|
Leadsled, your argument proves that "Airmanship" does not exist.
|
OZ,
How do you work that out?? "airmanship" is certainly not part of the process for airspace classification embodied within the Airspace Act and Regulation, including the Airspace Policy Statement. Tootle pip!! PS: I will admit that I continuously witness quite appalling lapses in what I regard as expected standards of airmanship ---- applied common sense ----- but it is probably all to true of common sense is that it is not all that common. |
I was quite impressed with ozineurope's previous response. It's worth re-posting as others come on line in the evening, otherwise it'll be lost - no doubt to the satisfaction of the E protagonists. I'm keeping it civil Lead.
I worked Hedland tower in the 80s when there was even less good gear around than today. Nothing but VOR/DME/NDB and we owned from the SFC up to FL250 in the despised (by some) upside down wedding cake of CTA and OCTA. All positive control and everyone was separated from everyone. In the time I was there I cannot remember (and remember Alzheimers improves long term memory) ever denying a VFR aircraft a clearance through/into/across the CTA or CTR. Because, as others have mentioned, I had local knowledge and I devised clearances that allowed all the IFR and VFR to share the airspace and get where they wanted to go. The coast, railway lines, roads, rivers (even when they were dry), the crushers to name a few were used in conjunction with the radials and DME to establish procedural separation between the aircraft. Then inside 10 miles we used the binos and our eyes. That posting enabled me to use those same things in a radar environment when 3nm was just too much when I could still use north and south of the river or the road or the railway line. It costs the same for a controller to do A,B,C,D,E,F and G airspace. There is no difference to us, only the rules and protection that is afforded to those using the airspace. Now I work in Germany and it costs the same for a controller to do the work independant of the airspace classification. Get it there is no lesser charge just because the letter changes. There is only a change in the service you receive- positive separation or see and be seen. That is the choice. |
Arfor, you rock! Nice scenario and "transcript"...even though your impressive effort was unfortunately just preaching to the converted I suspect. Many ways to skin the feline whilst avoiding the alternative of A/G self-separation chit-chats on a control frequency in a terminal environment.
In relation to the more recent safety/risk/accountability discussion above, for the sake of the argument imagine the following situation, coming from a botom-of-the-food-chain grass roots level; - A VFR makes a broadcast out of the blue on centre frequency (inbound to Broken Hill in non-radar G) - A few minutes later a BE20 IFR gives a taxi call BHI-AD Many of my ex-colleagues (subject to workload and complexity of course) would append to "no reported IFR traffic" the additional comment "and just confirming have you copied the VFR inbound from the West?" Most of the time the IFR responds with "ta centre, spoken to him" but when they haven`t it is muchos gracias for the heads-up...yeah, it`s supposed to work a certain way but the point is that sometimes it doesn`t. Overservicing? Professional courtesy? Inferred Duty of Care? Potential court of law, "Litigation American style" modern day arse-guarding? You guys tell me... |
I can measure risk, I can't measure "safe", and as the saying goes: "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it". Risk is also not a good term..You can only identify the probability of an event occuring. Probability is not a risk, it is the outcome of an event occuring. Risk is the act of IGNORING that probability. When I was studying engineering at QIT. Materials Testing 101. Probability of detecting a faulty part can be calculated. A random number can be generated that will result in samples being taken, proving that testing a batch run can be classified as meeting specifications. This specification changes according to the level of safety required in the manufactured part being free of defects. The ultimate level of safety lies with manufacture of aviation components...all parts are tested and certified for aviation use. In current terms, the probability of the software for Toyota vehicle controls , failing in service would be a defined figure. Testing would be set according to a random list. If those random samples passed then the software would be cleared as safe....In a run of millions, the probability, although very small, proves that a signifcant number of cars will be defective and, ultimately, DANGEROUS. In aviation that level of failure is set at ZERO! and we now have bean counters RISKING against the probability of a failure????(Affordable SAFETY:eek:) As an engineer, I understand, very clearly, the implications of managed risk. Bean counters have pushed the level of design with its inherant levels of safety within the margins of error of what used to be a factor of 5 to 10% overdesigned because of the limits of testing, to a couple of points of a percent...and we are now seeing extraordinary failures of structures that, previously, were over designed...just to save a few bucks...which team are you barracking for, Leadsled? |
Lead/Dick
Do you wish to see existing class C terminal airspace converted to E? eg YMHB YMLT YMAY. |
