Dick Shifty, Class E Airspace & TCAS
 

Having not aviated around the Big Isle down south for sometime I have with interest been following the to and fro of your new airspace arrangements and how as usual good old Oz is dragged kicking and screaming where aviation is concerned into the 20th Century whilst the rest of us are now in the 21st Century.

Can I play Devils Advocate here and or someone enlighten me as to what the big deal is about getting a TA

I work in and environment where getting a TA is a daily occurence (SE Asia) and a TCAS with a minimum of 6 - 10 targets on it at any one time - even at cruise level!

When TA's occur, usually but not in everycase the Controllers will advise you of the potential conflict.

An RA is serious sh@#t and are few and far between.

As far as TA's go the rest of the world lives with this on a daily basis so please enlighten me as to what is your perceived problem. :hmm:

No probelm with TAs just RAs. Thanks for asking.

There have been two RAs in class E, and yes it is serious S$%t!

leftfrontside,

When you have no choice, two things happen: you either find a way to avoid the problem or you accept the risk. After a while, avoidance seems too hard, so you accept the risk anyway. One day something really bad happens - what really hurts then is when you discover just how risk tolerant you have become when you truly believed that you were just the opposite.

Class E airspace is simply a commercial compromise between C and G - it was never designed on a safety basis, merely risk management driven by cost benefit that favours recreational aviation.

What we have now is a change that offers no cost saving and diluted safety - despite your suggestion that we are backward, I intend to kick and scream some more because I don't accept that other airspace models are necessarily right.

I want to maximise my chances to

Stay Alive,

Wizofoz - er two reported RA's in class E but how many (illegal?)controller interventions that prevented others?

Workarounds - gotta love em.

Thanks guys I can now see your point of view.

RTB RFN well I would be pretty "pissed" in the environment that I work in if a Controller didn't intervene to prevent a TA developing into an RA

Is'nt that what there employed for.

What is the problem with that, is Airservices Australia just going to sit there and watch an MAC and then hide behind some legal jargon which prevents them from doing anything.

That's basically what you guys are saying from what I can deduce.

****su-Tonka

I'd suggest that it is you who is showing a complete lack of understanding as to how TCAS operates.

Maybe you should do a little reading about the system before you expound you're lack of knowledge of how it works. :8

Pot kettle I am afraid leftside.

Perhaps you should learn something of the Airspace system which you obviously know very little about.

Oh and

They're.
Their.
There.

Nah really - you dont seem to understand how it works downunder, leftfrontside.

In America the air traffic guys and gals tell the pilots where the other planes are and offer suggested headings and altitudes so they miss.

In Australia the air traffic guys and gals tell the pilots where the other planes are then phone the union to chalk up another "NAS System Failure".

You gotta understand the local modus operandi mate. :{

[****sus an expert on TCAS - hes had more TCAS RAs than anyone! :oh: ]

Scare merchants still at it.
 

To all scare and panic merchants out there re NAS,

especially **** su and good old Tobzalp,

it appears NAS is working quite OK, (alright we could do with the frequencies on the maps being a bit clearer for those of us who have to look them up and aren't told by ATC).
How about the anti Dick Smith fraternity and the ignorant panic merchants pulling their heads in for awhile.

As if to prove my point, the "near miss" west of Maroochydore recently when a lot of people got very excited has, after preliminary investigation, shown no danger of any conflict. The aircraft had passed with 600 vertical feet and one kilometre of one another.

This is not a problem with NAS but ATC communication and appropriate flight planning.
Maintaining a good lookout particularly if VMC also helps.

OK folks, let's get off the personality and political bandwagon and give the system a fair go.
After all, if it was so unsafe as suggested, we wouldn't have all our very competent aircrew buckling up and jetting into the wide blue yonder, would we ?

Utter BS. The report said it was not an AIRPROX as seperation standards had not been breached, 'CAUSE THERE AREN"T ANY!!

