NAS apathy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS apathy
The current topics on the AVweb site may point to where we're going with NAS.
Have a look at
http://www.avweb.com/articles/mingle/
particularly the anecdote in the purple window and
http://www.avweb.com/articles/ifrpopup/
Is this worlds best practise??
One of the biggest impacts of NAS is the introduction of more E airspace. From what I have read on the NAS site, even they only have a vague idea of where new E airspace is to be established. It would surprise me greatly if the NAS committee has any statistical data to support their E airspace program.
Are you going to be charged for every instrument approach you make when you transition from E to G airspace?
Other sections of NAS are downright dangerous and totally unnecessary, particularly - Model NAS-Stage 3-Characteristic 7.
VFR climb procedures will confuse all users.
NAS is bad karma. It is rolling along without informed comment from those on the front line - both pilots and controllers.
The FAQ responses on the NAS are feeble and clerical.
The obsession that the US system is better must be challenged. By just reading the Avweb articles, it's obvious the US system is different, but not necessarily better or safer.
Since the "sticky" forum has gone, I think the subject has gone cold. NAS will not affect me greatly, but I know a crock when I see one. Thus far, characteristics 1 and 28 have been underwhelming - a bit of a softener for things to come.
Is any of this worth the dubious benefit of "free flight" for a few selected VFR's - something that is already enjoyed by most.
Seasons greetings from CG.
Have a look at
http://www.avweb.com/articles/mingle/
particularly the anecdote in the purple window and
http://www.avweb.com/articles/ifrpopup/
Is this worlds best practise??
One of the biggest impacts of NAS is the introduction of more E airspace. From what I have read on the NAS site, even they only have a vague idea of where new E airspace is to be established. It would surprise me greatly if the NAS committee has any statistical data to support their E airspace program.
Are you going to be charged for every instrument approach you make when you transition from E to G airspace?
Other sections of NAS are downright dangerous and totally unnecessary, particularly - Model NAS-Stage 3-Characteristic 7.
VFR climb procedures will confuse all users.
NAS is bad karma. It is rolling along without informed comment from those on the front line - both pilots and controllers.
The FAQ responses on the NAS are feeble and clerical.
The obsession that the US system is better must be challenged. By just reading the Avweb articles, it's obvious the US system is different, but not necessarily better or safer.
Since the "sticky" forum has gone, I think the subject has gone cold. NAS will not affect me greatly, but I know a crock when I see one. Thus far, characteristics 1 and 28 have been underwhelming - a bit of a softener for things to come.
Is any of this worth the dubious benefit of "free flight" for a few selected VFR's - something that is already enjoyed by most.
Seasons greetings from CG.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief galah
I only unstuck the NAS thread as there were other priorities going at the time and it was also getting too long and off thread.
I'm going to sticky this one and hope that we can keep the light shining on the subject.
The "promoters" of this scheme were quick to access the PPRuNe user base when they were trying to sell their "ideas", but have been very conspicuous by their absence when those "ideas" have been tested by those directly affected and those who actually know or have some real world experience to offer. But then they were never really good listeners.
I like you, fear a replay of the dabblers first attempt at "aviation reform" which was long on rhetoric but very short on useful fixes beyond firing everyone in sight and/or who disagreed with the direction. As usual the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.
We are still dealing with the wreckage.
I still feel embarrassment for the way Mr Leroy Keith was handled, notwithstanding that he was well skilled and experienced in and came from the very system that is now being touted as "the way".
His then very pivotal appointment was the result of an extremely thorough and presumably intense search and assessment and approved by the Chairman, Board and the Minister with much acclaim.
There maybe only 3 possible scenarios as to the final result.
1. The Recruitment Firm, The Chairman, The Board, The Minister ALL go the appointment totally wrong.
Don’t think so.
2. The real riding instructions he was ultimately given by the Chairman and Board on his appointment, were fundamentally flawed and totally incapable of professional implementation without serious risk to the safety case and delivering the huge cost savings loudly proclaimed by them to anyone who would listen.
