Gaunty (just quickly): Riddle; TCAS is designed as a back-up for when the system fails. There has already been heaps of debate about using see and avoid as the primary means of sep, and a lot of that apllies to TCAS as well.
AND;
Same direction, similar speed traffic is very easy to acquire visually (and visual sep is a great standard, predicated on having first aquired the traffic visually ) You will note the controller didn't say "overtake your co. traffic, and see if you can see him, he's there somewhere", did he? Do you understand the the significance of the difference? Crucial to the debate.

AK. You have in fact stated on this thread that you believe NAS without ADSB is not good.
page 3
Why then aren't you predicating NAS on ADSB?
Further, why aren't you opposed to this incremental implementation approach? Their plan is to drive the change, one little piece at a time, as the individual pieces, in isolation, aren't too unpalatable. As a whole, they suck. That is why they are doing it that way.
page 1
They are not intertwined. Perhaps you should be opposing NAS until they are?

I have been trying (very trying some say) to put my viewpoint v.v. what are genuine professional concerns regarding the NAS proposals from an ATC, and aviators perspectibe - be them full time professional, part-time, recreational etc.

Quite frankly the issues that I have raised don't seem to be of concern to a certain ilk - there seems to be a sense that RPT or unions or someone are 'stealing' airspace that they they should have access to - I don't understand this stance. The underlying principle here in this argument has to be, should be and must be safety.

Class E down to 8500 FT on the edge of a busy TMA is not based on safety - I personally believe it is based on some perception that non-commercial operators do not get a fair go at using the airspace because it is designated C. I cannot think of when since Sep 2001 I could not issue a clearance to cross control airspace to a VFR aircraft in Class C. Sometimes I might move the aircraft a little from it's preferred route to facilitate unrestricted descents/climbs for other aircraft that may be conducting instrument approaches or departures (many of them training for/renewing their CIR), but they get the clearance. From some I have had the accusation here that RPT get the priority - well, its true that capital city aerodromes have priorities, but you would not believe the number of times I have had 7x7 drivers call me after landing insisting they should have had priority over the PA31 or BN2 or C172 -- forgetting or ignorant of the fact they were not flying into a capital city today - and that ATC do not apply priorty in that case - thats right we don't. And sometimes that makes the job difficult. For example, if we have seen 3-4 jets all close together at about 230NM away, they want to know their landing tiome and relevant adjustments to speed on desc or holding by 120NM to run at the very latest. So at 20 minutes to run they start the descent and their FMS says they will be touching down at 13:02.5 - nice accuarate gear the Honeywell. In reality they may be following the C172 who is still doing run-ups at an ALA just outsode the Control Zone and we dont know about him yet (hopefully they have flight planned - well statisitically their is a 50% chance they have from what I see each day). Or they the Boeing may end up number 2 to a BN2 who is coming in low level and not on radar but ends up being 1 minute ahead of the Boeing. So the nince fuel saving idle thrust descent gets screwed over by ATC in the eyes of the RPT driver as he gets issued reduce to 250KIAS at FL180 then back to 220 at 25 miles to run. The other option is the BN2 or C172 gets a spin or told to remain OCTA (only for a minute or 2). As you can see - we can't win. And you know - Class E won't solve it either.

Profile Decsent for a heavy is around 110-120 miles to run TOD (forecast
wind dependant blah blah)

This means with 40 to run they are at about A100 (250 BLW A100) or maybe
A120 on a high speed desc (around 320KIAS)

Currently that profile is kept within C or positively controlled
Airspace. With the proposed E airspace extensions they will be in Class E at FL180 to A090 (2-5 minutes at up to 4500fpm descent) and will not see you as you exercise your 'right' to fly through the airspace (of course you will have your transponder on you say - why do I see 5 primary paints for every one 1200 Squawk on a weekend around the very edge of CTA on a weekend then?). And the big guy on descent wont hear you on the radio either because you will on a different frequency. But they will be 'seeing and avoiding' ignoring such things as transition checks, entering STARS into the FMS, talking to company frequency etc.

Failsafe: When a number of aircraft were identified to be on incorrect MBZ and CTAF frequencies a case for AFRU's was made - and they are a good system - as long as you KNOW that you should be expecting th hear a response, so technically they are still not failsafe. Tell me - what is the failsafe for VFR aircraft to have their transponder swithced on? And to KNOW it is working?

I am assured by correspondents here that VFR pilots are in VMC. I will have to take your word for it. I have to do that everyday I suppose - for some of them who find that magical hole between the ILS to minimas. Not failsafe and not idiot-safe ( a minority I know - but it only takes one).

Finally, I have said it many times - this is not and Industrial issue - our jobs are not under threat or at stake - NAS is creating and costing money and overtime like you wouldn't believe! So why are their objections from CivilAir? Safety - the safety case has not been made for this. ATC's are safety professionals - that is ALL we do. That is our job. When a system that is less safe is forced upon us, we would be irresponsible not to speak out. Even when others with more at stake for political reasons will not.

To say that TCAS will save the day is wrong. As was mentioned a lot of less than professional VFR operators don't switch their transponder on. Secondly when was the last time the mode C was verified. If the transponder is incorrect it is more harm than good.

See and avoid between VFR and High performance IFR aircraft has time and time again been shown to be floored as the primary means of separation. If the Transponder is showing incorrect altitude on the VFR and the IFR is busy doing other stuff apart from looking out the window, it is outside radar coverage and the two aircraft are on a different frequency, you better hope Winstuns big sky theory is working.

I say again in Non Radar airspace, for mixing High Performance IFR's with VFR's C airspace is safe, E airspace is less so, for that reason NAS is flawed.

And again I don't work in Australia, so I am not trying to save my C airspace job. But as has been said before there will be more ATC's not less, so the "Controllers Union looking after their memebrs jobs" argument is way off the mark

Gaunty

TCAS is not compulsory in Australia. Transponders are not compulsory in Australia. AOPA is to thank for the latter. Your example and subsequent comparrison are somewhat rediculous (to be expected I guess)

How I ask is this relevant to the debate?

Riddle me that!

Next!
 

What a waste of space that was.

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Just the facts, Maam :

FACT : The sky is very large.

FACT : Aircraft are very small (compared to the size of the sky).

FACT : The random chance of a mid-air collision decreases with the cube of the distance away from the airport.

FACT : The primary mid-air collision risk mitigator in the enroute environment is the :
:ok: :ok: Big Sky Theory :ok: :ok:

NB : Whether or not a pilot maintains a vigilant look-out has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a pilot listens to a particular air traffic control radio frequency has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a pilot talks on a particular air traffic control radio frequency has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not an aircraft has TCAS or ADSB fitted has no bearing on any of the above factors.

FACT : In order to further reduce the chance of a mid-air collision airline aircraft are required by regulation to be fitted with TCAS II.

FACT : TCAS II systems are commercially available to anyone who wants one.

FACT : VFR aircraft in class E airspace are required by regulation to carry and use an altitude-encoding transponder so that they are conspicuous to TCAS equipped aircraft.

FACT : TCAS equipped aircraft are aware of the position of nearby transponding aircraft.

NB : Whether or not a piece of airspace is within any kind of air traffic control radar coverage has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a third-party air traffic control service is aware of the position of VFR traffic has no bearing on any of the above factors.

