Airspace Reform - Your wish list.

[WhatWasThat]

BIK,
I apologise profusely, I had assumed you had some idea about that which you speak. Your ill informed ideologically based ranting make it clear to me that you are utterly ignorant.
You accuse me of attempting to claim a mandate that I do not possess, and then, unbelievably, claim to be speaking on behalf of a giant "silent majority"; I doubt that you have any grasp of the complexity of the profession of ATC, nor the intricacies of designing an airspace system that balances the requirements of all airspace users. Well here's a newsflash sky god, the world doesn't end outside your cockpit, you may think its acceptable to have open slather everywhere, but the majority of airspace users are the pax on the majors, and even one hull loss due to an idiot with a grossly inflated sense of his own abilities is too much for them. Grow up - I may think I can drive safely without speed limits or stop signs, but the family in the Tarago I splatter will probably disagree.

For those whose egos allow them to consider another’s point of view, here is my recipe for a better system.

Subsidise fitment of ADSB squitter to all aircraft capable of powering them. Economies of scale should drive the price down to something reasonable.

Mandate carriage of ADSB in areas where traffic density warrants it, (willing to negotiate on exact dimensions, suggest above 10000 nation wide and down to top of MBZs at aerodromes serviced by RPT)

Remove air route structure and allow "Free flight", (this is more complex under TAAATS than it seems if you want to chase winds, but I'm sure solutions could be found)

Increase use of visual separation, in the circumstances where one aircraft reports sighting another. (Done below F125 now, have never fully understood why we can’t do it at any height) Note this is different to Dicks look and hope philosophy.

Contain majority of RPT trajectories within Class C, E down to 10000 elsewhere, Class F for GAFA.

No Enroute charges to private users, recover costs through charging commercial operators (ala USA)

Fund all this through removal of radar heads and those ground based NAVAIDS which are no longer required by us or by industry, stopping the requirement for us to return a dividend to the government each year, cleaning house and getting rid of the oxygen thieves which encumber ASA.

Also administration of severe beatings to those ATCs who still think it’s the 60s and don’t do their best to make the system work as flexibly as possible, they only encourage people like BIK and Dick. I often wonder how much trouble could be avoided by a little politeness on the RT to those individuals whose fragile egos require constant massage to reassure them they are indeed captain of the ship.

[Capcom]

Part 1

BIK_116.80

WhatWasThat said:

Believe it or not I am genuinely interested in knowing what my customers want....

you replied:

And I’ve offered you one of the answers - NOTHING. They just want to be left alone.

“They” according to you are:- A great many “pilots and their passengers” who don’t need or want any “service” from you

I assume you have a mandate from "A great Many pilots (Assumed to be VFR)" either by their having declared a public position or something else?? and I assume you quiz your unsuspecting pax on their approval or dis-approval of strapping in and blasting off reliant on your Big Sky eyes and a confidence that you can “see and avoid” everything without having a schmick where ANYTHING is. Pleeeeeeease....

You go on to say:

But it’s very interesting that in your first post you used the words “pilots and their passengers”, whereas in your more recent post you use the term “customers”.

And the difference would be :-that a great many of the “pilots and their passengers” that you initially referred to may not in fact be your “customers” at all.

Only if "they" as you then say:-

fly thousands of miles each year (or fly great distances at sub-optimal altitudes they’d not otherwise fly at) just to avoid being obliged to use the government’s air traffic “service”.

You then assert:-

Not only do these “pilots and their passengers” choose not to receive a “service” (because they perceive no net benefit) but worse than that – they are inconvenienced by it and incur additional expense in avoiding it (as Lodown has alluded).

NO, the Pax don't get a choice, and are incurring additional expense because:-

A pilot would fly around or under ATS services airspace at great expense (Probably 10's if not 100's of dollars per flight) to save a few dollars NOT receiving a safety service from ATS on their optimum track. More expensive and less safe, I think that qualifies said pilots as STUPID.

One would then ask why would a pilot make that decision?

I suspect their competence or lack of it within the ATS system would seem the only other reason for someone to make the decisions you suggest they do??? If I have missed something in your explanation please enlighten me or at least let me know where you fly from and to, so I as a PAX can make the decision TO POLITELY DECLINE YOUR SERVICES!!! or as a PILOT remain well clear of you (In CTA/CTR)!!!.

So tell me again who it is that you are really interested in? Is it all “pilots and their passengers”, or only the “customers” who pay their way?

We only provide services to those who choose to use them and as you suggest there are some (I would suggest a very small minority of VFR PVT pilots) who consider big sky better than an ATS service. I am certain most ATC's do have a concerned interest in the safety of all airspace users irrespective of whether Pilot or unsuspecting passenger. Your attempt to place the context of WhatWasThat's questions into some sort of ATC self interest is a poor attempt at deflecting the intent of the original questions.

