Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

BASI "Limitations of See & Avoid" ??

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

BASI "Limitations of See & Avoid" ??

Old 9th Aug 2003, 21:22
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194
Cap'n C - no need to get personal, "sunshine"......

A Beechjet goes in and out of Temora, for instance -
I understand it carries the fellow behind the museum.......been there a couple of times with everything from the Beechjet and Chieftains to no-radio Drifters, Karatoos and Sapphires (you do know what a Karatoo and a Sapphire are, don't you? ) there, with IFR arcraft coming down through a mid-level overcast to where the visual folk were flying. This is not a "new" situation promulgated by Dick Smith.

You're right about not all TSO'ed GPS's having offset, apologies. The GNS430/530 combos coupled to A/P I've flown seem to be just under 1NM to R of track en-route and a *much* lesser distance to R of track in TERM mode, automatically - beats wandering around on a scalloping VOR radial. It's not illegal to be "off track" outside controlled airspace (BTW OCA means Oceanic Control Area, not outside control area) and RNAV tolerances for those who inadvertently wander are +/- 2NM before notification is required). For VFR ACFT there is a recommendation re: track offset for use of GPS made in an old AIC that is now buried in the CASA or ASA site - really should be promulgated more widely and used for IFR as well, in my opinion.

Quote: "I'll bet you london to a brick that your average joe-blow VFR is now spending more time in the cockpit drooling over his GPS than looking out!" .... and has the midair rate increased??

Quote: "Dick got rid of quadrantal levels" .... and has the midair rate increased??

We'll have to disagree re: plenty of places where aircraft mix it not on the same frequency. You may or may not be aware how many ACFT actually are able to get airborne without a radio or whose hand-held plug-in has very limited range, not to mention those boundary crossing scenarios or the high speed jet route areas (have a look at the Area 40 NOTAMs tonight for a nice chunk of Australian airspace). Radios are not compulsory in CTAFs or below 5000'. Aircraft without TXP are not visible on TCAS.

The only point of my overtaking vs. passing scenario was to try to get some answer from ASA folks as to the actual discrimination in DISTANCE (not time) that they can discern - WhatWasThat referred to a "minute", but that can refer to wildly different volumes of airspace. As for dangerous situations, I would contend that the overtaking descent/climb would be the potentially most dangerous, as I understand that it
has been the cause of most midairs in the aerodrome vicinity and circuit.

I think that the radio calls, transponder and concentrated look out make a positive contribution to safety in the vicinity of busier aerodromes, and I'd like to think that they do en-route..... but am not convinced really how much contribution they actually make in the latter situation in the low density traffic environment outside the major centres of Australia. Sometimes we're a bit bit precious about things we'd like to believe we have control over.......

And yes, I read the BASI report when it first came out.

Safe flying

NOtimTAMs
NOtimTAMs is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2003, 22:16
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Tim,

Arhh the old beechjet trick. Thanks for that really representative "jet" operation, upon which to base an argument. I do not know what a Karatoo and a Sapphire are, nor do I care. People are free to fly whatever they like, as long as they don't get in my way, or at least tell me that they are there, because, by the time I pick them up visually, they're dead (aswill probably be me and my pax). Perhaps you could give us a rundown on the visibility from, and the manoeuvrability of, said bugsmashers.

My post said OCA, because that was what I meant to say. I would have thought that you would have known why your GPS is consistently off track, or don't you have a manual for it, like you're supposed to if you're IFR?

I am also aware that radio is not compulsory in CTAFs: using it, if you have it, IS!!! When are you going to get the message?? That is one of the major differences between now and NAS!

Big deal about the "recommendation" to track off track: where is it is plain view for all the new chum VFRs to read?

And ref your quotes of mine increasing the midair rate: the rate is increasing: they just haven't started yet. But they will. Then what are you going to do? Say "it's all in the statistics: bound to happen, fact of life, get over it"?
Captain Custard is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2003, 12:08
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Tim and others who love the USNAS,

And while I'm on my hobby horse about the lunacy of unalerted See and Avoid, one country, a while ago (before Dick messed around with airspace in the name of harmonisation), had a speed limitation below 5000ft of 210kt, just to make lookout easier. It WASN'T the yanks or the boffins at ICAO headquarters....
Captain Custard is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2003, 16:14
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194
Aaaaah, Cap'n C.........it can be so hard to cope with change sometimes.

Sounds like you haven't even been around the CTAFs for a while, bit of a difference from a steady diet of Class A, C and OCA, eh?

Why, just today I had to descend through non-radio non-transponder glider traffic to a CTAF where there were ultralights and light GA ACFT. I must just be lucky to be alive, because I'm sure that kind of descent to such a CTAF must be so very rare......

CC, if you are having to descend through noncontrolled airspace through those pesky little planes, I'd strongly recommend you know what you're looking for when a Karatoo calls airborne!! At least I know now a Beechjet isn't a jet

For the record, I am neither pro or anti NAS, I just have an open mind. However, I would like to hear some *facts* as to the en-route collision rate, either by comparison between current systems of airspace management, or between airspace models which account for the traffic loads. Even some logical argument would be nice. This has not been forthcoming from proponents or opponents of NAS.

I am also merely pointing out that there are numerous areas within our own current system that are not "protected" for IFR ACFT and that it seems there is no significant en-route collision rate.

Statements to the effect that the sky is falling are neither facts nor logical argument.