FACT : VFR aircraft have been flying unannounced in class G airspace since the AMATS changes of 1991 – in many places sharing the airspace with airline aircraft.

FACT : For over a decade IFR aircraft in class G airspace have not been given traffic information on VFR aircraft, and VFR aircraft in class G airspace have not been given traffic information on other VFR aircraft.

FACT : Since the AMATS changes of 1991 there have been zero mid-air collisions in the enroute environment. (Despite the dire predictions of the flight service officers’ trade union at the time.)

FACT : In areas of high traffic density (like the terminal area around an airport) it’s important that pilots know where the other aircraft are.

FACT : TCAS and ADSB allow the pilots to know where the other aircraft are.

FACT : It is very easy for pilots in the terminal area near to an airport to avoid a mid-air collision by using a combination of the airport traffic radio frequency, TCAS, and looking out the window.

FACT : Pilots have been required by regulation to look out the window in order to avoid a mid-air collision for many decades : Refer CAR 163A.

FACT : Whether or not a third-party air traffic control service knows where the aircraft are is largely irrelevant as long as the pilots know where the aircraft are.

Here’s a few popular fantasies :

FANTASY : See and avoid is the primary means of avoiding a mid-air collision in the enroute environment.

NB : The Big Sky Theory is the primary risk mitigator with TCAS the secondary risk mitigator.

FANTASY : There is a class of airspace known as “commercial airspace”.

FANTASY : The companies that operate RPT flights own the sky, and in particular the “commercial airspace”.

FANTASY : Australia would be a better place if all the airspace was class A.

FANTASY : The RPT pilot unions represent the interests of airline passengers.

FANTASY : The RPT pilot unions have a mandate to speak on behalf of airline passengers.

FANTASY : Someone on the ground must always know where all the planes are.

FANTASY : An aircraft cannot fly safely if it is outside air traffic control radar coverage.

FANTASY : An aircraft cannot fly safely unless the pilot is in radio contact with air traffic control.

FANTASY : The more you talk on the radio the less chance there is that you will be involved in a mid-air collision.

FANTASY : NAS will create a need for more air traffic controllers.

FANTASY : Civil Air (the air traffic controllers trade union) would never disingenuously wave the safety flag to deliberately scare the public when the union is faced with an industrial relations issue.

FANTASY : The world would be a better place if there were more air traffic controllers.

FANTASY : VFR aircraft must be positively separated from VFR aircraft in class C.

FANTASY : IFR aircraft must be positively separated from VFR aircraft in class D.

FANTASY : Air traffic controllers need to know where all the VFR aircraft are in class E.

FANTASY : The owners and operators of regional airports know what goes on above their airport’s obstacle-free surface.

FANTASY : All pilots of private category flights are PPLs.

FANTASY : All pilots of private category flights have a death wish.

FANTASY : All private pilots are incompetent.

FANTASY : All pilots of small aircraft are incompetent.

FANTASY : The only reason a pilot would fly VFR is because they don’t have an instrument rating.

Comment :

In my view the proposal to change some of the existing Australian class G (that uses ICAO class F procedures) to class E is two (or perhaps one) step(s) in the wrong direction. I don’t believe it’s needed - it’s simply over servicing and will lead to unnecessary delays and expense. It’s a solution in search of a problem.

But in my view the proposal to change some of the existing class C to class E is two steps in the right direction because it will reduce unnecessary delays and expense.

If the proposal were to change existing class C to genuine ICAO class G then that would be four steps in the right direction (ICAO-G = no service, no charge, no delay).

Class G = Good enough for me. :ok:

But if the general public demand that airline jets operating between capital cities be positively separated from other IFR aircraft then :

Class E = Good enough for everyone. :ok:

Lengthy post, much waffle, get to the end, entire thing wasted because you make a statement that the public want Big jets separated from IFR and E makes this all OK. Do the public even know what IFR is. The public know big jet = safe... VFR Flying Jacket Crowd = Volvo Drivers of the sky.

Public want do not to be hit by the cowboys doing their own. Cowboys = Volvo Drivers of the Sky.

Get it yet?

Next time before you post, copy it and pm it to me so that I can save you from your own self.


edit = spelling but then again I am just an incompetent ATC.

How will it all work?
 

This thread has long since degenerated into a slag fest (without any help from me ;) ), but I'll post a few questions anyway:

Scenario : B737 descending through class E airspace, being radar vectored for sequencing at a controlled aerodrome. The pilot spots an unidentified aircraft and determines that a collision risk exists . No traffic information has been passed by ATC. What happens now?[list=1][*]Does the pilot deviate from his vector/ route clearance?[*]Does the pilot deviate from his level assignment?[*]Does any deviation from a clearance count as a 'reportable incident', given that this is the primary/only means of 'separation' available under the circumstances?[*]If the answer is NO, then are TCAS RAs still 'reportable incidents'?[*]Does the pilot assume that the other aircraft was a VFR aircraft and that therefore no breadown of IFR-IFR separation has occurred?[*] What liability attaches to the B737 pilot/operator if their devaition from clearance causes a breakdown of separation with another IFR aircraft?[*]What calls are made to ATC in the event of deviating from clearance?[*]For the bean-counters: Does the deviating B737 maintain its position in the arrival sequence? (i.e. is ATC obliged to maintain its priority at the expense of other traffic which did not deviate from their clearance?[*]Have any operators yet provided RPT pilots with 'guidelines' as to how much 'self separation' to apply between themselves and unidentified aircraft, taking into account both operational and public perception factors. For that matter, had any companies done so for class G operations.[/list=1]

In particular, if anyone has relevant experience in how RPT jets operate in non-radar E airspace in the USA, your input would be very worthwhile.

Also, has anyone had any experience of IFR pick-up, VFR-on-top or VFR climb/descent since they came in?

Have these procedures provided the benefits you were expecting?

No names, no pack drill, but.... hands up who has requested IFR pickup in C?

(BTW, I know we're supposedly following some sort of hybrid, North American, US McNAS system, but introducing the term 'pick-up' into the Australian system is ...... un-Australian!!!! Surely we could have called it something like IFR Uncleared Transition in E - or IFR UTE for short

BIK_116.80

Long time no seeum, great chat the other night:ok:

Thanks for the usual eloquent disquisition on fact v fantasy

methinks tobzalp has his countries confused, but we wouldn't want to confuse the discussion with facts or reason.

It's much easier to try and marginalise any who have the temerity to discuss issues or hold an opposing view by attempting to demean them. I had a very good run with Volvos and the '75 Station Wagon bought as a new shopping cart for mother and the first of three babies, was stored and handed on down through my three children as they grew up and moved on, it's still going strong and still looks like new with a neighbours son and his wife around the corner, carrying their new baby in it.

Deja vu;
Circa 1969 and I'm standing on the tarmac at Perth Airport being roundly berated by an apoplectic airline captain for having the temerity to;
a. operate an aircraft in IMC within 100nm of his AIRLINE AIRCRAFT (F27)
b. causing a hazard to his passengers by causing our aircraft to arrive at the approach fix several minutes before him and not having the wit to cause ATC to send us off to Bunbury or someother safe place to hold whilst he worked out how to get himself on the ground.

