Some truth about the ML incident
 

Dear CivilAir people et al.

I have to bugga a good story with facts, but I'm gonna anyway :E

The VFR Cessna 421, VH-AAI was 23 miles north of Canty (75 from ml) at 17,500'. Normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500'.

There were 2 IFR aircrat in the area, the Virgin and an RFDS.

The VFR called for a clearance into ML 7 minutes before the TCAS alert and was adviced that no ALT was seen. Transponder was recycled 7 minutes prior to the TCAS alert and ALT info was acknowledged!!!

ATC then advised "we have you at 17,500, but not VFR clearance available due Wx at ML" (or words to that effect).

Cessna is offered IFR as alternative and accepts. (That is not actually up to ATC but I accept is was done out of professionalism) This is 25 NW Canty.

Cessna was given code and turned right 90 degrees from the direct Canty ML track under ATC control! This turn directed the Cessna closer to the Virgin.The Cessna flies three minutes more under ATC control.

Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).

The turn was probably to get more lateral separation, however it placed the Cessna closer to the Virgin with only 500' vertical separation and thus the TCAS sounded.

My interpretation. This is not in my view a NAS failure. In I believe fact if correct NAS procedures in E had been followed the Virgin could have descended through the Cessna's level befoire the conflict.

It seems to me that this occured while the two aircraft were both being treated as IFR and separated. It seems to me then that this would have happened the same way pre NAS and that proves to me that the CivilAir campaign is a blow up.

But then, why spoil a good public scaring press release with any truth!!!!

AK

Having spoken to the crew of the DJ flight that is not the way it happened. Get your facts right.

At least I posted my facts, all you did was make a batantly unsubstatiated comment that aint worth anything :}

But it would be useful if you told us what they said. So????

AK

Snarek, you should go work for the ATSB. Your private pilot-expert investigative skills are obviously wasted here.

So the TCAS triggered an RA because the Virgin aeroplane levelled off 500ft above the cesspit instead of diving thru it's level with little or no laertal separation? Get a job where you learn what TCAS is and how it works before you come on here pontificating about something you know nothing about. You're an enthusiatic amateur.

This incident is ALL about NAS: had that airspace been C (as it was prior to 27/11) the cesspit would have been under radar control WELL before the mixup. Did it ever occur to you that the controller may have been actually doing something else and didn't have the time to devote all his efforts solely to this peanut using E airspace to the detriment of the aircraft that actually pay money for a service?

Speaking of the truth and a good story, why do you and your ilk continue to peddle the LIES that NAS will save in excess of $50m AND be safer, and that See and Avoid is like passing a semi?

It's actually good having you contiune to post this nonsense: it provides us with fresh evidence of the mentality and the qualifications of those who support the NAS. Keep it up, bloggs!

Read the post again Bloggsy, the spam can had levelled off at 18,000 under an ammended clearance. The spamcan drivers had the cessna visual and had requested a descent (which they should have been allowed if E procedures were followed).

However, because the VB Red-Can was holding, as directed, under positive control, all the TCAS did was liven things up.

Interesting thing, the Cessna pilot is sure there would have been no conflict without the 90 deg turn. So it certainly wasn't a NAS problem because both aircraft were being separated in exactly the same way they would have in C AND the transponder of the Cessna was giving Mode C for SEVEN MINUTES before the conflict.

You guys sure do get upset when reality stuff up your little scare campaign!!!

AK ... oh, and the pilot's perspective :)

Near-miss no big deal: Nippy's boss
By ALAN GALE in Melbourne
05dec03

THE Adelaide pilot of a Cessna involved in a near-miss with a Virgin passenger jet said yesterday that too much fuss was being made of the incident.

The aircraft, one carrying more than 100 passengers and the other four, came within 150m of each other about 100km northwest of Melbourne on Wednesday, triggering a collision warning alarm on the Virgin flight.

The incident has again raised concerns about the new National Airspace System which came into effect last week. It allows light planes into areas previously used by commercial airliners.

