CASA Boss Confirms Support for NAS
John McCormick made an unambiguous surprise affirmation of his suppport for the NAS at yesterdays SCC meeting. Dr Hawke, the new CASA Chairman of the Board, concurred, and in what appeared to be a re alignment of it's previous policy, the new Chairman of AOPA, Phillip Reiss confirmed that organisation's support.
|
So, let me see.
The United States of America, from whence the NAS model is derived, out of more than 190 sovereign countries around the world, is the sole model of world's best practice. And as the ardent follower of world's best practice that Australia is, it would be remiss of Australia not to embrace wholeheartedly the NAS model and become only the second or more than 190 sovereign countries around the world to follow the NAS model, never mind the fact that it is not compliant with international policy derived by ICAO, and enshrined in the law of each of those 190 or more sovereign countries, the United Sates of America and Australia included. This is not the first time Australia has sided unilaterally with the United States of America in attempting to arbitrate world's best practice. Most recently, from an international array of more than 200 sovereign countries, the United States of America and Australia stood alone in opposing the Kyoto Protocol. Of course the United States of America claimed it was the arbiter or world's best practice, and that despite the science, everyone else was plain wrong. Of course Australia followed, being of course obsessed with following the lead of the arbiter of world's best practice, the United States of America. How embarrassing that the United States of America has now embraced the science and has joined the rest of the world in climate science. How long until the United States of America accepts that maybe - just maybe - the reason they do what they do in airspace management is more about the cost of change, rather than the science of change. In fact, if you were to read the background material for all of the research and development programs in airspace management in the United States of America, you would see that they are being undertaken because NAS just won't continue to work as air traffic increases. It has long since reached its use by date. My point? NAS is what the United States of America has always done, and changing it would be prohibitively expensive. That doesn't make it world's best practice - it just makes it United States of America best practice. If the United States of America could change their airspace model they surely would. Should Australia change to the 1/190 model, or move to the 188/190 model. The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it. |
At last some sense comes into the NAS issue, now we have a leader for CASA and a Chairman with impeccable qualifications we can expect to see more rational decisions come forth.
Great to see leadership at last. |
AIP,
If you choose ( as I do) to use air safety outcomes/accident rates (using ICAO criteria --- not the "tailored" definitions occasionally used elsewhere) whatever US is doing (FAA + US AOPA + NBAA + NTSB + all the other contributors to air safety), US IS world's best practice. If you doubt this, all the statistics are available from the most significant of the relevant published material, that most advanced aviation nations make available. Without any preconceived outcome in mind, go have an unbiased look, you might be very surprised. Make certain you compare like with like. There is only one area where we beat the US, and that is gliding Within US, huge volumes of movements are accommodated, the MAC rate is so much less than Australia, that the difference cannot be written of as "sampling error", by whatever name. The rates quoted by the CASA DAS/CEO will surprise many, he is correct. Why wouldn't he be correct, he is only quoting publicly available data. Being largely concerned with international transport, much of the ICAO docs. have little to do with GA. Indeed, the Chicago Convention of 1944, at the height of WWII, did not have GA as a high priority, at least in part because GA as we know it didn't even exist in 1944. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that ICAO D is in any way optimum for a GA (or any) aerodrome, nor is there anything improper in filing differences to meet national objectives. GAAP is FAA D, with minor variations, the movement rate caps are not intended to be permanent, once mitigations for the problems detailed in the Ambidjii report are put in place, I am certain there will be changes to the movement caps. I feel very sorry for those who are disadvantaged by the caps, let's hope everybody smartly gets together to get the mitigation in place. A few CFIs understanding the GAAP "rules" would be a start --- see the Ambidjii report. Tootle pip!! |
So have they announced total and complete Australia wide RADAR coverage to suit?
|
The Ambidji report 30 JUNE 2009.
|
Blue Loo the USA does not have nationwide RADAR coverage, large tracts of the Mid West are just like the Australian GAFA as is Northern Arizona which is why Steve Fossett took so long to find.
|
Perspective joker...Perspective.
I do not have data on this to back it up, but I am sure leadie can dig it up, I would bet a round of beers that the area that is covered, covers a far greater percentage of flights than the percentage of Australian flights in radar coverage. Must be sure we are comparing apples with apples I think. J:ok: |
I won't get into an argument about statistics, but don't the powers that be have any understanding of 'change fatigue?' We are still suffering from the last round of zealotry and now we have the new boy, who wasn't around last time, telling us (allegedly) that he supports NAS.
