Nas Snafu
Thread Starter
Nas Snafu
Heard a rumour this was going to happen, and here it is. Won't be the last I suspect 
A) HEAD OFFICE C0050/03 (PROC) 07080646
B) 0307091600 C) PERM
E) FURTHER TO THE PROVISIONS IDENTIFIED FOR INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) IN AIP SUP H23/03 (IFR OPERATIONS - CLASS E AIRSPACE VFR-ON-TOP / VFR CLIMB DESCENT) ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IS PROVIDED IN REGARD TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEPARATION IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE - ENR 1.3 SECTION 3.1. IN ESSENCE, EXISTING PROVISIONS OF ENR 1.3 SECTION 3.1 ARE RETAINED WITH PARAGRAPH 3.1.5 EXPANDED TO ALLOW FOR VFR-ON-TOP OPERATIONS.
SPECIFICALLY, PILOTS SHOULD SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING ENR 1.3 SECTION 3.1 TEXT TO REPLACE THAT CURRENTLY PUBLISHED IN SUP H23/03 (PAGE A6), AIP DATED 17 APRIL (PAGE ENR 1.3-2) AND AIP DATED 7 AUGUST 2003 (PAGE ENR 1.3-2):
3.1.1 IN CLASS A AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION BETWEEN IFR FLIGHTS. (ONLY IFR FLIGHTS ARE PERMITTED.)
3.1.2 IN CLASS C AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION AS FOLLOWS:
A. BETWEEN IFR FLIGHTS
B. BETWEEN IFR AND VFR FLIGHTS
C. BETWEEN IFR AND SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS AND D. BETWEEN SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS WHEN THE VISIBILITY IS LESS THAN VMC.
3.1.3 ADDITIONALLY, IN CLASS C AND CLASS D AIRSPACE:
A. AT CONTROLLED AERODROMES, APPROPRIATE RUNWAY SEPARATION IS APPLIED TO ALL AIRCRAFT AND
B. ATC PROVIDES VFR FLIGHTS WITH TRAFFIC INFORMATION ON OTHER VFR FLIGHTS.
3.1.4 IN CLASS D AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEPARATION STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES APPLICABLE WITHIN THAT AIRSPACE, AS FOLLOWS: A. BETWEEN IFR FLIGHTS
B. BETWEEN IFR AND VFR FLIGHTS
C. BETWEEN IFR AND SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS AND
D. BETWEEN SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS WHEN THE VISIBILITY IS LESS THAN VMC.
NOTE: A SEPARATION SERVICE IS A CONTROLLED CONDITION WHEREBY A SEPARATION STANDARD NEED NOT BE APPLIED BETWEEN IFR AND VFR AIRCRAFT.
3.1.5 IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION BETWEEN FLIGHTS THAT HAVE FILED IFR AND ARE IN RECEIPT OF AN AIRWAYS CLEARANCE. EXCEPT THAT, WHEN REQUESTED BY AN AIRCRAFT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, A FLIGHT MAY BE CLEARED WITHOUT SEPARATION BEING PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE FLIGHT CONDUCTED IN VMC.
3.1.6 FURTHERMORE, WHEN REQUESTED, AND AS FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE, ATC WILL PROVIDE VFR FLIGHTS IN CLASS C AIRSPACE WITH A SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION TO AVOID OTHER VFR FLIGHTS. NOTHING IN THIS PROVISION CHANGES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PILOT IN COMMAND TO SEE AND AVOID
OTHER AIRCRAFT (CAR 163A).
A) HEAD OFFICE C0050/03 (PROC) 07080646
B) 0307091600 C) PERM
E) FURTHER TO THE PROVISIONS IDENTIFIED FOR INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) IN AIP SUP H23/03 (IFR OPERATIONS - CLASS E AIRSPACE VFR-ON-TOP / VFR CLIMB DESCENT) ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IS PROVIDED IN REGARD TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEPARATION IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE - ENR 1.3 SECTION 3.1. IN ESSENCE, EXISTING PROVISIONS OF ENR 1.3 SECTION 3.1 ARE RETAINED WITH PARAGRAPH 3.1.5 EXPANDED TO ALLOW FOR VFR-ON-TOP OPERATIONS.
