Seems a bit late for that now. Don't tell me you all agreed without really thinking about it in the first place?!
|
Lodown, ftrplt et al
I havent seen the new charts yet, has anyone looked at the steps to see if there is an issue for RPT on descent into airports where Class A overlies Class C? (i.e 747 descents into Sydney etc). Is it going to only be an issue for descent into Class D 'Airspaced' airports? Class D towers often have the additional risk of little or no radar coverage. 4711, doesn't TAAATS provide a level of protection by alerting controllers to conflicting traffic in conjunction with transponder-equipped aircraft and SSR? Obviously you wouldn't want to use this as a last line of defense, but this is something, like TCAS and GPS that we didn't have some years ago. GPS, paradoxically, increases the risk of a collision, as its very accuracy ensures that two aircraft which are on reciprocal tracks will be right on track. In the ‘old days’, NDB VOR or dead reckoning errors would increase the likelihood that aircraft would miss each other, even when they were one the same ‘nominal’ track. Whatever it was, I know I'd put my trust in modern technology over the system we had then. Taken in isolation, each one of these technologies would not be trusted as a 'last line of defense' but when the entire system is considered, then I don't have a problem with this aspect of NAS. I am still in two minds about NAS, but surely if the technology allows us to advance and make the airspace more user friendly for all while raising capacity and at the same time without impinging on the operations of the big boys, then I am all for it. Consider the following scenario: A Boeing 737 on descent, with a ground speed of 450KT and a rate of descent of 2,500fpm. The weather is overcast at 13,000FT, VMC below. It is night time. Ahead of the 737 is a light twin, maintaining FL125 (VFR) with a ground speed of 150KT. The 737 breaks out of cloud at FL130, and has 12 seconds (500ft at 2,500 fpm ROD) to see the lights of the twin against the lights of the town below, identify it as an aircraft, identify it as a collision risk, and either arrest the rate of descent or take lateral avoiding action. The distance between the aircraft at first visual contact opportunity would be one mile (300KTS closing speed for 12 seconds) The light twin, not being equipped with rear view mirrors, never has an opportunity to see the 737 at all. Yes, this is a ‘worst case’ type scenario, but most accidents tend to be. I ask you to consider whether this is the basis for a safe system. The current option is for the VFR aircraft to be known to the ‘system’ and the aircraft to be separated. Aussie Andy Lest any of our more 'sensitive' characters draw any unwarranted inferences from the refence to the timing of NAS vs the next election, the only implication is that NAS is supported by the current minister and is opposed by the ALP. Thus, it would need to be impelemented before the election in case the coalition was voted out. |
Genuine question, just how many VFR's are there above 10 000ft, let alone above 7 to 8000ft???
|
AK: With all the respect I can muster for the remains of AOPA I have to still ask why are you formulating a policy position on NAS at what is once again the 11th hour? Especially as AOPA have been involved in preparing the education package for heaven knows how long?