Sound familiar.
3. When it came to the inevitable shoot out between the real professionals and the amateurs, as usual, it came down to who had the biggest gun and the most money and influence.
The really sad part is the thuggery against a profesional Public Servant who has no means of public redress and with only one means of protecting his/her professional reputation, being that of resigning.
It all sounds very familiar don’t you think.
And here we go again, or am I drawing a long bow here.
I only unstuck the NAS thread as there were other priorities going at the time and it was also getting too long and off thread.
I'm going to sticky this one and hope that we can keep the light shining on the subject.
The "promoters" of this scheme were quick to access the PPRuNe user base when they were trying to sell their "ideas", but have been very conspicuous by their absence when those "ideas" have been tested by those directly affected and those who actually know or have some real world experience to offer. But then they were never really good listeners.
I like you, fear a replay of the dabblers first attempt at "aviation reform" which was long on rhetoric but very short on useful fixes beyond firing everyone in sight and/or who disagreed with the direction. As usual the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.
We are still dealing with the wreckage.
I still feel embarrassment for the way Mr Leroy Keith was handled, notwithstanding that he was well skilled and experienced in and came from the very system that is now being touted as "the way".
His then very pivotal appointment was the result of an extremely thorough and presumably intense search and assessment and approved by the Chairman, Board and the Minister with much acclaim.
There maybe only 3 possible scenarios as to the final result.
1. The Recruitment Firm, The Chairman, The Board, The Minister ALL go the appointment totally wrong.
Don’t think so.
2. The real riding instructions he was ultimately given by the Chairman and Board on his appointment, were fundamentally flawed and totally incapable of professional implementation without serious risk to the safety case and delivering the huge cost savings loudly proclaimed by them to anyone who would listen.
Sound familiar.
3. When it came to the inevitable shoot out between the real professionals and the amateurs, as usual, it came down to who had the biggest gun and the most money and influence.
The really sad part is the thuggery against a profesional Public Servant who has no means of public redress and with only one means of protecting his/her professional reputation, being that of resigning.
It all sounds very familiar don’t you think.
And here we go again, or am I drawing a long bow here.
Last edited by Woomera; 22nd Dec 2002 at 02:57.
from Walleyworld
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS
You are quite right the NAS must not be allowed to be left to stealthy implementation.
It was interesting to read the comments by the pros and their troubles with MBZ calls. The srapping of MBZs and replacing them with CTAFs of only 10nm, is totally unacceptable to busy regional a/ps, recently it was claimed upto 12 a/c were in an MBZ at one time, personally I can vouch for 6 inbound and 2 on the deck leaving.
Try sorting that out on a 737 just reaching a 10mn CTAF!!
I am advised that BME CAG/RS welcomes 737 calls 45nm out in busy periods as 30/nm can be tight for interaction between the "relevent" A/C in the MBZ.
As the USA model is considered the bee's knees I spent 3 nights looking through the FAA mega web site.I was sure that a 10mn CTAF is unworkable and had been proved so by unacceptable frequency of incidents at Wagga, Ayers and Broome.
This is not a " I don't like this type" problem it is a "this cannot and has been proved not to be able to work" problem.So the USA system must have encounted the same point where CTAFs did not work. CASA and NAS does not specify any mixed use airports as busy as some of our regionals that use their proposed CTAF only system.Hence my FAA search and guess what.
NAS and the Smiths did not tell us or report on is an FSS being based at some regional A/Ps and providing LAA services ie:the same service presently done in Aussie as a CA/GRS in an MBZ weather etc on an ATIS and traffic advice on an airport based A/G frequency to aid separation.
My bet is the FAA use the FSS LAA procedures on A/Ps that are much smaller than our main regional A/Ps and still don't allow the landing of 737s RPT services on busy mixed use CTAF airports with or without LAA.If this is true we are going two steps down the safety ladder from ATC to CTAF+LAA to 10nmCTAF.
