" ignore what ATC say...??????????
God help us all:uhoh:

PT,

Insults are easy to fight with insults, rhetoric is easy to fight with rhetoric.

If you think that the anti-NAS stuff is dribbling out of the "proverbial" (I will not reveal the translation, in consideration of everyone else's sensibilities - and you really shouldn't pick words that aren't even that hard to look up in an online dictionary) then prove it - attack it from the high ground of reason, logic and fact.

Snarek

It is very hard to contribute to this thread. As you would know, most of us are constrained from revealing facts which are known to us by virtue of the position we hold. So, from what I do know, I will point out those parts of your ‘truth’ which are incorrect.

Most of this statement is wrong.
Both your interpretation and the reference to separation at the time of the TCAS RA are incorrect.
This is entirely incorrect.

As to the greater question of whether or not this was a NAS failure, this will be determined by the investigation. The indisputable fact is that this incident could not have occurred on the 26th of November, as the Cessna could not have ended up ‘sandwiched’ between the two IFR levels. The Cessna’s original clearance (to get into that position) would have included planning, taking into account separation, sequencing and other factors.

By its very nature, Class E means that the ‘unexpected/unplanned’ will occur more frequently, thereby leading to more last minute changes of plan, more delays and more expense.

PS: Your continued attacks on the pro-safety (anti-NAS) side as 'union scare-mongering' etc. are bringing you dangerously close to 'Winstunianism' - a tag I am sure you would be keen to avoid.

The fact that VFR aircraft are allowed into E, without clearance, and without the requirement to monitor a common frequency in that airspace is sheer stupidity.

The fact that Dick Smith and the other propagants of the NAS defend this (if you can call simpistic schoolchild rationale as defence) is itself, indefensible.

I mean, how hard is it to say 'We accept with 99% of the users that this is an unsafe idea, and now we will require all aircraft in E to monitor the same frequency'. This would placate ALOT of the concerns from the opposers and may even make the new system somewhat 'safer'.

Obviously, as Dick Smith knows all, and the rest of us are just simpletons (re: the CB radio and sunday driving analogy) we have no idea.

Pride comes before a fall. The problem is that someone else will be the one to do the falling - from saomewhere between A045 an FL185.

Walter,
 

FL245 up where I fly. It's not the drop that'll hurt but the stop!

CC,

I think you are VERY correct with regard to PR. I think that the anti-NAS groups have done very poorly in the PR department.

The public need to be convinced - and I think that either the PR money should be spent on better talent, or they should throw more money at it or BOTH.

Nothing like telling the truth - with a bit of artisitic 'licence' to get the message across.

After all, more public will die in an airliner midair than pilots or ATCers (or Ministers or adventurers for that matter) and they have a right to know what they extra risks they are being exposed to and who are the 'brains'behind it.

Hempy go to the top of the class mate. Very well done (and more to the point appropriate).

HEMPY - that is soooo good - it's on the front of my AIP but should be on the front of the NAS indoctrination publications

Evil

poor babies
 

Listen lads and girls. Why dont you all quit complaining and just operate like pros in the asigned airspace, whatever it may be. The guys that bag the new airspace seem to know all its problems, so why not just compensate for it, its called airmanship.

You guys would poop your pants if you had to fly into places like Dar Es Salaam and Entebbe. The other day was crazy here in Dar, the new radar failed and there was Emirates, Ethiopian, Kenyan, SAA, 2x Air Tanz and Oman Air and at least 5 regionals, and maybe 10 bugsmashers. 1 controller sh!tting his pants, and everyone dealt with it like pros. I could not get a word in for 30nm and had to separate myself from others by listening out.

I can just see you ladies getting on prune and crying about it. Just deal with it, adapt, get on with your lives.