Leadsled,
I've left my wig and gown somewhere, so I won't try to debate those critical law issues with you.... as I'd surely loose. HOWEVER, as an aviation tragic, whose seen probably more Australian and International aviation operations than you realise ... I can't help but feel that, even if us fundamentalists have got it wrong, and E is just as "safe" as C in the discussed areas ... and if we've got it wrong, and it does cost more to man C than E ....what is the magnitude of the difference? Is it SO great that you wouldn't support Class C ... just in case? Are you so sure of your precise calculations and risk management formulas ( wherever they are) that you'd bet OUR arses on your ability to get the risk/benefit figures (where ever they are) correct down to the 5th decimal place? If so, you certainly have a lot of faith in yourself and the OAR? |
Nice post OZ.
I hope Clinton comes back on. I'd really appreciate his take on liability. |
Leadsled
Let's put the written words of, The Act, The AAPS, and CASA's CRMF on the table for interested readers! I rather think you are referring to ALARP as embodied in the Airservices SMS as per the NAS 2b era, that no longer applies ALARP as a concept is still with us but in proper risk analysis it does not mean quite the same thing as during the period prior to the Airspace Act, and as applied by Airservices The Airspace Act 2007 ComLaw Management - Series- Airspace Act 2007 8 Minister must make Australian Airspace Policy Statement (2) (c) describe the processes to be followed for changing the classifications or designations of particular volumes of Australian-administered airspace (4) The statement must be consistent with the Chicago Convention. However, if Australia has notified differences under Article 38 of that Convention, the statement must be consistent with those differences. Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010 Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace 15 Changes to an existing airspace classification or designation should be the consequence of a clear and consistent risk management process. 16 CASA‟s risk management process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated. 17 The process for change will commence with CASA identifying the volumes of airspace it will be reviewing in accordance with section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007. 18 The review process will then lead to the completion of a risk assessment of the particular volume of airspace under review. 19 The risk assessment should take into account the types of aircraft involved, the density of air traffic, the meteorological conditions, and such other factors as may be relevant. 20 On completion of the risk assessment process, CASA shall outline its proposals on the overall safety requirement for a particular airspace classification or designation. 21 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals. 22 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, then make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties. Government’s Policy Objectives 25 The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants. 26 The Government expects that CASA will continue the reform of Australia‟s airspace and move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice. 27 The Government has also identified three specific airspace policy objectives in relation to the administration and use of Australian-administered airspace which are detailed in paragraphs 28 to 34 and outlined below: support for ICAO‟ Global Air Traffic Management (ATM) Operational Plan and use of ICAO airspace classifications; enhanced ATM services at regional aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services, as determined by CASA; and effective cooperation between CASA and Australia's air navigation service providers, including Airservices and Defence. Support for ICAO’s Global Air Traffic Management Operational Plan and Use of ICAO Airspace Classifications 28 The undertaking of airspace administration will reflect the Australian Government‟ commitment to the ICAO Global ATM Operational Plan. 29 The ICAO Global ATM Operational Plan is the international vision for an integrated, harmonised and globally interoperable ATM system and includes a component on airspace management and organisation‟ 30 The Government fully supports the use of the internationally-recognised ICAO airspace classification system (Class A to G airspace) in airspace administration. Regional Aerodromes 31 The Government is committed to ensuring that effective ATM infrastructure and systems are used to protect and enhance air safety, with ATM services being extended to more regional areas as appropriate, where there has been or is likely to be growing passenger transport services. 32 CASA should ensure that appropriate airspace arrangements are in place at major regional aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services which respond to changes in aviation activity over time such as changes in traffic density, the mix of aircraft types and increases in passenger transport services. Cooperation with Australia’s Air Navigation Service Providers 33 The Government is committed to the continuing development of a seamless, harmonised national ATM system. The classification and designation of airspace is seen as an essential component of that system. 