PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   NAS Frequency Boundaries continued. (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/108092-nas-frequency-boundaries-continued.html)

tobzalp 7th Nov 2003 06:45

NAS Frequency Boundaries continued.
 
Some selected hansard.



Senator O’BRIEN—I have been informed that the meeting insisted on the inclusion of common
appropriate—that is, area radio—frequencies on both instrument flying rules and visual flying rules charts
together with their relevant FIO boundaries.


Senator O’BRIEN—I am informed that that meeting resolved that, although the removal of certain items
from the maps might be compliant with the USA model, it was deemed unacceptable to occur without the fullscale
architecture—that is, the risks were too high.

Senator O’BRIEN—There is a dispute about radio frequencies in these charts. As I understand it, the ARG
deemed that meeting’s view inappropriate and decided to proceed without the frequency information being
included on the charts.

Senator O’BRIEN—That is the key, is it not? Those of us who are progressing these reforms know better
than the industry. That is what you are saying.

Senator O’BRIEN—So there is virtually little point in these processes of workshops. It is a pretty
insurmountable challenge. You cannot make a case unless there is some acceptance that this is a unique to
Australia circumstance—in an industry which has international characteristics.

Senator O’BRIEN—My understanding of the issue being complained about is that during transition the
lack of frequency information on charts may lead to visual flying rules, pilots selecting an inappropriate
frequency, so that when another aircraft broadcasts on the area frequency they just might not be aware of one
another, therefore increasing the risk of collision.

Mr M. Smith—That is what the hazard was. I think the treatment of that hazard was to ensure that pilots
understand the appropriate frequency for their particular circumstance.

Senator O’BRIEN—Returning to the safety mitigators issue that we were discussing earlier, I am advised
that during the workshop we were discussing the experts when asked the three questions identified by the National Airspace System Implementation Group as being ‘the final test of acceptable risk’ replied as
follows—without those two mitigators 37.4 and 37.5—to the questions:
Has the risk been reduced to as low as is reasonably practical?
The answer was ‘no’.
Are there are other mitigators?
The answer was ‘yes’.
Is the residual risk acceptable?
The answer was ‘no’.

Mr M. Smith—Yes,


Senator O’BRIEN—What is the problem with our current system? It seems to work fairly safely.

Mr M. Smith—Ours is a unique system. It has grown up from a basic introduction, probably in the 1940s,
when we sought to introduce an air traffic system. There are three things that are needed for an air traffic
system. You need communication; pilots and controllers need to be able to talk to each other. You need
navigation systems; aircraft need to know where they are. And it is useful to have a surveillance system so air
traffic controllers can picture where the aircraft are.
Really?


Mr M. Smith .........The important point here is that, by introducing class E airspace in areas outside of radar coverage, for the
first time we introduce a mandatory transponder requirement to that airspace.
Erm. Already got it now. Please drive through. Glad to see more misinformed amatuers.


Senator COLBECK—I understand the airline aircraft. I am concerned about small and medium turbo prop
aircraft—a Metroliner, for example; something of that size—which does not have a TCAS system on board,
and the interaction. It is an issue that has been raised specifically with me that for someone flying out of
Launceston, for example, between 18 and 4,000 feet, it is see or be seen, basically.

Mr M. Smith—That is only part of it, Senator. The reality is that the performance capabilities of the
aircraft differ and so you will find that the Metro is actually climbing basically over the top of the smaller
aircraft. Then you have also got the separation that is provided by the use of the different cruising levels.
Further, eventually it gets down to people have to look out the window, but that is true of all aircraft in all
airspace.
Where he said over he meant through.



Senator O’BRIEN—It has been put to me that at that meeting you personally assured the meeting that,
should there be insufficient time to effect these changes to the charts, the implementation can be delayed to
suit.


Senator O’BRIEN—It is put to me that Mr Heath, the convenor, wrote to you on 9 July confirming what I
have described as the finding of the meeting and saying that ‘VNC and ERC charts to depict common or consistent
local frequency’ and ‘to be depicted by FAOI boundaries’ and, further, that industry will accept a delay in the
implementation if additional work is required to achieve these requirements in the 2b states. It is something similar to
what you just said to me, but I am attempting to quote from the letter.


Senator O’BRIEN—That is an interesting depiction, but I am sure that those involved feel that the ARG
rejection of the recommendations of their workshop render the safety case and implementation workshop
process irrelevant.