SPECIFICALLY, PILOTS SHOULD SUBSTITUTE THE FOLLOWING ENR 1.3 SECTION 3.1 TEXT TO REPLACE THAT CURRENTLY PUBLISHED IN SUP H23/03 (PAGE A6), AIP DATED 17 APRIL (PAGE ENR 1.3-2) AND AIP DATED 7 AUGUST 2003 (PAGE ENR 1.3-2):
3.1.1 IN CLASS A AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION BETWEEN IFR FLIGHTS. (ONLY IFR FLIGHTS ARE PERMITTED.)
3.1.2 IN CLASS C AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION AS FOLLOWS:
A. BETWEEN IFR FLIGHTS
B. BETWEEN IFR AND VFR FLIGHTS
C. BETWEEN IFR AND SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS AND D. BETWEEN SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS WHEN THE VISIBILITY IS LESS THAN VMC.
3.1.3 ADDITIONALLY, IN CLASS C AND CLASS D AIRSPACE:
A. AT CONTROLLED AERODROMES, APPROPRIATE RUNWAY SEPARATION IS APPLIED TO ALL AIRCRAFT AND
B. ATC PROVIDES VFR FLIGHTS WITH TRAFFIC INFORMATION ON OTHER VFR FLIGHTS.
3.1.4 IN CLASS D AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEPARATION STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES APPLICABLE WITHIN THAT AIRSPACE, AS FOLLOWS: A. BETWEEN IFR FLIGHTS
B. BETWEEN IFR AND VFR FLIGHTS
C. BETWEEN IFR AND SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS AND
D. BETWEEN SPECIAL VFR FLIGHTS WHEN THE VISIBILITY IS LESS THAN VMC.
NOTE: A SEPARATION SERVICE IS A CONTROLLED CONDITION WHEREBY A SEPARATION STANDARD NEED NOT BE APPLIED BETWEEN IFR AND VFR AIRCRAFT.
3.1.5 IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION BETWEEN FLIGHTS THAT HAVE FILED IFR AND ARE IN RECEIPT OF AN AIRWAYS CLEARANCE. EXCEPT THAT, WHEN REQUESTED BY AN AIRCRAFT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, A FLIGHT MAY BE CLEARED WITHOUT SEPARATION BEING PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE FLIGHT CONDUCTED IN VMC.
3.1.6 FURTHERMORE, WHEN REQUESTED, AND AS FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE, ATC WILL PROVIDE VFR FLIGHTS IN CLASS C AIRSPACE WITH A SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION TO AVOID OTHER VFR FLIGHTS. NOTHING IN THIS PROVISION CHANGES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PILOT IN COMMAND TO SEE AND AVOID
OTHER AIRCRAFT (CAR 163A).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can feel my head hurting again. I'm confused with what 'runway separation', 'separation services', 'separation standards' and just plain 'separation' means as part of this text?
They're all separate concepts, Lowdown
I'm trying to figure out whether "should" means what it says - i.e. I don't have to but I am strongly suggested to.
Or am I obliged to?
Airspace arrangements in Australia will always suffer from this chronic fuzziness, whilever they can be made by 'all-care-but-no-responsibility-or-power' dabblers.
I'm trying to figure out whether "should" means what it says - i.e. I don't have to but I am strongly suggested to.
Or am I obliged to?
Airspace arrangements in Australia will always suffer from this chronic fuzziness, whilever they can be made by 'all-care-but-no-responsibility-or-power' dabblers.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And where may I ask is the education about NAS for us poor hapless aviators? If the AIP SUPP is an example of the clarity of language we can expect, not to mention the timeliness and usefulness, then we are all in serious trouble
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't realise 'World's Best Practice' airspace that is ausNAS, allowed for the re-writing of definitions, separation .............things etc by AIP SUPP. How useful!
The circus rolls on.
The circus rolls on.