We had just unloaded around half a billion US Dollars worth of passengers. I guess they were just lucky we amateurs didn't kill em.

Seems like not much changes.

I digress.

ferris me old

You miss my point, I should have qualified it with the enroute non radar Class E case.
In non radar Class E base is FL180, hardly Indian country for the so called "VFR Flying Jacket Crowd = Volvo Drivers of the sky". :rolleyes:
In Radar Class E is down to 8,500ft but with a transponder "billy blowfly" can be seen as traffic by the controllers radar AND the TCAS.

I'm also here to tell you that from my experience most of the Vovo Drivers get nosebleed above 5000ft. That is 8500ft is hardly a VFR traffic jam enroute and in close, due to climb and descent profiles positively empty and yet again they can be "seen".

I'm a bit concerned about the furore around the
and the general construction of the argument on the basis that unless you're an airline pilot you're not a real one, neither is your aircraft and in any event they, the airline pilots, are much too busy to be looking out, perhaps we need more eyes or hands in the cockpit then, just for good CDF airmanship.

That logic presupposes that the bugsmasher has a higher magnitude of deathwish than the airline guy. I have said it in these halls before, it really doesn't matter whether you have one or many hundred bodies behind you, we all have the same responsibility towards each other and our individual a&seholes in the airspace . It might be a good ego feeder for some but I cant process the notion that "I am/have to be 400 times more responsible than you, therefore........". I wonder if the pax are comfortable about the 146 guys only being a quarter as reponsible as the B744 ones :confused:

I dont think it is intentional but I am sure that there is more a lack of information and the facts than virtue in the argument.

Simply why would ASA and CASA sign off on anything that they can not justify in safety terms.

As has been revealed here they ASA are flat out retraining and qualifying staff, maybe when the dust settles and more information gets out there, it will become clearer.

We are signed up to 2b education and we have been assisting, as has I understand Qantas is in the production of the pilot educational material.

Oh and the DC10, I actually do understand the difference, I was merely pointing out how flexible the US system is.
Of course that happens routinely in Oz doesn't it.:uhoh:

Slagging off by everyone here just doesn't cut it

gaunty

Yes AsA and CASA signed off on the safety case for stage 2b.

Both are stakeholders in our airspace and therefore have a vested interest to proceed with it. Interestingly enough, CASA only gave conditional approval for 2b.

Why isnt the safety case for each stage conducted by an independent third party, ie the ATSB.

Whew!... what a thread!
I am not in Aus at the moment and have missed all the media about this. From what I have read here, ( and correct me if I'm wrong) , under the new scheme the situation could exist where a PJE aircraft climbs to FL130 in E without making a radio call except for on the local aerodrome frequency, a heavy enters E on descent through that level without traffic info about the PJE aircraft , the PJE is in a climb concentrating on intercepting the run in on the gps and looking out not quite as much as he/she could, the heavy's F/O is reading a plate while the captain turns around to remind a hostee he'll be in her room at 9pm sharp, meanwhile the 260hr PJE pilot realises that they didn't turn their transponder to alt as they lined up for flight number 27 of the day....oops too late.

Is that scenario possible? I have quickly read the posts and missed anything that showed otherwise, it must be there though because surley nobody would be silly enough to rely on an overloaded underpaid new cpl to turn the tx to alt in order to avert disaster....
I look forward to someone pointing out what I have missed.
cheers, cjam

cjam

So I guess we run any sytem on the lowest common denominator then. :(

Sounds like back to the three man cockpit and two man jumper to me.:rolleyes: man with red flag preceding them to the runway.

I can see it now two "red flag men" having a bit of biffo as to who gets right of way at the intersection. :p


Aerognome
Love that nic. :)
I don't suppose the so called CASA conditional approval was the all too common individual "I just don't like it" rather than the result of rational process.

I also understand that the safety case was audited by an independent thrid party, at least for ASA.

Why do they have a vested interest for it to proceed, just because they are stakeholders? It is not as if there is not already a system in place.

Sigh. After reading BIK post I don't see much point in contributing to this thread anymore. You guys seem to have it all figured out . Your safety case is big sky.

Let me say it now in advance. I told you so.

And dont blame the controller when it happens. Although I am sure the court will attribute a portion of the blame to the poor soul who is Johnny on the spot that day.

Your ignorance is breathtaking - even when presented with the facts you blindly march forward despite them.

Some of you guys just reinforce the case for outright opposition to anything you utter - reasoned debate is not in your vernacular.

So count me out now in trying to reason with you.

Bik, you appear to display a remarkable level of flexibility with your ‘facts’.

And where traffic levels warrant it, the primary mitigator is supplemented by secondary, tertiary etc. mitigators, such as traffic information, control etc. No airspace system relies only on this primary mitigator. No safe transport system does.

True, simply ‘listening’ and ‘talking’ have no bearing on the chances of avoiding a mid-air collision. You might as well be singing Auld Lang Syne on the radio of that is all you are going to do. Listening and reacting to other traffic or control instructions does have a bearing in avoiding mid-air collisions.

Although why you would want one if it has no bearing on ‘the above factors’ is beyond me. Perhaps it is because TCAS does in fact offer a supplementary level of safety?

True, but does not tell the full story. Merely being aware of the current position of conflicting traffic is not the same as being aware of the other traffic’s intentions, nor does it afford the opportunity to negotiate mutual avoiding action, either directly or via a third party.

VFR aircraft have ‘announced’ through broadcasts. It is precisely this that Dick Smith has been trying to avoid.

Where traffic has been known (e.g. in radar coverage) traffic has been and continues to be provided.

True

Wrong. It is important that someone knows the positions, intentions etc of aircraft so that a cogent plan can be formulated which provides – dare I say it – a ‘safe, orderly and expeditious’ flow of air traffic. (We can’t all be number one in the sequence.)

TCAS shows the positions of transponding traffic. ADSB will, in the future, do many things. ADSB will be akin to an ashtray on a motorbike on November 27.

Operations in the terminal area involve much more than avoidance of a mid-air collision. The ‘ease’ with which terminal area operations can be conducted safely would, I suggest, be dependent on the traffic levels, complexity, weather etc. A point will be reached when it becomes less easy, difficult and ultimately impossible.

Excellent point. Even though in Clas A airspace, the current primary mitigator against mid-air collisions is ATC, the regulators have long recognised that reliance on one, single mitigator is unsatisfactory. This is exactly why we have a ‘layered defence’. If ATC fails, pilot situational awareness may detect it. If not, then TCAS. If not, then ‘see and avoid’. (Not forgetting ‘luck’ or big sky theories.)

Knowing where the aircraft are is the very smallest part of a safe air traffic management system. The reason controllers (Say in class A) know where the aircraft are is because they ‘put’ them there. They did this because they knew the positions, intentions etc. of other aircraft. They plan for safety. By doing this, pilots can, in most cases fly more directly, staying at the same levels for longer, thus saving money.

I won’t comment on these.
As has been pointed out already, the public do not want to be ‘positively separated from other IFR aircraft’. They probably want to avoid mid-air collisions altogether. By the same token, they would prefer to avoid mountains, mountain goats, tall trees, balloons and other objects likely to interrupt the drinks service.

