NAS in WA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS in WA.
On advice from Woomera I have moved this from the NAS thread in questions.
As an ATC working the Western portion of our wide brown land, I am particularly interested to hear comment from pilots operating in this somewhat unique part of the world (particularly the Goldfields).
Is the Directed Traffic Information service we currently provide useful?
Would you miss it if it was gone? (NAS stage3)
How do you feel about the removal of the existing non-standard MBZs? (YLST, YBWG etc)
What are your thoughts on the removal of FIA boundaries from the ERC Lows - effectively ensuring that any VFR outside 10 miles from an AD will not hear your TOD broadcast?
Will you use IFR pickup or VFR on top when they become available Nov 27?
Are you aware that in IMC, if we cant issue a clearance due traffic diverting everywhere, after Nov 27 you will be stuck at F180 instead of F200, and after stage 3 (date unknown) you will be stuck there with no traffic info on anything else down there?
I would also be interested in any general bitches/suggestions for improvement.
As an ATC working the Western portion of our wide brown land, I am particularly interested to hear comment from pilots operating in this somewhat unique part of the world (particularly the Goldfields).
Is the Directed Traffic Information service we currently provide useful?
Would you miss it if it was gone? (NAS stage3)
How do you feel about the removal of the existing non-standard MBZs? (YLST, YBWG etc)
What are your thoughts on the removal of FIA boundaries from the ERC Lows - effectively ensuring that any VFR outside 10 miles from an AD will not hear your TOD broadcast?
Will you use IFR pickup or VFR on top when they become available Nov 27?
Are you aware that in IMC, if we cant issue a clearance due traffic diverting everywhere, after Nov 27 you will be stuck at F180 instead of F200, and after stage 3 (date unknown) you will be stuck there with no traffic info on anything else down there?
I would also be interested in any general bitches/suggestions for improvement.
A couple of times a day it gets pretty congested around there, removing the mbz's doesn't seem like a very good idea, what will it be replaced with? As low level traffic I used to sight visually several higher level aircraft every trip, that area needs the best information service possible, having to listen to traffic as far afield as Albany and Geraldton didnt help either.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZs replaced by US style CTAF with no defined boundary, but apparently 10nm and 2000ft is the common practice, no mandatory calls - recommended practice only.
I assume from your post that you operated VFR out there, If so what importance do you place on being able to hear other a/c on radio? (not encouraged after Nov 27)
I assume from your post that you operated VFR out there, If so what importance do you place on being able to hear other a/c on radio? (not encouraged after Nov 27)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The goldfields area, as most pilots know who fly in that region would know, can get extremely congested at particular times of the day, hence communication in any form whether by broadcast or traffic advisory/separation is essential, since the majority of this traffic is high performance turboprops with some jet traffic thrown in also.
I get the feeling that the new system is going to make things very difficult indeed, if not , possibly with an element of danger.
I may be lacking a little in knowledge with regard the new airspace, and I'm definately not the only one, but the information has been a little confusing at best.
Seems to me these days that saving the all important dollar has overtaken ensuring safe skies to a big extent.
I get the feeling that the new system is going to make things very difficult indeed, if not , possibly with an element of danger.
I may be lacking a little in knowledge with regard the new airspace, and I'm definately not the only one, but the information has been a little confusing at best.
Seems to me these days that saving the all important dollar has overtaken ensuring safe skies to a big extent.
Seasonally Adjusted
The MBZ grouping that has taken place at both LST-MNE and LTN-LEO has been a great improvement. With the volume of fly-in-fly-out traffic that arrives from Perth I would have thought that anything less would result in a huge drop in safety.
I regularly cross these busy flight paths below 10 000
and always go IFR due to the volume of traffic. It's not such a problem when the overflying turboprops/jets are descending into LTN or Sunrise Dam etc as they are well above, but up around LST we are very much sharing the same airspace.
and traffic advice is essential.
I can't imagine the FIFO operators would be very happy with the proposed changes either, especially when Leinster turns into a mini Heathrow as it does from time to time.