Strewth PT, Gimana? , I went bush for a couple of days and missed it. (Tolong ulangi
;) )
Woomera, Ma'af, saya tahu ini tidak cocok bahasa indonesia,Tidak apa apa. ;)
sampai jumpa. ;)

helldog,
Who says they don't operate like pros? This forum isn't the airwaves. If people don't, or do, like the airspace then at least this forum gives them the opportunity to discuss, complain, argue, and debate about it. You might have noticed other threads discussing just what you suggest - how to get on as safely as possible in the new airspace.
...

At least you were all on the same frequency so you could self-separate !!

Helldog. you're a real hero, and congratulations, you have demonstrated your complete ignorance on NAS.

We here in Oz don't give a stuff how you do it over there, we used to have a safe system ( however antiquated it was ) with no mid airs between lighties and jets ( unlike some other countries ). The fact that you went into one airport on one day without control, and did'nt run into anything is meaningless, 85% of our country is non radar covered, and we have jets and lighties co existing at non controlled aerodromes every day.
These idiots are trying to take away the only defence we have against mid airs, that is, compulsory uase of radio at busy airports and controlled ( procedurely ) airspace.

fair point
 

Hey cunning. Very true statement about my ignorance. Not total...but. True I know jack or next to about the new airspace over there. But that is not relevant to the point I am making.

I do not wish to start a fight with anybody. There was another topic where Dick Smith was posting. People there...some of them asked good, intelligent questions and were shown due respect. I dont knock guys having a rational discussion.

Perhaps I should have made it more clear in my last pots who I was attacking. Some people are writing stuff on here which is just mindless dribble. It gets old very quick. I just hate to be reading an interesting topic and then to come across such dribble. Those guys that have nothing better to do than talk cr@p should goto the jetblast forum. Go on there and tell everyone that controllers are stupid and dont know their job etc.

I am not saying I am a real hero. I just wonder what some guys that are so scared of midairs there would do. What would they do in the States, and other places that use the same system?They have much higher traffic density. Would they be to scared to fly there?

Another thing I dont know much about was this Virgin thing. But seems many people here knew exactly what happened. Fifty different versions of the truth! But hey sometimes systems break down...TCAS did its job.

Now every little incident is a big, nay, huge deal. Just like when someone dies under strange circumstances in a hospital. First one hits the news then every death whith a hint of malpractice is on the news for the next few weeks. People start to think that our doctors and hospitals are hopeless. Same hysteria is happening right here.

Another thing that is very anoying. Jet drivers and IFR jocks, stop knocking VFR guys. What the hell, I bet half of you were instructors once. Pumping out GFPTs and PPLs when you yourself did not have your IFR.

Again I am not knocking the people with concerns who discuss things as they should be. Just the ones that chime in with the little backhanders noone wants to hear.

Honestly last time I heard such a comotion was when Costelo anounced that they were raising taxes on tampons.

Dude, whilst I agree that the VFR knocking is unneccessary and counter-productive, I also agree that you don't have a handle on the debate. If you want to join in, then please go and read all the threads (5?) preceding. One of the largest objections, is that to "handed-down wisdom", something you seem to be doing.

Once again, ausNAS is not the US system , no matter how many liars claim it is.


ps.
If you mean it performed a "last-minute arse-save", then yes it did. If you mean it's job is "routinely seperating traffic" as seems to be the idea under the new system, then I think you may receive some more objections, your worship.

Howdy Ferris,

Maybe your right about me not having a handle on this debate. I do not wish to enter it. I was just making a point about some comments I read. So I do not need to grasp it fully.

With the TCAS comment. Yes it was a last minute arse save. But I stand by what I said. It is your last chance if all else fails. Thankfully this time disaster was averted.

Anyway as I belive, and I am sure many others, I dont think I will be able contribute anything further to this debate. Anything of interest and relevance that is. I just mad a point thats all. If anyone wishes to bag me, go for it. I will not reply. but will read with inerest. Be nice now:}

helldog
The whole point of our dissatisfaction with this new airspace is that TCAS is not save your arse, if everything else goes wrong anymore. They have taken away some previous safeguards and now expect RPT and others to rely on TCAS as a primary means of collision avoidance not as the last link in the chain.