Can someone advise me on any busy USA regional A/P with mixed use that has 737 RPT ops and is not ATC or at least FSS LAA served?
Where are the Chef Pilots and Ops Managers public comments on the NAS proposals? or the unions and associations? Some of the NAS proposals to me are absolutely appalling and I sit in the back with the other lambs.
It was interesting to read the comments by the pros and their troubles with MBZ calls. The srapping of MBZs and replacing them with CTAFs of only 10nm, is totally unacceptable to busy regional a/ps, recently it was claimed upto 12 a/c were in an MBZ at one time, personally I can vouch for 6 inbound and 2 on the deck leaving.
Try sorting that out on a 737 just reaching a 10mn CTAF!!
I am advised that BME CAG/RS welcomes 737 calls 45nm out in busy periods as 30/nm can be tight for interaction between the "relevent" A/C in the MBZ.
As the USA model is considered the bee's knees I spent 3 nights looking through the FAA mega web site.I was sure that a 10mn CTAF is unworkable and had been proved so by unacceptable frequency of incidents at Wagga, Ayers and Broome.
This is not a " I don't like this type" problem it is a "this cannot and has been proved not to be able to work" problem.So the USA system must have encounted the same point where CTAFs did not work. CASA and NAS does not specify any mixed use airports as busy as some of our regionals that use their proposed CTAF only system.Hence my FAA search and guess what.
NAS and the Smiths did not tell us or report on is an FSS being based at some regional A/Ps and providing LAA services ie:the same service presently done in Aussie as a CA/GRS in an MBZ weather etc on an ATIS and traffic advice on an airport based A/G frequency to aid separation.
My bet is the FAA use the FSS LAA procedures on A/Ps that are much smaller than our main regional A/Ps and still don't allow the landing of 737s RPT services on busy mixed use CTAF airports with or without LAA.If this is true we are going two steps down the safety ladder from ATC to CTAF+LAA to 10nmCTAF.
Can someone advise me on any busy USA regional A/P with mixed use that has 737 RPT ops and is not ATC or at least FSS LAA served?
Where are the Chef Pilots and Ops Managers public comments on the NAS proposals? or the unions and associations? Some of the NAS proposals to me are absolutely appalling and I sit in the back with the other lambs.
The Industry have the clout to say yay or nay to the elements of NAS, but thus far the RAPACs have been silent, just accepting the NAS briefs with a few questions at best. Meanwhile behind the scenes implementation work continues (not that you would know it, due to the lack of communication).
Get in the ear of your association or industry rep.
Get in the ear of your association or industry rep.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worth repeating; the present system works quite well.
IF you take the US NAS system, take the lot!!
It is indeed a proven package which works well and can be applied here. What we don't know in this country [in the majority, at least] is the how it should be used. Users from both sides of the fence need a massive education program to cope.
Let me reiterate my "King Herod" principle [right time of the year, anyway!! ]; if you took all pilots and ATCO's over the age of 21 years and slaughtered them, you could safely import NAS [or any mature system, really] and those left would simply grow with it and get on with life! The problem is educating those over the age of 22 years to cope with the change.
I wonder is it all worth it [as in cost effective?]
G'day & Merry Xmas
IF you take the US NAS system, take the lot!!
It is indeed a proven package which works well and can be applied here. What we don't know in this country [in the majority, at least] is the how it should be used. Users from both sides of the fence need a massive education program to cope.
Let me reiterate my "King Herod" principle [right time of the year, anyway!!
]; if you took all pilots and ATCO's over the age of 21 years and slaughtered them, you could safely import NAS [or any mature system, really] and those left would simply grow with it and get on with life! The problem is educating those over the age of 22 years to cope with the change.I wonder is it all worth it [as in cost effective?]
