If it aint broke......
 

So if, once again, your beef is with the charging system , why is the 'reform' about the airspace system? A lot of the support for NAS is driven by claims about reduced charges. Why don't we just import the U.S. charging system? That would, of course, invlove the truth, and we can't have that......can we?

Snarek's "perfect" world

http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/dust/aopa.htm/AOPA.jpg

Well I suppose if this is what passes for inteligent :rolleyes: debate around here then we really are in trouble.:(

Lets go for the man/org eh, it's much easier, I mean AOPA are just a bunch or anoraks hey. :{

There must be a HUGE number of really stupid people involved in the NASIG. :uhoh:

Funny, I've met most of them and none of them have eyes in the middle of their foreheads, there was no evidence of prefrontal lobotomies and they could ALL walk and chew gum at the same time.
Amazing stuff, they must have been practising for yonks, just so they could pull the wool over everybodies eyes.

I can't work out why they would be so motivated but I'm sure someone out there will have an opinion or three.

CTAF vs MBZ
 

Snarek,
thanks for your imput, clearly you follow the risk analysis process and modelling so won't bore others with it.

This is a very serious problem but your reply demonstrates some time you just can't win!!

With regards to the Risk analysis by CASA that determined CTAF was unsafe at airports with 10,000+ movements p.a. where as MBZ were still acceptable. You point out the CTAFs chosen in the risk analysis were large CTAFs, therefore high charging Airports, therefore higher non radio usage to avoid fees.

In discussions with Mike Smith he stated the risk analysis was flawed as the CTAF airports were smaller than the MBZ airports and therefore pilots would think it OK to not make the calls. Mike to my knowledge has no qualifications or analysis to back up this statement.

You can see the problem, Mike says flawed CTAFs needed to be bigger,you say flawed CTAFs should have been smaller.

Me? I say it is the people advocating the change to do the analysis of the new system vs the old and that has not been done. I'll leave you and Mike to workout the size of the CTAF that should be used for the statistical analysis. AN analysis most here know will never happen.

On CA/GRS, yes stolen from Canada and not my idea in the first place we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.

On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis it should be by an independent party, ICAO says this and I wish NAS IG and the Smiths would apply it to any analysis of the NAS.

I agree there seems to many reports on airspace but can you advise of one that has a risk analysis that shows CTAF is OK at airports with 20,000 a/c movements p.a., 250,000 PAX p.a. and serviced by 737 RPT aircraft, I seem to have misplaced my copy of that report. :hmm:

Gaunty,
the NAS IG is what it says an implimentation group, it is not their job to do the analysis.

It would be a very poor career move for the seconded personnel in NAS IG to say no don't like this not proven won"t implement this.

They are in an invidious position, just ask Mick what the pressures are like if you say "hey wait on this not proven and should not be implemented."

Where are all the normal steps involved in aviation rule changes? Why and how is this being steamrolled through?

Don't ask a mid level seconded member of NAS IG to stand up and say HOLT, NOT ON, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS. Even the Dep P.M. seems reluctant ,dispite some serious concerns being presented to him, to make that call.

:( As I keep saying (its because I am old enough to remember) we USED to have a thing called a FLIGHT SERVICE UNIT at places that were served by RPT and GA, but not enough to have a tower. So why not now? Has Dicks "dicky plan" really destroyed that much saftey?
Comments please.

Walley

Well at least you got the point (re stats and manipulation vs hidden causals). Keep trying ferris, you can buy very nice little maths books with apples and stuff, good place to start before you try Bayseyan Theory :E .

I liked the little AOPA ad above too. Succinctly points out the problem of regionals not looking out the window :} (cos they do own the sky .... don't they???)

Now some CTAFs are bigger than some MBZs, and there really isn't a problem. I would like to see a fairer charging regime, remembering that all these airports were paid for with taxpayers money to begin with.

But if we could get some sort of 'sticker' system working again, leaving out the AVDATA middle-man take, then maybe, just maybe the guys and gals who 'avoid unecessary calls' won't feel the need anymore ;)

Oh, and for those above STILL blaming the PPL, the last 'no-radio' I saw was at a CTAF in FNQ and it was a Citation, hardly a PPL!!!

The week before that, small CTAF in FFNQ (ie North of Cairns) and it was a Caravan (and no, it wasn't Dick). Again, not too many PPL Caravans around (other than the obvious one).

So give the PPL whinge a break, the problem at CTAFs is regionals not looking vs 'struggling' mid-level charter not talking.

Both members of the so-called 'professionals' strutting their stuff in this forum.

Oh, and Ferris, YET AGAIN (please absorb this fact this time) AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.

OK, are we straight with that now.

AK

AOPA agrees with AFAP, AIPA and Civil Air
 

AOPA's position (from snarek's last post):
AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.

Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
(From the list of requirements AFAP, AIPA, and Civil Air have advised the Minister that are necessary for a safe airspace (see link in coral's post)).

The full list of these 10 safety requirements sent to the Minister are below (I've added point numbers to assist in discussion).
--------------
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory

2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.

3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable

4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.

5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.

6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.

7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.

8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.

9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.

10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
----------------

These are the concerns these professional organisations have. Some are to do with specific procedural/airspace issues, others are to do with the transparency and accountability of airspace reform in general.