Senator O’BRIEN—Surely the minister has a say in all this.
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionC...6/jocwave3.gif



Air NAV Guild - We are bound to report to you that there was a unanimous call from the meeting to halt the implementation of Stage 2 of
the NAS until the identified mitigators are implemented. Put very clearly, the message from the meeting was “Do not
proceed any further with Stage 2b in its present form”.

The group was unanimous in its opinion that “unalerted see and avoid’, proposed by Stage 2b as a primary means of
collision avoidance is fundamentally flawed. If Stage 2b is introduced in its present form with the current associated
training and education material we believe that the risk of a mid air collision will increase.

buzztart 7th Nov 2003 09:33

I luv the response Mr M Smith gave, a Metro "actually climbing basically over the top of a smaller" a/c. And then sep. by their cruise levels.
That implies the Metro does not climb through the levels of smaller a/c. Does M.Smith really not understand that the said Metro must climb through many levels that can be occupied by VFR s.
Dont start me on the costings that O'brien asks Bernie about.
We dont know the end result so we will have to keep working on it!

Chimbu chuckles 7th Nov 2003 12:10

THE PLAN

In the beginning was the Plan.

And then came the assumptions.

And the assumptions were without form.

And the Plan was without substance.

And darkness was upon the face of the aviation professionals.

And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shite, and it stinketh"

And the pilots/ATCos went unto their unions and said "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof".

And the unions went unto the ARG and said, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong such that none may abide by it."

And the ARG went unto the NASIG and saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."

And the NASIG spoke among themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."

And NASIG went unto CASA/ASA saying unto them, "It promotes growth and its very powerful."

And CASA/AsA went unto the minister saying unto him, " This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of aviation, with powerful effects"

And the minister looked upon the plan, and saw that it was good.

And thus the plan became policy.

This is how shite happens.

Chuck.

Chief galah 7th Nov 2003 13:05

Thanks Creampuff
 
Chimbu - nicely put.

From page 65 of Hansard


Senator COLBECK - And in that circumstance there is a separation service provided by air traffic control in class E airspace.

Mr M. Smith - The service provided by air traffic control in class E airspace is separation for instrument flight rules aircraft from other instrument flight rules aircraft and from known visual flight rules aircraft.
Confusing, isn't it?

CG

OverRun 7th Nov 2003 17:06

The Hansard can be read at the following address (it's about 1 Mb):

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S7054.pdf

It is FASCINATING reading for followers of NAS - the pages numbers in Acrobat don't line up with the printed Hansard pages - look at pages 58-73 and page 83 (acrobat's page numbers - not Hansard's) where Mike Smith and Gemmell and Bernie Smith get questioned.

Love this open democracy stuff. Wonder if it will do any good though :rolleyes:

ferris 7th Nov 2003 17:59

I didn't realise 'Yes Minister' was still running
 
Fascinating to watch the professional liars at work.

What about this (from Mr. Dolan)

We are now in a better position, since we had a very detailed version of the final state of the NAS, to move forward to a full review,
Perhaps he'd like to share it with the rest of us?

From Mike Smith;


If I can add to that: sometimes our area frequencies can be several hundred square kilometres or 1,000square kilometres, and often many area frequencies are grouped, so pilots currently listening on the area
frequency could, for instance, if they are listening around, say, Newman in Western Australia, hear pilotsoperating at Albany, some 2,500 kilometres away. By making this change in practice, pilots will only be
hearing generally traffic that is around them and of interest to them. So the specifics of it in the new system are
that, if you hear something, more often than not it is going to be relevant to you whereas in the current system
it may or may not be relevant to you. The important thing is to encourage pilots and to educate them about the
choice of an appropriate frequency, and that is going to give them better information.
Really?
So, you kill flight service, make the controllers group frequencies, then cite that as a bad thing that needs to be fixed by your great, new, ozNAS? Yes, minister.
This whole section is then a great insight into the crash or crash-thru mentality being employed:

Senator O’BRIEN—I hear what you are saying but I have not been asking about the proposal ‘Do not doit’ but about a proposal to include two mitigators.
Mr M. Smith—But one of those mitigators has been basically ‘Do not do the change.’
Senator O’BRIEN—Sorry, I did not understand them to be saying that. I thought the mitigators were
about inclusion of frequencies on maps.
Mr M. Smith—If the characteristic is removal of the area frequency boundaries and the requirement for
VFR aircraft to monitor an area frequency, and the mitigator is to leave the area of frequency boundaries on
the charts and require the VFR aircraft to monitor the area frequency, then I actually do not think you have
mitigated against implementation. I think you have actually stopped implementation.
In other words- if it's in the model, but it's stupid and dangerous, do it anyway, because that's what you've been told to do. Yes minister.
More from Mike

