IFR cause it makes no difference, e.g. still subject to a clearance and that's what it planned, or
2) wishing to upgrade to IFR and therefore need a clearance as an IFR in 'E', ‘picking up your IFR plan’.
Isn't that how its used there?
Why don't we need a design safety case?
Is it the same? Apples with apples please...
Bottle of Rum
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.
You will get traffic on IFR in E and known VFR in E, whilst doing an IFR Pick-up. Known VFRs (i.e. ones getting a RIS and talking to the controller), will get traffic on you, IFRs with a clearance will get traffic on you, they then can ask us for avoiding action if necessary and we are able, i.e. in radar, shouldn’t be too hard, outside radar, just about forget it.
Problems:
1) Procedure introduced initially in RADAR (just about) only airspace, procedure stays forever. Will it be used in a radar environment, rarely (why cause you can see everything and only need 5 miles and headings are an option as above), will it be used later after E's rolled out into non radar areas (can’t vector off radar), definitely makes sense, procedural standards are larger, more opportunity to use it, possibly safer, if I need 15 DME and I’ve got 10 DME should be safe enough.
2) CASA yet won't allow Bigger RPTs to use the procedure (on good mail), but wait that's who its designed for, i.e. the ones that can't just go VFR... that's why we 'invented' this procedure.
Can anyone confirm the info I have about the US model, the IFR pick-up is given to a VFR aircraft (that has planned IFR, but currently isn't) operating in 'E', for 2 reasons:
1) wishing to enter a new class (A, C etc.) of airspace, where VFR or not would need a clearance to enter (vertical or lateral boundary) so would do so IFR cause it makes no difference, e.g. still subject to a clearance and that's what it planned, or
2) wishing to upgrade to IFR and therefore need a clearance as an IFR in 'E', ‘picking up your IFR plan’.
Isn't that how its used there?
Why don't we need a design safety case?
Is it the same? Apples with apples please...
Bottle of Rum
The smoke and mirrors in the SUP are at their most acrid and dazzling with these weasel words:
’scuse me? Exactly through what mechanism does the flight change to VFR? Pilot choice? Or are the rules of the flight somehow deemed to have changed as a consequence of the request merely for ‘IFR pick-up’. Big, big difference in outcomes for pilot responsibility and the validity of the SUP.
And could someone explain to me the intended difference between: “should” request; “may not” initiate; “must” request; “must” .. fly; “will” receive. Does “should” mean may or must? Does “may not” mean must not or should not? Does “will receive” mean AA must provide?
The pilot must request the operation which is VFR on entering Class E.
And could someone explain to me the intended difference between: “should” request; “may not” initiate; “must” request; “must” .. fly; “will” receive. Does “should” mean may or must? Does “may not” mean must not or should not? Does “will receive” mean AA must provide?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annex A to SUP H6/03 - AIP book amendments says to insert
"*Request IFR pick-up". into AIP GEN 3.4 para 5.10.
This phrase is preceeded with a large black dot.
AIP GEN 3.4 para 4.2.2 shows that this is UNIQUE TO AUSTRALIA (ICAO SILENT).
There has been little said of the requirement to remain in VMC whilst awaiting your "pick-up". In my experience one mans VMC can differ from anothers, especially when the pressures to be on ones way come into force. So if clearance is not immediately available, and a pilot wishes to proceed, he may have to divert from planned track to remain in VMC. Will this impact on ATC's ability to issue a clearance later?
The phrase IFR pick-up contains more connitations than is explained in the SUP. To me it means -
"I am requesting clearance, but will remain in VMC, and I might have to level out out a VFR hemispherical level and in these SCT clouds head off to the right a bit towards a hole where those pesky little VFRies are whose transponders are on standby or simply don't work and MY EYES ARE GLUED TO THE WINDSCREEN, while you fart around giving me traffic which you used to do anyway and try to work out out clearance which you didn't have to do in the old days, but I still have the time to be comforted by the fact THAT THIS IS COSTING ME LESS!!!"
