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.

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
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

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.

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


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.


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?


OverRun 7th Nov 2003 17:06

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


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.
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!!!


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.


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...

ATS C0150/03
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


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

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

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!!


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.


Capn Bloggs 9th Nov 2003 20:15


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


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.

snarek 10th Nov 2003 04:51

Probably the same reasons I didn't resign but ran for election. :)

You could rejoin, then your opinions would be more powerful, especially if (as i gather) you are a tin driver as well as a tin pusher.


OverRun 10th Nov 2003 09:33

If I can get a word in edgeways between the AOPA sniping . . . .

The Steamboat Springs being referred to is not the little airport at the town, but is Steamboat Airport (Yampa Valley at Hayden). Identifier HDN. About 10,000 feet of asphalt runway and in a typical ski season weekend day, it does take 146, 737-300, 737-800, A320 and 757 from all the big name airlines. It takes annual movements 4226 RPT, 304 air taxi, 3898 local GA, 7924 itinerant GA. They run a 24hr UNICOM, without FSS or tower. And there is good radar coverage from Denver of the airspace around the airport.

Icarus2001 10th Nov 2003 10:20

I thought that it was quite interesting to see Open Mic browsing the forums this morning but choosing not to engage with the great unwashed or perhaps attempt to set straight some incorrect perceptions about the reforms and enhancements to our obviously ailing Air Traffic system.

snarek 10th Nov 2003 11:22

just perhaps
Perhaps Open Mic would engange with you guys if he though it worthwhile.

These topics contain about 5% useful info and opinion cleverly camoflaged under piles of useless sh!t.

For instance, I am immediately put off by

If I can get a word in edgeways between the AOPA sniping . . . .
So i don't read on. But if the info after it was important I'd be later criticised for not paying attention.

Now, I PERSONALLY have some doubts about NAS. But I also believe we are going to get NAS, so i put my 2c worth in wherever possible.

I also firmly believe consultation is about getting all the facts and opinions, sifting them and making a decision. It ain't about satisfying every whinger and loon on the planet. So don't be surprised when the 4 or 5 antagonists on here get ignored. The trick is to be a player, not a whinger.

Besides, a regulator's job is to make everyone equally unhappy!!!

So, you can put on your best rusty armour and go tilt at the big windmill, or you can point our problems with NAS and solutions that are acceptable to the majority.

That's how you get change......


SM4 Pirate 10th Nov 2003 11:39


but is Steamboat Airport (Yampa Valley at Hayden)
very inetersting, we would know that how? All references were to Steamboat Springs...

Me thinks Open Mic might have an alias; or has your ear old son.

Bottle of Rum

Aus ATC 10th Nov 2003 18:19

Back to the topic!
As a VFR pilot you can elect to monitor the ATC Frequency (the fluffy clouds on ERC - by the way who outside of ATC knows where half these locations are anyway!).

Having decided to monitor the closest frequency to your track (because you are cruising at a highish level in Class E airspace), it might be reasonable to assume that IFR traffic in proximity will also be on that frequency.

Sorry - your assumption is flawed (some of the time anyway). ATC sectors still exist with fairly rigid frequency boundaries in both the vertical and lateral dimensions. IFR traffic could well be maintaining primary listening watch on a frequency which is not on your chart.

Keep a good look out!


twodogsflying 10th Nov 2003 19:07

Elevation 6602 feet
Approach procedures:

Departure procedures:
IFR Take off minimums and departure procedures

Due to the proximity of the Hayden Airport to the Steamboat Springs (SBS) and Craig (CAG) Airports, certain IFR procedures overlap. Delays may be encountered because of this situation.



Weather Data Sources: AWOS-3: 119.27 (970) 276-3690

For IFR clearances, contact Denver Center 134.5 BEFORE TAXI.

Denver AFSS serves the airport and can be contacted on the Hayden RCO; 122.25. For weather briefing, call 1-800-992-7433 (1-800-WX-BRIEF).