That's what I thought "should" meant. I "should" walk my dog each day, but I'm not breaching any rule if I don't.
So now we have optional pages for AIP. If it wasn't Australia, I'd be surprised.
So now we have optional pages for AIP. If it wasn't Australia, I'd be surprised.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one Creampuff.
tsnake, you want to know what happened to the education? I suspect you're looking at it. Any other method is incapable of keeping up with the last minute changes. It seems even the production process for the SUP takes too long. Won't be long before changes are made by NOTAM. Might have to implement a nationwide ATIS soon. Sort of reminds me of the dog chasing its own tail.
Let me see...
NOTE: A SEPARATION SERVICE IS A CONTROLLED CONDITION WHEREBY A SEPARATION STANDARD NEED NOT BE APPLIED BETWEEN IFR AND VFR AIRCRAFT.
Can this be interpreted to mean:
NOTE: A SEPARATION SERVICE IS A CONTROLLED CONDITION WHEREBY NO SEPARATION STANDARD CAN BE APPLIED BETWEEN IFR AND VFR AIRCRAFT.
Does this mean we might not get ANY separation service because there might not be a standard?
Oh, they're just words. Where's that NOTAM?
tsnake, you want to know what happened to the education? I suspect you're looking at it. Any other method is incapable of keeping up with the last minute changes. It seems even the production process for the SUP takes too long. Won't be long before changes are made by NOTAM. Might have to implement a nationwide ATIS soon. Sort of reminds me of the dog chasing its own tail.
Let me see...
NOTE: A SEPARATION SERVICE IS A CONTROLLED CONDITION WHEREBY A SEPARATION STANDARD NEED NOT BE APPLIED BETWEEN IFR AND VFR AIRCRAFT.
Can this be interpreted to mean:
NOTE: A SEPARATION SERVICE IS A CONTROLLED CONDITION WHEREBY NO SEPARATION STANDARD CAN BE APPLIED BETWEEN IFR AND VFR AIRCRAFT.
Does this mean we might not get ANY separation service because there might not be a standard?
Oh, they're just words. Where's that NOTAM?
Last edited by Lodown; 10th Jul 2003 at 07:46.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Text of this Notam is verbatim AIP except 3.1.5
C50/03
3.1.5 IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION BETWEEN FLIGHTS THAT HAVE FILED IFR AND ARE IN RECEIPT OF AN AIRWAYS CLEARANCE. EXCEPT THAT, WHEN REQUESTED BY AN AIRCRAFT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, A FLIGHT MAY BE CLEARED WITHOUT SEPARATION BEING PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE FLIGHT CONDUCTED IN VMC.
FROM 07 091600 TO PERM
How many IFR crews are happy with the prospect of another IFR pilot requesting and receiving a “VFR on top” clearance therefore denying you your IFR protection rights?.
I would be interested in your input Creampuff!.
It would seem to me that unless both aircraft commanders were asked and agreed to the VFR procedure, then one crew are effectively unable to retain their IFR protection against their will!?!
The only time IFR would not receive descent/climb etc when requested is when there is conflicting traffic. Why then heighten the chances of a collision when separation cannot be achieved?? Tis odd to me!!
I would imagine that ATC’s would not be silly enough to remove the IFR protection to the second/other aircraft until the legal ramifications are clearly identified!!.
The fact that this turned up on the system the night before inception seems to smack of the same tactics used during the “G” fiasco, “We will post it just prior so they cannot argue until after it is in place”. From comments above I assume the education is up to its usual timely high standard.
C50/03
3.1.5 IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, ATC PROVIDES SEPARATION BETWEEN FLIGHTS THAT HAVE FILED IFR AND ARE IN RECEIPT OF AN AIRWAYS CLEARANCE. EXCEPT THAT, WHEN REQUESTED BY AN AIRCRAFT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE, A FLIGHT MAY BE CLEARED WITHOUT SEPARATION BEING PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE FLIGHT CONDUCTED IN VMC.
FROM 07 091600 TO PERM
How many IFR crews are happy with the prospect of another IFR pilot requesting and receiving a “VFR on top” clearance therefore denying you your IFR protection rights?.