"*Request IFR pick-up". into AIP GEN 3.4 para 5.10.
This phrase is preceeded with a large black dot.
AIP GEN 3.4 para 4.2.2 shows that this is UNIQUE TO AUSTRALIA (ICAO SILENT).
There has been little said of the requirement to remain in VMC whilst awaiting your "pick-up". In my experience one mans VMC can differ from anothers, especially when the pressures to be on ones way come into force. So if clearance is not immediately available, and a pilot wishes to proceed, he may have to divert from planned track to remain in VMC. Will this impact on ATC's ability to issue a clearance later?
The phrase IFR pick-up contains more connitations than is explained in the SUP. To me it means -
"I am requesting clearance, but will remain in VMC, and I might have to level out out a VFR hemispherical level and in these SCT clouds head off to the right a bit towards a hole where those pesky little VFRies are whose transponders are on standby or simply don't work and MY EYES ARE GLUED TO THE WINDSCREEN, while you fart around giving me traffic which you used to do anyway and try to work out out clearance which you didn't have to do in the old days, but I still have the time to be comforted by the fact THAT THIS IS COSTING ME LESS!!!"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2-dogs
Beginning to sound like a parrot here, ADSB with CDTI will give you accurate traffic alerts with altitude and in some sets collision warning advice.
The sports and owners bodies will play politics, that is their job. You say it is with your life, perhaps, but it isn't meant to be. It is against the non-pilot grey cardie set who wake up every morining with a neat new safety initiative and to hell with how much it costs GA.
Again (and again and again) ADSB will save AsA millions EVEN IF they are forced by the pollies to pay for fitting every aircraft in the fleet. (And what the hell, even microlights could have one with a small battery!!!).
Then you get your DTI, even if you have to do it yourself.
Now it is a pity CASA is associated with NAS, because I believe NAS, with alittle tweaking, is a good system. But the sort of self interested bullsh!t CASA write in their so-called 'safety' magazine doesn't help build trust. Go read the one sided cr@p they have written on Paer121B!!!
One last point 2-dogs. Whinging about AOPA et al wont help, whinging about NAS won't help (read Anderson's latest statement on it in CASA's Flight (un)safety mag. You are gonna cop it.)
What will help is if all of us stop sniping at each other and hit the government with some combined political clout so we get a system we all think will work.
And at the moment the only organisation with the size and credibility to do this is AOPA. And anyone who says AOPA is just for PPLs will cop a roasting from hamilton, so, no matter what you think of the guy, he is representing you so represent yourselves to him!!!!
Beginning to sound like a parrot here, ADSB with CDTI will give you accurate traffic alerts with altitude and in some sets collision warning advice.
The sports and owners bodies will play politics, that is their job. You say it is with your life, perhaps, but it isn't meant to be. It is against the non-pilot grey cardie set who wake up every morining with a neat new safety initiative and to hell with how much it costs GA.
Again (and again and again) ADSB will save AsA millions EVEN IF they are forced by the pollies to pay for fitting every aircraft in the fleet. (And what the hell, even microlights could have one with a small battery!!!).
Then you get your DTI, even if you have to do it yourself.
Now it is a pity CASA is associated with NAS, because I believe NAS, with alittle tweaking, is a good system. But the sort of self interested bullsh!t CASA write in their so-called 'safety' magazine doesn't help build trust. Go read the one sided cr@p they have written on Paer121B!!!
One last point 2-dogs. Whinging about AOPA et al wont help, whinging about NAS won't help (read Anderson's latest statement on it in CASA's Flight (un)safety mag. You are gonna cop it.)
What will help is if all of us stop sniping at each other and hit the government with some combined political clout so we get a system we all think will work.
And at the moment the only organisation with the size and credibility to do this is AOPA. And anyone who says AOPA is just for PPLs will cop a roasting from hamilton, so, no matter what you think of the guy, he is representing you so represent yourselves to him!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone got the flip cards yet?