34 CASA is to work closely with Australia‟s air navigation service providers to ensure that the needs of all airspace users are properly considered; the provision of ATM services are properly coordinated; and the administration of Australia‟s airspace is both safe and efficient. Airspace Strategy 35 The Government requires CASA to carry out its responsibilities as the airspace regulator in accordance with the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007. 36 This legislative framework enables CASA to examine and determine future Australian airspace requirements and has established that safety of air navigation is the most important consideration. 37 The Government‟s airspace strategy, to be implemented by CASA, involves the adoption of a risk-based approach to determining Australia‟s future airspace needs. 38 The implementation of this strategy requires the identification of risks to aviation safety using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and ultimately the safety judgment of CASA as the airspace regulator. 39 The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA. 40 ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) also provide an important basis for airspace administration. The airspace strategy requires any deviations from ICAO SARPs to be well justified, documented, and formally notified to ICAO as a difference. 41 The airspace strategy requires transparency so that the aviation industry has clear insight into the way in which airspace administrative decisions will be developed, taken and implemented including industry and agency consultation. The strategy does however recognise there will be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative. 42 The airspace strategy is a proactive one based on a dedicated CASA work program, identifying priority locations where airspace should be reviewed, and consistent with the review requirements of the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulations 2007. 43 The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives. Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010 [bottom of page] 6.0 Framework Structure Outline 6.1 Each agency will maintain a risk management system which is in conformance with published Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standards as updated - currently AS/NZS ISO31000:2009 (see Appendix 2 for an outline of the risk management process). 6.2 As indicated in the standards mentioned above, all risk management systems will be premised on the concept of As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). There are however limits to the extent to which the government, industry and the community will pay, to reduce adverse risks E costs verses C costs [at volume specific locations]! Reducing adverse risk for NO COST! The concerned experts here are calling for exactly what the Gov't, The Act, The Minister [AAPS], and the CASA [CRMF] all require! 6.3 The Defence Aviation Risk Management process conforms to the standards that apply to the civil risk management regimes. These civil risk management systems are to be accessible to the public. Analyse Risks 9.4 To facilitate risk analysis an appropriate data exchange should take place between agencies. Most risk identification and analysis methods are dependent on data to drive underlying assumptions. The results of the analysis must then be assessed against appropriate criteria to determine if the risk levels are intolerable. 9.5 This agreement embraces the notion that the magnitude of the change proposal under consideration will drive the level of analysis (and reporting). Determination of magnitude will be driven by the internal protocols within each agency’s risk management system. However the following principles will need to be incorporated within the individual systems: a. scale of the proposal, e.g. users, airframes, geographic region impacted; b. complexity of proposal, e.g. interaction with other systems, services; c. duration, i.e. temporary or ongoing; d. originality, i.e. has it been proven anywhere else in Australia or overseas or there is already established knowledge about the topic e.g. ICAO standards or requirements. And; Evaluate Risks 9.7 The qualitative criteria used by agencies, which are usually expressed in terms of consequence and likelihood matrix, may be specific to the agency given their differing roles. However, safety criteria must be premised on the basis of the effect on aircrew, other safety critical staff, the travelling public and the community. 9.8 Large scale assessments will embrace formal Cost Benefit Analysis including full economic, social and environmental impacts. Treat Risks 9.9 In identifying risk treatments, the agencies will identify a hierarchy of preference for treatment. The highest priority will be given to solutions which seek to eliminate the negative risk. 12 Conflict Resolution 12.1 The Aviation Implementation Group will oversight the application of this agreement. Where is the 'proper', 'publiclly available' safety analysis work for YMAV, YWLM, YBRM and YPKA that transparently compares [as per the reg's above] options such as E or D or C in specific airspace volumes? |
And every day in Australia procedural towers are applying the same standards that were applied 30 years ago in Hedland, why? Because they work and they allow the most efficient use of the airspace whilst affording protection to the airspace users.
