|
ARFOR
It is evident that your knowledge of US NAS is limited by Internet Explorer. It is a great shame that you cannot speak with any authority as one that has flown in or provided ATS services under US NAS. Your cut and paste exercise only proves that IFR pickup is available as we have been saying. You really will cut and paste anything that appears to cast doubt on anything that a NAStronaut states. (thanks for coining that phrase... I am indeed a NAStronaut) You really should read what you post more carefully. Your ATS manual excerpt of section 4-3-9 assumes that a pilot requests a VFR departure. What your Internet Explorer did not tell you is that there is absolutely no requirement for a pilot to request a VFR departure. They can just do it! Of all the VFR departures I have conducted in the United States, not once have I asked to do it and not once has a controller had to 'authorise' it. Why don't you go and ask one of your American colleagues how its done in the United States ARFOR, I hear them on the radio here every day. I'm sure they will explain it to you, they seem quite friendly. |
"NAStronaut". I'll wear the "T" shirt if someone prints them up.
I can see the reverse side..." I flew class E and survived". |
mjbow
I wish there was a smilie that showed just how much of an idiot you are From your other posts you clearly did not understand how we could do this from a place like Ballina 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 have Approach training, Enroute training (Radar & Procedural) & Tower training. The full set. dont try and convince pilots to do something in Australia which isnt within the Australian rules. Remarkable statement to make. We can and do change our rules all the time |
rotorblades
You are absolutely right. I should not have assumed your age was accurate on your profile. It was a mistake to make such an assumption and I retract the statement and apologise for any offense caused. I was wrong to do it as it detracts from the importance of the issue at hand. Regretfully. MJBOW2 |
These nastronauts are just plain nasty ...
I don't know if I really want to play any more http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...mehurtIcon.jpg |
mjbow
Apology accepted, my age is correct though - Ive been in ATC for 11 years!. And though I dont claim to know everything, never will, I have a fair bit of experience behind me. Thanks for being man enough to admit your error. I also was a bit hot-headed in my response, for which I apologise. My posts from the FAR & USAIP, was not a contradiciton to what you have said, it was just me posting what I could find about the subject from US regulations - trying to find the answers for myself rather than relying on second.third hand information - from whoever it is. I could not/can not find anything about if an IFR departs without being able to gain a clearance its by definition VFR. My main issue with class E is, why E?. Why not D? Having seen E at Willy today it was a right buggers muddle, IFR (an RPT) turning for finals without a clearance, a VFR going through right in front of an IFR (the VFR was doing the right thing and listening out, so I managed to pass TI and they sorted themselves out) but a lot of VFRs dont, and not all of them have transponders (some of them do but they dont work or have incorrcet mode C). At least if they were identified and verified we'd know. In what we are talking about on this thread is Willy. Why not have D down to sfc, with 'recommended' VFR transit lanes set up to transit through the overhead (when RAAF active then its the coastal/inland route), rather than have a lot go coastal straight thru' 12 climb out/30 short finals. With D we will know about all traffic, can plan accordingly. Departures will get a clearance on the ground, with clearance expiry times if required. VFR will still have to miss the IFRs but a full & comprehensive traffic service can be provided to both. There is always more than one solution. And why we are at it, why dont we have proper segregated departure & arrival routes, so we can give the clearance without having to double guess where they *might* pass. It will be much easier to give clearance. It is not always a good idea just to copy what someone else does verbatim. Assess whats best for the traffic situations in Australia/or the particular airport & adapt to best suit your needs. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I think what a lot of people worry, is that not enough forethought has been given to all the implications. Its just a case of that looks good and works for them so must work for us. |
mjbow2, I am interested in your dialogue with ATC with regard to your VFR departure and your IFR flightplan. Yes, you can launch any time you like under the VFR out of a CTAF, a couple of minor steps to follow VFR in a D Tower, even a FAA one...but the dialogue for your IFR flightplan...do you leave that to some form of clairvoyance?
