|
Jet ', I can see with pilots like you why AsA have not upgraded places like Ballina and Orange from G to clearly safer mandatory transponder E.
|
LeadSled
If the aerodrome traffic only justifies a D tower, by definition (low level) C cannot be justified over D, it is simply impossible for the approach and departure traffic, clear of the circuit area, the D zone, to present a greater collision risk than in the immediate D zone of the aerodrome. Keep demonstrating your ignorance, it is certainly helping. |
Ledsled,
Not assertions, just facts. Indeed, if the "TMA" airspace justified C, the tower airspace would also need to be C or B, and not D. In any event, none of you have justified the continual assertion that VFR (with mandatory transponder) in E represents a greater threat than VFR in G, in the same volume of airspace. I'll ask you again: what's with this non-USNAS/ICAO CNS/ATM bla bla bla nonsense about mandatory transponders in E? What facts justify that crazy rule? And, of course, per. the Ministerial directive, for C there has to be terminal radar ---- which makes for some interesting potential civil liabilities in the current non-radar C. none of you blokes have proffered anything to actually justify (as opposed to assert) that C over D is justified. |
Rubbish, I have spoken to the Tobago pilot on several occasions. He heard the jet on both the area and the tower frequencies, had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.
The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston. The RPT crew never sighted the Tobago so if the pilot had flown in exactly the same place a month before without a transponder and un announced no incident would have been recorded. |
Led,
When somebody doesn't turn up for work We need to stick to what is usual, or what should be. E should have a controller (thus can be called controlled airspace). Rb |
Rubbish, I have spoken to the Tobago pilot on several occasions. He heard the jet on both the area and the tower frequencies, had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision. |
Hmmmm, obviously a lot of European countries disagree led. Lots of C over D here, or dont we count cause we are not from the US? Where there is not a D zone many are F which means one at a time, no CTAF-R here to aid the traffic flow!
|
Rubbish? Let's examine the facts, shall we (Paying attention, Ledsled?)?
had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision. While the radio transmissions from the crew of the 737 may have assisted the Tobago pilot’s situational awareness, it was also influenced by his sighting of the aircraft, his belief that there was 2 degrees difference between the aircraft tracks and his belief that the 737 was tracking direct to right base for runway 32L. Although the pilot had the 737 in sight and was initially of the opinion that it would pass with sufficient spacing to the right of his aircraft, he became concerned when the 737 appeared to turn to the right across his path. The investigation could not conclusively determine why the 737 appeared to make such a heading change. Although the pilot of the Tobago has a clear recollection of a significant right turn having been made by the 737, the FDR data at Appendix A shows the 737’s consistent and straight track over the ground. The minor heading change was possibly due to wind effect. The head-on aspect of the two aircraft may have given the illusion of a more significant heading alteration having been made. After the Tobago pilot heard the crew of the 737 report the TCAS RA event to ATC, he advised ATC that his was the aircraft involved and that he had been operating in accordance with NAS procedures. The controller advised him that he should maintain a listening watch on the relevant ATC frequency and announce himself to traffic that he may be in conflict with. The pilot advised that he: "thought that I wasn’t supposed to speak on the frequency now." Educational material associated with the NAS phase 2b implementation stated that an: "important change is that the pilot of a VFR flight should not make broadcasts on ATC frequencies." "Please do not make broadcast transmissions or engage in chatter on an ATC frequency. The safety of others depends on you not doing this. Pilots are not precluded from responding to any ATC or pilot transmission when they believe their safety is at risk from another aircraft." So my life, the lives of my crew and my more than 100 pax are in the hands of a VFR pilot. Thanks a lot. E airspace. You have to love it. The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston. |
and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision. |
Jet ', I can see with pilots like you why AsA have not upgraded places like Ballina and Orange from G to clearly safer mandatory transponder E. You said: if you are on an IFR flight plan and you haven’t got a clearance, keep climbing when in VMC. That’s the only safe and sensible thing to do. And I'm not talking IFR pickup malarkey either - I told you the head kickers above me that make company policy prohibit that - not even as a way to wrangle a clearance out of ATC. |
Mr Smith
The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston |
The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston. The RPT crew never sighted the Tobago so if the pilot had flown in exactly the same place a month before without a transponder and un announced no incident would have been recorded. |
I just can't find an "Out of Sight - Out of Mind" emoticon. :eek:
Perhaps the Mods might add one for us. |
|
Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work?