If the report maintains that something needs to be done at GAAPs (it does; I've read it too), then fine. However, the (alleged) blanket statement about NAS is going to cause more angst and division than this guy appreciates. We already know about the huge divide on CTAF and CTAF(R). Now, do we go back to the stoush about E over D? In one fell swoop, if these NAS features are on his agenda, this guy is potentially alienating the entire regional and domestic fraternity. I have my own opinion on the CTAF question, and it does not align with the regional's position - but I'll put it aside if it means not revisiting the last disaster. And, on the E over D question, let's just get radar, qualify the controllers to use it, and make it all C. Probably be cheaper that another round of John and Martha road-shows, glossy brochures and CD-ROMS. |
I didn't see AirServices announcement that it had doubled its ATC staff. :hmm:
|
CG, admittedly I glossed over the practicalities. My point is that going back to NAS is going to involve inordinate expense, division, no practical gain and a fatigued and divided industry.
Do we want to go there again? |
BluLoo,
Perhaps the difference in low level radar coverage is offset by the fact that there is sod all aviation in Australia, a sad fact. Even if the "forecast" expansion claimed by the JCP out to 2025 was achieved ( a most improbable circumstance), the 2025 traffic levels would only be somewhere between one tenth and one fifth of present US "lower 48" traffic. As to matters CTAF v. CTAF(R) ---- sounds like an announcement is imminent, and I believe it will surprise a few, but a very sound decision. A few will be profoundly unhappy, facts having trumped beliefs. Pilots will have no problem dealing with the decision. Mr. McCormick is very strong on facts. We all know that there will be expanded ADS-B use, mostly high level, because some airlines want it and are prepared to pay AA (even though nobody has demonstrated actual savings, given Australia's minuscule traffic levels --- the only physical ongoing cause of airborne delays in Australia, ultimately, is lack of runway real estate, not airspace saturation) but it sure sounds like there has been an outbreak if virulent common sense on the matter of any "mandate" of ADS-B at low levels. Bad news for the enthusiasts for "managed airspace", and the peddlers of vapourware. Tootle pip!! |
Howabout,
Nothing to do with John McCormick, but it looks like once place will solve the "E or C" over D debate, by closing the particular tower (with the support of the dominant Regional --- saves money), and it all reverts to G. How's that grabya as a solution. Then, if NAS is progressed, in this area it will all become E (down to 1200/750agl) under A. As for "change fatigue", how about the real problem is "almost changed but didn't quite finish the job fatigue". Don't forget the ATSB figures for NAS 2B, there were none, zero, zilch serious (whatever ATSB classification that is) incidents caused by NAS 2B, over an almost twelve month period. Now let's watch all the naysayers roar into action. Then go have a look at the ATSB records. Tootle pip!! |
Thanks Lead, I appreciate your views, but seem to remember a couple of incidents in E that weren't judged to be incidents because E was 'see-and-avoid' regarding IFR to VFR separation. Hence, under the regime at the time (E airspace), they were not, technicaly, incidents.
If the airspace was C, they would have been serious NMACs. So, with all due respect, I think you are being a bit cute. Over. |
Great, new brooms = sweeping changes.
The big old wheel keeps on turning. Here we go again, more changes, probably back to what we did 10 yrs ago, (MBZ anyone) more letters than the greek alphabet to remember. Anyone running the show ever heard of the KISS principle !! Time to get off this merry-go-round called aviation. |
I can accept that Australia will not have full radar coverage in the near and not foreseeable future.
There should however be radar coverage (and controlling) anywhere RPT jets of a certain capacity (and I don't know what arbitrary figure one would use - but say SAAB / Dash 8 size give or take) operate a scheduled service. ADS-B can take up the rest of the slack. |
ADS-B can take up the rest of the slack. Stay tuned............... but do not hold they breath!:suspect: |
From that Ambidji report...