Capitan

Rubbish. The VB had visual, the ATC had knowledge and the TCAS RA was a combination of ATC direction and VB aircrew action.

My understanding is the VB crew don't think there is an issue. Prove me wrong if you will.

AK

Snarek,

have you spoken with the VB crew?

RA's are NOT a function of ATC direction and the crews don't think it is a non issue

Statement + no proof = rubbish.

If what you say is true, back it up. I can only go on what I was told and I was not told that by the VB crew concerned.

As for the RA, you are twisting the reason in my post.

AK

so have you spoken with the crew?

or is that a half thruth like the FOI ?

Keep digging that hole, snarek....
 

You said it! All you have offered so far is rubbish. Seriously, if you are basing your opinion as to what happened on a conversation with the Cessna pilot.... He doesn't think it was serious based on the tone of the voices he heard!!! Sheeeesh, obviously you haven't heard many tapes, wherein almost always professional R/T is displayed under even the most trying circumstances (these days it is actually recommended that you try and add urgency to your voice when giving avoiding action- ICAO SARPS and UK ATC MATS)!

I really don't think you meant to imply that you had spoken to the VB crew, but we should be clear about it, shouldn't we?
So if the report comes out and the airspace cops it, will you campaign for it's suspension? Will you use your position in AOPA to push for that organisation to act and do the right thing? I mean, how much proof will convince you?

Anyhow.... have a Winstun

I thought this thread was supposed to be about 'truth' AK?

Asbestos pants on ….


"Statement + no proof = rubbish"

This goes both ways. No one can provide PROOF via this forum … so we need to rely on reasonable discussion to determine the credibility of the writer and judge their comments.

Unfortunately, some have destroyed their credibility with their one-eyed comments.


"just operate like pros"

Most pilots (RPT, IFR, VFR ….) are professional and display good airmanship … but just like this and other forums … there's always a few that don't. They're the one's to worry about.

In this case I fail to understand the airmanship of a pilot who flies a good performing IFR-capable twin, VFR into a busy IFR area:
- Failing to "see and avoid"
- Without contacting ATC until fairly late
- Intending to proceed into C airspace at a major airport without a flight plan
- Eventually submitting flight details via the ATC frequency - the least preferred method
- Expecting a VFR clearance to a destination where wx reports and forecasts reflected non VFR conditions.

On the "see and avoid" … it's pretty hard to see and avoid aircraft closing at a great rate of knots from above/below and behind. By the same token … I seem to recall that the forward and down visibility from the B737 flightdeck is pretty limited.

ATC, too, are pretty professional. That might explain the cool R/T even under difficult circumstances.

As an aside …. And I'll really be flamed for this … but, generally, ATC know more about flying and aircraft performance, than pilots know about ATC operations and procedures. It's part of the ATC job to know, but not a part of a pilot's job to know how to do ATC.


TCAS is an automated system that interrogates other transponders - neither the crew nor ATC have any input, and, I believe, pilots are required to respond to RA's reported by their TCAS. An RA in controlled airspace generally requires immediate notification to ATSB.


And just to get the facts in order ... VOZ didn’t report sighting the C421 til AFTER the RA !


Still the scariest thing I've ever seen.


Is it safe to take the asbestos off now ???

Just a random thought;

Wot if the ATCO had told VB to level at FL185? :confused:

G'day ;)

Snarek I have been following this incident with keen interest and from afar and up until now have kept right out; but you have just given me the absolute s##ts!!! Why don't you keep your opinions to yourself and stop dropping yourself in the proverbial poo pile. Nothing you have to say is helping and your constant conjecturing on what might or might not have happened based on your conversations with your uncle's, aunts, half-sister on your mother's side; who just happened to be a pilot; is infuriating!!!! Let the process run its course and stop pretending to be an expert on something that you obviously have little or no knowledge. "Something" happened and there was an incident and an aircraft full of paying passengers had to take avoiding action due to a systemic breakdown of procedures somewhere and at this point in time that systemic breakdown appears to be NAS!!