When you've sat on APP (radar) and called traffic 3 or 4 times to the VFR so that he hopefully wont hit the other Baron/C441/C310/Dash8/etc etc and he still cant see him at 1nm at 11o'clock at the same level, you realise how flawed see and avoid airspace actually is. So you give up passing traffic- put 500ft between them and no one dies. |
Mike , I apologise but do you really expect me to believe a real ATC would use bino's to separate an IFR from a VFR 20 miles east of Broome tower? If not why did you make such a claim ? With regard to the above quote, yes indeed I do, it is called visual separation...as I and many others have done in the past, unlike some, I don't actually espouse here what I don't believe:E Anyway, your question has been answered, read ozineuropes posts for more info about separation in non radar locations. You could actually try listening to the guys/gals that have actually been doing the controlling, they actually know what they are talking about, whether you like it or not. ciao all, going nocom... |
ARFOR,
Wonderful demonstration of your dexterity in cut and paste, but there is nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have said, on this or previous occasions. And the results for Broome and Karatha are (obviously) consistent with everything you have cut and pasted from the Airspace legislation. I love one of the posts that says "risk" is not a good word, then goes on to "probability ----" ------ exactly, in the simplest possible terms, that is what we are talking about. And I say again, ALARP as was(is?) applied by Airservices in their SMS manual is NOT the same as a "conventional" ALARP, they had their own version that did not recognize (as some of you blokes don't) "vanishingly small" (a statistical zero) as the cutoff for a calculated probability of collision. You cannot have "less than zero" probability ---- except in Science Fiction. A short course in cost/benefit analysis wouldn't go astray either, see the Productivity Commission web site, there is plenty of info around. In particular, you should note carefully how "proponent bias" is factored in a proper CBA assessment, not to mention the full range of costs to be taken into consideration. We all genuinely look forward to Clinton's views on liability for negligence, as it concerns public servants properly applying the law that they administer. You should all go and look up Jones v. Bartlett ----- that will tell you what the High Court thinks "safe" means, for public policy purposes. It is a very interesting read, stated far more clearly than some of the new draft CASA regs. Tootle pip!! OZ, You are falling into the common trap that techniques for measuring quality control effectiveness in mass production (reliability engineering) is essentially the same as ASNZ 4360 Risk Management, and it ain't so. An ex-CSIRO chap, who opposes ICAO cruising levels, and wants us to go back 20 years or so falls into the same trap. I, too, started life as some kind of an engineer. |
Leadsled Thank you.
One of us needs to provide context via quote, lest it would be nothing more than uninformed pontification ;) there is nothing there that is inconsistent with what I have said, on this or previous occasions And the results for Broome and Karatha are (obviously) consistent with everything you have cut and pasted from the Airspace legislation |
And really, that is all any of us have provided on PPRUNE, our opinions. No matter how pretty the wrapping has been, the content has just been opinion.