RADAR coverage exists generally 10,000' MSL and above.

If you depart VFR and call airborne for your IFR you must remember your priority has moved down the list and will be accommodated when all other previous priorities have been accomplished.

Airport Operational Statistics
Aircraft based on the field: 7
Single engine airplanes: 4
Multi engine airplanes: 2
Gliders airplanes: 1

Aircraft operations: avg 36/day
53% transient general aviation
17% commuters
16% local general aviation
11% air carriers
3% air taxi
<1% military


The Above are from 2 web sites.

The interesting thing is RADAR starts at 3198 feet AGL. IFR must get a clearance before TAXI and there are 36 movements a day (Average) with AIR Carriers at less than 4 a day!

I cannot think of any airport in Australia anything like this place!

I wonder how SMITHS, M, D and B sleep at night?

Aussie Andy 10th Nov 2003 22:21

Hi guys, here is my current penneth worth - from afar:

Regarding Class E Airspace

I see everyone is still pretty upset at the prospect of the introduction of Class E airspace in which IFR may be separated from IFR, but VFR must "see and avoid" both IFR and other VFR traffic, and that VFR traffic may well not be on the same frequency as the IFR traffic.

As upsetting and "unsafe" is this must seem to you guys, the fact still remains that this system is in widespread use in the US and elsewhere, and there appears to be no evidence that it is less safe than the current Australian system (in fact I believe the opposite has been suggested earlier in the first thread on this subject).

So isn't the problem that you will have to find some empirical evidence that shows the current system is "more safe" if you want to object to the proposed changes (end-state) on safety grounds? Otherwise you will continue to have people who fly in the US, France and other places that make extensive use of Class E, arguing that it doesn't seem to be the cause of too many problems.

For a discussion of what happens in French class E near Lille, where VFR are not even answered, and IFR are provided service on a frequency on which VFR are not even welcome, see the thread in the ATC forum Has Lille given up completely, especially the bit at the end... So even in this environment, with apparently poor / confused co-ordination across some FIR boundaries, under-staffed ATC services and with greater traffic densities that generally experienced in Australia, its still not seen to be the cause of a higher risk outcome statistically AFAIK. I'm not arguing that this illustrates that Class E is a better system (that's a separate argument covered elsewhere), but if you are defending the "no change" position, I think you need to somehow deal with the point I have raised.

Regarding Transition and Education

The thing I can't understand from this distance is the apparent haste with which the changes appear to be being brought in. Do I understand correctly that the first phase of the changes take place at the end of this month, yet you are only now receiving educational materials? This strikes me as inherently unsafe and I think introduces "transition risk" independent of the merits (or otherwise!?) of the proposed end-state! What's the rush? What is the case against a slower transition?

Best to all,

Andy :ok:

Four Seven Eleven 11th Nov 2003 05:22

Aussie Andy

On your two points:

Class E and relative safety

Whilst I am unable to provide statistics on the relative safety of Cass C vs E airspace, the different procedures applicable in each do offer some empirical eveidence of the differing philosophy and safety objectives in each.

IFR are separated from IFR in both
Pilots are responsible for ‘see and avoid’ in both.

In Class C, IFR are separated from all aircraft. In E, only from other IFR. (Mike Smith’s contrary evidence to to the Australian Senate notwithstanding)
In Class E, ‘see and avoid’ is the primary means of collision avoidance. In Class C it is a ‘fall back’ only.

The primary reason, as I see it, why Class C is ‘safer’ (a relative term – as opposed to safe/not safe), is that Class C involves many more tiers of safety. In E, it is all reduced to one thing.

Transition and Education

On the point of ‘apparent haste’ - when is the next Federal election due?

Chief galah 11th Nov 2003 05:32

Aussie Andy
After reading your Lille link, I am even more convinced that our current system is simpler, more efficient, more user friendly and safer than what we are about to get, or what is in practise in your area. It appears Lille has it's own radar, so I can't image what the problem is.