G'day & Merry Xmas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Characteristic description (Number19) - VMC operations in Class E airspace
From
http://www.dotrs.gov.au/airspacerefo...ation_plan.htm
and
Who writes this stuff?
If you are operating VMC because you don't have an airways clearance, BECAUSE presumably Centre can't give you one, then how can you request an amended clearance????? I don't think Centre will be very happy with you, because you've just set them up with the situation they were trying to avoid.
Amended clearances just don't appear magically. Even with radar it can take some time to attain a legal separation standard.
I don't think the "responsibility for their own separation" is mutual. If you're the other traffic that is IFR and operating on a clearance and another pilot elects VMC operations because of you, do you have to participate in this procedure?
Do you have the option?
Will RPT companies want to participate? Have they been asked?
The Centre people I know all seem pretty uninformed about the E airspace proposals.
CG.
http://www.dotrs.gov.au/airspacerefo...ation_plan.htm
Where VMC exists and an airways clearance is not received an aircraft may enter Class E airspace.
Should the pilot be unable to maintain VMC, the pilot must immediately notify ATS and request an amended clearance,
If you are operating VMC because you don't have an airways clearance, BECAUSE presumably Centre can't give you one, then how can you request an amended clearance????? I don't think Centre will be very happy with you, because you've just set them up with the situation they were trying to avoid.
Amended clearances just don't appear magically. Even with radar it can take some time to attain a legal separation standard.
The requirements for operation in Class E airspace allow pilots of IFR aircraft the flexibility to assume responsibility for their own separation when VMC exists
Do you have the option?
Will RPT companies want to participate? Have they been asked?
The Centre people I know all seem pretty uninformed about the E airspace proposals.
CG.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally
How many times does one have to say that a CTAF / MBZ is NOT a parcel of airspace but a PROCEDURE.
Good airmanship should dictate that if a size is stated (or whatever) then you should be on that frequency earlier enough to sort out all the traffic NO LATER THAN THE STATED DISTANCE. Making the first call at 10nm (or wherever) is just plain dumb and creates more workload than any of us would want - especially at 250kts.!
No matter what size may be stated... 5, 10 or 15nm then by then you should have all the traffic sorted out and your approach planned.
Chief G
The EXISTING procedures for class E allow for an aeroplane other than an RPT to operate in Class E whilst VMC exist without even a call to any possible or known conflicting traffic. You just have an operating transponder.
Under LLAMP it was to be a 3way contract (both a/c and the controller). Not so under NAS. Notwithstanding the major beneficiary of this procedure will/would be regional RPT aircraft, especially where there is parallel scheduling and aircraft with differing performance.
Without the benefit of knowing what the NAS people are planning it is difficult to see any of the picture as yet, and as said above it seems very much as if only some elements of the NA system are to be introduced, and not the FULL package.
I would say however that the costing estimates (due by March) for the proposed NAS changes will grab the Ministers attention and then we may just see some changes…. again!
The people behind NAS must realise that to operate under a veil of secrecy and to implement by stealth is risking everything that they are aiming for. The sooner the AEG and the NAS group start operating in OPEN forum the sooner they might see some (?) understanding of what they have in mind. One reason the RAPACs have said little is that they have been told very little to date.
How many times does one have to say that a CTAF / MBZ is NOT a parcel of airspace but a PROCEDURE.
Good airmanship should dictate that if a size is stated (or whatever) then you should be on that frequency earlier enough to sort out all the traffic NO LATER THAN THE STATED DISTANCE. Making the first call at 10nm (or wherever) is just plain dumb and creates more workload than any of us would want - especially at 250kts.!
No matter what size may be stated... 5, 10 or 15nm then by then you should have all the traffic sorted out and your approach planned.
Chief G
The EXISTING procedures for class E allow for an aeroplane other than an RPT to operate in Class E whilst VMC exist without even a call to any possible or known conflicting traffic. You just have an operating transponder.