If so, what do you think about them?
Is this easy to understand, will you use the IFR Pick-up?
I think the phraseologies could have been expanded upon significantly; a few more variations about different circumstances etc.
Bottle of Rum
If so, what do you think about them?
Is this easy to understand, will you use the IFR Pick-up?
I think the phraseologies could have been expanded upon significantly; a few more variations about different circumstances etc.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too thought ADS/B was the answer to... whatever the question was! But at the Avalon airshow a kind gent on the Airservices stand surprised me with his display showing the 20-odd ground stations spread around the country which YOU HAVE TO BE WITHIN LINE-OF-SIGHT OF TO USE. If you are outside the footprint of the ground station you are just as invisible to my radar screen (and your buddies traffic screen) as you are today.
Far from providing 5nm "radar" standards across the country, the nearest ground stations to, say, Mildura are at Mt. Oxley NSW or Woomera!
The project intends to provide continuous "radar" coverage only at FL300, bug-smashers only get it if they are near the ground station.
If I've got all this backwards my sincere apologies, but there is nothing to contradict this view on the website.
Far from providing 5nm "radar" standards across the country, the nearest ground stations to, say, Mildura are at Mt. Oxley NSW or Woomera!
The project intends to provide continuous "radar" coverage only at FL300, bug-smashers only get it if they are near the ground station.
If I've got all this backwards my sincere apologies, but there is nothing to contradict this view on the website.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ulm,
We did have an airspace model that was going to be suitable for all and it was called Llamp. Pity some thought otherwise!
Spodman,
You are almost correct. ASA will only be able to "see" aircraft that are line of site to a ground station (radar). But the ground station does not "retransmit" this info back up to aircraft.
For aircraft that are equiped with recieving eqipment, they will able to "see" other aircraft irrespective of ground base coverage.
If one aircraft cannot "see" another one it is too far away ie, over the horizon from each other.
As for the flip card
Interesting at the FLOT the part pursuant to NAS has been with held until openmike has finalised the NAS, then CASA will re-issue the part and it will be "Compliant".
Good to see CASA rolling over. The only person who has the power to stop NAS it the Director (he can always leave and give a very public reason for doing so) and he is doing his usual. The Minister can only "Direct" the regulator, not the people.
twodogs
We did have an airspace model that was going to be suitable for all and it was called Llamp. Pity some thought otherwise!
Spodman,
You are almost correct. ASA will only be able to "see" aircraft that are line of site to a ground station (radar). But the ground station does not "retransmit" this info back up to aircraft.
For aircraft that are equiped with recieving eqipment, they will able to "see" other aircraft irrespective of ground base coverage.
If one aircraft cannot "see" another one it is too far away ie, over the horizon from each other.
As for the flip card
Interesting at the FLOT the part pursuant to NAS has been with held until openmike has finalised the NAS, then CASA will re-issue the part and it will be "Compliant".
Good to see CASA rolling over. The only person who has the power to stop NAS it the Director (he can always leave and give a very public reason for doing so) and he is doing his usual. The Minister can only "Direct" the regulator, not the people.
twodogs
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that there is a "team" from NAS in North America at the moment. Another "jolly" at our expense?
Will be interesting to hear what they have to say. I find it difficult to understand why the NAS people are operating behind closed doors and not providing industry with regular updates of their deliberations and progress. Certainly does not help keep those that should be, on side!
Will be interesting to hear what they have to say. I find it difficult to understand why the NAS people are operating behind closed doors and not providing industry with regular updates of their deliberations and progress. Certainly does not help keep those that should be, on side!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic
It's like elephants mating insn't it.
If you are making it up as you go along then you wouldn't want any doors open, now would you.
I mean if nobody knows what you are doing, then there can't be any criticism, with the possibility of a fait accompli and we all know how well the driver of this farce handles criticism.
Any criticism is then very easily diverted by simply stating that "you don't know all the facts, we haven't finished yet, but when we have, it will be blindingly clear"
Maybe if we send in some more straw, they can weave some gold cloth out of it whilst they are at it.