Yes, this is certainly an interesting thread!

It is sad however to see some of the posters drift off topic somewhat in order to try and make a point, some of which are quite valid and some of which are pure rubbish.

As an AOPA member since I learnt to fly in the '60's I am very much aware of the responsibility they see to their membership (and others) in regard to airspace reform. I am also fully aware of the "other" arguments as I have been employed in the industry for all my working life, including almost 20 years flying regional airline type aircraft.

None of the posters to date have really got to the nuts and bolts of the problems discussed to date. And that is what is being proposed has not (as yet) been presented to the industry in a form that all of us understand. In other words there is no level playing field. Both Gaunty and BIK have attempted to list some or all of the issues, but is it really their role on an internet bulletin board to do that? And they are obviously doing it from one end of the non level playing field! With due respect to the board of AOPA (whom I would not want to trade places with) there is still not any significant info on the AOPA web site or forum and I would be correct to say that both Gary and Andrew have said more here than there – I wonder why that is?

Andrew has clearly had difficulty controlling how his fingers wiz across the keyboard as I found some of his posts did neither he nor his cause much good. Next time you feel like that Andrew, save it and come back a few hours later and if on second reading you still feel it is worthy of posting then ok, but please don't shoot from the hip. (and shoot at the target, not the other shooters!)

We must all realise that an association of people with common interests have much more leverage than any individuals (with perhaps one exception!!) and like AOPA, I am sure that the AFAP, AIPA and CAOAA have the best interests of their membership at heart. You are free of course not to agree with any or all of the positions so taken, but please don't allow that to taint the discussion. As professionals (and that includes amateur professionals, or is that the professional amateurs?) I believe that none of these associations would use the safety argument if they did not believe it was valid to do so. There are many issues discussed above which are quite valid examples of concerns that exist right across the industry. Just because I don't fly that type of aircraft or in that type of airspace is no reason to say it does not matter. The "I only want what is good for me" position is unbalanced and inappropriate to the discussion. We must consider the whole picture and how each of us interacts with other users. To do less, dare I say… is not professional.

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE NAS AND ITS INTRODUCTION IS THAT WE IN THE INDUSTRY ARE DEVOID OF ALL THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE EFFECTIVE JUDGEMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO DATE AND WHAT THE AIM IS FOR THE END STATE PACKAGE. IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN WITH ANY VALIDITY AS TO WHAT IF ANY THE COST SAVIINGS WILL BE AND TO WHOM, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SAFETY WILL NOT BE COMPRIMISED.

The information and education to date is somewhat lacking and I would have to say much of it is provided without any explanation or justification. This to me IS THE PROBLEM.

Certainly the big sky policy is a significant mitigator in terms of a possible mid-air collision, however I know at least one regional airline pilot that had a very close call with a glider in en-route airspace (above 5000ft) a few years back. By the time they saw each other there was no time to move and the glider went under the regional turbo-prop by only a matter of metres – a close one. No TCAS of course, different radio freqs and see and avoid did not work (and would not have). What scares me is that very little or nothing has been achieved to prevent a reoccurrence of such an incident. Certainly a high degree of reliance on the big sky theory.

IF we are to embrace change in airspace reform (which we have needed for many years) then collectively we need to know the answer to all the "why" questions. And I don't believe we do.

The major mitigator of any change to airspace is information and education. (Look at the G Trial – if we had 100 pilots in that airspace, I would bet you there were 90 different ideas on how it should work – no wonder it failed). This education must be significant and on-going, for years if necessary. To date, we have not even seen anything other than an introduction. The rest of the book is blank (and getting thicker).

Of course the problem is not helped by having the whole project made political. Many industry players have attempted to place their case to the Minister without much luck it seems. The Minister should be listening to all of the arguments and then seeking appropriate advice from his advisors. It is sad when it seems he is not entertaining any case which is not in line with what the NASIG have had him sign off on.

Whilst I am a strong supporter of airspace reform, I am appalled at the way this project is being managed (and I don't believe that is Mike's fault – more the NASIG and the Minister I feel).

Obviously the resources necessary to provide the necessary information and ongoing education is either not there or not considered important enough. Whilst this situation continues, then it is quite likely that the transition to a new airspace model will be anything but smooth.

"no known traffic" :ok:

oh???
 

triadic

Sorry if I seem caustic, I didn't mean to start out that way. Read threads from plazbot (inverted and not) Jack Axiom and a few others, and perhaps you will see why.

Unlike CivilAir and AFAP scaremongers, AOPA reps don't get paid. With other jobs to do our fingers are often 'fast' across the keyboard.

I do however pay attention to a lot on here (except Jack Axiom, his anti-GA mates and plazbot) and have yet to firm my view on final NAS.

So, here I am waiting to hear :ok:

AK

I am flattered that you include me. It concerns me however that you from all of your previous posts and the definite manner with which you went about them finally admit that you don't really know just what is going on and that you have to have a think about it. It is quite simple. E and G me all you want but what you must do is look at the End State of NAS. Even you Organisation has reservations about it.

I can't believe that it has taken around 5 100 post plus threads to get to this. Finally.

Here is the post I tried to send yesterday........

Gaunty;

Any safety system , any system where lives are at stake , yes, absolutely.
Also, in an earlier post, you appear to attribute remarks and phraseologies to me that were clearly made by other posters. Please don't, and I'll afford you the same courtesy.

Mr Kerans;

Civil Air reps are not paid. They just happen to care.
Still nobody has answered the questions about what benefits are being derived at what cost. Maybe if AOPA ran a positive campaign, rather than running interference for NASIG, you might get more respect. I feel certain that if you approached Ted Lang, and the AFAP, you would get support for ADSB etc., but not while you appear to be running a seperate agenda. NAS and ADSB has to be linked for your stance to have any credibility.

BIK.
Just keep plugging away with that "we can all do what we want in the sky and it won't matter" drivel. It further marginalises you.


We cannot ignore the end state. It is where this is all going. None of these windrow-dressing intermediate steps mean much. The end state is what it's all about. There is no point going half-way down the road, only to turn back again . The debate should only focus on the end state. But that wouldn't serve NASIGs interest, would it?

Gentlemen,

We are finally reaching the guts of the matter!

At the NASIG meeting with the unions on the 30 Sept last it was announced that the end state model is not clearly evident ( to NASIG ) and that further reforms to airspace were reliant largely upon supporting technology. Herein lies the problem, the technology is currently not available. The changes proposed in 2b do reduce the current safety levels, if airspace reform stalled after the introduction of 2b we would be left with a less safe airways system. That is why the introduction of 2b should be stopped.

We need to be able to clearly see where the Airspace Reform Group and NASIG are going with airspace reform.

The tripartite union campaign is based on the end state model as it is currently understood, which with the aid of smoke and mirrors NASIG is clouding the picture and confusing the issue.

There is nothing wrong with airspace reform, it is an evolving thing. However, any changes made must not reduce safety.

None of the reresentatives from the AFAP AIPA or Civilair are paid for their time, they just happen to care about the safety of ALL airspace users.

My thoughts have again turned to moral decision making. What temperament drives an intransigent self-centred interest, altruistic, or doomsayer's point of view.