The airspace reform issues obviously assume that the NAS process so far:
- has not clearly identified the safety and financial benefits,
- consultation and exploration with key industry groups has not been sufficient,
- mitigation has largely been cursory and superficial,
- the safety case system is not transparent.

The 10 points above serve as a "roadmap for peace" for implementation of NAS. If the IG and/or Minister address each of these points then there is a way forward for NAS.

Notice that the organisations are not opposing NAS - they have actually communicated a way they see it being introduced safely and responsibly.

As NAS2b implementation approaches, people would be far better off discussing the real contentious issues, such as those above, not wasting time attacking the man, attacking motives, creating a straw man and attacking him, or responding to obviously antagonistic posts unprofessionally or in kind. Doing so detracts from the argument and demeans the poster.

I make the comparison between snarek's ADSB comment and point 10 above, at the start of this post, to illustrate that there are agreements that can be found. How many more points do people agree on?

I stopped posting on this thread a while ago purely because the PPL/AOPA guys on here never seemed to answer the concerns and questions put forward by the aviation professionals be they RPT pilots or ATC's. The response has always came back to its ok for me in my bugsmasher so it must be ok for everyone else.

The difference in mentality I have decided comes down to the fact that the professional pilots have to go to work each day to pay the mortgage as do the the ATC's. They don't want to be party to a midair collision or even a close call while they are doing their job again either as a professional pilot or ATC. The PPL/AOPA guy looks out the window decides its a nice day to go for a flight and chooses to do this. He doesn't want to be stuffed around by the air police as he sees them, he wants to come straight in no delays (even if that means he delays 100 fare paying passengers. Just a little point, the AOPA guys whinge and say why should the RPT carrying the fare paying passengers get priority and special treatment, WHY THE HELL NOT???!!!??? The old thing about the greater good comes to mind.) He also doesn't want to pay anything to anyone. And in his mind because this kind of flying is ok for him then its ok for everyone.

As I said the AOPA guys won't answer genuine concerns about the NAS airspace model, and just blindly put it down to job protection by the ATC's and arrogance by the RPT's.

AirNoServices

Don't oversimplify and overinclude. There are plenty of PPLs (and even AOPA members!!) who fly themselves for business/work, fly IFR and are interested in surviving! I for one have to fly at least weekly single pilot IFR any weather except thunderstorms (no radar) and clouds/icing levels below LSALT(no deice) , with a PPL/CIR - because I have to be there for work and pay the rent etc. etc.....Hell, I even make sure I shoot that ILS every 35 days or less!

My experience is that most lighties are quite happy to hold or throw in a few litres of fuel for an orbit to help the scheduled guys (or stay out of the wake turbulence).... the fact that you say otherwise just seems to show you don't have actual experience flying around the traps. Furthermore, my experience is that most (but not all) of the regional jockeys are fine to deal with and don't deliberately taxi out and back track when a lightie's on final just because they can.

Before you point the finger re: what questions are being answered by whom, please note there have been NO facts presented on the issue, comparing between the demonstrated (not theoretical) safety records of similar airspace (i.e. traffic density, ATC/Flightservice levels, radar etc.) in Australia & the US. No side (including NASIG, CASA, ATSB, AOPA, AFAP, AIPA and other letters of the alphabet) has presented any data or facts that DIRECTLY address this issue. All we have is folks skirting around the issues, personal attacks on various aviation groups and a flush of nostalgic reminiscences!

As I have pointed out before, this debate goes nowhere unless the facts are presented.

........and (directed at all sides) cut out the infantile PPLvs CPL vs ATPL crap - it ill becomes us.

<Rant off>

mmm, looks like a nice day outside for flying, might cancel that IFR plan.

Safe flying:ok:

NOtimTAMs

NOtimTAMs

Thank you for that, spot on and just for the record AOPA members include, PPLs, to ATPL, bizjet, regional, domestic and international.



AirNoServicesAustralia

You do your argument no good at all by demeaning AOPA and suggesting that they are just a bunch of bugsmasher PPLs.

The fact that your payslip does not have a QF or whatever airline logo on it doesn't make you an unprofessional.

That is bulls hit and you know it. Take it from an ATPL who has had PMs and multigrillionaires down the back and never been nor ever wanted to be near an "airline".

Reply to Here to Help
 

HTH

You claim we agree and then post a number of points, I beg to differ.

That is still under discussion. For AOPA to agree to Txps in all E I would argue that E starts at A050 and not a few hundred AGL as planned.

We don't agree. However this is not really an issue for the 'average PPL' and I personally see no reason for AOPA to sing the NASIG line on this provided there is no attempt to pass the associated costs onto those who don't need or want the service.

Now this seems to have horns on it. As long as it doesn't mean unecessary procedures for aircraft in VMC, fine. But AOPA won't support changing CTAF procedures to give IFR aircraft any priority when VMC exists. In IMC reality means there will generally be no problem, BUT, there is a thing called 'special VFR' and IFR pilots would be well advised to familiarise themsleves with low level VMC requirements.

NO!!! That disadvantages our members. If 'you' want C or D joining A to C or D then we need to talk. To convince us 'you' need to prove to us that 'clearance not available, remain OCTA' will be a thing of the past. Otherwise, we are happy with current NASIG plans.

Not legal anyway. But we also need some education for RPT operators, I'd prefer 'no straight in approaches where a circuit is operating'. It is nearly impossible to know you have the accord (premission?) of every a/c in a circuit. My closest near hit happened at Mildura when an RPT did a straight in with 20 a/c in the circuit.