The final arbiter on "truth" might end up being 12 random men and women, selected from the great unwashed. If that occurrs, then I have a feeling that their personal view of what's right and what's wrong might have greater sway than all the empirical formulae placed end to end across Australia.... no matter what a Judge's direction may be... the "vibe"if you like. Although none of us wish things to go that far. In all probability, there won't be any near misses, despite allowing Class E to be installed ... but I can't help feeling that we are just leaving that door a little bit ajar ... when we needn't. |
Peuce,
I agree. The scientists can hide all they like behind the numbers and the "vanishing-small" probability of a midair in E. In the end though, nobody has put forward a cost-benefit analysis that overwhelming supports E in preference to C and therefore there is no valid argument for it. The Launy and Brisbane Airproxs provided a wakeup call for the E supporters. Wake Up! |
CrazyMTOWDog
Lead/Dick Do you wish to see existing class C terminal airspace converted to E? eg YMHB YMLT YMAY. This has always been the agenda. And, regrettably, right now, the cabal that wants to mix high capacity IFR with VFR, with no separation, will probably get their way. Unfortunately, professional pilots, and their crews and pax, will be condemned to operating in 'Russian Roulette airspace' because a few squeaky wheels, with political pull, got the oil. |
I would not be too sure they will 'get their way' ;)
Lets see what the 'process' ends with :) |
peuce:ok:
Your last post - in all likelyhood the big sky theory and TCAS will save the day, but I think both sides of the microphone (one more than the other!) can do without that extra Class E "Reason hole" lining up. Well said. |
Leadsled,
As Dick Smith continually tries to point out, ATC direct costs are not the only costs attributable to airspace categorization, the Airservices practice of giving absolute priority over VFR also presents serious problems ---- very little VFR traffic is "private flight". So one category of commercial operations suffers unnecessary costs. No such discrimination exists in US, as one example. That Airservices only derives revenue from one has only added to the blatant discrimination against VFR. Had it ever occurred to you that, especially in a surveillance environment, if ATC aren't prepared to allow a VFR into C, it is because there is so much heavy metal in there already and to do so would be foolhardy? Oh, that's right, you think it is the undeniable right of a little VFR to barge in and make a 500-pax A380 take avoiding action. Get real. := |
Wonder if Dick got an invite to the meeting next week, between a number of Chief Pilots who operate into Broome and Karratha?
|
Wonder if any real ATCs got an invite?
I can just see the line up from my former employer - Manager Regional Services, Manager Tea and Biscuits, Manager Frequent Flyer Points and a secretary. My bet is not one coal face controller below level 4 will be there, you know someone who actually talks to aircraft and has the brains to point out the good and bad for industry rather than some contract bod who is selling the package. We shall see. |
Stationair8,
I wonder if the meeting(s) between Chief Pilots who operate into Broome and Karratha may have already taken place. The Broome Airspace Forum in mid-Feb was such a meeting, and a number of Chief Pilots attended. The Karratha airspace meeting preceded that. :ok: |
And Dick, DNS and I both know the answer, do you?
Oh and by the way if anyone is interested no one PM'd for my name so obviously the anonymity angst bit is just a smokescreen for when things are not going your way! |
Two simple rhetorical questions:
- Is Class E designated as being "controlled airspace"? - Are Oz ATCs indemnified at law in relation to an IFR/VFR MAC in Class E (assuming all due diligence actions were effected)? Just sayin`... |
Is Class E designated as being "controlled airspace"? |