Some possible choices in this airspace debate are:

1. Self-centred - I am passionate, loud and strongly support the airspace model which most closely matches my self-interest(s). I will demonise all other models.

2. Altruistic - I also am fervent, and aggressive, but will support the airspace model, which provides the greatest good for the broader community. I'm prepared to override my desire for higher levels of system safety when convinced that the level of safety offered is very good and restrictions, regulations and other constrictions are minimised; thereby providing freedom of opportunity.

3. Doomsayer - I am most indignant, and in your face; I will only support the airspace model that provides the highest level of system safety to all types of operations, otherwise aircraft will collide (one day?). I oppose any model that reduces the current level of system safety.

In our society we highly regard the leader and statesman whom, against a tide of opposition, brings about worthwhile reform, but will devalue arguments put in an aggressive and domineering fashion. Meanwhile, we also highly regard the dissenters (whistleblowers) in our societies who are entitled to be heard and protest, and sometimes have altered us to unseen dangers. We always need a fulsome debate, but how do we resolve the impasse, while we value freedom from regulation, a fair deal, and acceptance of personal risk.

I contend that when pilots and airspace managers/designers can suspend self-interest and view the whole bowl of fruit (resist focusing on the single bad grape), it is possible to present the Australian community with an airspace model, which passes the "greatest good" test and is worthy of general support.

tobzalp

No – I’m quite certain that they don’t.

Just the same as the general public think that there is an air traffic control tower at every two-bit country airstrip, and that an aircraft will crash if it attempts to fly without filing a flight plan.

Away from the airport class G would be plenty good enough. Class E is just to keep up appearances (kind of like the way non-radar class D control zones do now).

Oh yes – I get it. In fact, I think I first got it quite some time ago.

What I get is that a worryingly significant number of air traffic controllers have an unhealthy and disrespectfully condescending attitude towards the pilots of private category flights (ie their “customers”).

I’m sure that this attitude contributes, in part at least, to many of the all-too-common “remain outside controlled airspace – clearance not available” rebuffs.

The air traffic control system has been primarily designed to cater for scheduled IFR traffic – basically, for RPT. The air traffic control system has real problems coping with the more random nature of unscheduled traffic, and in particular with VFR GA traffic.

The ridiculous amount of TAAATS data-input required when pop-up traffic requests a clearance is an example of this.

Thankfully, the vast majority of GA traffic has no real need for any type of “service” from the air traffic control system.

Class E at least relieves the air traffic control system of the apparent burden of having to deal with VFR GA traffic. With class E the air traffic controllers are free to “roger” and “wilco” their way through the day with their captive audience of IFR traffic (at enormous expense), leaving the VFR traffic to get on with it, unhindered by the delays (and expense) of the air traffic control system.

Four Seven Eleven,

The pilot manoeuvres as required to avoid the collision risk.

Actually – I was faced with a very similar scenario a few months back in class C airspace.

When being radar vectored for an ILS approach in day VMC conditions I noticed a parachute canopy (with a person dangling beneath it) in my 12 o’clock, about half a mile, slightly above, and with a very low rate of descent. It looked like a regular parachute, but it may have been one of those fancy ones that can go up as well as down. I was at 5,000 feet on a left base with about 18 track miles to run. As I was about to take action to alter course so that I would pass laterally clear, the canopy rolled right 90 degrees and commenced a rapid descent. It seemed apparent that the parachutist had seen (or possibly heard) me coming and had decided that it was in their best interests to get out of the way. In the end I could see that there was no need for me to alter course.

Once clear I reported the sighting to ATC who helpfully told me “no traffic, no traffic”.

Is that the kind of scenario you are getting at, Four Seven Eleven? If so, then I’m sure it’s all been done before.

Forgive me - I’m not sure if this relates to your earlier scenario or not. But if it does, how can an aircraft be radar vectored when it is outside radar coverage?

Excellent idea! :ok: How very Australian.

Shall we have a government funded committee debate for months whether it should be a HOLDEN ute or a FORD ute? ;)

gaunty,

Yeah – and if you keep up that kind of behaviour then you can expect to be hearing from my lawyers!

(With a cheque for AOPA membership.... ;) :ok: )

Yeah – I learnt to drive in one myself. They’re great cars! As they say : “boxy, but safe”. :ok:

(Actually, I learnt to drive in two Volvos – one 1,700 kg one and one 14,900 kg one.)

How come these left-wing socialists want to pick on Volvo drivers all of a sudden? Me thinks it’s just penis-envy from the peasants. :rolleyes:

I’m sorry – but I nearly fell off my chair at that one! I thought you said “airline aircraft”? ;)

Your F27 driver sounds like a typical big fish in a little pond. How many gold bars did he have? PMSL!

Four Seven Eleven,

Herein lies the crux of the debate : “where traffic levels warrant it”.

In my opinion the traffic levels in the vast majority of Australia’s airspace warrant nothing more than genuine ICAO class G (ie no service, no delay, no charge).

I do agree that in areas of high traffic density (like in the terminal area around a very busy airport) the Big Sky Theory is not enough on its own.

But whereas you might suggest further layers of collision risk mitigation based on an expensive air traffic control infrastructure – like DTI or controlled airspace, I would advocate less restrictive, less labour-intensive, and more effective solutions - like using a TCAS traffic display and like looking out the window.

In the Australian enroute environment the random chance of a mid-air collision is sufficiently remote to rely on the Big Sky Theory on its own.

With respect, I suspect that you might have missed the point. I do admit that I might have been a bit too obtuse.

My comments were not in regard to “the chances of avoiding a mid-air collision”.

My point was that the Big Sky Theory functions just as well whether you talk on the radio or not, and whether you are in radar coverage or not, and whether you have TCAS or ADSB or not, because the geometry of a very large sky with relatively few aeroplanes flying around in it is unaffected by all those things.

Of course TCAS offers a further level of safety over and above what is available from the Big Sky Theory on its own.

I think this relates to my apparently obtuse point above.

Thanks to the Big Sky Theory there is an extremely remote chance that an aircraft will be involved in a mid-air collision in Australia’s enroute environment – whether the aircraft has TCAS or not.

If the aircraft has TCAS then the chance of a mid-air collision is reduced even further.

Anyone who is concerned about a mid-air collision should buy a TCAS. :ok:

I disagree.

Intentions are wonderful (eg “climbing to altitude 5,000 feet”), but useless. What matters is what the other aircraft is actually doing (eg erroneously climbing to 8,000 feet).

TCAS calculates the closure rate and time to closest point of approach of nearby aircraft. These are the all-important factors, not what the pilot of the other aircraft intended to do.

A TCAS traffic display allows the pilot to see the relative position and altitude of nearby traffic. Aircraft that are climbing or descending are shown as such. It is very easy for a pilot to manoeuvre around other traffic using a TCAS traffic display.

In any case, if both aircraft are fitted with TCAS II then mutual avoiding action will be automatically calculated (and co-ordinated) by the TCAS units themselves.

If one aircraft is fitted with TCAS II but the other aircraft is not then TCAS II will still automatically calculate avoiding action.

What proportion of VFR aircraft do you say make these broadcasts?

Despite all the VFR waffle on the airwaves, my information is that something less than 20% of VFR pilots make radio transmissions in class G airspace (other than on CTAF or MBZ frequencies).