Safe flying

NOtimTAMs

(BTW CC, you're welcome to use an NDB or a VOR (with aggregate error up to 5 degrees) over being .5NM to R of track - maybe that's what I should be doing, but whenever I cross check the GPS with the VOR & NDB, it all seems OK . INS must be nice to have.)
NOtimTAMs is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2003, 07:54
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
Not wishing to belittle the quality of discussion - but...

Only a small point NOtimTAMs,

I would like to hear some *facts* as to the en-route collision rate, either by comparison between current systems of airspace management, or between airspace models which account for the traffic loads. Even some logical argument would be nice. This has not been forthcoming from proponents or opponents of NAS.
and;

Statements to the effect that the sky is falling are neither facts nor logical argument.
From where I sit it's impossible to get facts or cogent discussion happening because sooner or later the "facts" are disputed as simple twisting of statistics. Our mate Winstun springs immediately to mind (another thread) assuring us that the annual rate of 20 midairs per annum (his figure not mine) is somehow acceptable (apparently because 43200 die in car crashes). Must be a collateral damage mentality - I just don't get it. 1 midair is one too many. No matter how wrong I get it, I'm not the one that dies. If you stuff up you die, if I stuff up you still die. I try not to stuff up. I'm just looking out for the aviators that operate under the blind assumption that they have a reasonable chance of surviving to destination.

The point is that the nay-sayers on both sides of the fence are stifling any real discussion. Where logical argument is presented, it seems by and large it is ignored. Being provocative is what gets following posts...
DickyBaby is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2003, 12:54
  #26 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
A statement about FACTS.

I too would like some facts about airspace. The facts are, if the airspace is in place, no safety case or justification is required, by default we accept the current situation.

If this is true, why are we changing the current airspace and why are we changing to another outdated system.

We cannot get current airpsace facts so we cannot compare the current system to any new system. Seems odd, but thats the way it is.

The USA is looking into changing their system, but nothing has been finalised. Europe on the other hand has already done theirs and started a plan that will take a number of years with the end product being aircraft based, ie Known and Unknown.

Known will be similar to controlled airspace and Unknown will be similar to "G minus".

ICAO is also currently working on new airpace and the alphabet system will be dropped and probalbly going with the European Known and Unknown system.

So if the Smiths and others force us to the AUS NAS, we will once again have a unique Australian system that is not compatable with any airspace in the world all for so called ease of use for VFR pilots.
Niles Crane is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2003, 20:40
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194
Dicky

For stats to be remotely comparable on this subject, as you intimate, they have to be based on RATES not absolute numbers and have to relate to similar airspace, or at least the airspace type (e.g. high traffic levels vs low traffic levels [needs to be further spec'd];radar vs non-radar; transponder vs. no transponder etc.) must be specified so that judgment can be made as to whether this is a valid comparison or not. I'm sure the raw data is there, I'm sure that there are resourced government departments to refine the data - but we're hearing.....nothing. Does anyone actually know the answer to a simple question like: "what is the en-route midair collision rate OCTA in the USA?" ".... Australia?"

All risks we take are based on a perception of what is "acceptable" risk or not. Some people choose not to fly at all, some people won't drive in the city, some folk won't go up ladders. The concept of what is acceptable risk is coloured heavily by emotion. Some people are able to take in the concepts of probability and statistical likelihood and can look at rates of unacceptable outcomes and choose whether they wish to participate in the activity (e.g. surgical complication rates for certain procedures, accident rate for motorcycles, etc.) most of the time they will compare the perceived likelihood of an adverse event happening in a particular activity with an activity they accept every day, such as driving a motor vehicle for example. If an activity is presented as being safer than the acceptible everyday activity, then they are more likely to engage in it. Often this assessment made by individuals will be tempered by whether they feel thay have some control over the event happening (e.g. if I'm a really good driver/pilot etc. it's less likely to happen to me....) or the *perceived* ghastliness of the adverse outcome.

Whilst I understand the emotion behind "1 midair is one too many", the corollary is that the completely safe thing to do is not to engage in the activity at all, or if near complete relative safety is required, to put so many safeguards in that the activity becomes prohibitive in terms of time and/or money to engage in. To hark back to some of my previous posts, are you saying that I shouldn't descend *at all* OCTA under the current airspace situation, where there are non-radio/non-TXP aircraft, because I might hit something, even though there's no evidence for this (BTW, that "evidence" is just based on my recall of the last 10 years)?

Niles

The latter approach to safety, to put so many safeguards in that the activity becomes prohibitive in terms of time and/or money, is what the JAA is doing. Going down the road of the JARS may eke a little further safety, but is the cost (and loss of trees in the paperwork!!!) worth the cost to the industry? And more importantly does a system as devised by the JAA and perhaps to be followed its euro-buddy ICAO really relate to the low density traffic and spread out geographic nature of OUR country? Putting traffic lights on every corner of the road may reduce the enroute motor vehicle collision rate, but is the cost worth it and is it the most appropriate measure to take?? Are there places where there are too many traffic lights? Is it the most approriate allocation of limited funds?

Whilst I see airspace "harmonisation" can help the international carriers, it actually does b*gger all for the bulk of us that will never get to fly internationally either for a living or for pleasure (BTW , this is not sour grapes - good luck to those that get there). If you must, develop "fully harmonised" international rules for the international folk who stay cocooned in A,B,C & OCA, and leave the lower levels enough wriggle room under the exemptions to work out the best ways to get around THEIR country. It might sound isolationist, but geographically, that's what we are.

Be interesting to see if the Kings actually will have any FACTS to back up the assertions they will have to make in favour of NAS, and if the opponents can come up with the same....

Safe flying

NOtimTAMs
NOtimTAMs is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.