But John Knispel, a former air force transport pilot and now managing director of Knispel Fruit Juices which makes Nippy's drinks, said yesterday: "It's pretty much a non-event.

"There was no stress in the voice of the Virgin pilot or in the voice of the traffic controller. One of my passengers saw the Virgin flight and she certainly wasn't screaming in panic ... everyone was quite relaxed."

Mr Knispel was flying from Loxton to Melbourne at 17,500 feet on approach to Essendon airport when he was asked to turn right by traffic control.

"The Virgin flight was on the same path and descending at about twice my speed and halted at around 18,000 feet," he said.

"He continued his descent once we had moved and we resumed course, just the way it is supposed to happen. It was all very relaxed and there was no panic."

....:sad: Once again Aussie controllers display a lack of aptitude and ability to provide efficient dynamic radar seperation vectoring services. If this controller had actually been doing something else (what, I can not imagine), the incident would not have occured. It is high time these CivilAir bludgers were sent to the States (in their own time and expense) to observe and learn what service and respect mean...irrespective of flight rules, aircraft size or speed..:*

Winstun.

Ah ol son, if only you had half the brains that these controllers do, you may be able to do their job as well as being a d******* like you are!

The real sound of silence
 

Well well well

The anti-NAS brigade seem to be either clutching at straws, twisting the facts or being just plain insulting.

Sked

I don't believe you. I think you made that up. Post the comments and we can check the transcripts and thus your veracity.


Capt Bloggs

I don't think you are a Captain. If you were you would know that at over 100 nm ML there has been little change, in fact the aircraft was in contact well before the conflict and was under ATC control. So tell me exactly, how did NAS contribute.

Oh and your reference to 'paying the money', airspace is a public resource, it isn't there for the airlines. They like everyone else may be granted the priviledge of useing it.

This seems to me to be a simple ATC error from which the ATC Union has grown a bunch of really smelly conclusions. It is not the ATC service that should be criticised, it is the union and NAS detractors who have misused the incident to mislead the public. In outing the truth ATC have been harmed by the promulgated lies as has the reputation of those who cried wolf.

PT

Liars and false prophets often go to ground once exposed!

Max

Well-said pesawat_terbang

The crap and lies that come out of some of these posts is unbelievable.

NAS is beginning to show one thing that is half the so-called professional are not really professionals after all. Bill Hamilton a man that has been flying before most of you come out of nappies has supported this from the beginning. Try telling him he knows nothing about airspace and how difficult it is to look out of the window whilst flying his 747 and if you were his F/O you would get a quick slap in the head.

As for Ted Lang in my view nothing but a liar scaring the public and distorting the truth, now that the facts have really come out in various forms most of you should be ashamed of yourself.

Go cry in someone else’s soup
:ok:

LIES
 

Well, an amazing amount of vitriol.

Good work Snarek. You have either spoken to the pilot of the Cessna, or merely read the newspaper reports. So on that basis, you have tried and hung the controller. You wonder why the professionals have contempt for you people!

1. The people who know the facts would be unable to post them here.
2. This sort of scenario (the controllers being scapegoated) was envisioned by CivilAir.
3. Calling Ted a liar is a bit rich considering the orchestrated campaign of absolute and utter lies by the pro-NAS people. Simply name one thing he is said that is untrue, and PROVE it.


This is a despicable set of circumstances, Mr Kerans. I would hope that legal action commences against you quite soon. You need to be made aware of the consequences of getting on the "spin" bandwagon. The professional liars are adept at protecting themselves. You, it would seem, are not.

Snarek,

In your first post it appears that you are trying to piece together what happened in the incident using information only gleaned from the VFR pilot's point of view. You also, in your now edited second post, implied that you had a transcript obtained through FOI. You removed that reference. Do you have a transcript of the events or was that a misleading comment?

I'm more inclined to believe that you have the VFR pilot's account: You give his type, rego, altitude, exact position north of CANTY, and only approximate transmissions heard from ATC (eg: "or words to that effect", and "Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000" etc).