This doesn't mean anything. Consultation has happened, none of us got it all our own way. Consultation does not mean submission.

To who??? AOPA won't be supporting anything that increases our costs to provide a system we don't want or need.

Agreed to a point, and we all need to work together on this. But NOT Radar, it is too expensive to build and maintain and becomes unsupportable for 'all of Oz' deployment when infrastructure costs are considered. Also, to ensure an all of GA fit, the ADSB Mode S units MUST be funded by the AsA project office. If a $5K impost is attempted on GA owners, AOPA, GA and others WILL resist and it is likely the Mode S requirement will then only come in at below 8500'. This would not allay any RPT problems. AOPA would also like to see CDTI made available to all aircraft so there is a benefit to compensate for downtime, weight and maintenance of these units.

NAS 2b.

We also do not agree on 2b. We see nothing wrong with it. There is no real difference between CTAFs and MBZs and the reason for 'no-radio' ops needs to be futher explored and dealt with using education. I see no reason that a no-radio a/c or ultralight can't operate for the 6 days and 22 hours an RPT isn't at most airports around Oz.

AK

This is a more serious "choke" point than some of you may realise.

I have huge problems with the concept of providing some services to flights in G, yet pretending known traffic information is not relevant. Let alone the farcical concept of providing traffic information (somehow) in the terminal area, but nowhere else... I don't see how I would be able to justify this before an inquest. The consideration all ATC need to have when providing services mandated by those responsible (as does anybody providing ANY sort of service where your decisions affect the outcomes of others) is whether a decision was that of a reasonable person.

The only way such a concept would be acceptable to me as an ATC is if aircraft specifically opt out, or those mandated to recieve no traffic info are also receiving no other services from me. Especially in view of this quote from FAA 7110.65, the goober's MATS:

This is all quite apart from the concept of what service the goober ATC actually PROVIDE seems to be greatly in excess of that mandated, example follows:

Parachuting in E airspace

Hi snarek,

I should have been more clear in my post. I did not intend to imply that AOPA agreed with all the points - just the one I could see re: ADSB, and in that you've identified a reserved agreement.

My point was that there can be agreement on some issues.

I also wanted to stimulate discussion about specific issues. Thanks for replying - your response to most of the points have communicated AOPAs views clearly.

I am curious to see what you think about point 4:

Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.

Because this will be in NAS 2B and it seems to me to be less safe with a greater possibility of aircraft being on an incorrect area frequency than there is now. Some might argue that boundaries clutter the maps, but aren't they essential information?

For the record I am an ATC, and I work with G, E, C, and A airspace.

You would not, want to be flying on this Airline
 

These pilots in this photo do not fly the Aircraft or watch where they are going. It is no wonder they do not like NAS. :E :rolleyes:

http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/dust/aopa.htm/AOPA.jpg

karrank

Speaking personally now, I too find it interesting when tracking Cairns - Tvl, VFR 'on top' Dunk traffic is told of Cns and Tvl traffic below me, but not me.

It is even more 'interesting' when I am squarking a known code (there is a tendancy to hold the same code for both Cns and Tvl CTR), have a plan in the system and have just been 'soft' handed to Bris by Cns approach.

Why is this, culture or edict??

I just call up the Dunk guys and arrange to be East of them or above them for a certain time. I suppose that's just as easy, but a little more 'radio clogging' than if you passed the info.

By the way, this is just me asking, the 25 year aviation 'veteran' who also remembers FSO's fondly :) not AOPA policy.

AK

Sorry Snarek, I don't really understand your question. Dick's fault again because I don't know what you mean by "VFR On Top":confused:

I think what you mean is that you are "known" to CS approach, and will be "known" to TL, but BB inbetween seems not to. This must mean you are VFR, and CS "turned off" your flight plan when you left C airspace. As an Enroute controller this is good, I can't see you, except as a radar return I'll tell others (that have elected to have a service) about. I don't give you anything unless you ask for it. Creating a mystery about what freq you or the jumpship will be on won't really help you will it?

As regards BIK's campaign for G airspace, best of luck mate. There have been attempts to please all of the people in the past. They were called Airspace 2000 & LLAMP and were both scuttled by (among other things) incompatible expectations. We now have the "big stick" approach, where some luminary plucks an airspace system out of his @rse and IMPOSES it on everybody.

The AIM is that nobody be particularly happy, but you get the system you NEED, even if nobody is convinced of this neccessity besides DS & JA. Are you sure what the result of achieving the system proposed in your (rather prolix) posts would be? US controllers don't give a toss about the class of airspace IFR aircraft operate in, they just separate them untill they give up and stop being IFR. If such is implemented (particularly with our crap radar coverage) you may wistfully remember DTi?

:rolleyes: We are not getting the US system
:O US controllers don't do what their books say they do anyhow
:} Don't you get suspicious of consultation that is prefaced with statements that nothing said here will change anything in the model?

PS. I like this tribute to the BIG SKY THEORY
PPS. I don't know how I can answer a BIK post and end up above it? First sign of traffic priorities being relaxed???

Hempy,

Your aircraft cockpit photo appears to be of a Lockheed KC-130T – a military aircraft operated by the US Marines.

Military pilots are not required to comply with civilian rules.

If that were a civilian aircraft that was flying in Australia then the crew would appear to be in contravention of :

CAR 163A - Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft.