It is OK to say you can do something under one set of rules...however,...when you have to comply with another set of rules, and then you just barge off under another set and then EXPECT service...bit rude...I am very sure you are not an ignorant busdriver...so...you must deal with ATC wrt your filed IFR...so if ATC says you cannot have a clearance into E...there must be a very good reason. |
mjbow2, wrt your quip about the internet...I can tell you right now, if the internet was available back in the eighties, a certain well traveled person would not have been able to do his Marco Polo impersonation with the lesser mortals of GA.
Information is power, as our intrepid traveler well knew. Everything posted on this page in rebutal of your gang's argument is either from direct experience or very learned study that can be attributed. |
mjbow now now, blood pressure ;)
What your Internet Explorer did not tell you is that there is absolutely no requirement for a pilot to request a VFR departure. They can just do it! If the IFR flight pilot departs VFR they either do so with or without ATS approval. If there is no ATS approval, there is NO guarantee that an IFR clearance will be available when needed i.e. climbing in to cloud in CTA Read the regs mjbow. These are the 'practical' points contributors here are making. |
It seems to me that if a departing IFR aircraft elects to proceed VFR because clearance is not available due to other IFR traffic, then a certain train of circumstances come into play.
The departing pilot must make an assessment that VMC exists. He must be aware of the cloud base and the amount of cloud that will ensure he can maintain VMC. Having, in another life, seen countless incorrect VMC assessments by pilots, I cannot see an improvement in pilots abilities to do this, especially if there is some pressure to go. If conditions are marginal VMC, then the departing aircraft may have to divert around cloud and may not be on course within five miles. This introduces possible LSALT problems, traffic assessment problems, and subsequent clearance problems. (Not on designated route for lateral separation, perhaps) The ability to see and avoid becomes problematic, and if the vis. is not so good, but still VMC, then people start to get a bit edgy. Particularly the other IFR pilot who would be wishing the other chap had stayed on the ground. Straight away, up goes the frequency congestion, and the workload. This probably happens now in G, but at least the controller is not part of the separation link, and pilots may consider TCAS enough for their segregation. I'd be happy to stand corrected if things have changed in more recent times. |
Cute. Didn't the NAS changes catagorise the airspace? No ......... the ICAO classifications were introduced in the late 90's. |
ICAO have actually been planning to consolidate the numbers/classes of airspace. into new & wonderful letters. I think its down to three U, K & R. or something like that. didnt read too much as it was dated 2004! so they probably didnt get any further.
|
ARFOR,
Have you actually ever read an FAA Part 121 or Part 129 Operations Specification, I really doubt it, much less had any experience operating under one. Do you actually understand what a Part 121 or Part 129 Operations Specification covers, and the legal validity/application of an Ops. Spec. As we already know, you are a really accomplished "cut and paster", but do you actually read and understand what you have cut and pasted --- including related documents to give the whole picture.. What you have so thoughtfully done in this last massive cut and paste is laid out ( in part) the rules for departing VFR and getting an IFR clearance on climb --- for aircraft subject to Operations Control. There can be many reasons for a clearance release time and a void time, seldom has it to do (in my experience) with the Center not being able to provide separation. With reference to "the other thread", and here, selective posting (I musts admit, posting all the relevant documents is an impossibility) intended to support your argument contains some most interesting selections, and what amuses me is how often it only supports your case ---- if you a committed believer. Several new identities have popped up (and I have no idea who they are) who don't quite read things your way, do they?? Given the posts of your cheer squad, they haven't read and understood them either. Tootle pip!! |
"NAStronaut". I'll wear the "T" shirt if someone prints them up. I can see the reverse side..." I flew class E and survived".
I'll have two, where do I order?? Tootle pip!! |
There's another complication to this ...