I would be interested in your input Creampuff!.
It would seem to me that unless both aircraft commanders were asked and agreed to the VFR procedure, then one crew are effectively unable to retain their IFR protection against their will!?!
The only time IFR would not receive descent/climb etc when requested is when there is conflicting traffic. Why then heighten the chances of a collision when separation cannot be achieved?? Tis odd to me!!
I would imagine that ATC’s would not be silly enough to remove the IFR protection to the second/other aircraft until the legal ramifications are clearly identified!!.
The fact that this turned up on the system the night before inception seems to smack of the same tactics used during the “G” fiasco, “We will post it just prior so they cannot argue until after it is in place”. From comments above I assume the education is up to its usual timely high standard.
We haven't seen much of Open Mic lately. I must do a search and see when he last posted...
on the 13th May in a thread about mad max films.
So Mike, can you explain the NOTAM? Maybe a brief rundown on the various uses of the word SEPARATION.
on the 13th May in a thread about mad max films.
So Mike, can you explain the NOTAM? Maybe a brief rundown on the various uses of the word SEPARATION.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this just making a previously missed section of AIP read like the other bits changed by AIP SUP or is something changed here from what was intended? I'm a little confused
I can't read crap like this without the old text there to compare.
As an ATC I won't even consider the safety of using these procedures, (except in the crazy exception in the documents of holding patterns at night). If anything bad happens, it doesn't happen to me. If I bang 'em together hard enuf I'll be the only one at the inquest.
Seriously though, my only considerations are workload. If I have time to spit out all the traffic, and enough airspace to move the aeroplanes to begin with, I'll do it. The only vote the "other" aeroplane gets is if he can convince me there is no way VMC could exist, otherwise the project (and my employer) has given me this tool to move aeroplanes through my airspace and I'll use it.
I can't read crap like this without the old text there to compare.
As an ATC I won't even consider the safety of using these procedures, (except in the crazy exception in the documents of holding patterns at night). If anything bad happens, it doesn't happen to me. If I bang 'em together hard enuf I'll be the only one at the inquest.
Seriously though, my only considerations are workload. If I have time to spit out all the traffic, and enough airspace to move the aeroplanes to begin with, I'll do it. The only vote the "other" aeroplane gets is if he can convince me there is no way VMC could exist, otherwise the project (and my employer) has given me this tool to move aeroplanes through my airspace and I'll use it.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem to me that unless both aircraft commanders were asked and agreed to the VFR procedure, then one crew are effectively unable to retain their IFR protection against their will!?!
Lordy, lordy, give me a friggin bone!!! Reason we have this CASA drivel is to appease the rectal rententive pencil pushers like yourself.....
Please Mr aircraft commander, when not in cloud...
...keep your eyes out the window and monitor your TCAS. 
Friggin basic.... High time for Aussie pilots to snap out of the stone age and get jiggy with it.....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun,
Much of the civilized world holds the opinion that Americans are arrogant, uninformed loud mouths who are constantly wading in to other peoples problems armed with nothing more than a false belief in the infallibility of all things American. Generally doing more harm than good.
(Iran, Chile, Nicuaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan again, Iraq again and NAS being good examples)
Your measured, reasoned contributions to this and other debates assist immeasurably in dispelling this belief.
Keep up the good work
Much of the civilized world holds the opinion that Americans are arrogant, uninformed loud mouths who are constantly wading in to other peoples problems armed with nothing more than a false belief in the infallibility of all things American. Generally doing more harm than good.
(Iran, Chile, Nicuaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan again, Iraq again and NAS being good examples)
Your measured, reasoned contributions to this and other debates assist immeasurably in dispelling this belief.
Keep up the good work
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWT,
Per capita, Much of the civilized world holds the opinion that Australians are arrogant, uninformed loud mouths who are constantly wading in to other peoples problems armed with nothing more than a false belief in the infallibility of all things Australian.
Generally doing........nothing much, they really don't make much difference .