We have a system where we have good two-way communication with these aircraft, excellent navigation, a
surveillance system and trained air traffic controllers who are sitting on their hands providing a direct to traffic
information service, when really they could be providing a proper air traffic control service that is compatible
and consistent with international practice—and that is the system we are introducing.
That is just lies. How is removing DTI consistent with "international practice". The US system is not universal, not international, and we are not getting the 'US system'. The US system has FS and DTI, plus unicoms. This is just cost shifting. ATC doing DTI (instead of FS) was supposed to be an efficiency gain. Now they will remove DTI and try and tell us it's to 'make ATC more efficient'.
Lies? Yes minister.
In the next breath, this gem from Mr. Matthews

The second characteristic is that we expect there will be cost savings. It is yet to be
quantified, but we expect that there will be cost savings to the industry.
How can you know there will be cost savings if they aren't quantified? Do you know more about the end state than the rest of us? Yes minister.
From Bernie

Mr Bernie Smith—We do not know what the final position is, because not all the characteristics have been determined fully.
So we know there will be cost savings, even though we don't know what the end looks like? Yes minister.

Mr Bernie Smith—No, we have not done any work on that. The government has said that this isgovernment policy; this is what you are to do. That is what we are doing. Whether it saves or loses dollars is
not something that we can determine accurately at the moment or could change the outcome of any way.
Says it all, really. Yes, minister.

And what a fine show it is, too.

To any pilots who think the changes won't affect them much;
(from M. Smith, Hansard, as above)

It is interesting when you think of these procedures. A lot of people like to think that the ‘mandatory’ word is the thing that delivers a safe outcome there. The new system introduces a range of new and improved
recommended practices, but ‘recommended’ does not mean optional. It really means that if you are a pilot
operating into that airport, the responsibility is now yours, and not the regulator’s, to determine what the
appropriate calls to make are. As a pilot myself operating potentially in the new system, I would look at the
new CTAF procedures and see that there are now nine calls that the regulator recommends that I make. I had
better be pretty careful if I do not make any of those calls, because I have got the regulator telling me that I
should make those.
So these 'new and improved recommended practices' are that we are not going to tell what to do any more, but if you do something wrong then we will get you because it's not our job to tell you what to do.?:confused: All care, no responsibility. Yes minister.

Chimbu chuckles 7th Nov 2003 20:55

Particularly unimpressed by the part where he suggests, non to subtly that Australian ATC has, essentially, improved little since the 1940s.

His refusal to answer questions directly but rather insisting on circular argument.

So this is the model and no discussion, whatever it's merits, is about to be allowed to slow, let alone stop, implementation.

QF, AOPA 'and others' is wide industry consultation?

Mike Smith you are a disgrace!

How do we send a link to these threads to Sen O'Brien?

Yes Minister indeed!!!

Chuck.

Icarus2001 8th Nov 2003 03:31

Ferris I agree that the Hansard transcript is interesting reading, that really is some ball of wool being used. However I think you will find that DTI is staying. There was a subtle change a few months ago and I remember reading one of the roadshow publications that basically said that DTI will stay until something else can replace it.

AirNoServicesAustralia 8th Nov 2003 16:55

Icarus, whatever the powers that be say, the plan since they gave Flight Service the flick, was to have controllers provide DTI as a way of keeping the airlines happy (who pleaded to keep Flight Service going), but only until the dust settled and then to remove DTI and have no service outside controlled airspace, and NAS 2b is the first step towards that end state.

What people need to do is not focus just on the shortfalls of this stage of implementation, but even more importantly, look at what the Anderson and Smith and co. are trying to bring in at the end of all this.

ferris 9th Nov 2003 02:17

DTI staying?
 