Interestingly though, you have not commented on my suggestion for VFR No Charge in C, E, F and G?.
Is it because it would not matter to you if it were free or not and is it is all about you and your dislike of participating in the ATS system and using a radio.
What is your problem?
Scared of CASA, AsA, ATSB or are scared of making a goose of yourself if god forbid you have to use procedures and/or a radio!!!!.

WhatWasThat also said:-

My comments about the citation driver stem from my belief that he uses his position of power to drive a personal agenda without consultation or thought for the people who will wind up dealing with the fall out from his schemes.

An entirely reasonable assumption given Dick’s past endeavours in airspace dabbling and how Dick, the ARG and NAS have come to prominence. The widespread comment over many months on this forum in the absence of industry consultation/debate would also support the same assumption!!!

In my experience Dick’s loudest detractors are often those who are not well travelled and who are so engrossed in the micro-detail of the local status quo that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

Hmmm, micro detail such as C becoming non-radar E over D zones!?!?
“Forest for the trees” or the “Squashed bug for the approaching traffic”

If I had my way all of Australia would be class G. (proper G, not ICAO F as Australian G is now)

Says a lot…!!!

I hold that opinion because I know that the flight crews of a dozen or so IFR and VFR aircraft arriving at a CTAF airport within 10 minutes of each other are perfectly capable of safely and sensibly sequencing themselves for landing without any assistance from air traffic control – day or night – even in IMC – even when one of them has a radio failure – and even without the very great traffic awareness benefit to be gained from TCAS. I know that because I have seen it happen a great many times. With the benefit of TCAS this kind of self-arranged mutual separation would be even easier. In contrast, the same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays.

How many times do you think the scenario you have cited would pan out safely (NCD)??
- I note only one was apparently not using radio!!!
- Even without TCAS???? But better with TCAS!?!?!
- Same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays????.
I was taking you seriously until that rubbish…
…and which would you consider safer? ATS or Big Sky probability, or is that an irrelevance to you?.

I hold that opinion because I believe in the big sky theory (with certain qualifications). If all aircraft in Australia flew a GPS derived direct track from origin to destination with a random right offset (rather than funnelling everyone into the same narrow piece of airspace along a route defined by terrestrial navigation aids) and flew at a random cruising levels (eg 6,243 feet or 33,724 feet etc, rather than forcing everyone to funnel into the same few levels at 33,000 / 34,000 / 35,000 etc) the probability of a midair collision would be sufficiently remote – even within the high density east coast J-curve – as to justify reliance on existing TCAS systems to assist the flight crew resolve the very low residual risk of a collision. Outside the east coast J-curve the probability of a collision would be sufficiently remote as to be acceptable even without the benefit of TCAS (although the use of TCAS would decrease the risk of a collision even further).

So on the one hand you say 12 or so IFR and VFR in the terminal area works a treat, yet you apparently consider that off track and an "altitude free for all with TCAS" being those “Certain qualifications” needed to mitigate against the failings of see and avoid????.
OH, I get it, climb and descent into and out of terminal areas is Sooooo much easier than en-route flight!!!!......

Sorry Ol bean, can’t have it both ways!. You either believe “see and avoid” is OK for primary means separation or you are suggesting that some pilots and their passengers who are NOT TCAS equipped (large numbers of aircraft below 7,000kg and others) should accept the Odds of surviving the Big Sky.
Awwww Sure….

What does matter is that the planes don’t collide. I suggest that the very best way of avoiding a collision is to ensure that the flight crews know where the other traffic is.

Yup, we agree on this fundamental issue!

A TCAS traffic display is an excellent means of achieving this. The better TCAS displays show traffic to a range of 40 miles and within a window of +/- 9,900 feet. Current TCAS systems can track up to 45 aircraft, display up to 30 of them, and can simultaneously co-ordinate resolution advisories with up to three intruders. Future TCAS systems will be even better.

Yup, great system that not many aircraft have that operate in the classes of airspace under discussion i.e. Non-pressurised IFR and VFR.
TCAS whilst an extremely valuable safety tool IS NOT APPROVED FOR PRIMARY MEANS OF SEPARATION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!!
Until it can provide pilots “every” part of the service that ATC currently do it will remain as it should a excellent safety augmentation system.

The current air traffic control arrangement involving the use of a ground-based radar operator and/or air traffic controller has evolved from a time when the technology to provide a cockpit display of real time traffic information simply didn’t exist.

Still does not for most aircraft!!! (TCAS that is!)

It’s hugely ironic that in the vast tracts of non-radar controlled airspace in Australia we currently have a situation where two conflicting TCAS-equipped aircraft are aware of each other’s actual position and pressure altitude, updated on a second by second basis, but the air traffic controller who owns the airspace and who is responsible for maintaining separation between these two aircraft is not. Why don’t we simply cut out the middle-man and let the flight crews get on with it?