Two Italian Controllers have just been jailed for permitting an IFR aircraft to change to VFR, with a resulting CFIT. This was even after the Controller asked the PIC to confirm he could provide his own obstacle clearance. I daresay such requests/advice may be met with a less than enthusiastic response from ATC in the future. I know, another country, another rule book ... but it does seem topical to link Australia with International practices. |
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, then there is a conflicting IFR aircraft. It's a different world (the US world of aviation). A different set of circumstances. Thinking that you can just transplant it into the oz environment is, well, naive. |
ferris
True, had not looked that far in to that aspect. :ok: LeadSled for aircraft subject to Operations Control. There can be many reasons for a clearance release time and a void time, seldom has it to do (in my experience) with the Center not being able to provide separation. With reference to "the other thread", and here, selective posting (I musts admit, posting all the relevant documents is an impossibility) intended to support your argument contains some most interesting selections, and what amuses me is how often it only supports your case ---- if you a committed believer. Several new identities have popped up (and I have no idea who they are) who don't quite read things your way, do they?? |
Ledsled,
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. |
but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground Do you really understand the differences between oz and the US, Leasled? It certainly appears that you hope a lot of the stuff you post will just "slide by". |
Keep it coming, Peuce.:ok: Input! Internet rules!
It must hurt your pride, Leadsled. Your reputation for being an encyclopaedic mind for details is getting roundly kicked into touch at every play. Maybe, you need to reacquaint yourself with your archive.....don't forget to update:} |
We seem to be converging on NAS from this thread, which i believe was about WLM originally.
It can be solved so easily - segregated inbound/outbound routes. RWY12 Inbounds from the North MSO - TRINA/NAMBA - WLM outbounds to the north WLM - NELSN -PLO/BANDA inbounds/outbounds from/to South Via an appropriate point SW for ins, SE for outs. RWY30 Inbounds from North MSO - NELSN - WLM outbounds to North WLM - TRINA - PLO/BANDA ins/outs from South opposite to rwy12 Clearances can then be issued to aircraft on the ground much easier, with just overflights to worry about - which can be sorted out much easier due to them normally in the cruise than nose to nose inbounds/outbounds. And nothing prevents track shortening subject to the traffic. Simples |
Ledsled,
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. |
Ledsled,
Re your snide comment: This reminds me of what was going on, in and out of Ballina, during the "Class G" trial --- the original trials of E. How many of you still remember ----- overflying Ballina, letting down in the firing range at Evans Head, and coming back down the coast at low level in G ---- all to avoid the dreaded E. A major domestic operator, which only serviced one location in the demonstration area, had elected to divert around the demonstration airspace in order to enter the mandatory broadcast zone associated with that location from controlled airspace. |
Leadsled
Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge. How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies. |
Bushy,
I understand how it can appear that we're trying to shaft VFRs .. at the expense of IFRs ... because that's all we've been talking about. We have had to push some pretty serious points and the reasonoing we use can appear pretty extreme ... However,my point of view is that the first priority has to be the protection of IFR RPTs with dozens of paying souls on board. Passengers can't fly themselves, so they put their trust in dumb ole pilots. The least the piloting community can do is try and ensure that fare paying passengers have a pretty good chance of safely getting to their destination. To do that, we have to be sure we have a robust safety regime, that will stand public scrutiny. To date, many of us don't believe that our Government has provided us with that. Once that is squared away, one way or the other, I am also certain that "sensible arrangements" for VFR participation will be the next priority. Hopefully, that might be achieved at the same time and your suggestions on how that might be achieved would be welcomed in this Forum. And to answer your first question last ... none of us have all the answers .. and most of us are indeed, fallible ...that's probably why we are here ... to gain more knowledge. |
Which would be what class of operation? Dear me, you really know sod all, ( except how to cut and paste) don't you?? My post already tells you, in black and white, what class of operation!! Bloggs, What I said about Ballina, and what the ATSB said, are entirely consistent, trust you to not be able to understand airspace divisions. Said operator preferred flying in the deactivated and therefor G airspace of the range, and in G under the E, rather than "penetrate" the dreaded E. I know from personal experience, I passed one, opposite direction, flying down the beach at about 2000'. Obviously much safer than them being in E. Bushy, You'r a stirrer!! Carry on. Tootle pip!!. |
LeadSled :D