With respect to the other aircraft you have very sketchy details, again they were probably from what the VFR pilot could relate.

You do not give the flight number, rego, positive position or anything about the Virgin aircraft. Your comment "normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500' " is speculative. Also, an RFDS aircraft "was in the area" - again no rego or positive position or height. All of this shows that you don't have any information about the actual positions of the other aircraft.

The only new information that you seem to offer is that "7 minutes" took place between the recycling of the transponder and the TCAS alert. Interesting. If the information you have is only from the VFR pilot, then how do you know exactly when the TCAS went off?

The rest of your post is speculation ("the turn was probably to get more lateral separation") and what you admit to be your interpretation. In other posts you accuse others of beating up a story for union purposes. Your comments in recent posts show that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of doing, except it's for anti-union/pro-NAS purposes.

You still have not answered repeated genuine questions about where the savings are in NAS, or how it is safer, or how see and avoid is a valid first and last line of defence, or even how it is a union (both pilot and ATC) issue at all.

How about you rise above what you perceive to be unreasonable posts, not respond in kind, and contribute positively and responsibly to the debate as a publically visible member of AOPA? I can only ask.

????
 

Vitriole???

Show me where he posted 'vitriole'. I can show it after the posts under various pseudonyms, but not in that post.

Not once does he question the controller, or either pilot, he simply points out that NAS was not to blame. In a later post he just copies a news article.

I think you just don't like the truth being posted and have now sunk to legal threats :yuk:

Max

A scary thing ...
 

Despite all the speculation, rhetoric, propaganda and b#%%#*@t, the fact remains that:

The NAS allowed a VFR aircraft to be at the top of E with a partially non-working transponder, near a major air route used by RPT jets and wanting to enter C airspace in poor weather conditions without a flight plan.

After assessing the traffic disposition and passing traffic info, the controller couldn't sit back and do nothing more (which he could have done under our "safe" NAS procedures), especially when he realised that it was going to be VERY, VERY close … and took positive action.

400FT and less than 1 Nm ... and traffic not sighted til too late!

The scariest thing I've ever seen … all because NAS allows it.

I have some questions then.

Was the transponder faulkty, or was it the TAAATS stuff up that has happened a couple of times to me. No clarification in snarek's post.

Unless both snarek's information, the presss report and the Cessna pilots statements are complete fabrications, didn't the controller have both aircraft under control for more than 8 minutes??? How far away would the DJ have been then. I calculate about 40 nm from the Cessna (assuming direct tracks to the 'intercept' point). So that statement looks a little shaky unless backed with some facts.

Oh, and what about the VFR descent??? Obviously if this information is correct the DJ pilot had the Cessna in sight for quite a while before the RA. So this statement seems a tad over emotional.

Well unless you have some evidence to support that I am going to have to stick with the 'nothing to do with NAS' crowd.

As someone has said, there is a lot of vitriole here, mostly directed at snarek because he dared to actually present some evidence rather than pure hearsay.

So come on people, put up or shut up.

Ferris

I'll bite. Ted said to the media that the safest time to travel is at night because VFR aircraft can't fly at night.

I've been flying at night, VFR for years. In fact I intend doing it tonight if the weather stays fine.

I notice as well that Civilair have not retracted their earlier Press Release stating:

“We have been informed that in Canberra today, for example, a passenger aircraft’s collision warning system activated due to a light aircraft straying too close.” (Press Release Dated Sunday 30 November) Not a lie, however not too forthcoming in letting Joe Public know it was just a false alarm by the TCAS.


TBT:oh:

snarek

1. I seriously doubt anyone outside the investigative process can get access to transcripts at this stage.

2. This would not have occurred pre. 27/11.

3. From your "probable" speculations, I reckon you're a frustrated controller wannabee.

No news of a recent NAS incident leading up to the CB airshow??

CG

Obviously a great deal of legal training you have there Poox.