Somebody may well be obliged to point out that the Emperor is actually stark staring naked.
It's like elephants mating insn't it. If you are making it up as you go along then you wouldn't want any doors open, now would you.
I mean if nobody knows what you are doing, then there can't be any criticism, with the possibility of a fait accompli and we all know how well the driver of this farce handles criticism.
Any criticism is then very easily diverted by simply stating that "you don't know all the facts, we haven't finished yet, but when we have, it will be blindingly clear"
Maybe if we send in some more straw, they can weave some gold cloth out of it whilst they are at it.
Somebody may well be obliged to point out that the Emperor is actually stark staring naked.
Circular to Airservices Staff stated something along the lines of the above. In this latest perceived downturn as NAS makes nothing for Airservices, I believe it is being put on the backburner till someone with something to gain pays the Airservices people working on it to continue. As if that is going to happen.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missile - Select - armed - Fire.....
Ulm
The sports and owners bodies will play politics, that is their job. You say it is with your life, perhaps, but it isn't meant to be. It is against the non-pilot grey cardie set who wake up every morining with a neat new safety initiative and to hell with how much it costs GA.
The sports and owners bodies will play politics, that is their job. You say it is with your life, perhaps, but it isn't meant to be. It is against the non-pilot grey cardie set who wake up every morining with a neat new safety initiative and to hell with how much it costs GA.
Politics of costs, PERHAPS (Your word) giving rise to jeopardising the lives of others, but it is not meant to be!!!!
Jeezus H!!
, If AOPA really want to serve our industry, forget about the ridiculous notion that costs will only be reduced by sacrificing safety systems (ICAO compliant airspace) and concentrate on undoing the damage that Indiana has caused with his crusades such as LSC, a point apparently acknowledged in the AOPA thread. Your arrogance is quite frankly breathtaking, as a PPL you consider you have the right to inflict such changes to other sections of the industry because you don’t want to pay yet acknowledge that lives in greater danger might well be the result.
Again (and again and again) ADSB will save AsA millions EVEN IF they are forced by the pollies to pay for fitting every aircraft in the fleet. (And what the hell, even microlights could have one with a small battery!!!).
ADS-B
- 20 ground station installations (That may or may not increase coverage above that currently under RADAR if ADS-B is assumed to replace RADAR).
- Conservatively , 3,000 odd aircraft installations (Does not include AUF).
- Unless you equip with uprated boxes there will NOT be cockpit traffic advisories (Additional costs).
- If Airservices (Gov Business enterprise ie profit making) pay for the installations, do you really think they will not pass that cost back to the very industry you say cannot sustain safety costs.
- Procedures and separation standards must be developed and training provided.
V’s RADAR Augmentation
- At most 10 additional RADAR heads nationwide to provide coverage in areas where traffic density warrants a RADAR class E airspace arrangement and Class F elsewhere.
- A comparatively small number of transponders fitted to those not currently equipped.
Irrespective of which surveillance system is used it must be installed and commissioned PRIOR to airspace reform!!!
2 Chocolate frogs to the those who can work out which system could be implemented first for the less cost!?
And as for that camel excreta that Phelan put up in the December AA, if that is his idea of providing industry with a balanced view me thinks he exists in weightlessness!!.
One last point 2-dogs. Whinging about AOPA et al wont help, whinging about NAS won't help (read Anderson's latest statement on it in CASA's Flight (un)safety mag. You are gonna cop it.)
Are we gonna cop it!?!?! We will see I guess
What will help is if all of us stop sniping at each other and hit the government with some combined political clout so we get a system we all think will work.
, although me thinks “a system we all think will work” does not represent that which you and AOPA think will work. Your response to valid concerns raised above and the vast number of previous threads on these subjects make clear the vastness of the void between beliefs. Unless and until the common ground is struck within those parameters open to industry negotiation (Read that some system design requirements MUST be left to those expert in such matters), the sector will remain paralysed and haemorrhaging with disputation.