Yep, as a safety enhancement device it serves that purpose already. Separation initially facilitated by ATC thence DTI directing pilots where to look for the conflicting traffic in preparation for assigning Pilots visual separation. SAFE!!.

I recognise that there are a great many people who are less trusting of modern technology than I am, who have trouble dealing with the statistical probability of their own death in an air crash in a rational way

Modern technology, Hmmm is that TCAS your talking about or YOUR EYE’s?. If you have both then you have not just been pushing the “see and avoid” barrow have you?!?! So what is the statistical probability difference with and without TCAS IYHO eh!.
You have been a naughty little spin doctor you!!!.

I can understand that Australian society will demand that jet airliners flying between capital cities need to be positively separated from other IFR traffic – if for no other reason than as a “feel good” measure. As a minimum, that would require class E airspace in and between capital cities at typical jet levels.

For everywhere else I see no problem with ICAO class G.

Oh My!, the double standard again!!! Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Eh Dick…I mean BINDICK…..Ops sorry I meant of course BINSOOK.

[Capcom]

Part 2

BIK_ 116.80

I suggested:-

Send John and Martha back to the US via the scenic route!

Then you ask:-

Vindictive sentiment towards John and Martha is justified because........ ?

Not vindictive and I reject your suggestion that it is, I was merely suggesting that John and Martha have no place in this country telling Aussies what we should accept. To condone Mike Smith telling industry to turn their radios OFF in E outside radar coverage seems dangerous bordering on Bazaar to Littl’ Ol’ Me. The scenic route is a suggested flight plan track through the outback to visit the sights, spend some of that hard earned cash at some of the many struggling one horse towns.

John and Martha are two of the finest people you could ever hope to meet. They are in Australia at the invitation of the Australian government to make a contribution to pilot education as experts in their field.

Don’t doubt that and yes who wouldn’t when the Gov’t is paying. They might be pilot educators in the US, this ain’t Texas Ol’ Bean.

But I guess they aren’t out there campaigning for a ten-fold increase in the number of air traffic controllers eh?

Nor was I and seeing as you raise it, Dick kicked this whole shooting match off on the promise of 70Million in savings Blah, Blah Blah. Yet all we get to support this ridiculous claim after much pressure is Mr “$1000bucks a day” Willoughby pumping out a report (If that what is was?!?!) that said Jack ****e’ about how it was to be achieved.
So where is the industry going to save??

NAS will result in:-
G becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR delays (Costs) and possibly greater ATS staff to run it given the greater workload.
C becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR now getting less separation/DTI on VFR and paying more as VFR don’t play any more. (Run as it is in the US would mean an additional E controller in each D Tower as the Centres will not be assuming the “E” that is changed from “C” below A085. More cost to the IFR GA/RPT industry!)
The Kings, CASA road shows, Documents, Maps, AsA staff hours trying to work it up so IFR people don’t die unnecessarily etc etc.

Leaving the safety issues aside, the only people who win from NAS on the cost front is VFR.
Jeeez, wonder why you say don’t worry about the micro safety details, NAS is great! Amazing how many sectors of the industry you would sell down the dunny on safety and costs to save yourself a couple of dollars. Discraceful!.

So Einstein, If we were campaigning for a ten –fold increase in the number of air traffic controllers we would be saying:-

NAS… GO YOU GOOD THING!!!!…………………You Idiot, think about it and save us your deceitful spin!.

I asked:-

....give me your best go at justifying changing C to Non Radar E???

You replied:-

I don’t see any need for anything more than class E. If it’s in or between capital cities at typical jet levels then it should be class E – radar or no radar. All the traffic that matters already has TCAS and everyone else can get TCAS if they want it.

All the traffic that matters eh, I am sure those Pilots and their Passengers in PA31’s and the like would consider themselves “TRAFFIC THAT MATTERS” and they don’t have TCAS and cannot afford the 20K+ to put it in.

It doesn’t matter whether people on the ground know where the planes are, what matters is whether the flight crews know where the planes are.

Sums up your clear lack of awareness of the holistic ATS system and its role in ensuring flight crews know where the other traffic is as well as a multitude of other services. Your bias and motive is abundantly clear.
Good day to you Dick Spinner!.

[Winstun]

EVOLUTION....does not happen overnight
What we witness here is a broad character aspect of mainsteam Australian society...xenophobia, ignorance, low aptitude, and an obsession with pendantic gossip of trivial detail. This Aussie behaviour would almost be tolerable if it were not supplemented by such wild assertions like sporting greatness...invention of everything ....etc etc (much like the old Russians) Its high time Aussie pilots and controllers pulled their heads out of their ass....
...willingly or not

[BIK_116.80]

WhatWasThat,

....then, unbelievably, claim to be speaking on behalf of a giant “silent majority”

Nope. Merely bringing their existence to your attention, in reply to your thread-starting questions.

....balances the requirements of all airspace users.

Yep – there are some (rare) times when running the show as a democracy and trying to be all things too all people is far from ideal.