For the vast majority of VFR traffic in the enroute environment it has been the Big Sky Theory alone that has kept the planes apart for over a decade.

Fantastic. So if you’ve got radar, where’s the problem with class E? If you haven’t got radar then you haven’t known about the VFR traffic (and therefore have not passed DTI on it) since the AMATS changes of 1991. Either way – same result : ZERO enroute mid-air collisions since 1991. Again, where’s the problem?

We will continue to disagree on this point. I suspect that our differing opinions are based on our different experiences.

To be entirely honest, I haven’t yet figured out what ADSB can do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do. I’ll stick to TCAS for now, thanks.

Again – I suspect that our differing opinions are based on our different experiences.

Whereas for a whole lot less money we could rely on the Big Sky Theory as the primary risk mitigator, use TCAS as the secondary risk mitigator, and have looking out the window as the last line of defence. (I presume we are talking about the enroute environment here.)

One of the many problems with the current, outdated air traffic control procedures is that they increase the chance of a mid-air collision by funnelling all the aircraft into the same few flight levels along the same routes - reducing the effectiveness of the Big Sky Theory.

The day you come up with an air traffic control procedure that can get me a more expeditious routing than direct to the destination is the day that I’ll be your biggest advocate.

But until that day comes I’ll continue to view the air traffic control system as an elaborate and expensive system of traffic lights in the sky – their only possible effect being delay and expense.

I concur.

But I suggest that once an aircraft is away from the airport environment it doesn’t need any air traffic control service in order to avoid a mid-air collision.

triadic,

Your belief in the altruism of the Australian union movement is much greater than mine.

I disagree.

If everyone lobbied for what is best for them then we ought to end up with a solution that offers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

Isn’t that how a democracy is meant to work? :confused:

I’m sorry – didn’t you say they missed?

Where’s the problem then?

A miss is as good as five miles. :ok:

Bonzer,

Oh come now – get real.

Civil Air represents the interests of the air traffic controllers.

AFAP and AIPA represent the interests of the RPT pilots (who are just a small fraction of the total pilot population).

To suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.

Can I assume that since nobody has told me that the scenario I painted in my last post couldn't happen, that it can?
If that is the case then I would have to oppose this reform in it's current form.
GAUNTY
Why wouldn't you role with the lowest common denominator?
The paying public don't care that the mid-air occured because of a mistake the lightie made.
The system would allow a ppl, with no duty time limits, to WORK (thats what it becomes towards the end of a big day), in the same airspace as the rpt's without involving the third party as a safety backstop. Thats degradation of current safety standards.
I'm not saying it's right to have a ppl working 12hr days with 10hrs airborne on PJE (and if you're wondering I've never done it), but thats what our system allows, and it happens, and therefore it is ludicrous to expect them to never make a simple mistake thus endangering the lives of others.
Go the lowest common denominator that the system allows.

We are ndeed a nation divided by a common language.:{

Before I get carried away and forget.
Regardless of what system we have, whilst we contunue to run "airways" and other means of funelling traffic and combine that with the fantasticly accurate GPS and IRS systems available today we are setting ourselves up for a coming together not previously statistically probable using the old steam driven stuff.
Opposing or conflicting traffic in the "steam driven nav" days could reasonably be expected to "miss" each other simply due to the nature of the signal and receiving apparatus. Not so today with the several metres accuracy available.

Should we not be insisting that any GPS or IRS system have an acceptable random dither applied to the information so derived to open up the probability a bit??


ferris
Forgive me if it looked like I was attributing "that" quote to you, I was not, I was simply using it as one does on the manner of conversational aside.

LCD, well there is low and there is unsupportable low.

I made the comment to an ATC gentleman the other day that we could get the risk to absolute zero by not flying, period.

That is as stupid as suggesting we have a free for all, although I suspect that might actually work.:uhoh:

What I was trying to convey was that the lowest common denominator in that case is actually the pilot training and disciplines. It might be able to be held that the "young tyro" is actually more conscientious than the "old hand", either way we all have to assume that whoever is sharing the airspace with us is going to act responsibly.
I get the feeling that some ATCOs assume the exact opposite.

triadic

Spot on argument as usual.

I believe that his has been recognised of late and there are steps in place.

BIK_116.8

Bwahahah, in them days they were, at least around the region, :} and yes they DID own the skys AND were until then, the ONLY aircraft operating in IMC, hence one of the MAIN reasons our Regulatory and ATC systems evolved the way they did and echoes of which are still reverberating loudly through the reform process.

I wont bore the audience with a full exposition of this thesis, but you know what I mean.:p

cjam
You might be surprised to learn that I actually agree with you.

Isn't this what this debate is really all about, "what the system will allow"

The whole "system" under normal circumstances is politically driven by properly informed punter sentiment, Government from whence the funds derive and the Regulator.

Unfortunately that whole thing is skewed by this "user pays" and "private" enterprise Air Services provider. They are no longer funded by Government, they are expected to run at a profit within acceptable safety parameters, but are artificially constrained by Government from "doing their thing" by a political limiting of the charge they can apply.

IMHO they have done an amazing job in the transition and are unique in the world and I would have expected nothing less from the professionals they are.

But the halcyon "gold plated" days are over.
The punters voted, as always. for cheaper everything, a certain enthusiast told em they could and should have it, the rest is history.

We are not going to unscramle that egg any time soon so it's up to the professionals to find an answer that is acceptable to all.

The ray of sunshine being, that we will all be challenged to rethink old attitudes, procedures and mindsets. Heck we might even find a better way.

We'll never know until we try, not recklessy certainly, but certainly outside the square.

So for all of us looking outside of our own individual boxes, responsibly;

What will the "whole system" allow?

NASIG
 

I was having a chat with family a few days ago they reminded me that as a child all I wanted to do was be a pilot some 40 years have past now and I am and have been in the industry for many years. I have worked in the industry in most countries and it is so sad that here at home pilots and aviation as a whole in my eyes are probably the lowest lifeform in the human chain we only have to look at these posts to see how we attack each other at the slightest comment. I admit to attacking others at times myself usually on the basis that they are pushing their own barrow and distorting the truth and the system to prove they are right.

There are so many untruths sitting in this post it shows only how ignorant some of you are. For example WHO ARE NASIG?, easy unlike some of you may think they are not hand picked by dick or some other political party to field their dreams, they are in fact men and or women from a cross section of the industry chosen to do a job. They have no hidden motives they may have their own personal opinion of NAS the group in fact change after this stage to try and keep NAS objective. Some of them are experts in their own right and are well aware of the problems outlined in some peoples minds. Each of you are only expressing self interests they have to look at the whole picture in the interests of us all. They also have to return back and work in the very thing they are changing so please stop attacking them.

Next for the rest of you that think you know better for each of you that have a particular barrow to push a representative from your field or organisation has been at the workshops to identify and where possible mittigate safety issues both on US compliant and non compliant issues and that has been done in my eyes to the best of all presents ability. Next 2b has been signed off by CASA I dont know where this one has been dreamed up, not so dedline 20th OCT 2003 that is why the training package is not out yet why spend squillions on printing what woud be toilet paper if it does not get signed off. Arms are not being bent here if it is not accepted there has to be a very valid reson why not dreamed up reasons or percieved issues. My suggestion to those that are not happy with the representative from your particular organisation is stop wasting time here with inane rantings and take your issues up with him or her.