And at the moment the only organisation with the size and credibility to do this is AOPA. And anyone who says AOPA is just for PPLs will cop a roasting from hamilton, so, no matter what you think of the guy, he is representing you so represent yourselves to him!!!!
The sooner AOPA start communicating with their members and other Professional groups within industry to seek dialogue and perhaps common ground you will continue to fight alone!!!.
That said and given the annihilation occurring within AOPA at the minute, I sincerely hope the broom through will stop the rot and the organisation can return to doing what it should be i.e Representing the wishes of the majority of its members not the will of a small band of know-it-all’s. I would then seriously give consideration to rejoining, as would I suspect a large number of PPL/CPL ATC’s.
Last edited by Capcom; 11th Apr 2003 at 00:31.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS flounders?
Word is that Dick and the Minister have had a falling out or at least a significant difference of opinion. CASA has been caught in the firing line for doing its job.
The NAS team (?) seem to have disbanded.
It is more than likely that their project continues by stealth and you will read about it in the NOTAMS or AIP.
What a way to do business!
The NAS team (?) seem to have disbanded.
It is more than likely that their project continues by stealth and you will read about it in the NOTAMS or AIP.
What a way to do business!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic
Why would we be surprised that Dick and the Minister have had a falling out.
Surely the Minister knows that anyone having the temerity to challenge Indianas view on life will get the full "Temple of Doom" routine applied to him.
Indianas latest personal effort, not interestlingy enough published by ASA or the NAS group, is breathtaking in its arrogance and this is the dude who is desperate to be President of the Republic when and if it ever comes.
The NAS "team" disbanded??
May I suggest that it was only held together at Ministerial gunpoint to appease His Indianaship.
The resultant is distressingly, depressingly and boringly familiar.
Capcom
As usual
--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.
Why would we be surprised that Dick and the Minister have had a falling out.
Surely the Minister knows that anyone having the temerity to challenge Indianas view on life will get the full "Temple of Doom" routine applied to him.
Indianas latest personal effort, not interestlingy enough published by ASA or the NAS group, is breathtaking in its arrogance and this is the dude who is desperate to be President of the Republic when and if it ever comes.
The NAS "team" disbanded??
May I suggest that it was only held together at Ministerial gunpoint to appease His Indianaship.
The resultant is distressingly, depressingly and boringly familiar.
Capcom
As usual
--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,
This matches what I am hearing and the consternation referred to in the thread ol' Man Gaunty started.
Also rumours of the attempted resignation of the "Executive Vice President" of the implementation group. Ships and Rats!
As to why? Well where do we start?
1. Dick is involved
2. Ever increasing realisation that there ain't no "North American" model
3. Dick is involved
4. Dick's mates are involved (although also seeking to resign)
5. The need for a design safety case
6. Territorial disputes between the participants
7. Dick is involved
8. The Minister thinks he may become responsible for something
9. See 1.
Choose any or all of the above!
Also interesting how fast CASA managed to change CAO 82 to facilitate the IFR pickup cr@p. No NPRM, No consultation, No notification, No nuthin'. Pity it's still a cr@p procedure that nobdy uses.
This matches what I am hearing and the consternation referred to in the thread ol' Man Gaunty started.
Also rumours of the attempted resignation of the "Executive Vice President" of the implementation group. Ships and Rats!
As to why? Well where do we start?
1. Dick is involved
2. Ever increasing realisation that there ain't no "North American" model
3. Dick is involved
4. Dick's mates are involved (although also seeking to resign)
5. The need for a design safety case
6. Territorial disputes between the participants
7. Dick is involved
8. The Minister thinks he may become responsible for something
9. See 1.
Choose any or all of the above!
Also interesting how fast CASA managed to change CAO 82 to facilitate the IFR pickup cr@p. No NPRM, No consultation, No notification, No nuthin'. Pity it's still a cr@p procedure that nobdy uses.