Barra Tuesday says:[list=1][*][*][/list=1] Don't you think that's just a teensy bit hypocritcal and self-contradicting? I think both pro- and anti- sides of this "debate" might do well to adhere to the first of the two points made above...

Andy :ok:

Feather #3
In that case, he would have been applying Class C procedures in CLass E airspace, which is against the intent and procedures applicable in NAS. If Class E is to work, it must be allowed to work on its own merits, not by ATC overservicing to compensate for perceived safety deficiencies.

The short answer, of course, is that everyone would have gone home safely and had a good night's sleep. (As they did prior to Nov 27th)

The inherent problem (apart from safety) as I see it in Class E:

1) ATC provides IFR with traffic on observed VFR and the IFR descends.
2) IFR pilot sees an aircraft, and decides he can avoid it, coninuing descent. (IT can never be confirmed the the aircraft seen by the pilot is the same one the ATC sees on radar)
3) TCAS generates an RA.
4) IFR pilot must respond to the RA, e.g. by climbing. (It can never be confirmed that the aircraft triggering the RA is the same one seen by either the pilot or the ATC)

Result: Less orderly descent profiles, less safety, more cost.

That's NAS for you.

Ferris

If the report comes out blaming NAS we shall have a bloody good look at it and our support for NAS.

Someone (4-7-11??) said something about a VFR not being allowed in C at flight levels. Really, point me to the CAR please.

So far I see no evidence to suggest the breakdown was NAS and that pre-NAS would have been any different.

As for the other threats and insults, the bulldust and w@nker proof shields are still holding up just fine :E

AK

Well...one thing is certain...Australian ATC have a lot to learn...:hmm:

Some good fishing here; thanks 4711 !

The nub here is the difference between US and Oz procedures [as perceived by AsA's Masters!!??] You can't just dump a system on a country without bringing the culture over as well. A US ATCO would have used lateral or vertical sep to make SURE the two didn't conflict [unless one could ack 'see&avoid.]

With TCAS equipped a/c, 500' is an RA, like it or not. Methinks the ATCO's here aren't being given the full story on how this REALLY works in the US [for starters, VFR are welcomed, given workload!]

G'day ;)

What findings of any (theoretical) report would alter your support for NAS? Let's have a look at some scenarios:

1. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by 1 mile and 0ft by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft only as they crossed. Did NAS work in this case?

2. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by a wingtip by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft, but say that there was no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?

3. C421 with a U/S transponder is hit by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft at the last second, but with no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?

My point is, does it matter how close they get as to whether the system works? In case 1, one could argue that the system worked. Case 2 you could try to argue, but the miss seemed to be only due to luck. But how close is too close? In Case 3, it would be extemely difficult to say that the system worked. But what is the difference between Case 3 and the other 2? Luck? Then surely the system failed in all three cases.

If all system defences are bypassed, and it is left to chance as to whether a collision occurs or not, then the system has failed. You don't have to wait for a collision to say this. You don't need to stick your finger in a boiling cup of water to know that it is hot.

I am not saying that the ML incident was left all up to chance (at least one system defence was in effect). I am saying that, compared to our previous system, NAS allows for chance to be the final arbiter in more scenarios, because it has removed some of the previously existing defences (such as Class C, frequencies and boundaries etc).

NAS is too dependant upon fully functioning transponders and see and avoid. It actively removes any of the added protection afforded by radio alerted situational awareness or ATC clearances. It's as simple as that. Once a VFR aircraft makes a flight through Class E airspace with a U/S transponder, then collision avoidance is left up to unlerted see and avoid - it is left up to chance.

My understanding is that the transponder WAS NOT U/S! Peddling more bull.

And we are a lot less likely to consider anything that is put forward by the same people peddling anti-NAS lies here or in the media.

I suggest you let less agressive and slightly more persuasive people fight your fight, ferris, 4-7-11 and DehavDrver seem to be able to make a point without going too far below the belt.