Sometimes a benevolent dictator is preferable to committee and consensus.

....the world doesn't end outside your cockpit....

Thank goodness! It’d be a bit of a mystery were one would fly to if it did!

Subsidise fitment of ADSB squitter to all aircraft....

Excellent idea! Everyone can know where everyone else is. Great stuff!

Mandate carriage of ADSB in areas where traffic density warrants it,

Yeah, why not – fill yer boots!

(I’m gonna put this one in big red letters coz it’s such a corker!)

Remove air route structure and allow "Free flight"

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
(Am I starting to sound like Meg Ryan?)

See – you knew what people wanted all along!

No Enroute charges to private users....

Absolutely!

....recover costs through charging commercial operators (ala USA)

Um, not sure what you mean on this one. Please explain?

....removal of radar heads and those ground based NAVAIDS which are no longer required by us or by industry, stopping the requirement for us to return a dividend to the government each year, cleaning house and getting rid of the oxygen thieves which encumber ASA.

Where do I sign? You’ve got my vote! [1]

....administration of severe beatings to those ATCs who still think it’s the 60s and don’t do their best to make the system work as flexibly as possible....

Could do. Better yet – put ’em out to pasture. Send ‘em to the middle east or somewhere.

....I often wonder how much trouble could be avoided by a little politeness on the RT....

All BS aside, me too.

Capcom,

Good to see you’re still awake, mate.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain your situation.

I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can.

I assume you have a mandate from “A great many pilots” (assumed to be VFR) either by their having declared a public position or something else??

WhatWasThat sought information about what people want from the air traffic system.

It has been my observation, made over a number of years, that there is a large and significant group of pilots who don’t want anything – they just want to be left alone.

It seems quite likely that we move in very different circles.

If WhatWasThat was unaware of the existence of this group of people (I note that he says he wasn’t) then I hope that he might now at least entertain the possibility.

Many of these pilots have instrument ratings and fly IFR-capable aircraft, but current Australian airspace procedures (that use ICAO class F procedures in what is nominally called class G) mean that these pilots are forced to fly in accordance with the visual flight rules when in class G unless they want to pay.

Electing to fly VFR when IFR capable is not restricted to private flights or PPL pilots. When enroute charges were introduced for avgas powered IFR flights in class G a very significant proportion (I would guess about 70%) of charter category operators changed their policy overnight from one of always going IFR to one of always going VFR unless there were too many clouds (nudge nudge wink wink). These operators were happy to take the ICAO class F service if it came for free, but the value that these operators placed on the ICAO class F service was less than the cost of the enroute charges that were introduced.

RPT is of course required by regulation to fly IFR whether they want to or not.

So yes, most of these pilots now fly VFR.

I assume you quiz your unsuspecting pax on their approval or dis-approval of strapping in and blasting off reliant on your Big Sky eyes and a confidence that you can “see and avoid” everything....

Every passenger who’s ever flown with me has relied on me to get them back on the ground safely. I’ve never let one down yet - despite the occasional ATS screw up.

Like being cleared to “line up and wait” with a lander at 300 feet on final (“thanks, but I’ll wait for the aircraft on final to land first”), and like being given DTI on opposite direction IFR traffic (tracks 160 degrees apart) at the same level and with the same estimate for the same enroute terrestrial radio navigation aid only AFTER I had reported sighting the aircraft passing down the left side a few wing-spans away (both aircraft in and out of broken cloud, neither aircraft TCAS equipped), etc etc.

You mention “see and avoid”. I’ve never been a big advocate of see and avoid for IFR aircraft. I agree that it doesn’t work as well as, say, a 40 mile TCAS traffic display.

What I would advocate is the big sky theory. It’s very simple and works on the idea that the sky is very large, the aeroplanes very small (in relative terms), and that in the vast majority of enroute Australian airspace the traffic density is very low.

What was it that prevented me from colliding with the opposite direction IFR traffic (in the example above) as we flew along, predominantly in cloud, each blissfully unaware that the other was coming the other way? It wasn’t DTI - that much is for certain! The DTI came AFTER the two aircraft had already passed and I’d given the ATS guy a nudge. No – it was simply the big sky theory.

Despite being at the same level and despite passing overhead the same terrestrial radio navigation aid at virtually the same moment the two aircraft STILL managed to miss. It’s not a matter of black magic or divine intervention - it’s simple geometry. The sky is very large.

If two aircraft are able to miss each other in those circumstances, then surely the probability of a collision could have been further reduced if the aircraft had not been at the same cruising level. The safety margin would have been greater if one aircraft had been cruising (say) a few hundred feet lower and the other aircraft (say) a hundred feet higher. I suggest that funnelling traffic into the relatively few cruising levels increases the chance of a collision.

So what do the passengers make of it all?