I know a shed load more [real life design and application] about ATM than you think you know :ok: The original link was provided by mjbow, which as per standard operating proved to be less than half the story. Which raises another interesting point. You and Mr Smith bang on about how simple the US system is. I would observe that not only is the mapping [for VFR] a mismash of complexity [granted most is unavoidable due infrustructure proximity, and airspace complexity] and opportunity for error, which cuts to the very heart of the 'mitigations' put in place i.e. wall to wall ATC to catch aircraft [VFR outside the system], and protect IFR without bringing the whole system to a stand still [lets not even consider talking about the size and real cost of the IFR flow management establishment]. This is principally why the US utilise Class E with PRIM and SSR surveillance. Add to that the number of legislative parts dotted here and there. It would take quite some convincing for anyone operating ATM systems to believe the US suite were a simpler system. And, before you go off on another unrelated sermon of how good you were 'in the day', I am commenting only on the 'airspace and related' systems and rules. Not aircraft maintenance and the like. |
the number of times you have taken an RPT jet out of a CTAF into low-level E would be? I missed the above pearler before: The answer is many in the US, over a 40 year period ----- and not all with the one airline, as you are probably imagining is the case. Remember, many C and D towers in the US are not H24. In AU, without the E part, just the CTAF into G, a few times on diversions, mostly in WA. Other small jet/turboprop (not RPT) in US, add quite a few more. Elsewhere from a supposed D tower ( or ? when nobody is in the tower) to overlaying control of some kind, without a clearance, because no clearance was available on the ground, many times. Tell me, Bloggs, how many time have you taken a Heavy ( as in the callsign, not AU Hi-Cap) into a strip with nothing but kero edgelights?? Which is as about as relevant a question as yours above is to the main thrust of this thread. Being a pilot operating in the current system is not a qualification in the system design including any future system. Tootle pip!! |
Leadsled THESE ARE YOUR VERY OWN WORDS (lifted from the NAS thread)
As I have said, many times, aviation safety is not a democracy. As we have seen time and again (all to often after a fatal accident) the "conventional wisdom" was wrong, but people had to die for the majority to be proven wrong. Sadly, in all to many examples, the minority had pointed out why the conventional wisdom was wrong, only for the inevitable to prove the minority correct. There are none so blind.... Your very own words! |
Given the passion with which you guys/gals have been arguing your points of view, I am amazed that there have not been 2514 mid-air collisions in the last 3 years, because you all have rock-solid opinions regardless. Must be that the current system works reasonably OK ? Or rather, that you flight crews out there are pretty competent ?
Am I being too simplistic in saying that what is required is a (hopefully) fool-proof system of departures/approaches for non-towered aerodromes ? Surely this is a basic requirement ? Can't be too hard !!!! Seriously, you have descended into a pointless slanging match: rather than try to work towards a sensible solution, you are just trading insults. You are highly trained professionals - please remember that, and do as you know you should. BP - not a professional pilot, but try to be professional nevertheless... |
This might be moving slightly away from the topic of the thread, however...
I've recently started working in a multi nationality environment, and spent the last two months trying to understand both the US and UK systems, having worked solely in OZ. What I've found is that the US is vastly different in the very principle of how they operate, compared to how we do. My observation is that oz is high regulated (for good reason), which is not to say that the US isn't, but in a different way. I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it) some of which has come about from the US way of doing things (yes, this is a bit of a generalisation, please take it in context), ie. tower can release aircraft into approach airspace by which ever means they choose, no coordination required. To move to an airspace design system similar to the US, would also require a significant cultural shift on behalf of the oz avaition community in order to be successful and this issue does not seem to have been addressed in any of the changes. A comment was made previously about VFR. Whether we agree or disagree, the mandate of the ATSB is to priortise fare paying passengers and matters of public interest, which in turn means that change is likely to come about for the IFR community and the manner they fly before it does the VFR community as a result of the investigations carried out. Incidents not investigated are recorded in the incident reporting system, which is managed by CASA - and so relies largely on trend spotting and data analysis to identify areas for change. |
Chatz
Great post. By the way, you state I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it) I’d love to get your views on this. |
Ferris,
'E' link airspace was tried before, and look at the results (LT, Tobago)! As also said elsewhere, I am amazed at the attitude that the number ( considerably more than 2) of RAs in C, in the same calender period as NAS 2b operated, are not regarded as significant, but 2 RAs in E prove a failed system. As somebody famous said:" Please explain". Re. you comments on US operations, suggest you read the rules, and also have a look at a lot of FAA tower hours. Backpressure, The only opinion I have on the subject is that ICAO based risk management allocation of finite CNS/ATM resources is the proper way to design airspace classifications. Tootle pip!! |
Leadlsed,
If there's an RA in C ... someone has made a mistake If there's an RA in E ... it's not necessarily because someone made a mistake. |
I'd go even further, peuce.