When did the VFR get an IFR Clearance?

When was he under control?

Snarek, heresay is not evidence... All, jumping on the heresay as evidence is great for position but does little for your argument.

TBT, big deal re the CB TCAS event, JA said that the Virgin C421 incident wasn't a fault of NAS.

AS for the suggestion that this would have happened the same pre and post NAS, get real; only if it was a massive mistake.

The whole problem with Class E; if everyone does everything right a TCAS RA (or worse) can still happen, last Wednesday case in point. Under Class C, it would take a break in the safety chain for that to happen.

Bottle of Rum

That's rich: the anti-NAS brigade have been touting that this incident IS the fault of NAS since the start, but also without hard evidence / details / etc.

As I have said from the start, we should wait for the official investigation: anything else is speculation. All AK has done, quite rightly, has been to balance the anti-NAS hearsay with pro-NAS hearsay: but at least he's not unecessarily alarming the public, or putting off Singaporean tourists from spending their $$$ in our great country, like Mr Lang... (if you don't believe me, you can look that up on Mr Lang's website where he proudly repeats the press coverage attributed to his own sensationalist statements...).

Lets calm down and wait, eh?

Andy :ok:

I have asked for the transcripts via the FOI process and have asked the Minister to assist.

My post was based on a conversation with the pilot of the Cessna. A conversation with a person who heard the events unfold and an analysis of both by two 15,000 hour plus pilots.

I might add, the Cessna pilot is an ex-RAAF trasport pilot and hardly a member of what you guys call the 'terry towling' brigade.

I too get a bit upset at the tone of these posts and try to tell myself that the insulting and basless ones come from kids with 155 hours, eight gold bars, wings and sunnies with a venturi rating for the PJE 206 they are njot paid to fly.

I hope so, because if much of this is from regionals and controllers, in a few years time when you need GA to give you a hand, the wounds may not have healed.

AK :(

Mr Kerans, I don't think a ex RAAF transport pilot carries any more qualification than most others. Some of those guys historically have more than their fair share of incidents/accidents. I also have nearly 15000 hours here and around the world, but I don't believe that gives me any more qualification than your advisors you mentioned. The simple fact remains this new system (NAS) is causing plenty of grief among professionals who operate in this airspace for a living. It's not a weekend hobby or a past time which is a bit of fun. It is the environment in which we earn our livelihood. The relevance of that being that the people who operate in this airspace for a living were by and large totally ignored by the beauracrats who promulgated the changes. This fact on it's own completely nulifies any argument of industry consultation.

Yes things may have needed a bit of tweaking, but to railroad the entire process by stealth without debate or even a hint of constructive criticism is in anyones terms farcical. I stand to be corrected in the fullness of time but I very much doubt that will happen with the current procedures in place.

So you fibbed about having the FOI transcripts Snarek. You are the one making up stories. I have made a statement which is true, I have talked to the DJ pilots in question (although some don't believe this, not that I care) but unlike you am not willing to put one side of the story I have heard without hearing all sides. I will wait for the final reports. Why did you edit that out of your original post? I actually did try to see your point during the whole NAS debate but when you start making stuff up your credibility goes out the window.

What do you means starting to lose credibility. He and his ilk never had any credibility in the world that actually exists beyond the kinda that is the AOPA board room. I have seen nothing but information and position that destroys all that we have left in Australian Aviation. I am still amazed that the government gives that organisation any credence. I must suppose however that this is a case of 'He who has the gold makes the rules'.

I sincerely hope that come the revolution, these pricks get made to pay for their blatant destruction of aviation safety in this country. Unfortunately with a goon like Latham at the helm of the Labor party, this review and any schmick of an idea in toto will be some time coming.

Perhaps I should run for my local seat.

Pesawat terbang, great handle hombre, I was going to use that as an alternative user name. ;) I'll have to use something like, Pesawat Udara now. :D
Apakah anda berbahasa Indonesia?.

Anyone know how much $$$ Dick Smith throws at AOPA each year?