Ambidji was unable to find any evidence whereby international administrations had either conducted a risk study or even took into account societal risk considerations. Consequently, it may be likely that many of the international airspace structures that Ambidji undertook comparative analyses on may be at the same, or higher, risk profile as the GAAP aerodromes in Australia. This factor could explain why a Class D control tower in the United States of America (USA) can handle over 300,000 movements annually but an Australian equivalent may not. It is possible that the USA aerodrome is currently operating with a higher level of risk. |
now we have a leader for CASA and a Chairman with impeccable qualifications we can expect to see more rational decisions come forth. As for the Chairman: Name: Dr Allan Douglas Hawke Residence: ACT Present position: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board Educational and professional qualifications: Bachelor of Science (Hons), Australian National University, 1970 Doctor of Philosophy, Australian National University, 1976 Fellow, Australian Institute of Public Administration, 1998 Fellow, Australian Institute of Management, 1999 Fellow, Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2001 Relevant experience: 2003-2006: High Commissioner to New Zealand 1999-2002: Secretary, Department of Defence 1996-1999: Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services 1994-1996: Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs Current Board Memberships: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board Director, Datacom Chairman of the DSTO Advisory Board Chairman of the Canberra Raiders Board Former Board Memberships: Administrative Review Council Australian Strategic Policy Institute Council President, ACT Branch, Institute of Public Administration Australia Director, Canberra Girls Grammar School Board Member, Foreign Affairs Council Member, Defence and National Security Advisory Council Chancellor, Australian National University If they allow no-radio lighties to mix it with HiCap RPT jets, either in the CTAF circuit or overhead a non-radar tower, just to placate a few self-centred non-conformists, or indeed gridlock some non-radar airspace with swathes of non-radar E, I will be very disappointed.:cool: |
This factor could explain why a Class D
Hardly a fact, looks an awful like an opinion to me |
Fact? I don't think he said that
"This factor could explain"
Opinion/hypothesis maybe? |
I am still not convinced on the case for E terminal airspace. E enroute, that used to be G, I don't have problems with; this seems like a quantifiable safety upgrade where it's achievable - available ATC resources etc.
There's also the point that the CASA boss, while supporting NAS (allegedly) hasn't really defined what that support entails. Is that 'support' an exact duplication of US NAS, or is it some form of adherence to a set of principles for more efficient airspace use that reflects an underlying NAS philosophy? Sorry, those are ropey words, but I wonder about intent, as claimed in the opening post, and actual intent. However, let's assume that the intent is exact duplication (it may not be) with respect to E terminal. I know this is a bit long-winded, but I'm trying to lay my thoughts out and would appreciate an answer from the controller perspective. One of the things that alarmed me during NAS 2b was the number of statements from controllers on this forum that pointed out the difficulties of providing some form of separation in a see-and-avoid environment when they could not control both aircraft (IFR RPT and VFR). More than one made the comment that by giving a recommended heading to an RPT he/she could well have run that aircraft into a non-communicating, but transponding, aircraft that did an unanticipated turn. Those posts got me thinking. Which leads me to the question: Is this really a viable proposition for the future? If those sorts of doubts were raised in an environment where the problem was separation between a jet and relatively slow-moving VFR avgas singles or twins, what are the implications when we have far faster and quicker turning aircraft on the register. I am referring, of course, to the introduction of VLJs, which every mag, guru and anybody else with an interest is touting as the way of the future. If slow-flying bug-smashers were a problem, what's the potential for a VFR VLJ to cruel everbody's day (say one-on-one with an A380)? The predictions are that VLJs will burgeon as a form of corporate and (if you're rich enough) private transport. No doubt, a proportion could be VFR. Are we at risk of introducing a potentially antiquated system that cannot accommodate modern technology? Any comment? |
As a controller with ratings over the GAFA at this point in time, I support the correct implementation of NAS. Really, it is a very simple process. I am not so sure that the airlines are fully aware however of the actual way these E procedures will work for them. Take for example Cape York at this time of year. For much of the last month there has been OVC conditions around 6000.
When a couple of IFR aircraft depart within a few minutes of eachother, as it stands, they can go all the way up to 180 working themselves out. In procedural E where VMC does not exist they will be having a very tough time getting a clearance. While the crews will work out very quickly that they need to wait an extra minute or two before departing to get some form of distance separation that ATC can use, I ask how is this a saving as those props are turning while they wait? This whole thing has had enormous coverage on this site and every time it gets a new head of steam is is due to a new bureaucrat with a hand up their arse or some idealist who really does not understand the mix of traffic that this country has and in what areas. I am over it and really, implement whatever.:zzz: |
I am over it and really, implement whatever. Couldn't be bothered fighting those idiots that want to bring back NAS 2B. Them and their 'risk analysis' and 'world's best practice'. WE know it's dangerous but who ever listens to ATCs? So, go ahead, bring it in and just hope that you're not on board the VFR bugsmasher that gets drilled by a SAAB 340 or DHC8 or Jungle jet over Albury.... |
You guys didn't answer the question, but I suppose it goes to something I alluded to before. Change fatigue has buggered us all, regardless of which side of the mic you reside.
