'Hundreds' of close calls
 

'Hundreds' of close calls
By Lachlan Heywood
October 13, 2006 12:00am
Article from: The Courier Mail

AIR safety in Australia is under a cloud after more than 300 near misses in the past three years.
Article here:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...31-953,00.html

From the article
Love ya work.

Personally, I want to know where to hire a Cessna like this one
that the guy with the first feedback got to fly once........ :)
Perhaps he may find GA even more efficient if he puts the drain plugs back into his fuel tanks?
UTR.

Must be David Lowy's Dragonfly!:D

At last ... some excitement on the boards!

I wonder how many 'close-calls' they have had in the US system?

After all, this has to be the first salvo in yet another NAS onslaught right?

With AUSFIC being dismantled, one wonders if 'aviation campaigners' (as the Courier Mail awards Mr Smith) would be better off addressing what if any service is going to be left for GA?

It is all very well to say that the radar should be used more , but who is left to do it? Those radar controllers will soon have a FIS function to cover as AUSFIC finishes. The US system still has FSS remember.

So once again, this is no US System.

Add to that the plans for further culling of ATC, and the lack of suitable applicants whilst the experienced people look to 'cut and run' overseas..... an interesting recipe.

If you want to bet who is going to lose out on service, just look at where Airservices gets 95% of it's income - it's not difficult.

****su_Tonka

Check your PM.

404

Hundreds???? Nay,.... THOUSANDS!!!!!!!!........
 

YEAH!!!!

BRING BACK D.T.I..OCTA..............

That's Directed Traffic Information, to the uninitiated.......

And since 12.12.1991.....that's MOST of yas.........! ( For you VFR Types...)

Progress.....HHHUMPH!!!!!:= :=

Cheersssss:E :E

Near Misses Thread
 

Seems to be back.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it does not make any sense.. I mean, call me stupid, but why is it a near miss, when they missed... shouldn't it be a 'near hit'? :8

.... I shouldn't have mentioned the captain of "E.A.T." (enthusiatic amateurs team)

It didn't mention the unmentionable, it was simply a link to a newspaper article that did.

OK so the headline was 300 near misses in the last 3 years... What are we counting here, breakdowns in separation standards, TCAS RAs, Failures to pass traffic in DTI, where does the 300 come from?

If it's TCAS RAs that is far from a 'Near Miss'; I have seen many RAs where the standard existed, always existed and remained in place despite the RA.

As an ATC who sees controllers getting stood-down when they have a BOS, (which is often far from a 'near miss'); I can't for the life of me remember more than a dozen or so in the past 3 years; so where are the 'facts' from?

And how does bringing in more Class E resolve the headline?

Basically, I think the thread was removed (rightly or wrongly) because it was giving publicity to a certain agenda, by a certain agendee, where it is obvious from the lack of journalistic research, that it was baseless claim on loose information (one could almost suspect, it was 'fed' to them by a willing participant?)

This was already suggested in the previous replies.

I am quite happy for such threads to run because it gives us all a chance to point out the hyperbole and sensationalism of such threads.

What we need to ensure is that the threads don't get 'Coonaned'.


(A new phrase coined this week after the concentration of media power was approved - meaning, if the message doesnt' fit with the media owners agenda - don't publish)

I think in our newly litigious environment of PPrune DG, we need to continue to fight the fight, but without naming the names directly.

Let's face it - you all know who I am talking about right? But you can't prove it right? And neither can they. So let's continue to fight the crap with sound arguments - and also rescue the free publicity to the same old protagonsits by just calling them - "the same old protagonists"

On a completely different topic, did anyone else read the RAAA article on NAS implementation in the recent Australian Aviation magazine? An excellent article on a poorly rushed concept in my view. Does anyone have the text of it?

The inspiration for this 'newspaper' article?

This question by Senator O'Brien perhaps?

Great link ****su...

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the VCA column seems to be a bit light on for numbers.

If a VCA (violation of CTA) led to a BOS (Breakdown of Separation) would it get reported as a VCA or a BOS?

Hmmm, so what we have here is 309 'near misses' based on 309 BOS's. Of which there could be over 300 directly relating to "Farmer Joe's, Terry Towellers and Weekend Warriors" committing a VCA.:\

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.:D Luv it.

Yes tha VCA number surprised me to, considering the little bit of airspace I am familiar with probably has around 50-80 VCA's every WEEK.

Some readers have PM me that they could not open the link?

If one cast's their mind back to the many incarnations of NAS, we had TCAS RA's being described not as BOS but as Airprox - surely an airprox should be included under the Courier-Mail classification of a "Close-Call"? If so, I would bet that the number of "Close-Calls" was a lot higher during those heady times. This was in (the best) radar coverage (in the world).

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2004.../2004_33A.aspx

Interestingly, at the time, there was an attack on the ATSB and Airservices:

In my opinion (disclaimer: opinion only) the confusion that has lingered since the many NAS stops and starts has only resulted in more VCA / BOS / Airprox / Close Calls / Brown Trousers than prior to it's introduction.

But hey thats just my 'belief'.

With the dismantling of AUSFIC, and those duties being placed on the sector controllers, the airspace restructure, and the ATC staffing review, the issue of whether ATC can discharge their current duties should be of more immediate concern - instead of calling for the addition of extra Radar services.

(Add to this that by this time next year Airservices will probably have a new CEO - and no doubt a whole bunch of new neat ideas, and associated budget milestones (!) to make his mark.)

Remember: Fight the issues - not the Personalities

A quick search of the US FAA Near Mid Air Collisions (NMAC) Database, with all its acknowledged shortcomings of subjectivity and under reporting, shows 422 NMACs for the period 01Jul03-30Jun06.
I must admit to thinking this was a rebirthing of a NAS Agenda. The crucial difference this time is the identity of the politicians who the chief agitator(s) for NAS (may) have managed to engage. Previously it was the Minister for Transport now it is the Opposition spokesman of Transport. Like him or hate him Senator O'Brien won't accomplish much in terms of NAS implementation from the opposition benches.
Interestingly, the recently released Airservices discussion paper on Australian Airspace Architecture assumes that NAS Implementation remains Government policy.
My opinion is that given how much political pain NAS caused his predecessors (once and twice removed), the current Minister will be a little more circumspect in forcing through implementation of the remaining NAS charactersitics.
Don't forget that all remaining NAS Charactersitics will have to be put through the proposed risk and Cost-Benefit analysis framework. That may just give the minister enough cover to justify no further implementation.
****su,
Airprox was included in the numbers quoted in the Courier Mail.

One could be forgiven for a certain sense of deja vu...again.

Can someone refresh my memory...battle fatigue don't you know...wasn't 2004 a NAS2b year...and 2005?

Gary, where would someone find such a discussion paper?