Readers might be interested in knowing the 'policy direction' hierarchy sitting above CASA's OAR ;)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Stakeholder liaison [halfway down the page] Intergovernmental engagement Aviation Implementation Group and Aviation Policy Group The Aviation Policy Group (APG) is a CEO-level interagency group that includes the Department of Infrastructure, Airservices Australia, CASA and the RAAF. The APG was formed to establish better working relationships across the four agencies involved in aviation policy, regulation and service provision and consists of the CASA Director of Aviation Safety, the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia, the Chief of Air Force and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure. The APG met seven times during 2008–09. The Aviation Implementation Group (AIG) is an interagency forum chaired by the Department of Infrastructure that involves high-level representation from CASA, Airservices Australia and the RAAF. It is an important forum for identifying cross-portfolio aviation issues and maintaining regular communication between the four agencies, and for identifying higher-level issues to pass on to the APG. The AIG met five times during 2008–09. |
I can see the solution to this...but it's a very old idea:}
|
I have an old one that says "CAA"...:ugh:
|
Hi OZ,
That wouldn't involve the words 'controlled and 'uncontrolled,' from a far simpler time when the concept of Russian Roulette airspace was unheard of, by any chance? That's the problem with 'experts' in any walk of life. They inevitably have to 'fix' something that isn't broken. Like NAS, the 'problem' that the 'solution' was supposed to be addressing was never identified or quantified. Opinion won out over fact. I still shudder when I re-read the 2008 CASA Aeronautical Study on Avalon and do a comparison with the 2009 PIR recommending E over D. I keep finding what I regard to be inexplicable inconsistencies between the Avalon documents themselves and then the Launy and Alice studies in a wider context. I'd opine that it's a total bugger's muddle. Ultimately, and the argument has been put before, Russian Roulette airspace can place the responsibility for safe separation on the LCD. It's conceivable, and likely, that a brand new PPL will be responsible for separating himself/herself from an IFR RPT, with a full load of pax, on decent into YMAV - with tracks at right angles. And, NAS protagonists, don't give me that rubbish about the 'obligation' of the IFR to 'see and avoid.' We've got a kid, who's just got a PPL, doesn't have much of a clue with respect to RPT, and has prime responsibility to avoid a jet with multiple pax under this stupid system. While it doesn't apply at YMAV, Bloggs' example is apposite. In this crazy system, theoretically, the crew of an A380 are supposed to see-and-avoid a VFR C150. I don't think we live on the same planet. |
In one, Howabout:ok:
Leadsled, I know exactly the argument your CSIRO mate would have used. After changing the quadrantal heights to hemispherical heights with IFR on 1000's and VFR on 500's there is a situation where you can have near collision course from 180deg opposite directions, where quadrantly, opposing traffic was always from your quarter so always posed a profile...easier to see. And why did the hemispherical come in? Not because of ICAO alone..Oh no, it was because VFR no longer was under FPR so we had to separate IFR from VFR so the two would never meet...shame about the head on stuff. Howabout, it would be so simple to impliment. ADS-B is now 100% of airspace ABV FL300 and huge amounts A010. Regional towered aerodromes with an ADS-B receiver and a feed, complete with an en-route qualed FSO to look after the airspace from the bottom of C/A to the terminal area. I just hope those guys from the CASA are still paying attention to these threads. Guys, have a study of Flight Services and see the synergy that could apply with ADS-B equippage. If you do, you will see that the wheel is about to turn all the way around to the exact same track. Excepting, if the dillitants had kept out of it, evolution would have done the same thing without the millions wasted on a silly experiment. Some hints, remote VHF outlets, Virtual TAAATS tracks, basing in ML BN SY and PH. Maybe at the new towered aerodromes. Virtual tracks replaced by ADS-B derived "real" tracks. Once tracks are real, dropping of the need for FPR. FSOs rated up to en-route standard. Career progression due to TAAATS experience, elimination of the dreaded TIBA. It's all in place and could have easily progressed from the eighties right to now without AIRSPACE2000 the NASdebate and the outright decimation of a very experienced workforce that could esily adapt. All it would have took was a couple of unions to kiss and make up. |
Re " All it would have took was a couple of unions to kiss and make up."