Unfortunately, it appears that the aircraft is neither civilian, nor flying. All the engine instrument failure flags are showing. The aircraft is either shutdown and on the ground, or else it has experienced a complete electrical failure! ;)

WALLEY2,

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :rolleyes:

Integrity of a risk analysis? Couldn’t you just ask Civil Air (the air traffic controllers trade union) to take a look at it? I am assured that they have the highest possible standards of integrity and never ever tell fibs. ;)

Yep – and I fail to understand why the world needs any more (other than to keep the consultants employed).

SOPS,

If the value they added was in excess of their cost of operation then they would still exist. Sadly, it wasn’t, and they don’t. (cue tape of “As Time Goes By”)

snarek,

Why not? I know lots of PPLs that fly Citations. Citations are about a hundred times easier to fly than (say) a Twin Comanche or something of that ilk.

Here to Help,

What does the term “transponder coverage” mean?

Does it mean “the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder”?

Or does it mean “air traffic control radar coverage”?

If it’s the former then I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I think the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory at all times in all classes of airspace for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.

If it’s the latter then I disagree whole-heartedly – you don’t need air traffic control radar for class E airspace.

Then again, upon reflection, if it means that where there is currently no radar coverage it should be class G airspace (rather than class E) then I’d go for that option for sure! :ok:

If there is directed traffic information then it’s not ICAO class G.

ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge.

ICAO class F has directed traffic information for participating IFR aircraft, but participation by IFR aircraft is not mandatory.

If Australia is going to use ICAO class F procedures then let’s at least refer to it by the correct name – class F.

In any event, in my opinion, for the vast majority of Australia’s airspace there is no need for anything more than genuine ICAO class G.

G = Good :ok:

Why not?

As snarek has posted :

A “frequency boundary” is not something that is relevant to ICAO class G airspace because there is no “correct ATS frequency”.

“Capture” them in what class of airspace, exactly? I’d suggest that “capturing” them in class G would be about right in most cases.

I presume that the word “protection” implies controlled airspace.

Does this mean that the pros reckon there should be (say) class C airspace around (for example) Ceduna, South Australia, just because there is a published NDB approach? :rolleyes:

Nah – that sounds like a backwards step to me. (should create lots of work though)

Well that would create lots of jobs and cause lots of unnecessary delays and expense – but for what benefit?

Some of these non-radar class D towers should have been shut down years ago.

For the others, what’s wrong with class G over the top? OK – make it class E to keep up appearances if you really must.

In the UK Boeing 737s and BAe 146s (etc) regularly fly into airports with relatively small class D control zones that are not equipped with air traffic control radar. In many cases the class D control zone is only a few miles across and is surrounded by class G. It all seems to work just fine. What is so different about Australia?

Oh – and raise the base of class A to FL280 (same as RVSM).

Sounds reasonable. I’ll plead “no contest” on that one.

Waffle waffle waffle. Let’s all have a group hug and sing Koombayah.

The only people who believe that NAS wont lead to a reduction in the number of air traffic controllers are the air traffic controllers.

Why?

What’s important in busy terminal areas is that the pilots know where the aircraft are. Whether some third-party ground-based air traffic control service knows where the planes are is largely irrelevant.

AirNoServicesAustralia,

Since I am neither a PPL nor a member of AOPA I’ll leave that comment for those who are (although if gaunty keeps going the way he is going he might be able to twist my arm and get me to sign up ;) ).

A number of people that you dismissively deride fly 400 knot “bugsmashers”. More like bug obliterators I’d say! ;)

karrank

I meant the Dunk RPT not the Mission Beach meatbombers!!! I stay well out to sea away from them, been flying that route for nearly 10 years and have never figured out exactly what those guys do, where they radio their intentions or what happens if they say 'dropping in one minute' and i say 'XYZ overhead Clump Point 8500'

And I'm gonna hafta take BIK on a bit now.

I don't suppose there are too many a/c with elec systems and no Txps. But there are a few. Probably a few more without Mode C.

So, if you are going to 'mandate them' who will pay???

Even with no Mode C a cheap Txp is $2K. Then, once it is in it has to be tested every x years. With a mode C add $500 and more tests (and after these tests it really is broke and has to be fixed). So add a few hours every 100. (and thanks to karrank and his mates making us all get them 'tuned' last month, another $400).

And who/what is this for. It is like me carrying a spare tyre for a Taxi in my car, and having to pay for the priveledge. identified public benefit, sure, but my problem (and thus financial responsibility) no way.

Don't forget BIK. 'Free in G' :ok:

NOW BIG PERSONAL OPINION WARNING - NOT AOPA POLICY

I liked FSOs too. I'd like to think that with full ADSB we could perhaps get some back. I wouldn't be happy if I were made to plan again though, you just dont need that in a computer age.

With ADSB, pop-ups should be relatively simple. Po-up, get a code and away you go. Get a TCAS for a letdown and the FSO could suggest separation.

But, who pays. Unions will do what unions do and try to get the biggest buck for their members, that made FSOs unaffordable under a (stupid) user pays government policy. So FSOs dissapeared :(

I would like to see B050 come back. That way you shouldn't need a Txp below that. Gives the AUF people a cheap place to fly.