I once took a very “high maintenance” lady from overseas to a tiny Australian country town with a small, deserted grass airstrip. She was a very up-market city-slicker type and she’d never been there before. On final approach she tapped me on the shoulder, “Where’s the runway?” She thought I was about to land in a sheep paddock! Which I was - one containing a grass runway.

During taxi after landing she asked, “Where’s the control tower?”

“Back in Sydney,” I told her, realising she’d probably never seen anything quite like this.

“How do you know where the other planes are?” she asked, looking very concerned.

“Look around you – how many other planes do you see?”

“Err, none.”

“There you go then.”

When in Rome, as they say.

....without having a schmick where ANYTHING is. Pleeeeeeease....

Try as I might, I’m not exactly sure what you mean here.

NO, the Pax don't get a choice, and are incurring additional expense because:-

A pilot would fly around or under ATS services airspace at great expense (Probably 10's if not 100's of dollars per flight) to save a few dollars receiving a safety service from ATS on their optimum track. More expensive and less safe, I think that qualifies said pilots as STUPID.

One would then ask why would a pilot make that decision?

The passengers always have a choice. No one is forcing them to get on the aeroplane – except perhaps in certain very specific situations (eg persons in custody).

I agree that an additional expense is incurred in avoiding controlled airspace (as I suggested in an earlier post), but I suggest that this expense is often not as great as what the additional expense could be if the aircraft routed via controlled airspace.

It’s not just the AsA charges that people are trying to avoid, like the charter operators who fly IFR-capable aircraft VFR in class G, it’s also the potentially unlimited extra track mileage once inside controlled airspace. There is no guarantee of getting a direct routing at an optimum altitude. It’s a judgement call for the flight crew to decide which one will be the least-worst option – to go through, or to go around – neither choice is ideal.

I once did a flight from one country aerodrome to another country aerodrome. I’d flight planned the most sensible route (which by coincidence just happened to be an entirely class G route) via all the radio navaids (in case of com failure etc), but once airborne I elected to go straight to the destination. The direct track was going to take me 20 miles inside one corner of another aerodrome’s procedural class D airspace. The controlled airspace was in the shape of an enormous sectorised inverted wedding cake, and the point at which my direct track would enter CTA was 50 miles past the class D aerodrome. Whilst still in class G, and with plenty of time to run, I requested a clearance to cross the class D. The clearance that came back was to track present position direct to the class D aerodrome’s on-airport VOR, and then turn towards my destination. This would have required an immediate left turn of about 60 degrees and a right turn over the VOR of about 70 degrees, and would have added about 60 extra track miles to the flight. I declined the clearance and instead descended 4,000 feet (in order to be underneath one of the class D airspace steps) and turned right 4 degrees (in order to remain laterally clear of a lower airspace step – including an allowance for the required navigation tolerance etc). The revised track in class G took me about 10 miles right of the direct track I had been hoping to take.

(All numbers approximate....)

I chose to incur a time and cost penalty (compared to the optimum direct routing) in order to avoid controlled airspace because I judged that penalty to be many times less than what the penalty would have been had I followed the best available controlled airspace clearance.

Did I need or require the “service” of controlled airspace? No.

Were the passengers ever going to get the “service” of controlled airspace when flying between A and B? No.

Stupid? I don’t think so.

Now about this “less safe” business....

Had I chosen to make the maximum possible use, I could have flown in controlled airspace for nor more than about 20% of the route distance.

But what’s the point? VFR is not separated from VFR in class G. Nor is VFR separated from VFR in class D. Nor is VFR separated from VFR in class C. So why bother?

I suspect their competence or lack of it within the ATS system would seem the only other reason for someone to make the decisions you suggest they do???

I am in no doubt that there are a great many people who are in precisely that position.

Having tried out this controlled airspace malarkey a couple of times with a “Hello – I’m at [location 1] and I want to go to [location 2]” type radio call (or a variation thereof) and having been greeted with “remain outside controlled airspace – clearance not available” many people tend to give up and put it in the too hard basket. Lodown described the problem well in one of his earlier posts. A hapless pilot might get the impression that it’s a bit like asking Claudia Schiffer out on a date – completely hopeless. After asking the first few times you don’t bother to waste your time asking again.

The other unfortunate thing that can happen is that pilots who only rarely venture into controlled airspace can be so poorly treated that they are made to feel intimidated and unwelcome. A subtly sarcastic tone, a rapid fire airways clearance followed by a condescending repeat, a stressed controller with an unnecessarily aggressive correction to an erroneous pilot read-back. It’s often something very subtle. Sometimes, less so. You think they’re going to want to come back for more?

These are AsA’s potential “customers”.

If I have missed something in your explanation please enlighten me....

See above.

....or at least let me know where you fly from and to so I as a PAX can make the decision TO POLITELY DECLINE YOUR SERVICES!!!

I suspect that it’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever receive an invitation that would cause you to have to make that decision.