Sorry to diverge from the topic at hand.....

I was in bed ,fighting off the missus, trying to read an old copy of Aus Aviation and found an article regarding an ATC strike about 18 months ago over pay and conditions negotiations for ATC staff. I was just curious why ATC staff did not go on strike for the NAS implementation on 27/11/03. I know they all feel very passionate about this topic as we all do. I am not having a go at them ......if my company had asked me to stop work for the NAS I would have. Just curious thats all.......

Capt Stoobing.

Once again sorry to diverge from the current topic.

I will rely upon Here to Help's translation in moderating your post.

If his translation is correct, had you posted the same post in English you may well have faced a cooling off period in the sin bin.

This forum is in English.

Woomera

Anyone from Civilair

Can anyone tell me why Civilair have not released a media release stating that Night VFR actually happens in Australia and that the statement was incorrect about VFR not flying at night. And while you are at it, maybe you could also retract the statement about the VFR aircraft getting in the way of the SAAB into Canberra.

Are you honest enough to come clean about that?

TBT

Capt Stoobing

If anyone should be striking it should be the pilots. When this all does go wrong unless they hit right over the top of brisbane centre, I will be not dead. But then again, if pilots don't see this as dangerous then fine, ok, whatever, enjoy. I for one have given up caring. Non of the procedures that I can aprove will be approved by me so the rest is up to you guys.

Selamat sore PT,

Kalau anda mau berbicara darihal orang yang bukan berbicara bahasa Indonesia, anda harus berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris.

...and if you can't understand my rusty Indonesian, and also for the benefit of others so that I am not seen as rude, I'll translate:

"Good day PT, if you want to talk about people who cannot speak Indonesian, you should talk in English."

Saying that you think one forum member is a big liar, and that another forum member is very rude and a clown, in another language, in a public forum is pretty bad form. I guess if you came out and said it in English you would expect to be censured by the moderator?

Closer to the topic - but not that close: Captain Stoobing, I believe that any ATC strike action would have been deemed "unprotected industrial action" and thus would have allowed Airservices to pursue damages from its employees.

I believe (but dont quote me) that the first statement is in regards to NAS VFR procedures at night e.g VFR Climb, not the fact that VFR aircraft are in E airspace at night, because we all know about Night VFR. The second statement, I believe (but don't quote me) comes from a report submitted by the controller at the time, not made up in some back office at Civil Air HQ. Put yourself in Teds position, he receives a copy of a report written by a concerned controller who stands by it. Why retract?

Is this your personal opinion or official AOPA doctrine?

Time Bomb Ted you ask this

There is a difference between Visual Flight Rules, and Night Visual Flight Rules. The difference is that thay are Rules you fly under, not a type of flight. VFR pilots are not allowed to fly at night, unless they have a Night VFR Rating. Recency rules are different etc. So to state that a VFR pilot cannot fly at night is correct, as a pure VFR pilot hasn't got a night rating, which was not stated. That's how I read it anyways. Like saying a VFR pilot cannot fly IFR, or can he?

Re: the Night VFR discussion above:No: it relates to Ted Lang's scurrilous assertion, designed to further sensationalise the debate and alarm the travelling public, that because of NAS they should only fly at night... Nice one Ted!

Andy :ok:

Release of ATSB under FOI
 

Just for info ...

Information provided to ATSB for safety investigations and reports is not available under FOI nor can ATSB provide such information to civil courts.

Information is classified as ‘restricted information’ (TSI Act, Section 3 Definitions). Section 60 of the Act states that ATSB staff members must not disclose or produce to any person or court the whole or any part of restricted information unless, in the case of civil proceedings, the Executive Director signs a certificate stating that the disclosure of the information is not likely to interfere with any investigation. Records are not disclosed to civil courts. as it is likely to prejudice the future free flow of safety information and thus compromise future safety investigations. In addition, records of interview cannot be disclosed for criminal proceedings. Finally, records of interview and other restricted information are exempt from Freedom of Information claims.