Sorry OZ, but I recall 'it' went a lot deeper than just that. Despite several 'suggestions' over the years, the ATC 'heirarchy' of the time had no regard for FSO's....like they were the 'officers' and we were the 'lower ranks', the 'smellies'....came from B.O....as in Briefing Officer, which we were in many locations.... So, they refused to allow us to have RADAR training, on the grounds of.... whatever. It was made out to be so 'specialised'. (Didn't matter that a boat I used to drive occasionally had a radar, and it wasn't THAT hard to understand and be proficient in its use....) At one time we were scheduled to get VHF direction equipment for SAR purposes.....but..... However, during the 'downsizing' period, post 12/12/91, 'our mob' then stuck to their guns and despite some strong opposition, actually gained access to and passed ATC training courses, and 'broke the impasse' of the times. The rest is history, as now there are many ex FSO's employed as ATC's....formerly referred to as 'The Dark Side'.... tongue in cheek.... The ATS services provided were seen by most, as the supply of specialised services for which 'ratings' were / still are required. The commonality of the courses meant in reality, that there were a some 'bridging' ratings / subjects in both disciplines to effect a 'full rating' in either service. So, you are quite correct in one sense, there should have been an 'integration' of ATS Personnel! Period! And let the various 'ratings' system dictate which job / task was performed by any individual. However, the Politics were 'agin' us, and Dick wanted to get rid of us, so he did! No foresight...IMHO! However several of our mostly younger members now enjoy a career as an ATC, and not only here in OZ, but many are serving o/seas as well, as these pages will confirm.....and GOOD LUCK to them all!!! So, these ex FSO's, now licensed ATC's, use RADAR and ADSB etc for their job functions. So again, you are correct, except that the SERVICE has been conveniently been 'dropped' to 'when workload permits' for us bug smashers, and virtually no 'discrete' VHF to use without interrupting traffic separation services.... Nice idea OZ, but you'd have to work real hard to 'sell it' now....... Cheers:ok::) (Forgive the 'ramble'....):) Cheers And REGARDS to ALL..!!:ok::ok: |
Thanks for that Griffo, the history needs to be said. 'Tis a shame but a whole ocean has gone under that bridge. The problems of now just remind me of what could have been done as a simple evolution rather than wholesale change and change and change to get back to exactly the same pre-tech problems of providing a service for a sparsly populated country.
For the ATC guys, don't misunderstand me...this is all very ancient history. It's just the place where the NAS story began. I just hope I do not sound harsh on present company. You guys are fantastic:ok: |
Don't forget! The submission date is fast approaching. 31st March.
|
That the Class E airspace under the jurisdiction of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by Brisbane (BN) Centre (CEN), and may be the Tower frequency as used in the Class D CTR), |
I'm confused
Is Class E designated as being "controlled airspace"? Yep. AIP ENR 1.4 section 1.1.2. The 10,000 RAA pilots being not allowed into "controlled airspace" makes one wonder what this thread is really about if it is all "controlled airspace" anyway. Obviously it's about "squark 1200" GA Student/Private, Pilots and not the "Recreational" sector so often blamed for transgressions. Possibly the same mob who supported mandatory radio for flight into Goodooga.:* |
G'Day 'Owen',
And I appreciate your response. The 'politics' were always against us 'integrating' in 'dem good ole' days...' - which was proposed by some, to be simply 'Air Traffic Services' many years ago, with the various ratings at the various locations describing your job. However....all under the bridge now, and ALL the VERY best in your new career!! Just one thing, the 'FULL SAR', i.e. VFR Full Reporting was largely optional as I remember, - except if you were CHTR, or operating in a 'Designated Remote Area' and did not carry an EPIRB. For AWK, training flights, unless you were in CTA where Full Position Reporting was required, for the obvious reasons, then the choice was 'Full SAR' or SARTIME. This was at a time when a Flight Plan was required for flights over 50nm from DEP AD...then it wasn't....then it was..again...this time reinstituted I think when a C310 dep Griffith in NSW for BK, and never arrived....the wreckage was found some time later on the reverse slope of a hill not too far from GTH, despite a big search around the Blue Mountains area....so it was brought back in again...if my memory bank is correct... Anyway, I do recall that the 'Full SAR' option and requirements were removed from VFR flights WEF 12/12/1991, with a view to requiring less staff to enable FSO's to be made redundant.....and so to 'cost the industry less...and your safety will be enhanced'....B/S B/S wonk wonk..!!!....and eventually, CTAF and MBZ replaced AFIZ...etc etc...ALL in the name of 'Self Help' and 'cost cutting'....GOT TO get rid of thse 'pesky FSO's'...... Oddly enough, at the time I did hear that Canada actually preferred our 'AFIZ system', and was supposed to have closed some remote Towers, and introduced the 'FS operated AFIZ' - whether by that or another name , I do not know...anyhow can't vouch for it...its only what we heard...and we heard MANY 'things' in those days... And, Yep! I see it from 'both sides' as well, Still have my CPL, although don't use it much no-more... OOOps sorry, 'Rambling again'.... ALL the best:ok::ok: |