I regularly cross these busy flight paths below 10 000
and always go IFR due to the volume of traffic. It's not such a problem when the overflying turboprops/jets are descending into LTN or Sunrise Dam etc as they are well above, but up around LST we are very much sharing the same airspace. and traffic advice is essential.I can't imagine the FIFO operators would be very happy with the proposed changes either, especially when Leinster turns into a mini Heathrow as it does from time to time.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wake up this country needs a ****** shakeup
It is frankly alarming to find out that Aussie IFR pilots have not been looking out the window all these years. "High performance turboprops and some jets.." 
Big deal 
My gawd, these geriatrics would have a heart attack if they tried flying in the USA. While we're fermenting in this ATC reform process, perhaps the FAA could send over some sorely needed pilot educators as well. 
Big deal My gawd, these geriatrics would have a heart attack if they tried flying in the USA. While we're fermenting in this ATC reform process, perhaps the FAA could send over some sorely needed pilot educators as well.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS in WA
Is it the sky that is congested (not likely) or the airwaves, 2 or 3 aircraft doing a lot of talking can make it seem that the sky is full.
YLST a mini Heathrow i dont think so.
YLST a mini Heathrow i dont think so.
short flights long nights
I have got a really mad idea. Lets create a thing called a Flight Service Unit. They could be based at busy country airports, like Kal.
They could, I suggest, offer traffic information about ALL aircraft within, say, 30nm (or perhaps more) of the airport. They would also have their own "FIR" and provide information to aircraft within that FIR via VHF sat links or on HF Freqs. Other FSUs could monitor the HF Freqs and relay traffic movements, as required, by landline between FSUs around Australia. On the ground, the people that man these FSUs could offer SERVICES to pilots, like WX Breifings, ACCEPTACNCE OF FLIGHT PLANS, and "local knowledge" information. ( A crazy concept...I admit). In the air, pilots could request updated TAFS and WX, and also recieve "advise" from a person on the ground, which in a great number of circumstances, if they are a local operator, they probably know personally.
This may make the use of "non controlled airspace/airports a lot safer, and easier for pilots to work with.
Nahhh ..........it will never take off!!!!
They could, I suggest, offer traffic information about ALL aircraft within, say, 30nm (or perhaps more) of the airport. They would also have their own "FIR" and provide information to aircraft within that FIR via VHF sat links or on HF Freqs. Other FSUs could monitor the HF Freqs and relay traffic movements, as required, by landline between FSUs around Australia. On the ground, the people that man these FSUs could offer SERVICES to pilots, like WX Breifings, ACCEPTACNCE OF FLIGHT PLANS, and "local knowledge" information. ( A crazy concept...I admit). In the air, pilots could request updated TAFS and WX, and also recieve "advise" from a person on the ground, which in a great number of circumstances, if they are a local operator, they probably know personally.
This may make the use of "non controlled airspace/airports a lot safer, and easier for pilots to work with.
Nahhh ..........it will never take off!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere Hot n Sandy
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LST MBZ gets very congested with 10(ish) jet/turboprop aircraft trying to get in and out of the various airstrips within a short period of time. Anyone that goes into the area on a Wed afternoon will have experienced this.
With a typical closing speed of 420kts {(280) descent, (140) Climb} with your head inside the cockpit for 20 seconds you've closed 2.3 nm - how far can YOU see ahead ??
See and avoid is a great cost saver until there is a collision.
How much local pilot input have the Australian NAS implementation team sought during this project?
Fizzy
With a typical closing speed of 420kts {(280) descent, (140) Climb} with your head inside the cockpit for 20 seconds you've closed 2.3 nm - how far can YOU see ahead ??
See and avoid is a great cost saver until there is a collision.
How much local pilot input have the Australian NAS implementation team sought during this project?
Fizzy
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do some research into the all seeing all knowing US airspace and find out how many mid airs they have had in the past 20 odd years...then post your findings here and explain why they are all dead would you?