Wanna fly above that??? Hopefully Govt funded ADSB will fix that. I can fly my Grumman at 8500 and my T-Craft at 3500 :)

I am also heedful of C to a via 'X' arguments. I wouldn't like to see it as C though, too restrictive unless you took away priority. So at the moment I like the NAS suggestion, but am willing to listen.

AK

AK

Snarek, direct question. If NAS is as safe as it should be, why will ADSB be a benefit UNLESS that is a safety increase. In that case, shouldn't we be delaying NAS until we ALL have ADSB? I asked this question on the other page but BIK claimed he didn't want (or need) it but you have mentioned a number of times that you do.

Either the NAS system is 'safe' and therefore ADSB shouldn't even raise it's head- ever- or it isn't and something needs to be done. Your continued insistance on ADSB shows flawed logic.

apples and apples
 

Keg

I (and AOPA) see no safety problems with NAS 2b.

We reserve our position on all NAS and probably won't go the way CivilAir want, i.e. we may push for less E and more G below 8500.

However, some here whose opinios I respect, have argued (but not proven) a safety case. The main concern stems from E into C and E above 'busy' CTAFs under 2b.

While we are not convinced of the safety case we are interested in any systemic approach that makes airspace safer. Such a system is ADSB.

Now the Govt want NAS and no-one (especially a union) will change their minds. So, while we (AOPA) do not oppose NAS we are prepared to hang our support on ADSB, but only the Govt funded installation option.

In doing so I would have thought that the more rational on the other side of the argument would see that as a useful compromise rather than a reason to yet again criticise. A combined ADSB 'final-NAS' is both economically and technically feasable, it would make GA safer, it would make RPT safer, it would make CTAFs safer (although most midairs occur at GAAPs), it would provide more and better info in airways and probably save airlines a lot of money as it would reduce delays and allow better computerised arrivals planning.

AK

With so many people showing an interest in this topic, perhaps one of them can help me understand the term "commercial airspace?"

BIK_116.80

But we will have Class G with DTI in NAS 2B, and in many instances the area frequency will also be the the Class E frequency, so there is a "correct ATS frequency". Your argument that frequency boundaries can be removed because the airspace is not what you think it should be is frivolous.

Do you think that this is safer? Is anybody saving money with the boundaries removed?

If the area frequency becomes irrelevant in a later stage of NAS, then why not wait until that stage to remove the boundaries?

I am still interested to see what snarek/AOPA think of the frequency boundary issue, since it has safety ramifications when the change is made in November.

On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?

Eeeeeeerm doing a low level pass over the parked KC130T.:p

OK OK just joshing. :rolleyes:

Cool! Photo caption competitions on PPRUNE! What's the prize? :ok:

So you VFR bugsmasher drivers think IFR pilots don't look out enough. I reckon this accurately sums up a lot of you VFR guys (either looking at the sights on the ground or your GPS).

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...rash_prune.jpg

See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK.

G’day snarek, :ok:

Agreed.

I would expect that for the vast majority of aircraft it is the owner that pays for the supply, installation and maintenance of mandatory avionics equipment.

Aircraft systems require maintenance – that’s no revelation. Refer : AD/RAD/43 and AD/RAD/47. A transponder check every two years – hardly a big deal.

Switching your altitude encoding transponder onto ALT provides a safety benefit to you because nearby TCAS equipped aircraft will be aware of your position. This will help them to avoid running into you, and that’s got to be a good thing. Additionally, the ability for the pilots of TCAS equipped aircraft to be aware of the location of nearby aircraft without the need to rely on an expensive ground-based air traffic control infrastructure has an enormous potential for cost savings.

Ground-based air traffic control systems are an anachronism from a by-gone post-war era when it was impossible to put a reliable, real-time traffic display in an aircraft cockpit.

With TCAS (and perhaps ADSB?) it is now possible to provide traffic data directly to the pilot, rather than needing to have it relayed by a ground-based third party radio operator.

Traditional ground-based air traffic control systems are expensive, labour intensive, and stymied by voluminous regulations, many of which were written decades ago – long before current cockpit traffic awareness technologies were even dreamt of.

With a TCAS traffic display (and perhaps ADSB?) pilots can be aware of the relative position of traffic around them without having to rely on a ground-based third party air traffic control service. It’s more efficient, more effective, more timely, more autonomous.

But TCAS traffic displays only show traffic that is transponding. TCAS traffic displays can be used to their greatest potential when nearby traffic is transponding with altitude data.

As a start, an enormous benefit would be gained if pilots of aircraft that are already transponder equipped would ensure that they turn their transponder on to ALT. This would cost nothing. Perhaps an AOPA pilot education campaign along those lines would be a good start? What do you say? If you’ve got it – switch it on to ALT.

I’m all for free in G. (ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge)

G = Good :ok:

But just as the government does not subsidise the mandatory brake lights on your car, neither should the government subsidise mandatory avionics – particularly if it’s mandatory avionics that are already fitted to the vast majority of Australian aircraft.

snarek – a question for you.

You obviously have vastly more experience with these ADSB gizmos than I do.

If I understand this ADSB stuff correctly, it seems to serve two functions :

(1) It can provide a TCAS-like cockpit display of traffic for a pilot to look at; and/or,

(2) It can provide a radar-like display of traffic for a ground-based air traffic controller to look at.

Have I got that right? Please correct me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway, I can see great benefits in (1), but no real point in (2).

It is obvious that you are quite keen on ADSB. But why are you keen on it? Is it because of (1) or because of (2)?