The rest of you, that's what the shields are for! :E

AK

"Statement + no proof = rubbish."

"I can only go on what I was told"

Which is it to be then?

snarek
 

It seems your post of 16th December 2003 03:18 is in response to Here to Help's post of 16th December 2003 02:59.

If so, I can't see where H2H has suggested that the C421's txpdr failed. I believe from media reports and PPRuNe posts that it wasn't turned on properly.

Either way, your response strikes me as somewhat petulant and childish.. a bit like a child who knows the argument is lost but must have the last word.

Have you operated a high speed aircraft in E? I don't believe I am peddling anti NAS lies, yet I have not seen any sound or logical justification for much of the change and am seriously concerned for the safety of myself, my fellow crew and the passengers I am responsible for.

This concern is mine, I've not been instructed by any person or any industrial body as to how I should think. Being a somewhat independant person, I'm quite capable of assessing the new airspace and determining how it will impact me. I must say that I find your asertions that any one who is anti NAS must be a union stooge, or stupid, or some other insult, very condescending.

The pilot's statement, while not proof, seems to me to be admissable, reliable and persuasive evidence.

So, the 'opposition' what have you got??? just more insults.

Your lack of professionalism is losing this argument.

Pat

Snarek,
When have I ever done so before, and when did I do it in my last post? When have I ever posted "anti-NAS lies"?

Calm down please.

I had no intention of implying that the ML incident C421 had a complete transponder failure, I listed 3 hypothetical incidents for the purpose of discussion that involve a U/S transponder. Please reread and consider my post and it's valid questions and arguments. I am interested in your opinion.

OK
 

Here to help

Sorry, your point was mistaken as an attack and an RA sounded in the presense of multiple PPRuNe targets interestingly eminating from a single IP Address at Brisbane Center.

(Careful Plazbot, big brother is watching :} )

OK, 1, 2 and 3.

U/S Transponder, the aircraft should NOT BE IN E.

Let me expand on your scenario.

"C421 approaching Cairns from overhead Townsville at 14,500 on Nov 24 2001 with Transponder U/S and having miscalculated a position due to a 50-kt tailwind mistakes Cape Cleveland for Cape Bowling Green and misses a 717 climbing out of Tvl by 50 feet and 100 meters."

So, how would 'C' prevent this???

In E I put it to you that both pilots would at lease know their see and avoid responsibilities.

AK

I am interested to know how big brother is watching and just what he intends to do. Is this some form of threat? Is that what I am to understand. Making threats on the Internet is actually lower than what I thought you were. Incase you did not know the entire AsA centre will give up the same proxy ident. Are you telling me that you accessed the Airservices web server without permissions to ascertain where this IP was originating? OMG all the ATCs must be the same person!!! This IP talk actually concerns me. I have had suspicions for some time that this woomera moderator is very much in the GA groove and is far from consistent if thread lockings and censorship of people. I look over into the other D and G forums and see threads over 100 posts kicking along unlocked and idiots banning/censoring only the apparnet concerned about NAS posters. Additionally but probably more to the point I wonder if you yourself have this moderator account password as well.

This forum has only gone to show that this is not where this battle is going to be won. With the whipping boy of the week sticking their head in with the tired old scaremongering accusations any substance went long ago.

I will sit back as I have been doing so and making sure that I can impart the required knowledge to the people that matter in this debate now, my workmates. As I have stated before we are not going to be the ones who are going to die when 2 hit. As long as we tin plate our backsides when using E airspace then I see nothing wrong. VFR climb and descent.. not available. VFR on top...not available. IFR Pick up...stand by for traffic, I'll get around to your clearance when every single other thing is taken care of. Non mode C paints going to be within 5nm of a paint anywhere at any level..'Observed traffic is' to what ever level from A090 to FL410. VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. Going into IMC? whooops ESIR.

I think it is high time that the rest of the ATCs and Pilots who fly for food give these idiots less assistance with fixing their mess and make them fully accountable for their actions come the revolution. We have voiced our concerns. They are on record. They always will be.