|
Can't be VFR above FL 250
I am referring, of course, to the introduction of VLJs, which every mag, guru and anybody else with an interest is touting as the way of the future. If slow-flying bug-smashers were a problem, what's the potential for a VFR VLJ to cruel everbody's day (say one-on-one with an A380)? The predictions are that VLJs will burgeon as a form of corporate and (if you're rich enough) private transport. No doubt, a proportion could be VFR. |
One of the things that alarmed me during NAS 2b was the number of statements from controllers on this forum that pointed out the difficulties of providing some form of separation in a see-and-avoid environment when they could not control both aircraft (IFR RPT and VFR). Can't be VFR above FL 250 |
Howabout,
As all the others have said, the issue in Class E is vectoring IFRs, whilst VFRs track as desired. With surveillance, there's some mitigation, without surveillance, it's Russian roulette. As Dick will quite rightly say ... "they do it all day, every day in the States" Yes, they do ... because they have to. There's no other way to process that amount of traffic. Imagine if it was all Class C. The problem is ... we don't have to ... with our traffic levels, we have other options to protect IFRs, without inconveniencing VFRs .. too much. |
Capn Bloggs
Your deliberate campaign of misinformation serves only to illustrate to other pilots your resistance to change despite the prevailing tide of common sense. The next generation of GA and young regional airline pilots will be flying in NAS airspace in the future. Some of them will give credence to your comments merely because you fly a 717 jet and develop the same blind resistance that you have. Capn Bloggs says Think of the poor jet crew dodging a VFR on the CTAF AND being directed around by ATC on the Centre frequency You will never be in the situation as you describe. ATC will not clear you for an approach (visual or instrument) until any conflicting IFR traffic has been dealt with. You will not be given approval from ATC to change off the centre frequency until you are clear of any other IFR traffic. Do you understand this? In VMC conditions class E is exactly the same as what we do now, in class G. Myself and many other Australian pilots have flown for many years using Class E in the United States and understand how safe and efficient it is. You clearly have not and are not speaking from a position of understanding or experience. Capn Bloggs you say Yep, here comes DICK. "CANCEL IFR". So what did that achieve?? What did class E achieve? How many times does this have to be explained to you? Improved safety in IMC conditions. The Orange near miss in IMC would not have occurred. The Qantas GPWS incident in IMC at Canberra would not have occurred. The Benalla and Mount Hotham accidents would not have occurred. Any reasonable thinking pilot would want the protection of Class E during IMC conditions Capn Bloggs. A class of airspace that also has the flexibility of Class G if VMC conditions exist. |
FAA and World's Best Practice
Forecast 1:
A return to mandatory radio carriage and associated reporting in all airspace. Forecast 2: An introduction of the FARs to Australia to overcome all the blockages that have been created for the CASA regulatory reform program. Sometimes, a ready made 95% solution is better than no solution.:D |
mjbow2,
Just so I have this straight. The scenario is an RPT 737 on descent from F300 into, say, Ballina. Are you saying that, if it's VMC, the Captain will change to VFR and continue down on his merry way, seeing and avoiding... and free from ATC instructions. (In fact, can an RPT Jet change to VFR?) Will that really happen? Or, is it more likely that the SOP will be to remain IFR till the circuit, and receive the maximum amount of ATC protection? As for your IMC example, that's exactly what we are saying ... the IFR will be controlled, more or less,to the circuit... irrespective of any VFRs in the vicinity. Oh, but it's IMC, you say. Well, who decides if it's IMC? ATC, the IFR captain ? What if johnny VFR has a different opinion? The bottom line is ... yes, it can work (it does in the US), but at a certain risk level. Do we need to accept that risk level? |
mjbow2, I won't get into a slanging match; that does nobody any good. But you did accuse Bloggs of spreading misinformation and I do take issue with that. So, I re-post what I said to Lead, as follows:
Thanks Lead, I appreciate your views, but seem to remember a couple of incidents in E that weren't judged to be incidents because E was 'see-and-avoid' regarding IFR to VFR separation. Hence, under the regime at the time (E airspace), they were not, technicaly, incidents. If the airspace was C, they would have been serious NMACs. The concern, mjbow2, is not IFR to IFR - never has been. It's IFR to VFR, but I suspect you know this. Trying to confine the argument to IFR vs IFR is misleading and disingenuous on your part - precisely what you accuse Bloggs doing. |
Boys club
Something seems a bit smelly here.