If you are keen on it because of (1) then what can ADSB do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do? Is it that ADSB offers greater functionality, or is it that an ADSB cockpit traffic display is less expensive than a TCAS cockpit traffic display?

In earlier posts you suggested that airborne ADSB traffic displays would be much cheaper if they were not certified. In what circumstances is it permissible to fit non-certified avionics to a flying machine?

If you are keen on it because of (2) then I say thanks, but no thanks. I see no need for an expensive middle-man when the data can be provided directly to the pilots.

I hope not. That would be the worst of both worlds. The expense of ADSB as well as the expense of the FSO. Someone somewhere has to pay – and it aint going to be the nation’s taxpayers! No thanks.

This has been an ongoing process.

• Start with a large, inefficient government bureaucracy that over-services the aviation industry and that is funded out of consolidated revenue at an enormous and unsustainable expense to the nation’s taxpayers.
  
• Call the large, inefficient government bureaucracy a “government business enterprise”. Everyone knows that in reality it’s just a government department dressed up in drag.
  
• Introduce user fees so industry participants can see (and feel) the real cost of the over-servicing.
  
• Users realise that the value added by the over-servicing is less than the enormous and unsustainable cost charged for the over-servicing, and determine that at that price they don’t really need the over-servicing after all.
  
• Over-servicing stops, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to the nation’s taxpayers, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to industry participants, all is right with the world. :ok:

G’day Paul Phelan, :ok:

To be honest, I somehow doubt it.

In any case, you’re an articulate and grammatically skilful man. Just for fun, see if you can make a sentence that includes these words :

• public
• vested
• scare
• interests
• crash
• airliner
• burn
• die
• horror
• plummet

G’day again Here to Help, :ok:

There is no “correct ATS frequency” for VFR aircraft in class G airspace.

Under current class G arrangements (ICAO class F but with mandatory IFR participation) IFR aircraft are advised when to change frequency and which frequency to change to by ATS. They don’t need lines on a map.

Actually, I can’t get too excited whether you put class G “frequency boundaries” on the charts or not (even though they are not a relevant concept). The issue that interests me is that a small minority of pilots (both VFR and IFR) think that they will instantly be run-down by Concorde (or some other equally threatening aircraft) if they fail to maintain a careful listening watch on an air traffic control radio frequency when they are enroute in class G airspace. This is demonstrably untrue. That some pilots are concerned that the “frequency boundaries” have been taken off the charts only confirms their misguided concern.

In any case, the frequencies are all there on the maps, even if the lines are gone. If it makes you feel more secure to hear the sound of a human voice then listen to whichever frequency takes your fancy.

In relation to a flight that is enroute in class G airspace, why does it matter what frequency the pilot is on? What would it matter if they were not on any air traffic control frequency? What would it matter if they maintained a listening watch on 104.9 MHz or 101.7 MHz?

ICAO Class G = no service, no delay, no charge. :ok:

The Cessna pilot is probably at the pub with his mates having a few beers. The outer two-thirds of each propeller blade is missing. In this condition the aircraft is incapable of sustained flight. The Cessna is clearly parked and on the ground. There is no need for the pilot of a parked aircraft to maintain a lookout.

From the engine instrument indications it is quite clear that the Hercules in the photo is also parked and on the ground.

Since both aircraft are parked and on the ground it is most unlikely that there is a collision risk (although perhaps there is some small residual risk, particularly in light of the BAe 146s that mated in the night at YMEN ;) ).

If both aircraft were enroute in class G airspace then I would expect the Big Sky Theory to keep them apart.

If that didn’t work, then I would expect that a Cessna of that type would be fitted with an altitude encoding transponder. If the Cessna pilot were wise then they would have switched the transponder on to ALT as they entered the runway just prior to take-off. If the military Hercules was instead a civilian Hercules, or an airliner, then it would be required by regulation to be fitted with TCAS II. The crew of a TCAS II equipped aircraft would be given advanced warning of the relative position of a nearby aircraft, giving them ample time to manoeuvre clear of it.

If the Hercules were a civilian aircraft then the crew would have received a TCAS resolution advisory long before it got to the scenario portrayed in the photographic collage.

If both aircraft were in flight in a busy terminal area near an airport then I would expect the pilots of both aircraft to be maintaining a vigilant look out. It is quite clear that the crew of the Hercules are not maintaining a vigilant look out – and I don’t think that’s anything to joke about.

Capn Bloggs,

Many of the “VFR bugsmasher drivers” are instrument rated ATPL holders who fly heavy metal during the week. It’s not that they can’t fly IFR, it’s that they choose not to.

In regard to the enroute environment I agree with you.

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on see and avoid in the enroute environment because the chances are extremely high that the Big Sky Theory will keep the planes apart irrespective of whether the pilots look out the window or not.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...images/CEO.jpg
Bernie says : Vote [1] Big Sky Theory :ok:

Please enlighten us BIK
 

Once all the aircraft know where everyone else is and they can seperate themselves, and reading between the lines, when you see no need for ATC (or "ground based radio operators" as you call us), who decides who changes level, who diverts off their track to let the other guy stay at his preferred level, who volunteers to hold while he waits for the other guys who got there at the same time to make an approach. Even with ATC when you tell two company aircraft that one of them has to change level and ask them to decide who it will be, alot of the time it ends up neither want to change cos they both have good reasons to stay at their preferred level. That is one of many of the reasons why you do need a third party even in Enroute Airspace.

enough already!!!!!
 