Under LLAMP it was to be a 3way contract (both a/c and the controller). Not so under NAS. Notwithstanding the major beneficiary of this procedure will/would be regional RPT aircraft, especially where there is parallel scheduling and aircraft with differing performance.
Without the benefit of knowing what the NAS people are planning it is difficult to see any of the picture as yet, and as said above it seems very much as if only some elements of the NA system are to be introduced, and not the FULL package.
I would say however that the costing estimates (due by March) for the proposed NAS changes will grab the Ministers attention and then we may just see some changes…. again!
The people behind NAS must realise that to operate under a veil of secrecy and to implement by stealth is risking everything that they are aiming for. The sooner the AEG and the NAS group start operating in OPEN forum the sooner they might see some (?) understanding of what they have in mind. One reason the RAPACs have said little is that they have been told very little to date.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apathy? Who Cares 
Why does nobody seems to care
1) There is a bunch of controllers waiting for VR and they hope that this may give them a way out. They are probably mainly TMA/Tower controllers and NAS is going to have little or no effect on them anyway.
2) A whole heap of them have become bitter and cynical (even more than usual)with ASA over the EBA negotiations and simply don't give a sh!t anymore. We will still get paid regardless of what system they decide to implement. They just want to go to work, separate the planes and get paid, regardless of how many times they "clearance not available"
3) A smaller number of people brown nosing there way to management and telling mis-management what they want to hear is good way to earn some brownie points for that non-traffic job they have always wanted.
4) People are sick of reading the massive amount of sh!t that regularly gets presented to them as "operation information". The latest work around, the latest software fault, indecipherable MATS instructions, LOAs, Management instructions. Add to this the very brief information that has been released on NAS its no wonder that nobody can even make a comment on it let alone care about it. The devil is always in the detail with these things. Remember the RVSM implementation debacle. It wasn't until some procedures were worked up that the fatal flaws in it were identified. NAS will be no different. Once the procedures have been worked out someone will come along and shoot it down.
I have seen airspace reform come and go about every 5 years. I think NAS has some good stuff in it. With a full implementation of ADS-B it may even work. But I am quite confident that NAS will go the way of all the others without any help from me.
Why does nobody seems to care
1) There is a bunch of controllers waiting for VR and they hope that this may give them a way out. They are probably mainly TMA/Tower controllers and NAS is going to have little or no effect on them anyway.
2) A whole heap of them have become bitter and cynical (even more than usual)with ASA over the EBA negotiations and simply don't give a sh!t anymore. We will still get paid regardless of what system they decide to implement. They just want to go to work, separate the planes and get paid, regardless of how many times they "clearance not available"
3) A smaller number of people brown nosing there way to management and telling mis-management what they want to hear is good way to earn some brownie points for that non-traffic job they have always wanted.
4) People are sick of reading the massive amount of sh!t that regularly gets presented to them as "operation information". The latest work around, the latest software fault, indecipherable MATS instructions, LOAs, Management instructions. Add to this the very brief information that has been released on NAS its no wonder that nobody can even make a comment on it let alone care about it. The devil is always in the detail with these things. Remember the RVSM implementation debacle. It wasn't until some procedures were worked up that the fatal flaws in it were identified. NAS will be no different. Once the procedures have been worked out someone will come along and shoot it down.
I have seen airspace reform come and go about every 5 years. I think NAS has some good stuff in it. With a full implementation of ADS-B it may even work. But I am quite confident that NAS will go the way of all the others without any help from me.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera,
Your bow is drawn to the correct tension for a bullseye shot. Money and influence beats skill, expertise and common sense every time.
Neither of the Smiths have demonstrated, in my personal experience, much interest in views which do not concur with their own. Their skills in dealing with contrary arguments vary but ignoring them where ever possible seems to work well.
And as Triadic well knows stealth is the preferred method of the NAS promoters.