Personally I have no hidden motives here I have been in a position where I can express safety issues and help with training my mind is not one sided my goal is to make aviation safe for all users, My personal view is aviation in Austrailia statistically speaking is not safe for many reasons and airspace reform will eventually help this, perhaps 2b is not perfect but it is another step forward and I believe it is as safe as it can be if we compare it to current model then perhaps not but did we need the current level of safety in the first place or was it just belt and braces.

Perhaps some of you out there would like me to put an extra rib in you wing or another bulkhead in the fuselage just in case it may fail, wake up aviation is all about a compromise why dont I put another bulkhead in your fuselage when I know it would be far safer and stronger? simple because it would cost you more and you would have to carry less so I compromise because under normal circumstances it will be safe.

In our current airspace system regionals go into busy CTAF's in some areas this has not caused that great a problem in the past so why should it in the future. If representatives show me a good reason then fine I will support them. A valid reason is not that just because radio carriage is not mandatory or calls compulsory GA pilots wont do them how stupid are you. Some years ago give way to the right on our roads was removed from the rules, tell me how many people out there don' t give way to the right? easy answer no one and why because it would be stupid to not do it, driving instructors still teach giving way to the right the same as flying instructors will still teach radio calls at appropriate points as recommended. One good thing will happen and that is they will be able to spend more time on teaching flying and airmanship that getting the average pilot to understand complicated airspace procedures and rules, some of you may have actually forgotten how hard that was or is now.

For those of you that think they know what NAS end state is dream on sure there are are goals for a model but it is clear that with the process so far it will not be exactly the same as the US model and as long as I am invited to help and I have a hole in my A#SE then I wont agree to anything that I do not see as safe.

The simple truth in all this is the process is being delayed by people with vested interests and hidden agendas sadly they are not always valid safety issues. Thats why its hard to get information out. How can a goal be scored when the players are moving the posts. Blackmail tactics do nothing but make the system dangerous because people dig in and wont budge and objectives and real issues become clouded, scaring the Australian public is criminal. A real fact now no GA no aviation everything starts somewhere and everything needs somewhere to start and GA is the very foundation its built on from engineers to pilots. 152 pilot to 747-400 in 6 years for a close friend of mine, where does he go if there is no GA in 10 years circuits in a 152 sim perhaps or 747 sim with no real flying experience how scary. Do yourselves a favour help look after GA as they helped and will continue to help you meet your dreams we are all pilots something to be proud of and admired by others after reading some of this I wonder what I should realy be proud of.

Sorry this is so long passionate I am dangerous I am not, I have lost many friends to aviation and been to far to many funerals. If I can make a change and loose less friends then pardon me if I care. Keep flying (A VINCULO TERRAE).
:ok:

And so say all of us.:ok:

At the risk of offending Woomera
 

Yo! Binnie et al,

This thread is reaching its ordained maximum length. Over a hundred posts which means Big W will be canning it momentarily. (RANT ON: On that topic BW, how about relaxing the 100 post rule? It seems to me if a thread’s getting plenty of activity, wielding the electronic cleaver at 100 posts only serves to provide opportunity for endless repetition of the same cr@p as the newcomers – or God forbid, someone who has been deprived of PPRUNE for a while – can’t get the context of current posts. Other forums on the site seem quite happy with 30 odd pages and still going strong. RANT OFF)

Bless me father it has been several weeks since my first and last post (NAS on the skids). I’ve waded through the many posts, some of which seem to rely on quantity rather than quality, and note some quite interesting oppositions in common throughout the past few NAS is doomed type threads:

Fat cat bureaucrat ATCs bent on the destruction of aviation in this once great land, feathering their own nests at the cost of the aviation industry, which , let’s face it they’re not part of vs. terry-towelling hatted weekend warriors who want to be able to fly anywhere, anytime at no cost other than the transport strapped to their prodigious @rses

The sky is falling Heavy Metal bus drivers vs. “If he can hit me he can f*#@ me – it’s a big sky” PPLs

BIK 116.8 vs, urm vs, weeellll virtually everyone (including himself) as it happens

My observation (sorry I am an ATC so I know my opinion is not valid but…):

I think it’s less safe. I support the position of the unions in that the basic premises for the change (based on the Willoughby report) that it’ll be at least as safe, and $70 million cheaper both seem to have flown out the window. Most of my peers seem to be pretty apathetic about it all. Call me old-fashioned but no matter how bad it gets out there, I’d have to be very unlucky for the prang to kill me.

Let’s all hold hands, pull the black cloth onto our heads and pronounce the verdict. I’m sick of it. Let the charred wreckage fall where it may.

Over and definitely out…

Hey you up there:uhoh:

Modesty forbids me from typing your name, but Big W here has some discretion in these things and in recognition of its importance and interest will let this thread run along for a bit, subject to the usual rules.

I'm even going to sticky it.

So play on chaps, no eye gouging, goolie crushing, or hitting below the belt please.:\

All Hail Big W
 

On ya Woomera,

Power and discretion, an uncommon package in these parts.

L&K

****** me!

what have I started?

8 bloody pages of posts now!

"oh.. the humanity!!!"

The horror ! The horror ! :ugh:

What is even scarier is at a meeting I attended today we discussed the 2c delivery timetable ::rolleyes::

BIK 116.8
 

BIK116.80

As a matter of interest you should ask yourself :

"how many years of maths and stats have I studied?

how many risk analyses have I contributed to?

how many experts have I employed or given consultancies to for reports on airspace problems or reforms?

Do I get all ICAO and CASA reg changes on terminal airspace across my desk for my library?

Have I had changes excepted by CASA to existing and proposed regs due to my teams analysis of their and others standards?"


Airspace reform is not developed by flight or ATC personal experience, and is not anecdotal it is scientific.

Our current Risk analysis involves guys with Phds in Engineering, Statistics,and Risk management in addition to extremely well Qualified Pilots and ATC personnel.

In stage two of our risk assessment all the heavy metal, regional, and G.A. players are being consulted and surveyed as have CASA and AA.

We are one of two major regional airports doing such analysis on CTAF vs MBZ vs CAGRS vs D Class Towers. Our costs alone are $40,000 for this exercise. Infact for us it is the second time we have studied terminal airspace procedures at our airport, the first lesser study resulted in Australia adopting CA/GRS procedures.

I accept that unless we are also pilots and some of us are, our enroute knowledge is probably not at a standard to offer an opinion at this level of play. It is to try to understand it that I read this forum, even though I abour the personal attacks that abound here.

What I contend is that while I understand you have a penchant for attacking others who have a different view to yourself; I would like to correct you when you say "airport owners and operators know nothing about anything above our OLS"

We do pay attention to and are qualified to comment on Terminal Airspace Reform.

Infact at uncontrolled airports we are the only source of the base data needed to commence a risk analysisand in todays enviroment appear to be the only organisations examining comparing and analysing this data.