GEEEZZZ BIK.......

Any chance you could post something that doesn't take an hour to read?????

Your arguements don't really need all that verbiage...surely?

BIK

Cost savings to who?? Government, RPT yes, most likely. But to achieve those 'savings' you have to do a cost shift, i.e. mandate equipment.

So, VFR must subsidise RPT/Govt to achieve 'cost savings'. I can feel a howl of protest starting now (with me via the minor parties and the ALP!!!).

ADSB. It is a box that encodes position info in the same way a mode C encodes altitude. The 'bit stream' out of the transponder is called the squitter. Some Txps are Mode S compatible, most aren't and will need replacing.

CDTI is a Mode S receiver working the same way as current TCAS. Wheras TCAS can only give distance (and altitude via Mode C) and an approximate direction, the ADSB CDTI can decode the Mode S and do a comparison. Other traffic can be presented as a list or a pseudo radar screen.

Yes, good for pilots. Especially if all pilots have it, two pairs of eyes and all that.

But why not use it to expand 'radar' coverage??? I can't see the harm in that unless you have something personal against ATC (except plazbot, I'd understand that!!).

Surely more coverage is a good thing??? Surely more coverage will result in cost savings via routing savings and thus, when fully paid for by those who will benefit from it, full ADSB will improve Australian airspace.

Paul.

Commercial Airspace, a term used to indicate ownership and thus the purchase of a ticket prior to entry. In this case it seems the ticket is a $2K transponder and ongoing maintenance.

I can feel a personal 'No E below 8500' position being put to the Board.

AK

Unhealthy over reliance on TCAS going on here (similar to the unhealthy over reliance on see and avoid!).

TCAS will NOT display ALL of the traffic around you. It selectively picks up and drops off various paints in busy traffic environments. On the 744 into LAX years ago I remember getting a TA on traffic that just 'appeared' as a TA- IE, we couldn't develop the picture before hand because it wasn't being fed to us.

Aviation safety should be about layered defences. TCAS is an error management strategy, not a threat management strategy at the first level. It is the LAST line of defence. Heaven help us when it is the first also!

noteworthy posts
 

May be worth reading a couple of posts on another thread here

If this is what the rabid NAS stalwarts want, I'm glad I'm not flying away from the big cities.

BIK, you should pull stumps and retire, you are doing your side of the arguement no service at all...but then you don't want service do you? G = Good???

The rest of you wonder why the professionals don't take anything the "bugsmasher" drivers say seriously?

BTW....I see on a daily basis the fact that see and avoid doesn't work..and we are talking about very large heavy jet traffic coming and going into a war zone.

Scores of the near misses were spotted and avoiding action was instigated by the ATC that just happens to have the God's view of what is happening..ie we can see them on the RADAR.

Some of the nearest goes were E3's (who one would expect to have a bit of SA)..and fighters that generally do look out the window a bit, however, being military, they only look when and where told..not sniping at the Oz mil...just our cousins.

As Keg mentioned, we should have a layered defense...the big sky theory worked in the old days, not with the new squizzy nav kit that will put you both nose cone to nose cone tracking direct from A to B and B to A.

edited to blather on about see and avoid

Transponders, ELB, ADSB. CDTI and any other "safety" items should be fully tax deductible, purchase, installation and maintenance.

BIK_116.80
VFR aircraft wants to listen out for VFR and IFR broadcasts in his area - what frequency does he listen to?

VFR aircraft requires assistance from ATS for an in-flight emergency - what frequency does he transmit on?

VFR wants information (nav, met, PRD) from ATS for whatever reason - what frequency does he transmit on?

ATS wants to broadcast to a radar observed VFR about to enter a restricted area or CTA - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

ATS observes 2 aircraft about to come together in Class G with no avoiding action apparent and broadcasts a traffic alert - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

ATS broadcasts a hazard alert for an aerodrome in her airspace, what frequency should a nearby VFR be on to hear it?

VFR PJE aircraft wants to conduct a drop in Class G, what frequency does he broadcast on?

ATS broadcasts an LJR - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

BIK_116.80, if you can demonstrate that it is of no consequence what frequency the VFR is on for each and every one of these scenarios, then you would be right in saying that there is no correct ATS frequency. If you can't, then you are wrong.

Eeerm

To add what I hope are some facts to the confusion, I believe that one of the mitigators for the transition on this issue, agreed and signed off on by the participants was;

Mitigation Description
37.2 The pilot T&E must include guidance as to alternative sources of frequencies information (e.g. ERSA) 37.3
The 'VFR en-route' advisor must include effective guidance as to operations enroute including specific guidance to use of radio.

37.4 The frequency block on IFR charts should be replicated on VFR charts for a transitional period and then removed.

37.5 FIA boundaries placed on charts for a transitional period and then removed.


There is a bit of sorting out in progress on that particular issue, but I firmly believe an appropriate solution will be forthcoming.

There has been a HUGE amount of work performed by the "experts", airspace and industry and I do not include myself as one of those, on all of the issues surrounding the NAS implementation, to suggest that they ALL got it wrong just doesn't play.

There will be bits around the edges that need adjustment, nothing is ever a perfect fit and as the NASIG has freely admitted the end state is not yet fixed, it would be dangerously irresponsible to do so, hence the staged implementation, but the shape of it is already known from the experience of the USNAS.
It will be approached with the same caution as they have the beginning with the need for a very comprehensive educational programme.