They have access to key decisionmakers ie. the Minister that are simply not, and never well be, available to the industry while it a. relies on RAPACs to represent it and b. continually squabbles over minutae and detail and ignores broad policy matters and the direct influencing of politicians.
I suspect that, as willadvise surmises, some bits of NAS may see the light of day one day but it won't be soon.
Your bow is drawn to the correct tension for a bullseye shot. Money and influence beats skill, expertise and common sense every time.
Neither of the Smiths have demonstrated, in my personal experience, much interest in views which do not concur with their own. Their skills in dealing with contrary arguments vary but ignoring them where ever possible seems to work well.
And as Triadic well knows stealth is the preferred method of the NAS promoters.
They have access to key decisionmakers ie. the Minister that are simply not, and never well be, available to the industry while it a. relies on RAPACs to represent it and b. continually squabbles over minutae and detail and ignores broad policy matters and the direct influencing of politicians.
I suspect that, as willadvise surmises, some bits of NAS may see the light of day one day but it won't be soon.
from Walleyworld
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still no advise on 737 RPT ops into CTAF in the USA. Would really appreciate advise here to help with an appproach to the Minister.
Triadic, please excuse my terminology. As stated I am no pro but let me advise this "the Ctaf is only as safe as the worst pilot in the area." I like my life in the hands of the RPT captain,not the undertrained pilot flying VFR and leaving his call to the last minute then getting flustered when there is too much traffic.
In my previous reply above I stated an incident when there was 6 A/C in the MBZ and 2 on the deck taking off I know this as the AN captain had been kind enough to ask me up front.
Why it remains clear in my memory as it was the final straw that led me to demand a CA/GRS for Bme. In this case one 210 was between us and the A/P and was not coping he kept changing his position including Alt. The FO was handling comms and he and the Captain were becoming worried. Finally the Captain simply asked the 210 was he over land or sea when advised "land" he ceased descent levelled off and headed for the sea and approached from there.
I was impressed, but thought if the approach procedure was coming to this, it needed changing.At least the 210 was on the correct frequency 2 weeks later another incident was because of incorrect frequency. To tell the full story there was 5 incidents involing RPT A/C in 6 weeks!!
The reliance on transponders, to me, has no positive feedback if flying VFR in E class airspace. How do you know it is working or even switched on, the real confirmation is only from someone elses radar.
In Per out of Jandacot we lowlifes are told to turn them off when doing circuits etc. not a great learning curve for ops. When is a CTAS mandatory for RPT? will there be a pax carrying limit or some arbitary rule for turboprops?
While access to ministers is possible for me, one error can ruin your case, that is why I am seeking some guidence on the 737 ops in USA and am suprised there is no flags being raised by the pilot bodies and airlines it sure would help.
Chief, thanks the articles were great
Triadic, please excuse my terminology. As stated I am no pro but let me advise this "the Ctaf is only as safe as the worst pilot in the area." I like my life in the hands of the RPT captain,not the undertrained pilot flying VFR and leaving his call to the last minute then getting flustered when there is too much traffic.
In my previous reply above I stated an incident when there was 6 A/C in the MBZ and 2 on the deck taking off I know this as the AN captain had been kind enough to ask me up front.
Why it remains clear in my memory as it was the final straw that led me to demand a CA/GRS for Bme. In this case one 210 was between us and the A/P and was not coping he kept changing his position including Alt. The FO was handling comms and he and the Captain were becoming worried. Finally the Captain simply asked the 210 was he over land or sea when advised "land" he ceased descent levelled off and headed for the sea and approached from there.
I was impressed, but thought if the approach procedure was coming to this, it needed changing.At least the 210 was on the correct frequency 2 weeks later another incident was because of incorrect frequency. To tell the full story there was 5 incidents involing RPT A/C in 6 weeks!!
The reliance on transponders, to me, has no positive feedback if flying VFR in E class airspace. How do you know it is working or even switched on, the real confirmation is only from someone elses radar.