Sir I say to you "you are being somewhat harsh and infact not correct in your illmannered comment on airports lack of knowledge on airspace reforms."

airports and airspace..!
 

walley2


the problem is that the perception regarding airport owners/operators being involved in airspace is that it is for no other reason that to enable the collection of charges

some airport operators take an interest for other reasons but this seems to be a small %

some years back some airports wanted to become part of the rapac process and it was resolved that they should be observers only as the majority of airspace users did not believe airports should be involved in airspace which was deemed not to be something they had any responsibility for *the mbz vs ctaf is a good example

of course they can speak on any matter they like but to be heard they must be seen as speaking responsibly and without an alternative motive which is not often the case at the moment

until airports and the aaa realise that their involvement is seen as genuinely safety related and not to put in place a means of collecting charges they will not advance their cause one bit in the eyes of many

sorry walley2 but thats a fact

get ken to work on that and it will improve your lot somewhat

Part of the airspace reform that no-one here has mentioned yet is that military airspace will become more flexible (see here)

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Military Airspace
 

Ugly

Whilst the Military use of airspace is important to many of us, I believe that discussion on it has taken a back seat to some of the other issues that many consider more important (at this time).

I believe that over the past 10 years or so much of the military activity has been undertaken with civil inconvenience a consideration at the planning stage. It is certainly a lot better that in the 70's and 80's (and earlier of course).

The proposals as outlined have been pushed for many years and I would like to think that these proposals will free up much airspace and increase the flexibility of its use by civil users.

The management of military airspace is also a consideration, especially in recent times where military ATC resources are not as large as they used to be. Except for a few key locations I see civil ATC being responsible for what is now military airspace in the not too distant future.

"no known traffic".. :ok:

I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes so can one of the pro NAS guys fill me in here?

If NAS is safe and ready to go now, what possible justification is there at ANY stage in the future for the taxpayer to fund ADSB. If ADSB makes NAS 'safer', then surely moving to a system that is 'less safe' tha NAS + ADSB in the short term isn't the brightest thing to be doing?!?!

I've got immense respect for some of the players in this discussion but I just keep coming back to these questions.

WALLEY2,

I have studied your most recent post carefully and more than once.

But I fail to understand what particular skill or knowledge is required to be able to squander large sums of money on hordes of consultants.

Aviation is, in essence, a very simple business. Unfortunately there is an endless supply of parasites who seek to make it more complicated than it really is in order to facilitate their own financial gain.

So you got CAGRS approved – fantastic! But those procedures have been in use in other countries since the 1930s.

Did you really need to spend all that money on consultants just for that?

There are already about a million consultant’s reports on airspace issues – why does the world need yet another one? (other than to keep the consultants employed ;) )

All that aside, I do whole-heartedly agree that you need an air traffic control tower like you need a hole in the head. That would be a big step in the wrong direction because it would cause unnecessary costs and delays.

G’day Keg, :ok:

There isn’t one, and there wont be one.

I’ve never suggested that the tax-payer should fund ADSB.

Actually – I still can’t figure out what ADSB can do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do. Any suggestions, Andrew K???

I do believe that the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.

TCAS is commercially available now (as is it’s cheaper cousin, TCAD) and I strongly suggest that anyone who is worried about the risk of a collision should get one.

Please don’t think that I hold that view because of any reservations about NAS – I’ve been a staunch advocate for TCAS for some time (long before NAS).

AIRPORT ROLE
 

Bonez,
Yes there could be some smaller airports looking at thia MBZ/CTAF from a money collection issue.

Let me assure you though the vast concern is coming from the large regional who have plenty of staff to see the landings.

We for instance have 24hr coverage due to security concerns as do others.

There is a self interest in that a disaster will deeply hurt the reputation of the region, even though that is illogical it does occur.

My main point of my previous post was that airports are the main source of data and analysis and do take terminal airspace issues very seriously.

Infact if as NAS IG say that flying into a major regional a/p covered by CTAF without making normal calls would be reckless flying ,it is the airports that will have the records and data too issue the 225s, a rather thankless task.

Prior to NAS 2c the AAA will need written confirmation of this intended legal action against offenders. Personally I don't like this approach and can't see why it is so important to push the major regional airports into CTAF plus reckless flying litigation instead of remaining MBZ.

It gives a/p airspace a more multi stage approach from CTAF, then MBZ,then MBZ plus CA/GRS, then D class towers.

Compared with NAS which has CTAF, then D class towers.

Most studies show CTAF should cope upto 10,000 annual movements provided there very low amounts of RPT services yet D class towers are not needed untill 40 to 50,000 annual movements.

We would have no alternative but to bring D class towers in before they are needed and all users large and small will be charged accordingly. USA don't use the user pays method and their 450 D class towers are paid by consolidated revenue.

AOPA should consider this when dealing and advising on NAS 2c. User pays will be big dollars, Bernie Smith advised the Senate some existing small towers would only cut even at $38 per Tonne. Hence their desire to quite these a/ps before the $7,000,000 Fed Gov subsidy runs out at the end of this year.

Any attemt to charge only major airline Pax would be unfair and not stand up to a ACCC ruling.

As most of you should know AA is the only allowable provider of towers except at Broome and Ayers that had existing ATS though they can only provide ATS/ATC at these a/ps and no others.

Cheers :ugh:

I have a feeling there may be a buck or two to be made from the supply of ADSB equipment.

Why is ADSB so important, when those pushing it don't even want to fit radios? It seems ironic that the pro ADSB persons are also the ones so enarmoured with the "see and avoid" principle.

As for the part timers like me, we are yet to see the Nov. 27 charts.
No time for comment by the users, no time for fine tuning. A wonderful piece of industry consultation.

Holding patterns on VNC's? Sh*t, that is going to be helpful!

My flying is still going to be C to G, and G to C. Like 99.9% of VFRy's we wont bother the E.
EXCEPT
when we overfly a D tower. What fun, think of the savings.

Only difference is, it'll be harder to know the correct frequency to monitor. Like many others, will I bother?

CG

Walley2
 

Unfortunately I have studied about 4 years of maths and stats burried in an engineering degree, a masters and a PhD.

I looked at some CASA 'maths and stats' a few months ago, those relating to 'non-radio' movements in CTAFS and MBZ's.

They said thet the rate of non-radio compliance was X.X% (forgive the Xs, I ferget the exact numbers) GREATER for CTAFs than MBZs.

SO, THEREFORE IT OBVIOUSLY FOLLOWS THAT CTAFs are more dangerous than MBZs (I shall leave the derivation of that for the dilligent undergrad).

HOWEVER, what they failed to say was they looked mainly at BIG MOVEMENT CTAFs (to make the numbers easier to crunch) and all MBZs (cos there aint as many).

Now looking at the 'big movement' CTAFs we see PRODIGIOUS RIPOFFS in landing fees.

Thus a lateral thinking stats professional would question the safety basis of their assertion and may even suggest that 'non-radio' could be linked to $$$$$ and not 'lazy irrespaonsible acts' (even if it is the same thing).

I bet my left one that if we put all the 'big charge' MBZs in the same bucket and did the same analysis we'd get X.X +/- 0.Y% for red wide stress.

When suggesting this CASA replied that they weren't an economic regulator and my guessanalysis didn't show a safety issue.

BWAHAHAHAHA

What we need is a fairer way of charging so the Ag guys, 207 drivers and bankrunners don't land on the cheap!!!

AK