Converesly the professional associations have been trying to get responses to specific technical concerns for a long time - the issues were identified long ago. But they were dismissed as 'unions protecting jobs', and scaremongering. This was always rejected as pro-NAS rhetoric. I am glad you now see it was and is not. And that the latent failures in this system are now apparent to all , except the minister - publically at least. Now we just await the inevitable public realisation - once again at the 11th hour - any bets on dates? The 11/11 has passed after all! |
ftrplt
Genuine question, just how many VFR's are there above 10 000ft, let alone above 7 to 8000ft??? 1) The real danger is going to be when the jets are at and around 10-9,000FT and descending through the VFR maintaining 9,5000FT 2) Due to costs, what proportion of Metros etc. will be ‘encouraged’ to fly VFR through E (above 10,000FT) to save on charges? 3) It only takes one mid-air collision to ruin your day. 4) If the answer to your question is in fact ‘so few that the system is perfectly safe’ – then it begs the question – “why bother, if the benefit is there for so few aircraft?” By the way, over Class D towers, Class E will extend to 4,500FT. |
plazbot
Because we have seen some charts (although I ask as hard as I can I don't get any). I am not sure whether to blame incompetence or conspiracy, but either way NASIG have relied on AOPA support without providing the material to the Board to earn or reinforce that support. But, like I said, we will fly the maps and make our views known. My first personal view, why no approach freqs??? Do I call Tower and get told call approach??? (unnecessary chatter). I am interested in other AOPA member views on the charts as they become available. AK |
G'day 4-7-11,
...ensuring that B747s etc. will have to fly in E when arriving at Sydney... The example you give of a GA VFR a/c 500' below cloud might be a little bit misleading also as one should maintain 1000' from the cloudbase ideally - but the point is still taken (yes, 24 seconds is not much better than 12 seconds! :uhoh: ) and anyway given datum errors or poor airmanship etc. (scud-running, moi!?), then I see the point. In the US they simply indicate approach and descent paths (with a little light-blue jet on the chart) that you are "recommended" to avoid. Doesn't sound great does it, but the outcomes appear to be OK: and that's the point. Re- ALP, well (as a long standing member of both the ALP and subsequently the British Labour Party now that I live here) I casn only say that when in opposition, one opposes! Andy ;) |
Don't forget those holding patterns in E e.g. North of Brisbane (SMOKA, MLY). But VFR should know to keep clear of them anyway, right? :yuk:
|
When do we see the rest of the education and training ???
Huh! |
Speak to AOPA as they have it all under control. Check their forum http://www.aopa.com.au/forum/phpBB2/ or ask snarek. :ok:
|
I received the two volume package that most pilots seem to have received, containing the reference guide and the in-flight guide but I heard on the grapevine that there was an Instructor Pack.
So I searched the website but could see no reference to an Instructor Pack. I rang the "hotline" and the lady who answered could not help me as she had not heard of an Instructor Pack either and to my surprise arranged to get someone to call me the next afternoon! Two days later I had not heard so I called again. Eventually I arranged to have one delivered. Are other instructors getting them automatically? Are flight schools getting them automatically? How come the "hotline" staff do not know anything about them? Why did I have to wait over 24 hours for a response? |
2001...you're not suggesting Hot mike was less than candid with the minister when he suggested there existed an instructor pack are you:uhoh:
Seems like nothing he said in hansard was accurate:suspect: Chuck. |
Aussie Andy
Indeed you are correct. The VFR aircraft would need to be 1000FT vertically from cloud, giving the jet a theoretical 24 seconds to react. Having just checked on the VMC minima in E, however, an even more frightening ‘worst case’ scenario arises. The VFR aircraft is required to be 1,500M horizontally from cloud. This gives our unfortunate jet driver potentially less than one NM or say 10seconds to see, identify and react to the conflict. Either way, I am not just trying to score points by finding ever worsening scenarios. What I am saying is that the system needs many tiers of defence, because, however remote or otherwise the odds of a collision are, the consequences of a single accident are horrific. You also said: Again, I just think that to have the debate in isolation of practices and outcomes elsewhere when the whole idea is to implement practices common elsewhere weakens your argument. No-one is suggesting that we should regress to the current US system of vertical separation. Rather, we wait for the US to catch up with Australia, many Asian countries and Europe. Other examples of Australia leading the way are RNAV separation, ‘automated’ ATC systems (TAAATS) etc. My point is that following the US system is not necessarily always progress. Some studies in the US have suggested that the system there needs to made safer by including the VFR into the system. Edited to correct some dodgy mathematics |
So much for all those 'safety' features on TAAATS. Reminds me of the cartoon (Dilbert, I think) where one of the characters was talking about all the worrisome bugs in a new planned software release. Another character commented to go ahead with the release and call them 'features'.