In Per out of Jandacot we lowlifes are told to turn them off when doing circuits etc. not a great learning curve for ops. When is a CTAS mandatory for RPT? will there be a pax carrying limit or some arbitary rule for turboprops?
While access to ministers is possible for me, one error can ruin your case, that is why I am seeking some guidence on the 737 ops in USA and am suprised there is no flags being raised by the pilot bodies and airlines it sure would help.
Chief, thanks the articles were great
Last edited by WALLEY; 23rd Dec 2002 at 16:09.
Most people in airline management are so sick and tired of trying to beat this thing to death that they have given up.
There is so much more that has a higher priority - rightly or wrongly - and the stealth method used by the Smiths to introduce this fiasco is aimed correctly - make little noise and those that pay the bills won't know what has hit them..
The introduction of Airspace 2000 by stealth is a disgrace, and both Smiths should be ashamed of themselves.
Have a merry christmas to you all - hopefully you will be with your families and not in an aeroplane....
There is so much more that has a higher priority - rightly or wrongly - and the stealth method used by the Smiths to introduce this fiasco is aimed correctly - make little noise and those that pay the bills won't know what has hit them..
The introduction of Airspace 2000 by stealth is a disgrace, and both Smiths should be ashamed of themselves.
Have a merry christmas to you all - hopefully you will be with your families and not in an aeroplane....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never flown outside Australia. I assumed that because we are more or less ICAO we are more or less flying by the same rules. I am intrigued by the comment in AvWeb's article
"In Class G it is legal (and generally stupid) for an instrument pilot -- or 10 instrument pilots -- to fly inside the clouds without an ATC clearance because it's uncontrolled airspace."
Are they suggesting to get a clearance in G or are they suggesting not to fly in cloud in G????
The US system must not work very well when there is a need for an article like this.
Do we rally want to import bits of that system???
"In Class G it is legal (and generally stupid) for an instrument pilot -- or 10 instrument pilots -- to fly inside the clouds without an ATC clearance because it's uncontrolled airspace."
Are they suggesting to get a clearance in G or are they suggesting not to fly in cloud in G????
The US system must not work very well when there is a need for an article like this.
Do we rally want to import bits of that system???
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ifly
Unlike the Class G here, the American G has no directed traffic information, and no specific segregation methods or standards therefore as they say it is stupid to do it if you have no way of knowing who you might be sharing a cloud with! Anyway, as G is uncontrolled a clearance is never required, IFR or VFR.
No, we really don't want "bits" of their system. The whole package is not afordable here, so that wont happen. The best we can hope for is that which is cost zero or minimal. If there are some efficiency gains then great.
deHD
you are correct. when the managers etc see the costs, then we will see some involvement and I suggest at a very high level. Just depends on how much can be introduced by stealth in the meantime.
Unlike the Class G here, the American G has no directed traffic information, and no specific segregation methods or standards therefore as they say it is stupid to do it if you have no way of knowing who you might be sharing a cloud with! Anyway, as G is uncontrolled a clearance is never required, IFR or VFR.
No, we really don't want "bits" of their system. The whole package is not afordable here, so that wont happen. The best we can hope for is that which is cost zero or minimal. If there are some efficiency gains then great.
deHD
you are correct. when the managers etc see the costs, then we will see some involvement and I suggest at a very high level. Just depends on how much can be introduced by stealth in the meantime.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,
All IFR federal airways in the US are controlled airspace (class E) from 1200'AGL up to 18000' (class A). Class E extends down to 700'AGL at a non controlled airport with an IFR approach procedure. To operate IFR in controlled airspace, you need to file an IFR flight plan and get an ATC clearance.
I Fly,
The US airspace system works very well and is mostly supported by the interest return of an aviation development fund set up in the early part of last century.
All IFR federal airways in the US are controlled airspace (class E) from 1200'AGL up to 18000' (class A). Class E extends down to 700'AGL at a non controlled airport with an IFR approach procedure. To operate IFR in controlled airspace, you need to file an IFR flight plan and get an ATC clearance.