Icarus 2001.
The people driving these changes are either extremely stupid, or extremely devious. Which do you believe it is? Dick's dream has always involved ending DTI. He's had a couple of failed goes at it already. This is just his dream, chopped up into smaller, more palatable pieces. The end state must put an end to DTI. Where else can they save any money? Why do you think they won't tell anyone what the end state is? Does anyone really believe they (ARG, NASIG et al) themselves don't know what it looks like? Would anyone in their right mind begin down this road without knowing where they are going? DTI doesn't fit with the philosophy. What other purpose could all this 'no talking on the radio' serve? Go back and look at Dick's rants. He believe unicoms are they way to go, because of the funding issue. One of the stooges (Smith or Matthews?) even quotes unicom use (Steamboat Springs) as an example of what we should be doing in oz. He skillfully neglects to tell the good Senators that those services in oz are the very ones they are aiming to kill (DTI and FS).
Follow the yellow brick road.....each brick, no matter how stupid or trivial (2b) on it's own, is leading somewhere. I realise others see that. It's just that my PNR is shorter than theirs, obviously. Where is yours? It might be time to start talking about that.

snarek 9th Nov 2003 07:32

Reply to triadic from the previous thread.

I am aware of your views and respect them. I am also very careful to distinguish my views from those of AOPA, AOPA's views represent a majority decision.

I did not state Txps were not mandatory, I stated that E would make them so and thus, in the case in question, NAS is safer.

From my understanding, Txps are mandatory in E for an aircraft with an engine driven electrical system. There are those within AOPA that do not support this and they are vocal and influential. This will have to be resloved before AOPA fully supports E below 8500.

Now, to MY OPINIONS having seen the new maps.

1. Why remove approach frequencies from VTCs and VNCs??? I am told I should 'call tower' if flying VFR. Why is this??? Tower will just shunt me to approach and thus we have created 'unnecessary chatter' and work for the tower controllers. Might work OK in CBR or Coffs but I reckon Cairns towers guys will have kittens.

2. The biscuits are small and green. Hard enough to find in daylight, but at night under RED light, ooops ... gone!!!

3. The biscuits give me flightwatch and AERIS etc, but not frequencies I might need if flying around meatbombers dropping out of C, through E into G. They also don't give me 'best freq' for the area concerned.

4. I also want areas freqs somewhere, the ERC is OK just as long as people are educated as to where to look. I personally want to be able to at least monitor near 'hubs' of high intensity traffic eminating out of a CTAF and climbing fast into E.

And, as stated before, these are just my views and are not nevessarilly those of the AOPA Board.

AK

Shitsu-Tonka 9th Nov 2003 08:32

NAS not good enough for everyone it appears..
 
In an apparent double standard as a prelude to our new 'safer' airspace I found this quite amusing today...

NOTAM YBMC
ATS C0150/03
TWR AND CLASS D AIRSPACE ACT DUE VIP MOV
FROM 11 090805 TO 11 091030
0311090805 TO 0311090830 0311090945 TO 0311091030

Now I wonder who the VIP visiting MC is today.... it wouldn't be a certain minister would it?

SM4 Pirate 9th Nov 2003 09:52

Snarek, you seem to be very selective in your assessment of safety.


I stated that E would make them so and thus, in the case in question, NAS is safer.
How is it, replacing class C where everything is afforded separation and they have transponders and replacing it with E and no talking, safer?

Class D towers are now going to get extra mitigators or QFA won't play... Would this be an eleventh hour change? Has AOPA being included in the decision? I bet not, be hey this is called industry consultation right?

RE DTI, terminal DTI will remain, stage 3, that implies that there will be no enroute DTI (where the risk is low); but I wan't to know how you distinguish between the two? Overflying a CTAF at 6000 would that be terminal etc.?

The following link is interesting: http://www.airnav.com/airport/SBS

Bottle of Rum

tobzalp 9th Nov 2003 11:48

hmmmmmm

Wonder how the radar coverage is. Obviously just like Australia.:ugh:



Airport Communications
CTAF/UNICOM: 122.8
WX AWOS-3: 118.325 (970-879-7794)
WX AWOS-3 at HDN (16 nm W): 119.275 (970-276-3690)

UNICOM AVBL 0700-SS.
APCH/DEP SVC PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC FREQS 134.5/327.8 (HAYDEN RCAG).
This is nothing like any airport in Oz that will/does operate Unicom.

Chief galah 9th Nov 2003 12:43

SM4 -good link
 
Hansard RRA&T page 62

Mr. M. Smith


......example—it is probably an extreme example but it is a useful one—of the
airport associated with Steamboat Springs, a ski resort in Colorado. It actually does not have a control tower. It
is therefore class G airspace on the ground and class E above. They operate CTAF—Common Traffic
Advisory Frequency—at that airport in the absence of radar coverage. They have a Unicom there and in fact
they like their Unicom—they call it an enhanced Unicom because they also talk about the weather. When you
look at the types of operations that happen there, United Airlines take their BAe146s in there daily, American
Airlines take in 757s and Delta take in 737s. And huge numbers of corporate jets and private jets go in there
because the US have a population that supports general aviation—
from the Steamboat Springs website, effective 20/10/2003...