For larger investigations, ‘directly involved parties’ will receive a draft copy of the investigation report before it is publicly released. The ATSB makes, copies of all its final investigation reports available to the public.

The ATSB information relating to this incident can't be obtained under FOI.

The "directly involved parties" will have 2-3 weeks to comment on the draft report before the final report is published.

Time Bomb Ted.

Is that the best you can come up with? We have an avalanche of misleading examples, half-truths and outright lies spouted by the pro-NAS camp. I would be quite happy withs Ted's advice to fly at night. Your chances of encountering a night VFR flight would be markedly smaller than a VFR during the day, especially in the E AIRSPACE TED WAS TALKING ABOUT.

What happened to snarek's post? Get some legal advice about "libel", "heresay", "lies" and "damages" did you? Lost all cred now. And people wonder why AOPA is held in such low regard. Still, seeing as what's been going on in the boardroom at AOPA, you should fit right in, Mr. Kerans.

As for the topic- the proNAS people can smokescreen as much as they want. It doesn't change the fact that the airspace is now more dangerous. And only half way through implementation! Good luck fellas.

For the benefit of the weekend warriors ( of which there seems to be plenty on this thread ), when you get an RA from the TCAS it is telling you that you could have as little as 15 seconds before impact,and is giving you 5 seconds to react to the warning.
I have yet to hear of a faulty RA from a TCAS and the apathy/attitude of the Cesspit pilot makes me hope and pray that he is not maintaining the standard he achieved in the RAAF, god help us if thats the standard of our air defence, mind you, he was only a trash hauler:E

Ferris

No it is not the best I can come up with, however I'm trying to find out if Ted has Retracted his statement about the VFR aircraft getting in the way of the REX SAAB in Canberra. Civilair makes VFR pilots out to be "Time Bombs" waiting to destroy unsuspecting RPT aircraft. We don't want to cause problems any more than the rest of the aviation industry. It does make the job of the average Flying School hard to make a buck when folks believe the sky is full of GA pilots on a death wish.

Not so? Wander out to a flying school and ask.

TBT
 

I'd suggest it is, otherwise you would've 'come up with it' by now.:hmm:

Don't know much about the CB thing you are talking about (as I'm not there ATM), except that it points out a glaring difference in attitudes between professionals and amateurs. TCAS used to be a last gasp arse-saver. Now, it seems, it is just another daily ho-hum. Except for airline pilots who have to react within 5 seconds (or it may well be their arse ).Wander out to a flying school and ask I assume you are implying that since NAS, flying schools have had a drop-off in business? I'd suggest that if that's the case, blame NAS! The death of GA has been a long and painful one, which IMHO has more to do with the charging system than the airspace system . You may have noticed the turmoil in the professional pilot community lately (LCCs, locked doors, loss of T&C etc). The job simply doesn't have the appeal it once had. How many pilots would recommend it to their kids? Granted, it's a sad state of affairs, but why aren't AOPA, Dick, the minister etc putting the effort into actually promoting aviation, that they are putting into NAS? PPLLLEEEAASSSSSSEEEEEEEE don't try and tell me it's because NAS will revitalise GA! In oz, aviation is treated as a revenue source for the govt. It's not in the US. That's the big difference .

Given e spleen venting around here against anyone who dares to be in any way pro-NAS, I think the woomeri would see my comments for what they are.

A lot less harmless than others.

And besides, they are only insults if translated ;)

I think all this anti-NAS stuff is just dribbling from the proverbial .............

Because we represent our members
 

Ferris

Because we are here to represent what our members want, not what RPT, Charter, military or ATC want.

If you look on our forum, this forum and AGAF (there you have to do a bit of filtering) you will see that about 90% of GA pilots support NAS. They are the members, they get to say.

We are however putting together an advertising campaign aimed at getting more terry towling hats on more young heads :}

(and perhaps it is because of insults like that that I and others just ignore most of what ATC and AFAP have to say on NAS).

AK