But one thing is certain in my mind, I have complete faith that the people ultimately responsible, will make the go or no go decision, I believe set for the 20/10/2003, based on professional and properly constructed grounds.

They are on a hiding to nothing as they will be pilloried for whatever they do.

This then makes the decision a very simple one.

On the balance of probablilities, what is right.

This is the true test of leadership.

Gaunty I think this is what people are most worried about. That is, if you can't get a civilised response from John Anderson (speaking of the Big Sky theory, I reckon you could fly quite safely between his ears without much risk of a mid air, cos theres lots of airspace in there!!), why would people think that the "right" decision based ultimately on safety will be made by the powers that be, and not just make the easy decision based on political pressure/ economics.

Here to Help, I agree wholeheartedly, and these are some of the questions that BIK even with his War and Peace posts has been as yet unable to answer. In fact all those posts seem good for is to assist in me getting off to sleep before my Doggos.

Hi Gaunty,

This reasoning does not, and cannot, be used to justify any argument. It may win over in a debate, it may influence perceptions and sound convincing, but it is not a valid argument to make. Just because alot of work has been performed by many experts to reach a conclusion, it will never follow that it is necessarily right- never. The arguments themselves, not the amount of work involved or the number of "experts" supporting them, should always be the basis on which one makes a judgement.

The mitigators you listed do not help in any of the frequency scenarios I outlined in my last post. In fact, they imply that the frequencies will eventually be removed altogether from VFR charts, and that removal of the boundaries in November is just the first stage in this process.

I have demonstrated a need for the frequency boundaries to be displayed on charts - who will explain to me that their removal is necessary or not less safe come November 27th?

Since AOPA is fully behind NAS2b in November, it must be supporting the removal of frequency boundaries. I have asked BIK_116.80 to show why it doesn't matter what frequency a VFR aircraft is on in each of my scenarios - can someone from AOPA do the same? If not, then why is it supported?

Given that I often fly 'on top' and self separate with IFR and RPT I see no reason why FIR boundaries and info can't be on maps.

I also don't see that putting these on VFR maps is such a great impost.

However this is a personal view, I will ask and see what the response is.

AK

Coral

I didn't know Chicken Little had changed his name and got a job at CivilAir.

This is more of the same-old same-old. Gee whizzz, between 4500' and 18,000' eh. Boy, all those Jumbos down at 4500 better watch out, especially just west of Merimbula!!!!

Look mate, I am prepared to consider most things here and listen to reasoned argument. An example is, I've asked questions about freqs on maps, but the sort of twaddle I just read on the CivilAir page doesn't help. In actual fact all it did was motivate me to send an e-mail to Anderson saying just that ... mindless union waffle.... ignore it and move on!

AK

Snarek,

Thanks for considering the freq. boundary question - look forward to your reply.

No, probably not 4500 west of Merimbula, but definitely below 18,000 approaching 45DME SY or 30DME BN and ML. It's Class C now, but will be Class E next month. A VFR can, without any requirement to advise intentions, operate up to FL180 this close to these cities. They can potentially conflict with descending and climbing jet traffic, as well as regional RPT turbos that commonly operate below these levels on climb and descent.

There are a number of safety issues already identified in previous posts: xponder failure, radio failure, reliance on TCAS and see and avoid. Introducing E airspace in November so close to the major cities will remove some of the safety nets already in place to minimise the risk of collision (Class C airspace, radar identification, 2-way comms). It increases risk, so definitely a less safe airspace design.

Perhaps people are confused as to the role of the NASIG. They are not there to 'use their judgement', make decisions "based on professional and properly constructed grounds" etc etc. They are there to drive the change process. Any belief in altruism is laughable.
Why do you think there has been this piecemeal approach to implementation? Educational grounds? Hahaha. The whole idea was to cut it up into small enough pieces that the industry would accept the pain if drip fed it. And the holy grail is cessation of DTI. Because that is truly where any (if) money can be saved.
This whole thing is about money. Private and govt interests come together here. Any service that will be provided in the future will be cost shifted to the airlines directly (see CAGRO as an example). The exception being Air Traffic Control, because that is a de-facto tax that the govt would only give up if it was selling it. (Note to BIK: That doesn't mean ATC is unneccesary, just that the govt uses ATC for profit). PVT will get nothing (or pay thru the nose). The losers will be those most at risk (IMHO), small c commercial operators. The big end of town can afford to provide CAGRO, briefing etc, but the bank-runners/small charter/tourist ops etc are the strugglers, operating fast enough aeroplanes to get into trouble, with the least equipment fit-out. The mid-airs in the future will be between chieftains. They do the most flying in the least serviced (riskiest) airspace, no TCAS, no CAGRO, and soon no radio net. And good luck to the guys in the Dash8s etc who, even with TCAS, might not be able to avoid them.
This is a philosophical thing, this dollar-based decision making. A fundamental shift in thinking is/has taking/taken place. Telstra is slowly but surely removing services to the bush, bringing the true costs of service to country areas etc (it's a business after all
:rolleyes: ). Air services are just another step along that path (or gangplank, depending on your point of view).

Just wish they would call a spade a spade. Might not go down too well with the public, but if you have the courage of your convictions.............nothing to be ashamed of......... right?