In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation? Yes , of course you do! For those interested, transponders were not required for VFR in non radar class C before the NAS changes. |
Jet. in Jepps I think you will find that there is no such definition as an "IFR aircraft".
In the USA you may give a taxi call in G to ATC when on an IFR flight plan but you are not considered IFR until you are given your IFR clearance. Thats why you can climb in E in VMC before being given your IFR clearance--- yes just as we climb in G now waiting for our IFR clearance. In Australia , to stop E working correctly it was decided that once an IFR flight planned aircraft gave a taxi call to ATC it was then considered to be IFR which meant it could not enter class E in VMC without a clearance unless it cancelled IFR. |
It is IFR flight. Not Aircraft, or Plan.
Can you name any Hi-cap RPT/PTO operators that may operate VFR flight rules? |
I will not hit a VFR ... I will not hit a VFR...I will not hit a VFR...
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...deo/hiding.gif |
In this neck of the woods you operate IFR or VFR. Or VFR with the IFR Pickup.
So it's not the fault of the Jet_A_Knight that ASA don't put E down to the Ground! Funny you should mention Orange.... a few years ago, when I was a little 'greener', I busted through the bottom of Class E blasting out of bad low level weather on departure Orange in an empty turboprop (like you're suggesting now) - and yep - I had to explain myself to the CP before he got the ESIR.:O You have yet to acknowledge that under the current rules, in Australia, climbing into Class E without a clearance, is a violation of controlled airspace. Maybe you should reconsider your statement about climbing into Class E regardless of clearances - unless you mean it as a civil disobedience/protest kind of action.:oh: |
ARFOR in effect they all do in relation to safety- that is they fly so called IFR in G with just a traffic information service.
This is not allowed in the USA. I made the mistake of believing we would want to keep the advantages of our proven class G for RPT traffic when VMC exists with the extra advantages of controlled airspace when IMC exists. Stupid me- of course we should take the disadvantages of each and throw commonsense to the wind. |
Dick,
You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of real-world aviation. Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work? In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation? until Alerted See and Avoid is a misnomer; it is safer and more economical for pilots to talk to each other to ensure segregation in case the See and Avoid bit doesn't happen (and more often than not it doesn't). Back to the Tobago and your rather odd question Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work? In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation? |
Jet , climbing into E in VMC would not be a problem in Canada and the USA.
This is because even if you have submitted an IFR plan you are not considered IFR until you have been given an IFR clearance. The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier. |
Bloggs, you are mixed up.
Your first description was clearly alerted see and avoid. If you use radio arranged separation with VFR aircraft no wonder you complain about frequencies being jammed. Can't be much traffic where you fly! |
Your first description was clearly alerted see and avoid. And your response to the lack of Alerted "See and Avoid" with the Tobago at Launy? Or are you just going to let that one slide? |
The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier. It's generally easier to separate now because then the problem is fixed. If you let everything just run you're left with reacting instead of controlling. something that is less than ideal, particularly off radar. |
...US system... In other countries... In the USA... This is not allowed in the USA. ...would not be a problem in Canada and the USA. |
The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier. |
Dick
climbing into E in VMC would not be a problem in Canada and the USA I'm struggling to find in the US/FAA AIP where it states IFR can climb into E without a clearance whilst VMC. I have found this of interest: 'This does not preclude the pilot from cancelling the IFR clearance with ATC and departing under VFR; but an IFR clearance may not be available after departure' Under the FAA code of federal regs: No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has— (a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and (b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance. |
ahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
|
rotorblades