I'm wondering if the Chairman, the CEO and Dick Smith are all mates !!! |
I cannot accept that you made it to a 717 with such a poor level of comprehension In VMC conditions class E is exactly the same as what we do now, in class G. The Qantas GPWS incident in IMC at Canberra would not have occurred. The Benalla and Mount Hotham accidents would not have occurred. Before you launch tirades against other posters for lacking understanding, how about YOU gain a bit of understanding about ATC, and how the practicalities of its provision exist in Australia's unique environment? DONE TO DEATH. |
How does a controller, controlling procedurally (Mt Hotham- due lack of surveillance), stop CFIT? How does a controller, after having released an aircraft to make an approach (Benalla- even if there was surveillance) have any idea whether the pilot is visual, or have said pilot on freq to issue warnings etc? At Benalla the aircraft was well off course while it was still on radar. If the controller was responsible for issuing a clearance for the approach at the destination, do you think they might have queried the course early on? The question is not necessarily whether a controller could have intervened at the last fatal step - changes to the situation much earlier in the flight might have changed the outcome. |
It has always intrigued me how a few here think they know airspace management, radar coverage, ATC procedures, what services ATC can provide and what workload they can handle better than ATC themselves, who clearly have the expertise because it is their job. And when given responses from ATC based on that expertise, it is still not heeded.
How often do we see ATCs here buying into cockpit matters, telling pilots how they should fly and manage their aircraft, deal with CRM and what workload they can handle? |
It has always intrigued me how a few here think they know airspace management, radar coverage, ATC procedures, what services ATC can provide and what workload they can handle better than ATC themselves, who clearly have the expertise because it is their job. And when given responses from ATC based on that expertise, it is still not heeded. How often do we see ATCs here buying into cockpit matters, telling pilots how they should fly and manage their aircraft, deal with CRM and what workload they can handle? |
Andrewr.
Your postulations are nothing more than speculation. You may speculate that pilots wont cut corners, but I put it to you that they might just be aware of what can and cant be seen, and that knowledge might actually worsen the situation. Either way, changing an airspace system based on speculation about what might or might not be achieved is pretty stupid. Whilst in the Benalla accident, the a/c might have been on radar and off course, there is always going to come a time in every single approach when the aircraft will be maneuvering in a manner not apparent to the controller (unless the idea is to mandate ILS-type approaches using WAAS/whatever, and a/c must be 'stable' before being cleared to approach, or some such rubbish :rolleyes: ). Every a/c must descend below the lowest safe at some point. Dick's idea to have increased hand-holding will bring enormous delay to many, many IFR flights that are successfully completed every year. This extra cost to the industry has nebulous benefit- what if the controller does have surveillance coverage, does have the aircraft on freq, and is monitoring the approach on a scale sufficient to detect the a/c being off-track? What if the pilot at Benalla acknowledges, checks his GPS derived position and comes up with the same wrong answer/incorrect info/whatever and continues with the same result? PURE SPECULATION, either way. Hardly a basis for airspace management. The only certainty is that there will be extra delays to IFR a/c (as an example; I'm assuming in the Orange incident cited that one of the a/c would've been holding overhead, waiting for the other to report on the ground so that the controller could clear the holding a/c to approach :D ) Just imagine the wasted time/resources etc.!!! If proponents could absolutely show that ausNAS would provide affordable increases in safety, then there wouldn't be much of a leg for any naysayers to stand on. The problem is that many can see the practicalities (and their challenges) of what is proposed, and how little it will help anything. |
Your postulations are nothing more than speculation. If controlled airspace doesn't improve safety for IFR, what is the point of any controlled airspace outside radar coverage? If it does make it safer, the question then is do we want to pay the cost? If not that's OK, but we should understand the choices that are being made. |
andrewr,
The thrust of this thread goes way back. I hesitate to speak on behalf of the controllers, but the argument is thus (correct me guys if I'm wrong):
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.