If they don't collide, it wasn't an incident.

Yes Leyland, as I have suggested all along, these bludging ATC union leaders should be fired immediately for incompetance, and the rest sent to the USA for 1 month of remedial training and observation. The costs for this could be recouped within a year from airliners in their reduced fuel bills. :ok:

Yeh unfortunately S-T, you then go and look at the net while on your break at work, and have to put up with their ignorant rubbish. Thing that gets me with all this is due to the VFR aircraft being told to "avoid IFR routes", ATC isn't able to give direct tracking to the RPT guys for fear of that VFR that avoided IFR routes as he should, being hit by the RPT jet, who is now off the IFR route. So before all this how much fuel, and hence money was being saved by the airlines through generous direct tracking, whereas now, it is not. Seems noone is winning in this farce.

Leftfrontside I hope you haven't misunderstood me. I prevent collisions every day in preventing VFR frm hitting VFR in C and IFR from hitting VFR in E because the system is moving further and further from common sense and what pilots/passengers really want. I used to ask VFR if they want separation vs traffic when they are going to merge and got sick of them saying yes everytime - now I just separate. I used to ask IFR if they want traffic or separation from VFR proceeding into and going to pass in E. Now I just separate because they just kept saying separate me. I am tired of the continuous work arounds and shonky stuff to keep the system safe. I suspect that is what the yank controllers have developed into. The primary mitigator for a hazard is to engineer it out of a system and yet we keep removing the engineering solutions all for 50 cents a ticket. I have many colleagues who have lost faith in the integity of this system and those that admister and regulate it; where it is going and the increasing risk to Pilots, Passengers and ATC (the knife is just a front door away). Many are leaving the system for other jobs - how much is that costing the industry in lost talent and retraining? I'm off soon too. You are right - no matter what the regs say, no matter what the criticism - my job is to look after you.

Wizofoz reckons :

"The report said it was not an AIRPROX as seperation standards had not been breached, 'CAUSE THERE AREN"T ANY!!

If they don't collide, it wasn't an incident."

Now THAT is a load of BS.

I think you better get new glasses Wizofoz. Howd you ever get a JAR class 1?

Even blind freddy can read what the ATSB report actually said.

On the issue of air traffic control separation standards the ATSB report says :

As no prescribed separation standards are applicable in Class E airspace, there was no infringement of separation standards.

On the completely separate issue of whether or not it was an airprox the ATSB report says :

Based on the factual data the occurrence was not an airprox event.

An airprox event is defined in Regulation 2.2 of the Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003, as:

...an occurrence in which 2 or more aircraft come into such close proximity that a threat to the safety of the aircraft exists or may exist, in airspace where the aircraft are not subject to an air traffic separation standard or where separation is a pilot responsibility.

These are separate concepts. Even blind freddy can see that!

I have ignored you guys at home, but alas can't do it at work. So since you love your pretty colours, maybe you could enlighten me as to how two aircarft can be as close as these two were and wake turbulence is not considered to be threatening the safety of the aircraft. From my understanding of the incident, the 737 was 600ft at the most above and 0.3 NM away from the Lancair. Seems to be well and truly inside wake turbulence standards. Please tell us all oh wise ones, how does wake turbulence cease to be a concern in E airspace????

LB,

You are quite correct. I maintain that it was a serious event (DS described it as "Horendous" (when he thought he could blaim the ATCers for it)), but, by the verbage of the report, it was not an AIRPROX.

May I ask why the personal attach and abuse? Could you point to an example of my doing likewise with regard to this topic? I have expressed views contrary to yours and Dicks, and have attacked the content of posts I believed were inaccurate, but have I impuned your character or questioned your ability?

You do your case no good by coming arcoss as a bully.

Check your PMs.

Check yours, TLB...

Leyland Brothers

Stop SHOUTING,


I'm still going deaf trying to read your posts.


BYE BYE