....or as a PILOT remain well clear of you (In CTA/CTR)!!!.

If, as a pilot, you wish to make maximum possible use of controlled airspace then that is entirely your decision to make. Good luck to you!

....as you suggest there are some (I would suggest a very small minority of VFR PVT pilots) who consider big sky better than an ATS services.

I suggest that you might be very surprised.

I’m just thinking through all the people I know who will go to great lengths (some of them to extraordinary lengths) to avoid having to use ATS - either by electing to go VFR or by avoiding controlled airspace. Lots of them are PPL-holders, that’s true. I don’t share the popular belief that PPL holders are somehow second-class citizens, though. But in any case, many of these people are CPL or higher licence holders, many of them have an instrument rating, some of them are Chief Pilots, some Chief Flying Instructors, some of them are very experienced line pilots. All of them are sensible, rational people who have made a judgement that, by and large, they are better off flying VFR and in class G. They have determined that the benefits to be gained by flying IFR, or in controlled airspace, are simply not worth the extra hassle and expense.

....you have not commented on my suggestion for VFR No Charge in C, E, F and G?.

Is it because it would not matter to you if it were free or not....

I am more than happy to pay the full price for any kind of service that I decide I need.

By and large, AsA don’t provide any services that I need.

I don’t want to have to pay to be delayed.

I acknowledge that under the current arrangements if I want to visit a major airport in a capital city then I have no option but to pay the AsA toll collectors.

I’m sure that this is part of the reason for the rapid growth of non-government, un-controlled aerodromes like Wedderburn, near Sydney. At the current rate that Wedderburn is growing, and at the current rate that Bankstown is shrinking, Wedderburn should have more aircraft than Bankstown by about 2008.

Scared of CASA, AsA, ATSB or is it you are scared of making a goose of yourself if, God forbid you have to use procedures or a radio!!!!.

PMSL! You could not possibly realise just how far from the truth you really are.

Hmmm, micro detail such as C becoming non-radar E over D zones!?!?
“Forest for the trees” or the “Squashed bug for the approaching traffic”

Changing C to D is one step in the right direction.

Changing C to E is two steps in the right direction.

How many times do you think the scenario you have cited would pan out safely??

Empirically, more than 600 times with no collisions.

- I note only one was apparently not using radio!!!

No – not quite.

One of the IFR aircraft had a radio failure on two separate occasions.

There were other aircraft that are without an electrical system, and without a radio, that were part of the traffic mix on various occasions.

- Even without TCAS???? But better with TCAS!?!?!

You punctuation suggests that you are incredulous, but I’m not clear on just what it is that you are incredulous about. Which bit needs explaining?

- Same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays????.

Correct. No doubt about it.

I was taking you seriously until that rubbish....

I’m not sure what it is that you think is rubbish.

It seems that you might not be aware of how things work at a busy country CTAF.

If you’ve not had the same experiences and seen the same things then that’s hardly something I’m going to feel guilty about.

....and which would you consider being safer ATS or Big Sky probability or is that irrelevant to you?.

Actually, it’s more relevant to me than you could possibly imagine.

It is my suspicion that in Australia’s enroute airspace outside the east-coast J-curve the answer would be the big sky theory.

So on the one hand you say 12 or so IFR and VFR in the terminal area works a treat, yet you apparently consider that off track and an altitude free for all with TCAS being “Certain qualifications” is needed to mitigate against the failings of see and avoid????.

I’ve never been a big advocate of see and avoid.

OH, I get it, climb and descent into and out of terminal areas is Sooooo much easier than en-route flight!!!!

Yes. In the terminal area, as well as having the big sky theory, and as well as having a TCAS traffic display to 40 miles and +/- 9,900 feet, flight crews have the benefit of a CTAF frequency to organise mutual sequencing. That’s not (or rather, isn’t going to be) available in the class G enroute environment.

Sorry Ol bean, can’t have it both ways!. You either believe “see and avoid” is OK for primary means of separation....

I’ve never been a big advocate of see and avoid.

I do believe that looking out the window occasionally whilst in the cruise can be good for your health, and I would advocate looking out the window quite a lot when in the circuit area, but in the end I think you are more likely to be spared a midair collision by the fact that the sky is very large than by your own vigilance.

....or you are suggesting that some pilots and their passengers who are NOT TCAS equipped (large numbers of aircraft below 7,000kg and others) should accept the Odds of surviving the Big Sky.

Yes.

I believe that those odds are as good as any other odds.

The 7,000 kg aircraft you mention are not mainline jets that carry passengers between capital cities. These are regional aircraft that come into capital cities from country areas, or that carry freight between capitals.

I have acknowledged that Australian society would expect that IFR jet airliners flying between capital cities are positively separated from other IFR traffic (by a ground-based ATC service). When these small regional aircraft come into the big smoke they are that “other IFR traffic”. When they are away from the capital cities the low traffic densities and the big sky theory provide a sufficiently low probability of a collision as to be acceptable on their own.