Frank,
You confuse some of the sentiments on here with illogical CASA rulings. It's only my personal take, but I cannot figure why restrictions are placed on perfectly airworthy aircraft from the RAA side of the house. I, for one, support access provided some basic provisions are met. Years ago, I met a lovely bloke by the name of Eugene Reid and visited his operation north of Launy. All he wanted was access to the Launy zone, to get quick access to the south. He could have been separated from airfield activity by being south of the highway, which was no big deal (ATC confirmed this when I visited for a chat - I have to get a life on holidays). It could have been done safely with no detriment to other operations. The blunt CASA ruling was that 'sports aircraft' could not fly in control zones..period. I think, but don't know, that the attitude is the same today. One size fits all. I was totally impressed by Eugene's operation. He told me at the time that there was no way he'd ever operate without a radio or teach his students anything other than radio carriage and compliance. And he operated/operates trikes. His summation was that if he was downwind at YDPO, there's no way he wouldn't be listening out and transmitting. He had no desire to be run over by a Dash-8 in the same piece of airspace downwind. I still don't see a single piece of solid evidence that supports the exclusion of RAA aircraft from controlled airspace, provided they can communicate and are visible within the system. Just my take. |
Yes, we've been "touched" by some strange rules over the years, haven't we.
Along the lines of Griffo's tales, one of the strangest was the building and positioning of Flight Service Units ... so the FSOs couldn't see the aerodrome from the window ... less they actually advised an aircraft where another aircraft actually was. And yes, Canada was actually (don't know if they still are) operating Towers, manned by FSOs ... providing an Aerodrome Advisory Service. However, even during "fact finding missions" overseas, Australian FSOs weren't allowed to inspect these facilities ... only Australian ATCs. What that means, I don't know ... but it's just the facts. All these bits of historical "ramblings" may appear off topic, but I think they certainly add to the jigsaw puzzle of why and how we are where we are. |
Last sentence peuce, is spot on.
|
Yep, it all helps understand how we were all robbed of a system that actually worked for our limited resources and sparse polulation.
Smith, you have a mental block with Class E. If there is no radar or radar like surveillence, you cannot guarantee separation for anyone and certainly not IFR. In the clag you have a chance, in CAVOK you want IFR to practice see and avoid because of conflicts with VFR trundling through CONTROLLED AIRSPACE unannounced. Everything else about NAS from FAA D to CTAF is just procedure and can be ..begrudgingly for some...relearned. However, Class E is inherantly DANGEROUS. You are mixing non-controlled traffic with controlled traffic IN THE BLIND! Until surveillence is put in place AND VFR is required to REPORT a position regardless of receiving a service is the day Class E will be safer. The experiment with FAA D and adjoining Class E...what are you guys thinking! We may as well have our old D and adjoining class C and be safer in the procedure. Smith your previous example. the B200 will be in conflict with a non-controlled aircraft who is UNKNOWN to the tower, in your words he is too far away to see. Depending how big the envelope of Tower controlled Class E is opposed to the Class E supplied by BN, your B200 could be just changing frequency as the conflict occurs...getting messy out there...Once again, change for change sake with changes to the changes to attempt to make it as safe as possible. The REAL OLD SYSTEM was that VFR if was going more than 50nm would have had a plan and would have reported to the PTH FS with an estimate for their destination. The B200 would have already be talking to FS from when they popped out of class C over 100nm away with an estimate for PTH. there is no tower because the local traffic practices the basic calls and is also on the same frequency as FS..guess what, they are known too..That old dirt road with its "Drive on the Left" rules still stands up today with passing DTI The trick is not actually SEEING the traffic, its knowing the traffic. If you know there is traffic you will see it before there is a problem. What's it called...oh yes...ALLERTED SEE AND AVOID From a previous forum. Dick, YOU'RE WRONG! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.