4711, can't the same situation regarding VFR aircraft at upper altitudes mixing with 737s occur now? It comes back to having figures which support a thorough safety analysis. |
Again, I just think that to have the debate in isolation of practices and outcomes elsewhere when the whole idea is to implement practices common elsewhere weakens your argument. Do they have greater radar coverage in the US? Yes Do they have briefing offices? Yes Do they pay for charts etc in the Us? Back to first principles, we have assertions that NAS will lead to significant savings. Mr R Smith used a figure of $70 million. Now we see in Senate commitees that there may even be a cost, from less service. So where is the motivation for the changes? |
Lodown
4711, can't the same situation regarding VFR aircraft at upper altitudes mixing with 737s occur now? It comes back to having figures which support a thorough safety analysis. The only way a jet could be in that situation now would be in the lower traffic/lower risk areas where they descend from C, perhaps through E into G. In NAS 2B, IFR jets, even on the busiest routes into our busiest aerodrome, lose separation services. In some of the less busy places (e.g. Launceston), they don't even have the possibility of a radar service to alert them - assuming the VFR is painting on radar. PS - DOn't give anyone any ideas! The second our 'bugs' become 'features', we will have to start paying for them!!!!:D ;) |
Point of note to consider. Using the logic that there is a massive increase in controlled airspace (E), there are massive restrictions placed on VFR aircraft as well.
A class is introduced above E over all of CTA. The J curve for example has today (pretty much) G to A085, some E between SY and CG A085 to F125, C F125 to F285 and A above. Post NAS the C goes and E and A come in with A above F180 all the way up. So 9000 feet of potential VFR activity is gone. That's some 35% ladies and gents. So here is the NAS model simplified. More Controllers required. Less service given to more aircraft Costs Increase VFRs have a 35% reduction in allowed airspace VFRs must remain clear of IFR routes and all approach and departure paths There are no frequency boundaries There are no frequencies Did I mention that it is going to cost more? Aircraft IFR can enter supposed controlled airspace without a clearance (IFR Pick UP) Add to this that the exemption for Flight without a transponder in E within 40nm of a D tower is added (no glider flying in the E steps above Caboulture or in the Steps above Alice Springs I'm affraid guys). If I were a VFR pilot I would feel pretty cheated. But hang on, this is all designed for the VFR pilots, Isn't it? |
tobzalp
VFRs must remain clear of IFR routes and all approach and departure paths Essentially, that is impossible unless I adopt the same navigation techniques I use in my yacht!! :E The smart thing (which we probably all do anyway) is, if VFR in VMC avoid non-quadrantal in E or G above LSALT. But then, if it is VMC why fly 'on the dials'??? AK |
It seems to me there is overwhelming logic and evidence to discontinue with this debacle. Nobody is better off except the Air Traffic Controllers who will be recruited to make it work - apart from the fact they won't be able to do their primary job - separating aircraft.
The only way it can therefore continue is by pure bloody minded determination of the political kind with individuals of the character that can push on and through in spite of all the contadictory facts blocking their paths.......... batter up? (It might also be said that these types may also possess a demonstrated ability to flip-flop at the 11th hour..... hmmm? Where can we find someone like that???) Meanwhile the NASOMETER $$$ keeps adding up --->> http://www.greenindconsulting.com/cl...ator_anim2.gif and YOU are paying for it |
From the Dotars Web site Pilot education online version (poor format due cut and paste)
VFR pilots should avoid when practicable areas where IFR flights may be in a holding pattern: Holding patterns are depicted on ERC-Low charts as an oval track e.g. left hand pattern centerd on NICKY VFR pilots should remain clear of GPS approaches: IFR flights will track to the open triangle and begin the approach from there If there is more than one open triangle an IFR flight may begin from any of them Copies of most instrument approaches are available from the Airservices Australia website: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...re/aip/dap.htm IFR flights will track to the open triangle and begin the approach from there If there is more than one open triangle an IFR flight may begin from any of the positions Copies of most instrument approaches are available from the Airservices Australia website: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...re/aip/dap.htm Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome INSTRUMENT APPROACH (NDB/DME) INSTRUMENT APPROACH (GPS) HOLDING PATTERN VFR flights should remain clear of instrument approaches: Holding patterns in Class E airspace around Sydney are shown on VTC and VNC charts as a star IFR flights may be holding in Class E AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS Plus I forgot about turning on those lights below A100. More bulbs to wear out faster. I bet the Government will pay for the extras because they are paying for ADSB afterall, aren't they? :yuk: :zzz: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.