Airport Operational Statistics

Aircraft based on the field: 63
Single engine airplanes: 45
Multi engine airplanes: 14
Helicopters: 3
Gliders airplanes: 1
Aircraft operations: avg 29/day
86% local general aviation
9% transient general aviation
5% air taxi
<1% military

This is not exactly a busy field. Transient movements are are 2.61 movements per day = 942 per year. Not exactly "huge numbers." No mention of RPT.

Runway Information
Runway 14/32
Dimensions: 4452 x 100 ft. / 1357 x 30 m
Surface: asphalt/grooved, in fair condition
Weight limitations: Single wheel: 50000 lbs
Double wheel: 60000 lbs

Hmmm, B757's, B737's, Bae146's, must go in there empty and totally stripped out.

I'd hate to say Hansard is misleading, BUT!!

CG

Shitsu-Tonka 9th Nov 2003 12:56

Steamboat Springs according to Mike Smith:



I can use an example—it is probably an extreme example but it is a useful one—of the airport associated with Steamboat Springs, a ski resort in Colorado..........
.....look at the types of operations that happen there, United Airlines take their BAe146s in there daily, American
Airlines take in 757s and Delta take in 737s. And huge numbers of corporate jets and private jets go in there.....
....they have thousands of business jets in the
US and many of their owners like to go to places like Steamboat Springs.


Steamboat Springs according to the airport website:

Aircraft operations: avg 29/day


Bamboozled by Bull$hit once again.

CG: Now THAT is spooky! SNAP!!

piniped 9th Nov 2003 19:15

The real question is....
 
My question to the masses is this:

If the system is user pays, and the VFR/AOPA brigade don't want to pay for anything, why are they being listened to at all?
Surely the only ones that should be being listened to are the service providers (ATC) and the IFR/RPT/MLJ dudes and dudettes.

Discuss.

Capn Bloggs 9th Nov 2003 20:15

Piniped,

Yes, and what's worse, the very people that Dick is trying to set up the airspace for are going to get FREE charts for 12 months!! Guess who is paying for those? The User-Pays users. I guess they couldn't afford to buy some charts anyway given the membership fees of AOPA... They wanted free in G and they are going to get it. Pity WE have to pay for it.

This whole thing stinks more than my 19 month-old's nappy!

snarek 10th Nov 2003 04:32

A union, whatever.
 
Call us what you will, a union, a lobby group whatever.

Our job is to make sure that our members are not forced to subsidize a gold plated airspace system they (and 90% of others) don't need.

That is why we are giving NAS the level of support we are.

We are NOT giving anything beyond 2b our full support and will be commenting on some chart issues with 2b. The rest, we are monitoring its implimentation and taking comment from members (like triadic), considering this comment amongst the Board and working out our position.

I come here to read 'reasoned comment', when it turns unreasonable, I ignore it. Some arguments persuade me to look deeper, some just don't.

Some have accused us of being 'amateurs'. Well i suppose in airspace design, we are.

But we must represent the full gamut of AOPA members and we do that by having a representative board.

On our Board we have

1 x multi thousand hour 747 pilot.
1 x multi thousand hour ex GA RPT and charter pilot.
3 x multi thousand hour instructors and flying school owners.
1 X multi thousand hour ex instructor (ex airforce) and talented homebuilder.
2 x high time IFR PPLs who fly regularly for work.
2 x low time VFR PPLs who will have to wear all the chart changes etc.

Advising us we have another 747 driver, a charter operator and ex F28 driver, another ex RAAF instructor and anyone else we care to talk to.

None of these people is under any obligation to accept anything either NASIG, the Minister or anyone with the name Smith says. We all read the stuff, listen to the arguments from members (and some persuasive non-members), in the case of 2b we will fly the system and then we all, individually, make up our minds.

Oh yeah ....
Shitzu-Tonka, if you wanna get on the AOPA forum, you gotta join :E


AK

Shitsu-Tonka 10th Nov 2003 04:49

AK: Thanks, but I let my AOPA membership lapse long ago.... for reasons outisde the scope of this discussion.

I was interested to see what the AOPA forum had to say after seeing the link here - it was not apparent it was a members only forum in the registration process. Never mind.

I guess having your forum 'closed' is probably a good idea.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35.


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