Under the FAA code of federal regs: Quote: No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has— (a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and (b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance. IFR in the United States do not fly in class E without a clearance. All airline served airports have a minimum of Class E starting at 700ft AGL rotorblades and if no IFR clearance has been given, then by definition the flight is VFR while climbing out. Do you understand this? If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E! Read my post here. We should copy the United States here and issue an airways clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND prior to departure. Class E should go to the ground when the tower closes. Problem solved. If you understood the NAS proposal you would know we are going to have Class E down to 700ft AGL for terminal areas, 1200ft for corridors (Airways) and down to ground level for approaches and to the ground when Class D towers closed. From your other posts you clearly did not understand how we could do this from a place like Ballina. There is a solution rotorblades, we should copy a country that already does it with amazing success. They sometimes issue clearance 'void times' if not airborne in a non radar environment by a certain time. Its simple and it works. You're still young rotorblades, I'm sure in time you may get to work in other countries and you will have the opportunity to learn better ways of doing things. You say dont try and convince pilots to do something in Australia which isnt within the Australian rules. The airline I work for does not allow us to fly VFR, as doesn't Jet A knight's. But we can make exemptions and copy the US by allowing RPT to depart VFR in some circumstances as long as they 'pick up IFR' by 50nm from the departure airport. See FAA Ops Spec C 077. Not everything is in the FAR AIMS! |
Bowie,
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E! |
Did it ever occur to think WHY you couldn't get a clearance? You are completely blinkered, aren't you, have you ever flown in the US?? You should try it some time, you would be amazed at how straight forward it is, compared to all the bush lawyering that surrounds aviation in Australia. All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground. Re. all the safety cases, go talk to your union (if you are a member of the AFAP), don't blame me or any of the CASA/Airservices/NAS/Military/Industry people if you were not kept informed, or misinformed, by your representatives at the time. As for your comment about G being safer than E because everybody has to use radio---- what have you been smoking?? It must be strong stuff. As I said somewhere else, go after all the info under FOI, I have absolutely no intention of digging out all my old files, all in an archive at YSBK, let alone "releasing" them. The total count of our storage boxes, just for the NAS consultation documents and all the hazard analysis and mitigation determinations records, was in excess of 20. Do you really believe that you personally have to be informed in detail, of every proposed change, and be given the chance to agree or veto every detail for a reform process for it to be valid. The expression" "Get real" comes to mind. For those of you rabbiting on about Europe, why don't you get a few charts out, and see how small the whole place is. All of UK bar the Shetlands, a large chunk of Ireland, the Channel and a chunk of France and Belgium all fit on just two half million charts. One ONC (1:5,000,000) just about covers the whole EEC and large bits of the CIS. Having done that, go look for the E, you will find it around the place. Most of western Europe, and a fair bit of the (old) eastern block, fit into NSW and Victoria.(or the NE corner of the US) Australia is not comparable with EEC, aviation area wise, but it is with the US, except that we have sod all traffic compared with the US. There are, on average, around about 5000+/- IFR flights airborne, and about 50,000 active IFR flight plans at any one time ----- What is the maximum no. of IFR flights over continental Australia ever reached at one time ---- 200? 300? 400?. Come on you blokes from Airservices, tell us. That Australia's "IFR Rules" and the way they are interpreted, are dopy, is not a valid criticism of the fundamentals of the NAS. In fact, at various NAS consultations, it was pathetic to hear representatives of one group of pilots ( taking only the position of their airline members) demanding that nobody should be allowed to depart VFR and get a clearance IFR on climb, because if they, the "airlines", one of them flying a Chieftain, for goodness sake, couldn't, so it was only "fair" that operators not constrained by dopy rules should not be allowed to take advantage of the new rules. And all this because what had been G suddenly became E ------ and therefor "not safe". Tootle pip!! |
mjbow2
You're still young rotorblades, I'm sure in time you may get to work in other countries and you will have the opportunity to learn better ways of doing things. I seem to remember Rotorblades having worked London TMA stuff as well as Australian airspace...I could be wrong though. Your quote is simply arrogant and just laughable...so the fact that he says he is 29 precludes him from "having a clue" like your good self does it? just what is the cutoff for enlightenment then, hmmmmm????? Just as an aside to your comment about working in other countries...I have and do, and I will tell you that most of them happily work without E airspace. In one of those countries, all flights must obtain permission to operate, it is and was a damned sight busier that anything I ever saw in Australia too. Those operators seem to realise that the sky isn't just there for their benefit, they fit in or stay on the ground. Simple! BTW mjbow2, if you are actually in the sandpit, you would have spoken to me on the radio there, and here is a hint....the country was in the Middle East. The fact that they do things in the sandpit differently to Australia so therefore it is better, has exactly the same worth as the cry about US NAS being better. Ledsled...what exactly was your point about the size of Europe compared to Australia? Didn't any of your girlfriends ever tell you size doesn't matter?:E |