I Fly,
The US airspace system works very well and is mostly supported by the interest return of an aviation development fund set up in the early part of last century.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun
Agreed. However there are "chunks" of G in the US which do not meet that criteria and to which the Avweb item might have been referring to (?). So as a rule IFR ops would always be in E (or ABCD).
This is obviously not the case here, nor I suggest ever will be. Therefore there will have to be procedures in NAS if IFR is to take place in G. On this basis alone, we can never say it will be the same!
Agreed. However there are "chunks" of G in the US which do not meet that criteria and to which the Avweb item might have been referring to (?). So as a rule IFR ops would always be in E (or ABCD).
This is obviously not the case here, nor I suggest ever will be. Therefore there will have to be procedures in NAS if IFR is to take place in G. On this basis alone, we can never say it will be the same!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, all low level IFR ops (below 18000'+ class A) are generally operating on the controlled airspace airways (class E) which are 4 miles wide each side.
Not sure how well the US airspace system applies here. The US have radar coverage to the ground almost everywhere. Their ATC works a lot harder for you (apples to apples comparing terminal area procedures). Outside controlled airspace, they are more comfortable relying on VMC see/avoid, ATC advisories, and TCAS warnings to make it work. It's a fine system once you get used to it.
Not sure how well the US airspace system applies here. The US have radar coverage to the ground almost everywhere. Their ATC works a lot harder for you (apples to apples comparing terminal area procedures). Outside controlled airspace, they are more comfortable relying on VMC see/avoid, ATC advisories, and TCAS warnings to make it work. It's a fine system once you get used to it.
from Walleyworld
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun
I thought TCAS was not meant to be anything other than an aid?
I cant see "see and avoid" working when there are 6 to 8 aircraft involved,hence the USA using LAA at some busy USA uncontrolled a/ps.
I have been asking in the North American "room" how it works early days but it seems the LAA gives the IFR traffic priority as the LAA is mainly at a/ps with bad vis.
Is this your or other crew experience?
Merry Xmas to all
I thought TCAS was not meant to be anything other than an aid?
I cant see "see and avoid" working when there are 6 to 8 aircraft involved,hence the USA using LAA at some busy USA uncontrolled a/ps.
I have been asking in the North American "room" how it works early days but it seems the LAA gives the IFR traffic priority as the LAA is mainly at a/ps with bad vis.
Is this your or other crew experience?
Merry Xmas to all
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS is a great aid if you have it. Several units available now for light GA aircraft. The see/avoid works (for the most part) - there have been a few midairs over the years at airports with both tower and not, due I think radio position misunderstanding or no radio. I flew jets (without TCAS) into many uncontrolled airports with several planes in circuit area, it can be a little tense, you sure need to keep your heads up. Slow guys will usually help you out. In the US, if you're an IFR in VMC, you have the same responsibilty to avoid traffic as a VFR guy.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My information (and I do not claim to be very well informed) is that outside radar coverage, i.e. the East coast and 150 miles around PH and AD, the base of Class E will be F180. This means that the 737 descending into a busy regional airport in IMC will not get traffic info on the Metro at F170, the Navaho at A100 or the C310 at A070. I would not have thought that this was an appealing prospect to pilots who venture outside the J-Curve.
Australia has a number of regions where there is significant traffic density but no radar coverage. I cannot see how NAS is safe or desirable for these areas.
Perhaps I am drastically overvaluing the importance of DTI, but the prospect of just cutting fast moving traffic lose to fend for themselves below F180 when I know there is likely to be traffic down there worries me.
Australia has a number of regions where there is significant traffic density but no radar coverage. I cannot see how NAS is safe or desirable for these areas.
Perhaps I am drastically overvaluing the importance of DTI, but the prospect of just cutting fast moving traffic lose to fend for themselves below F180 when I know there is likely to be traffic down there worries me.