Why should GA pay for ATS? If the system which currently costs about 70cents per PAX flown was charged as a TAX (ASA revenue divided by Pax flown), say $1.00 (maybe even $2.00), then GA companies small RPT or charter ops would only pay for the amount of PAX they carry, i.e. ****** all. Majors would pay for majority of charges, expenditure, investment, but if it was a PAX cost TAX, such as the soon to be removed ANSETT tax, it wouldn't worry the majors at all; also if they carried 20 PAX on a 767, then their cost would be $20.00, nothing like it is now. Maybe a set cost for freight only operators.
We need to get away from ATC is provided in a profit regime; all it does is alienate staff, alienate customers, subject it to radical unreasonable change which generally delivers no real benefit whatsoever.
NAS: More freedom for a few VFRs, that's great, more RISK for IFRs, more confusion (higher workload) and risk for ATC. Oh yeah, forget the rhetoric more cost for all.
We currently have 60 consoles, according to Wes, to suggest we can reduce anything is a joke, we have made moves to have more consoles open during the day, from an ATC perspective NAS is harder (more responsibility to watch the scope). During peaks we'll have about the same, during the slack, more open... How does that save money?
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even when the spin is shown to be BS, nobody seems to care. Watching from afar, it appears the majority of resistance is coming from a very small group. Most of the pilot group don't seem to care about the ramifications. Will there be a groundswell at the last minute? Or will the step-by-step dismantling have done it's job?
The purpose of this group is to drive this change process- not to consult, listen, modify, be reasonable, look after the nation's interests or any other altruistic concept.
Fission: You needn't worry so much about a collision!
They will be able to tell you all how to cope with the 35.6 midairs per year (avg.) they suffer, even with 2700 Flight Service Officers (or 'Specialists' as they are called), VFR flight following under near-total radar coverage etc. etc. Why, in the states, they even consider air traffic important enough to legislate to protect ATC from privatisation! (Lautenburg amendment).
The govt already taxes aviation through forcing AsA to make a profit. How could anyone be so naive as to think govt would reduce it's taxes? The infrastructure costs are going to be the same before and after ausNAS- who will bear that? Not the govt. Wonder why aviation is struggling? I was recently (yesterday) searching for an internal airfare (MEL- DWN rtn). $406+116 tax and charges ???? My god there are some screwed up priorities out there, Dick et al. Why aren't you raging against the tax office, instead of the airspace? Flog the airports off, let the charges climb and climb, then blame inefficient controllers?
I just hope, in the future, the lawyers find a way to pin the accidents on those responsible for this disgrace, and hurt them where they feel it most- their pockets.
How much local pilot input have the Australian NAS implementation team sought during this project?
Fission: You needn't worry so much about a collision!
While we're fermenting in this ATC reform process, perhaps the FAA could send over some sorely needed pilot educators as well.
The govt already taxes aviation through forcing AsA to make a profit. How could anyone be so naive as to think govt would reduce it's taxes? The infrastructure costs are going to be the same before and after ausNAS- who will bear that? Not the govt. Wonder why aviation is struggling? I was recently (yesterday) searching for an internal airfare (MEL- DWN rtn). $406+116 tax and charges ???? My god there are some screwed up priorities out there, Dick et al. Why aren't you raging against the tax office, instead of the airspace? Flog the airports off, let the charges climb and climb, then blame inefficient controllers?
I just hope, in the future, the lawyers find a way to pin the accidents on those responsible for this disgrace, and hurt them where they feel it most- their pockets.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 62
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c'mon Ferris,
Wintsun was meant to do that research....
But i do wonder how all those 36.5 midairs per year occur, with FSS, radar down to zot feet and everyone looking out the window?
So Wintsun....care to enlighten us all??
Wintsun was meant to do that research....
But i do wonder how all those 36.5 midairs per year occur, with FSS, radar down to zot feet and everyone looking out the window?
So Wintsun....care to enlighten us all??
Seasonally Adjusted
Going back to one of the original questions...
Pardon my ignorance but how will removing MBZ's save money? And replacing them with a US styled CTAF doesn't sound like a step in the right direction. 