(Vietnam, Bougainville, Fiji almost, Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, Solomons again)
Your unmeasured, unreasoned contributions to this and other debates assist immeasurably to this belief.
Kiss my ass.
PS: I have never held a US passport (but have many others )
Per capita, Much of the civilized world holds the opinion that Australians are arrogant, uninformed loud mouths who are constantly wading in to other peoples problems armed with nothing more than a false belief in the infallibility of all things Australian.
Generally doing........nothing much, they really don't make much difference .
(Vietnam, Bougainville, Fiji almost, Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, Solomons again)
Your unmeasured, unreasoned contributions to this and other debates assist immeasurably to this belief.
Kiss my ass.
PS: I have never held a US passport (but have many others
)
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not exactly sold on NAS as it is; but why, oh why, Winstun do think your electronic equivalent of jumping on a barstool and shouting "youse are all f*ckwits that don't matter" is going to sell anybody? To follow that line of "reasoning" I should only read the Washington Post, it would just be inconceivable that anything approaching a world view could appear in the Age?
Could you put your cards on the table? Are you attempting to scuttle the project by portraying people who support it as the sort of rude, overbearing facists who honestly couldn't imagine that anybody else COULD have an opinion?
Either way you are, per capita, the most unpleasant poster on this forum. A complete disgrace. If I wanted to kiss your ass I'd have to pull your pointy head out first.
Could you put your cards on the table? Are you attempting to scuttle the project by portraying people who support it as the sort of rude, overbearing facists who honestly couldn't imagine that anybody else COULD have an opinion?
Either way you are, per capita, the most unpleasant poster on this forum. A complete disgrace. If I wanted to kiss your ass I'd have to pull your pointy head out first.
Thread Starter
Winstun
I think most of the civilised world thinks that applies to Amercians. Most of the civilised world wouldn't know where Australia is, let along what we are involved in except sport.
And if you are trying to sell NAS, you are doing as good a job as the buscuit maker did. Which is why he was told to keep a low profile because he wasn't doing the project any favours publically sticking his nose in. And losing arguments.
Much of the civilized world holds the opinion that Australians are arrogant, uninformed loud mouths who are constantly wading in to other peoples problems
And if you are trying to sell NAS, you are doing as good a job as the buscuit maker did. Which is why he was told to keep a low profile because he wasn't doing the project any favours publically sticking his nose in. And losing arguments.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun,
I note that you didn't/couldn't reply to my last post on on the NAS Doomed thread, so I'll continue hounding you on this one. It would be beneficial for all in this debate if you, and your bugsmasher mates, get it into your thick head that it is not possible to for me and my RPT mates to merely put their head out the window and avoid other aircraft with any certainly of preventing a midair. Period. Your complete unwillingness to accept this fact can only be explained by your complete lack of understanding of what goes on in and around an aeroplane bigger than a 152. See and Avoid for civil (Pike note) aeroplanes greater than bugsmasher size is a stupid idea, whether in VMC (ha ha, I bet) or not.
Re your suggestion about using TCAS, could you please advise then why ATC refuse to use it as a separation tool? And besides, ICAO do not permit it's use as a collision-avoidance mitigator in alphabet airspace. Besides, you clowns don't even need a transponder below 10k, so TCAS will be a great help eh!
I note that you didn't/couldn't reply to my last post on on the NAS Doomed thread, so I'll continue hounding you on this one. It would be beneficial for all in this debate if you, and your bugsmasher mates, get it into your thick head that it is not possible to for me and my RPT mates to merely put their head out the window and avoid other aircraft with any certainly of preventing a midair. Period. Your complete unwillingness to accept this fact can only be explained by your complete lack of understanding of what goes on in and around an aeroplane bigger than a 152. See and Avoid for civil (Pike note) aeroplanes greater than bugsmasher size is a stupid idea, whether in VMC (ha ha, I bet) or not.
Re your suggestion about using TCAS, could you please advise then why ATC refuse to use it as a separation tool? And besides, ICAO do not permit it's use as a collision-avoidance mitigator in alphabet airspace. Besides, you clowns don't even need a transponder below 10k, so TCAS will be a great help eh!