As an aside, there are those who have postulated on these pages that CAR 3 / FAR 23 types should be removed by regulation from Australian commercial fleets.

Such a regulation, should it be introduced, would take out the most numerous aircraft in the 7,000 kg class, along with the hundreds of 20-35 year old light twins.

I’m not advocating that, but I would advocate that all commercial aircraft operating in the east-coast J-curve should have TCAS. (And for everyone else it would be a very good idea.)

[TCAS....] Yup, great system that not many aircraft have that are operating in the classes of airspace under discussion i.e. Non-pressurised IFR and VFR.

The small aircraft in the Australian commercial aircraft fleet are generally old and worn out.

Things are so dire that one regional airline has been forced to operate hand-me-down aircraft from Mexico (for god’s sake!) alongside even older hand-me-down aircraft that were first retired from Australian airline service six or seven years ago.

I would agree with any suggestion that putting TCAS in these old clunkers would be an unwise over capitalisation.

Thankfully, as replacement aircraft are brought into Australia (either new builds or overseas hand-me-downs) they’ll generally have either TCAS (medium and large aircraft) or TCAD (small aircraft) already fitted.

TCAS whilst an extremely valuable safety tool IS NOT APPROVED FOR PRIMARY MEANS OF SEPARATION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!!

And the Trimble Transpack was never approved for anything – but it still got me round the world and back to where I started from.

Modern technology, Hmmm is that TCAS your talking about or YOUR EYE’s?. If you have both then you have not just been pushing the “see and avoid” barrow have you?!?! So what is the statistical probability difference with and without TCAS IYHO eh!.

You have been a naughty little spin doctor you!!!.

Sorry – I can’t quite follow your line of reasoning. Run that buy me again?

Not vindictive and I reject your suggestion that it is....

It seems you’re back-pedalling....which is pleasing. John and Martha don’t deserve any of this BS.

....Mike Smith telling industry to turn their radios OFF in E outside radar coverage....

I’m not going to try to justify anything the ex-NRMA break-down repair man says.

....this ain’t Texas Ol’ Bean....

Yeah – pity about that.

The aviation industry would be 100 times more vibrant if it was.

G becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR delays (Costs)

BINGO! We got one! I agree with you on that one!
(I knew we’d get there in the end. )

Yep – that sucks big time.

Should be made into ICAO G instead.

C becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR now getting less separation

VFR aircraft in class E have a mode C transponder. TCAS equipped aircraft will have a TCAS traffic display of the VFR aircraft even if the no-radar air traffic controller is unaware of them.

Leaving the safety issues aside, the only people who win from NAS on the cost front is VFR.

Yep - people will simply go VFR and won’t bother with IFR. Changing existing G into all that no-radar E (and then charging for it) is a non-sense. It should all be ICAO G so that IFR doesn’t have to pay either.

Amazing how many sectors of the industry you would sell down the dunny on safety and costs to save yourself a couple of dollars.

I’m happy to pay for all the services I need.

If you ever come up with a service that’s worth having then I’ll be the very first one in line and I’ll be delighted to pay!

Go on – I dare you!

All the traffic that matters eh, I am sure those Pilots and their Passengers in PA31’s and the like would consider themselves “TRAFFIC THAT MATTERS” and they don’t have TCAS and cannot afford the 20K+ to put it in.

Of course they matter. In the areas where Chieftains fly, at typical operating altitudes the probability of running into another aircraft is extremely remote. They don’t need TCAS. (Although they’d be better off if they had it, of course.)

Chieftains are a fine aircraft and they have served Australia very well. But at the rate these old CAR 3 / FAR 23 aircraft are currently falling from the sky a midair collision is the very least of their worries! There are other more pressing issues that are far more likely to down a Chieftain than running into another aeroplane.

(except for this one, of course! )

....clear lack of awareness of the holistic ATS system....

Sounds like some kind of 1960s religious cult....

G’day Witsun,

Say – can you do a couple verses of the Lumberjack Song for us? That’d be neat!

[89 steps to heaven]

At the moment we have C steps down to D tower airspace in some regional centres.

If it is possible to prove why a change to E steps down to D tower airspace is better, it would make things clearer.

As it is, no cost reduction, a reduction in Federal government provided services to regional Australia (again and despite promises) and an increase in risk in flying through this airspace.

I'm sorry, but I can't be sold just on the sizzle of this one, I want to know about the whole sausage.

[Capcom]

BIK_116.80

Good to see you’re still awake, mate.

I must confess, I am banned from PPRuNe by “She who must be obeyed…..” , thus the midnight oil…
The beatings are long and brutal if I get caught.

But seriously…

I guess our philosophical positions are clear to those who read this thread and the multitude of threads past on AusNAS.

AusNAS reduces some safeguards particularly where C becomes non-radar E. I guess perhaps we will agree to disagree on its merits, it is irrelevant in the end, what is important is that those views are aired and people can make up their own minds.