The multilayered swiss cheese of 2b in respect of class E over class D, relies on

1. Transponders
2. "Appropriate frequencies"

both of which are weak links.

Peel these two fetid layers away, and we're left with a lot more air than cheese.


Aussie Andy 11th Nov 2003 06:17

Four Seven Eleven - well I don't think your post addresses the problem: your existing Class C does not cover anything like the areas that Class E is proposed for, so its not the right comparison.

Chief galah - but that's my point: there are still no reported / apparent / statistically significant safety problems EVEN with the crock of a situation such as is currently the case around Lille... which makes it sound like you guys are worrying too much.

Surely the point is that change is always difficult to swallow, and to manage. I think the issues here are primarily:
  • Promotion - in that they may have failed to persuade many constituents of the advantages of the new system over the old;
  • Education - in that people need time to properly understand, come to terms with and to digest the proposed changes, which should probably be inculcated via flight training organisations etc.; and
  • Change Management - in that the rollout of the changes should perhaps take palce in a less hasty manner. (And if what 4-7-11 suggests re- the influence of Federal election timing is to blame, then shame, shame, shame!).
Still, to my mind none of these issues indicates that the NAS will be "less safe" than your current arrangements, and I am yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Cheers, and good night (its bed time in England!)

Andy :8

Four Seven Eleven 11th Nov 2003 09:07


To amplify my point:

Replacing vast tracts of Class G with Class E will lead to an increase in safety (particularly when/if G loses DTI service.)

Replacing Class C with E, particularly those bits of C which capture RPT jet traffic, will lead to a reduction in safety - primarilly affecting those who pay for the system.

I am at a loss as to what economic or other benefit will be achieved by exposing a B747 on descent into Sydney, or a B717 climbing out of Hobart, to the possibility of unknown, non-communication traffic, where a full separation service currently exists.

I can honestly not remember ever having knocked back a clearance to a VFR aircraft. So the idea that this will introduce some new level of freedom for VFR users is difficult for me to conceive. What the new system (E relacing C) does is to remove a significant safety defence.

The workload for the controller will increase as they are now required to separate the IFRs, while maintaining a continuous scan for the unidentified aircraft which may just be at the 'wrong' level. This involves sifting through the clutter of all the low-level VFR in class G below. It also involves being ready for any avoiding action the IFR aircraft may have to take, possibly in contravention of its clearance.


Lodown 11th Nov 2003 10:19

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. There has also been the comment that we don't want to use TCAS as a last line of defense either, but these are all technological advances that we didn't have when the current airspace system was devised. How many 'last line(s) of defense' do we need? What was the 'last line of defense' 30 years ago? 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.

Chief galah 11th Nov 2003 10:24


Believe me, I'm not worried too much. I just don't want a reasonable system to go down the tubes.

Re. statistical evidence about the safety of a system - it is only as good as the reporting.

Nobody has bothered to ask how much of our time is spent on transponder problems. It is significant, the time that is. The only way we know an aircraft is about with a transponder problem is by having primary radar backup. I'm sure the good people of the VFR fraternity in Tasmania don't particularly care about transponders or their serviceablility. They've flown forever there WITHOUT RADAR. No-one will ever know if the transponder's working, because it will never have been checked within the radar system!!!

And that won't change.

What they do know up until now they've received a pretty good service from the pros in Launy and Hobart towers.

Same applies at Albury, Alice Springs ( both non-radar) and all of the other D towers who may have limited SSR coverage only.