Australia is not comparable with EEC, aviation area wise, but it is with the US, except that we have sod all traffic compared with the US. I would've thought that after ARFOR just absolutely trounced you on the other thread you might've had the sense to go away and lick your wounds. Seems you are more of the "martyr" type of fundamentalist. ;) Keep polishing that turd. |
All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground. Leadsled are you telling us you'd willingly blast off into class E VFR if denied a clearance, knowing that there is conflicting traffic *somewhere*:ugh: |
Nastronauts,
In Australia, RPTs don't climb into E (VFR) looking for a clearance, and it seems to work without too many problems and delays. If you want it changed ... go for it ... wish you luck. Even if you do get it changed, I doubt most Airlines will use it. Once again, what are you trying to fix? |
All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground. Cheers, NFR. |
mjbow
All airline served airports have a minimum of Class E starting at 700ft AGL rotorblades and if no IFR clearance has been given, then by definition the flight is VFR while climbing out. Do you understand this? http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...r/7110.65S.pdf 4-3-9. VFR RELEASE OF IFR DEPARTURE When an aircraft which has filed an IFR flight plan requests a VFR departure through a terminal facility, FSS, or air/ground communications station: a. After obtaining, if necessary, approval from the facility/sector responsible for issuing the IFR clearance, you may authorize an IFR flight planned aircraft to depart VFR. Inform the pilot of the proper frequency and, if appropriate, where or when to contact the facility responsible for issuing the clearance. PHRASEOLOGY VFR DEPARTURE AUTHORIZED. CONTACT (facility) ON (frequency) AT (location or time if required) FOR CLEARANCE. b. If the facility/sector responsible for issuing the clearance is unable to issue a clearance, inform the pilot, and suggest that the delay be taken on the ground. If the pilot insists upon taking off VFR and obtaining an IFR clearance in the air, inform the facility/sector holding the flight plan of the pilot's intentions and, if possible, the VFR departure time. If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E! Flight Standards Information Management System 12_002_005 OpSpec C077 Subparagraph c(3). This subparagraph contains a requirement to obtain an IFR clearance no farther than 50 nautical miles from the departure airport. However, it is recognized that this procedure may not be practical in all situations. If a greater distance is necessary, the foreign air carrier may apply for a nonstandard paragraph. If OpSpec B051 is issued for VFR en route operations, then for propeller driven aircraft, except for certain en route VFR provisions in part 93, SFAR 50–2, or SFAR 71, the flightcrew may depart VFR under the provision of OpSpec C077 subparagraph c, and the requirement to obtain an IFR clearance en route does not apply. F. Terminal Departure IFR Requirements in Subparagraph d. If ATC clears the flight, it is acceptable to execute a VMC takeoff and climb to a specified point in the clearance as part of an IFR clearance. However, the foreign air carrier must ensure that the obstacle performance requirements are met. Further, the flight must not depart on a VFR flight plan if the capability to go on an IFR flight plan is evident. G. Subparagraph e. Subparagraph e provides special limitations and provisions for all VFR operations. This subparagraph is applicable to all the provisions and limitations of OpSpec C077. 1) Subparagraph e(1). In order for the foreign air carrier to conduct VFR operations under OpSpec C077, they must have in place either a procedure or program that can identify obstacles and the airport obstacle data. Further, they must ensure that the flightcrew use that information. The POI shall request documentation from the foreign air carrier that this program is in place and that the air carrier’s CAA has approved VFR terminal operations. 2) OpSpec C077, Subparagraph e(2). Although each subparagraph has specific details and minimums regarding VFR, the requirement for sufficient seeing conditions to identify and avoid obstacles is required for all VFR operations. |
Dick Smith:
For those interested, transponders were not required for VFR in non radar class C before the NAS changes. |
Transponders have always been required for all aircraft in Class C airspace since it was introduced What was Rockhampton before that? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.