I said:-

…..or at least let me know where you fly from and to, so I as a PAX can make the decision TO POLITELY DECLINE YOUR SERVICES!!!

To whit you said:-

I suspect that it’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever receive an invitation that would cause you to have to make that decision.

To whit I say:-
If you could only “INVITE” me, I guess that means you are not an RPT/Charter pilot………WHAT A RELIEF!!!

I also said:-

....clear lack of awareness of the holistic ATS system....

To whit you said:-

Sounds like some kind of 1960s religious cult....

What can I say………….

89 Steps...

There is sizzle elsewhere OCTA (Aus G/ICAO F whichever you want to call it, MBZ/CTAF and Radio or lack of it!) but I’ll leave that to those most experienced and affected by those changes. Perhaps John and Martha’s road show might answer some of your questions…………or not!!!

[ferris]

Bindick

A couple of points.

1. Implanting the US system here WILL NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN AVIATION REVIVAL. Stop spouting that lie (or spin, or whatever). Implanting a different system while calling it the US system is fraud and a contemptable act (surely that was part of the intention of the John and Martha thing???? or am I just too cynical???).
The health of the aviation industry has far more to do with economics (you could even go so far as to say the charging system) and the demographics of rural Australia, than the airspace system. By your own admission, most people are driven out of the system by the charges, not the model. Why aren't you pushing for the US charging system???? The mind boggles. The only reasonable conclusion is that this whole thing is about being given free-reign, freed from the (safe) shackles of ATC.
2. There is nothing worse than amateurs meddling where professionals will have to operate in the mess created (it's bad enough dealing with the "$hit floats to the top" managers). Witness the attempts at airspace 'reform' to date.
3. ATC's (IMHO) really couldn't give a toss what happens to the airspace model. At the end of the day, the people who pay the wages are the airlines, and they will dictate what service they get. It is only the few who dislike the philosophy being pushed, the underhanded way it is being pushed, and care enough to say so, who vocally oppose it.

I hope you get the system you deserve.

[BabyMetroBoy]

This whole airspace revival is just exactly what they were trying to bring in a couple years ago - just a bit disguised. My critisisms are:
1. They seem to claim that we are trying to make the airspace more accessible for VFR aircraft. So why are we keeping the upper airspace Class A where VFR is not allowed? Class B would do the job.
2. Basing the whole thing on the US system. Doesn't this assume that we have radar coverage down to low level across the continent for it to work? I mean if you are going to have Class E everywhere including on top of a Class D aerodrome how will ATC provide traffic information to IFR aircraft climbing/descending if ATC cant see the VFR radar returns. Now we know that VFR aircraft do not necessarily know their EXACT position all the time so if ATC asks a VFR for his position, what if there is some degree of error? Considering you might have an IFR B737/Dash8/SAAB340 type aircraft rocketing through this airspace relying on see and avoid... hmmmm hope the transpoder and TCAS is working.
3. I believe they eventually want to have Class G in some areas. The current Class G we have is more like Class F as IFR get traffic information. They want to have Class G where IFR and VFR fly around willy nilly and noone knows anything. I still cant get this idea into my head safely.

[willadvise]

Capcom et al:-

I hope I am not tell you to suck eggs here but are you aware that the current enroute cost for VFR in Class C is zilch, nothing, zero, not a brass razoo.

[Capcom]

Wood for the trees.......

Willadvise

Brilliant…..Thankyou!! 100% Correct

Checked the Avnet today to make sure and sure enough (Facilities and Services Page 6, 5.7) VFR no charge for en-route services!!

Through out this whole sorry debacle there had being something niggling at me that did not add up!

Alas, I had glossed over perhaps the most important thing in all of this!. 20 outa’ 10 to Dick and his spin team, they had me and apparently most of us believing NAS was supposed to save industry (Particularly VFR) 70mil blah blah blah (Even though we didn’t have anything definitive on that score anyhow!), when in reality it was the biggest red herring of the lot!.

So then what does AusNAS achieve apart from reducing IFR protection outside radar coverage????

How much money will industry have to pay to cover the cost of this folly??

Loco Loco ****e’…..

[ferris]

Too much credit

Don't give Dick etc. too much credit. I think the guys in GA are acutely aware of what they get charged for. The impression I had was that a lot of the proposed changes were aimed at making the system more flexible for flip-flopping between IFR and VFR (as the conditions are like that). That sort of flexibility is misunderstood by amateurs such as Dick, who cannot see why it's a problem. Ninety percent of what he is doing is purely about freeing him of the constraints of an orderly (non-radar) system.

I certainly concur that there is a great amount of BS, red herrings, spin, call it what you will. How Machiavellian.

The charging issue should be treated as a totally different kettle of fish. That, of course, would serve none of the 'higher-ups' purposes, would it?