Adamastor 11th Nov 2003 10:43

Don't know if it qualifies as evidence in your book Aussie Andy, but when CASA were sent the Design Safety Case for NAS 2b - yes, I realise that it is 2b alone, but that's all we have to work on at the moment, as the safety cases for future stages are yet to be written (how the hell you can get away with that little gem I'll never know!) - their response, in part, was:

CASA has reviewed the Design Safety Case (DSC) dated 1st September 2003 and makes the following comments:
2. The detailed evaluation of the presented DSC evidences that the Stage 2b implementation will bring about an increase in risk beyond that which exists in Australia today, but CASA is unable to determine the degree of this additional risk from the material supplied in the DSC.
The fact that the regulators feel that the upcoming stage represents a reduction in safety raises a lot of people's hackles, including my own.

Neddy 11th Nov 2003 11:29

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.
"The Emperor is naked," he said.
"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.

Just got to figure out which naked git is The Emperor!

AirNoServicesAustralia 11th Nov 2003 11:30

Lodown, you have been mislead if you think TAAATS has anything like TCAS, it has a very basic STCA(short term conflict alert) and it is (well was when I left Oz 12 months ago) renowned for being inconsistent at best.

Brian H, felt I made a personal attack on him, which I feel I didn't. I think that I stated a fact. That being that the VFR pilots like NAS because it allows them (supposedly) to go where they want without paying and without talking. That is fine, I understand from the VFR point of view that that would be seen as a positive.

My question that is still to be answered is:

1. Their will be an increase in workload to the ATC's(scanning their screen constantly) and to the RPT's (scanning their windscreen constantly). Their will be more controllers not less hence,

2. There will be no financial savings.

3. There will be a reduction in safety in the areas where Class C has become Class E. Whether this is an acceptable risk is irrelevant. hence,

4. Why change to a system where safety is reduced for no financial savings, and increased workload for most aviation proffessionals?

And finally the cherry on top of all this is the new charts and the ambiguity and difficulty in locating ATC frequencys. How is this a good thing, please answer that while you're at it.

I do not work in Australia at the moment, and will not be for some time to come. So please don't roll out the old chestnut of me trying to save my cushy little job.

SM4 Pirate 11th Nov 2003 12:33


4711, doesn't TAAATS provide a level of protection by alerting controllers to conflicting traffic in conjunction with transponder-equipped aircraft and SSR? ... 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.
That's just it; you are talking about 'radar' alerts; the problems are not where we will have radar and the paints are showing; it's everywhere else, 85% is outside or below radar, so no collision alerts there I'm affraid.

How many alerts are 'real'; if TCAS was as unreliable as TAAATS alerts, you'd have thrown them out before you installed them. Example today, IFR in C A090, overflew a IFR in G showing A084 (maintaing A080) opposite direction, the Short Term Collision Alert (STCA) went off after they had passed, then it stayed active, i.e. telling me wrong info for 4 minutes.

Use the technology, awsure, as a user the technology sucks; we keep saying it, nobody listens because it's the 'worlds best'. Only automated system, blah blah blah, french rubbish that needs multi millions spent on it to correct the 19000+ software issues (non critical faults), let alone improved, modern functionallity.

Bottle of Rum

ftrplt 11th Nov 2003 13:03

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?

Some other points:

- ICAO specifies max 250 below 10000 in Class C, D, E, F and G (i.e anywhere). Why hasnt this been carried over? It must surely help just a little bit in a head-on separation scenario?

- The Military low jet route issues is covered in the US by publishing IFR and VFR low jet routes, and displaying them on all the Low charts. You are required to 'book' a route for a specified entry and exit time' which is then used to alert other aricraft. You have no route flexibility in the US system.

snarek 12th Nov 2003 07:58

AOPA Members, triadic et al
I have posted some questions on the AOPA Forum re NAS.


The Board will have a specific vote on certain features, like freqs on charts, in the near future and I want to make sure I include all your thoughts.

Please go there and let me know what you think.

Edited to answer plazbot.

It is a bit more complex than that, suffice to say there are some concerns now amongst some members.

However what will be will be, we will fly the maps, accept some input and go back with suggestions for change (if any).

That's the process.


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:53.

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