How do you feel about the removal of the existing non-standard MBZs? (YLST, YBWG etc)
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towering Q is right!!!!. Monday morning and Wednesday can be bloody scary up here. thats the reason I fly around at fifty feet.......... to stay away from all you guys. we have a couple of fokers every other day mixed up with Bae's doing there let downs over the NDB and the odd metro, conquest,402, and 1900s all ripping about the same bit of space around the same time of day. all we need to complete the scene is a couple of nervouse non comunicative chinese and viola..... great day to stay home.
Seasonally Adjusted
Hey Wiz, 50 feet is probably the safest place to be. If you keep clear of anything that resembles a runway whilst you're out there terrorizing the livestock you should be OK.
Don't forget the Smash 8 and Braz..
Don't forget the Smash 8 and Braz..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the responses.
It seems to me that some of the characteristics of NAS will be none too good for pilots operating in this part of the world. Unfortunately the perception is that it is the boonies and there cant really be any aeroplanes out there. Those of us that work the sectors or fly there regularly know differently.
Ultimately it will be up to the aircraft operators to make their needs known to the people that are driving this juggernaut. We humble ATCs have our opinions but noone much listens to us. Any suggestion that this is not a good way to go brings accusations of union skulduggery from the usual suspect.
Personally I think that it is occasionally frightening out there now, any reduction in service level would be very foolish.
I would be most interested to hear any suggestions or complaints about the way the system is working now, since they have moved us over to sunny Melbourne we dont get much feedback from customers.
It seems to me that some of the characteristics of NAS will be none too good for pilots operating in this part of the world. Unfortunately the perception is that it is the boonies and there cant really be any aeroplanes out there. Those of us that work the sectors or fly there regularly know differently.
Ultimately it will be up to the aircraft operators to make their needs known to the people that are driving this juggernaut. We humble ATCs have our opinions but noone much listens to us. Any suggestion that this is not a good way to go brings accusations of union skulduggery from the usual suspect.
Personally I think that it is occasionally frightening out there now, any reduction in service level would be very foolish.
I would be most interested to hear any suggestions or complaints about the way the system is working now, since they have moved us over to sunny Melbourne we dont get much feedback from customers.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So even in VMC, it sounds like a tricky situation for the enroute controller to be able to issue clearances.
One thing that has struck me about IFR pickup is this.
Aircraft A is happily going along in E airspace on a IFR clearance. The cloud is SCT and the aircraft is in and out of it and high enough not to worry too much about VFR's.
Aircraft B launches from underneath/ is crossing/ and wants to climb through A.
Centre can only assign B a level below A. They are being positively separated.
B decides to go VFR, and climb through A, whilst avoiding cloud.
Suddenly A is no longer being separated. His clearance is voided while B does his thing.
A has had no say in this, and did not want to participate in the process.
Is this how E airspace is intended to be used?
CG
One thing that has struck me about IFR pickup is this.
Aircraft A is happily going along in E airspace on a IFR clearance. The cloud is SCT and the aircraft is in and out of it and high enough not to worry too much about VFR's.
Aircraft B launches from underneath/ is crossing/ and wants to climb through A.
Centre can only assign B a level below A. They are being positively separated.
B decides to go VFR, and climb through A, whilst avoiding cloud.
Suddenly A is no longer being separated. His clearance is voided while B does his thing.
A has had no say in this, and did not want to participate in the process.
Is this how E airspace is intended to be used?
CG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now consider the above scenario with 4 or 5 IFR aircraft beetling along in proximity on clearances at flight levels, happy that they are separated by ATC. Then a gungho citation driver launches and is unhappy to be restricted by the nasty ATCs, he calls IFR pickup or VFR climb and off he goes, straight through the lot of them. Nobody else gets a say.
Better be on your toes.
Note that this will be taking place in airspace that is currently Class C (between 200 and 245).
Better be on your toes.
Note that this will be taking place in airspace that is currently Class C (between 200 and 245).