1. An RA in C can happen due to high rates of change- even if there are correctly assigned separation standards. They still get actioned and reported, even though there was no danger of an airprox. If you were honest, Leadsled, you would concede there are more 'false' RAs than legit arse-savers. 2. Due to the structured nature of controlled airspace, you will get many more aircraft running over the top of each other. Statistically obvious why you will get more RAs in C than lower classes of airspace. 3. There are many, many more aircraft with TCAS operating in C than the lower classes. Once again, statistically obvious. If you haven't got the equipment, you can't have RAs. But the real biggie is, indeed, that for an RA (an actual arse-saver) to occur in C, someone stuffed up. In E- nothing need go wrong except a failure of un-alerted see and avoid. How many warnings about THAT do you need? To design the system to rely on it? Talk about 'dirt road airspace'! Is the explanation clear? Your misuse of a stat like this is just pure obfuscation, Leadsled. Learning at the foot of the master? Although, regular readers will be well and truly awake up to the tactics in use in trying to polish this turd. |
If there's an RA in C ... someone has made a mistake Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services 4-10-250 Nuisance Advisories Nuisance Advisories can occur even though standard separation exists. Do not immediately assume that separation has been lost, or that you are at fault, when a pilot reports manoeuvring in response to an RA. 4-10-260 Controller accountability Note: A Controller is not subject to disciplinary action in the event of an accident or incident arising from an aircraft deviating from an ATC clearance or instruction as a result of an RA, provided that the occurrence was not the result of an incorrect clearance or instruction from the Controller. I remember reading somewhere [can't put my finger on it just now] that 1,500ft was being suggested [for CTA/R] where high closure rates might result in ACAS getting excited and deciding independently to give everyone involved a heart stop/start. Edit: Sorry ferris, had not seen yours before I hit submit :ok: |
Bushy,
I am disappointed in the extreme. Your spray, as follows, is irrational, emotive and out of character in my opinion: Leadsled Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge. How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies. I'll put it down to those dreaded green cans! Made the mistake myself on more than one occasion up that way. |
Bushy,
Why blame ATC? we are only applying the rules we are required to operate under. There are serious consequences if we deviate from them. I may be quoting Chatz out of context here and apologies if I am. I think when he talks of I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it) e.g. Direct tracking IS NOT allowed in Oz unless for separation. i.e. even if we can see that there is no reason not to shorten an aircraft up we would have to justify a separation problem, if asked, to do this. This may be what Chatz is alluding to. That the greater freedoms come from allowing the controllers to assess better ways of moving the traffic, but in some cases leaves the controller with no 'cover' if something goes pear shaped. |
Chatz:
ie. tower can release aircraft into approach airspace by which ever means they choose, no coordination required. Many times aircraft are launched based on previous letters of agreement between overlapping airspace. Such as D into C or B. Other than standard pre agreed launches....tower coordinates with overlapping ATC. I've thought about replying to this thread since it started. But its pretty much sorted itself out. I would point out: You can launch (in the USA) VFR into E legally.....but that doesn't make it always a good idea. I've done it (in a jet) often in some places....and I'd never even consider it in others. Some places are time of day, weather, traffic, dependent. There was a Beechjet 400 that crashed in Rome Georgia USA on 12/11/91 that is the poster child for CFIT. 9 dead after departing in marginal VFR expecting an IFR clearance. NTSB report: DCA92MA011 DCA92MA011 Oh well....I get paid to be safe and exercise judgement. |
Bushy
Im with you mate. And as far as CFIT after deperting VFR expecting a clearance, It will happen in AUS in the next 12 months ( after June 3 ) I hope im wrong! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:27. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.