Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania.
 

An interesting letter has been posted on Dick Smith’s website – see here.or Important Information on Launceston Air Incident

Special interesting comment by John King of the King Flight schools, viz

“This airspace design may be an accident of history, but it is one that ought to be changed.”

Does anyone know why the ATSB did not make any safety recommendations at all? Seems strange.

Folks,

This will be interesting ----- in the middle of an election campaign. Which major party will pick this up first ---- Tasmania tourism survives in air links.

Particularly interesting, because the Greens, and Tasmanian Senator Bob Brown, have long supported Dick Smith wanting to upgrade control services, especially when radar (and now multi-lateration in Tasmania) is already available.

Which major party will be the first to come come out with a policy statement supporting Dick, when it will bring with it some absolutely vital Greens preferences.

Who knows, maybe we will get a party policy for aviation with some real detail, and not just a string of wet platitudes.

Tootle pip!!

Interesting ....

In principle, Dick has a point. Where there is surveillance, and where RPTs operate ...why not provide an ATC service ... of some sort?

Although, that would presumably require an equipment, training and resource committment ... which does come at a cost.

However, I will never support bringing in E if it's outside surveillance coverage and is attached to VFR "Broadcast" requirements.

By the way ... can someone legally force the Government to comply with a present or past Ministerial Direction?

Taking it further, can someone legally force the Government to comply with an election promise ??

So then.....Does Dick believe that Launy should become Class C, and E after hours? Is that what he really wants? And is ASA going to be able to provide it?

J:ok:

What a load of emotive, sensationalist claptrap. Put in as much E as you want, Dick. And don't forget to remind everybody how much extra it will cost. Perhaps even get a quote from Greg Russell.

I cannot believe (well, I can, actually) the lengths that he will go to to get E airspace in. If there is surveillance there, it should be D or C! You want to protect RPT? Control VFRs as well/get them in the system (just like they are over the top of LAX) so Tobago/Launy doesn't happen again.

Ledsled, get real. Do you really believe that the green tomatoes will give their preferences to the Libs if the Budgie Smuggler puts in swathes of E?

An interesting letter, but I have noted that it didn't cover the near miss between the 737 and the Tobago. A strange omission when we are discussing airline passenger safety. Nor does it mention the increased safety risk in E outside of radar to airline passengers. No mention of Broome or Karratha airspace issues. Seems like the full story is not being told Mr Smith.

It's called Brick Wall Syndrome.


Find a nice brick wall, bang head against it , when head hurts stop take a long breath and then continue bashing head against brick wall.


That folks is the best way to achieve airspace reform in this country.

What a load of hot air!

The simplest solution to this issue is overlooked. Two HVY RPT aircraft arrive over Launy A/H....why would this be the case?...cost to operators?

How would this issue be resolved? Maybe, extra staff to man the TWR to 1300 every day that services are scheduled? Extra O/T for the hard working staff of Launy TWR?...I dunno...just spit balling here. C over D till 1300 daily...but then...The Rat's orange t:mad:d and the Harlot would have to pay for the service.....User Pays????

Why bash away at a lost cause BS US U/S airspace..just go away, Dick..there are simpler and easier ways of fixing this problem without adding to it.

He can have E after D closes if he wants....so long as ASA can deliver and charge for it! :}

And we swan along and ignore the real threat that goes to unannounced VFRs in E having heavy metal coitus with RPT.

From my perspective it's just more of the same. Badger the pollies who don't have a clue.

So Dick,

Have you found out why the ATSB didn't make a safety recommendation or do you think it just forgot to do so?

Odd they were holding at 3100ft on the opposite side of the airfield to the approach anyway. If we need Class E to protect against this sort of incident, then we absolutely need Class D/C to protect jets against VFR.

Bloggs,
At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.

And 10 out or 10 for not having a clue about the risk management hierarchy of ICAO (not just US) airspace classifications.

Indeed, you would have been distressed to hear John McCormick's comments at the last CASA SCC meeting, in particular his comments about the nonsense claims by particular Australian pilot groups, that E airspace "requires" radar, and stating the formal ICAO position that radar is for efficiency -- increased movement rates, not "safety".

The acoustics were not too good, but he did use a less than complimentary expression, I think it was "troglodytes". He made the point that London Garwick is a Class D zone, but handles a level of traffic unknown at any Australian airport, and all on a single runway.

The head of OAR followed up, pointing out that, theoretically, radar is not required in any ICAO class of airspace ---- notwithstanding the fact that Class C and B airspace are almost universally "radar controlled".

Tootle pip!!

Folks,

See below from the Dick Smith Flyer, and watch tomorrow's newspapers in Tasmania.

Dick Smith Flyer

Tootle pip!!

Then riddle me this Lead: why does Dick, who's side you are on, constantly, interminably and illogically refer to the Minister's 'Direction Letter' that if it's Class C it must have radar? Must have radar!

Lead, you can't have it both ways.

I can remember when Launy tower was H24. Extend the hours to cover the RPT flights and away goes the problem. Provision of ATC shouldn't be on a user pays system, it should be a government responsibility.

One can imagine the headlines tomorrow in Tasmania, sensational bulldust. From all accounts Smith is not all that popular in Tasmania and it could bite him on the bum.

Undecided ?
 

Perhaps 'Dick' has been using his superb invention the 'Decision Maker' to make the right choice about which airsapce classification is best ??

Dog One...in one!:ok:

Henry Bosch said the same thing.

Howabout,

I don't want "it", whatever "it" is, both ways.

I merely stated the theoretical ICAO position, and the actual position.

If you want my personal position, it is that the ICAO position on provision of radar is long outdated, given the risk management basis of ICAO airspace classification. It is difficult to see a level of traffic that genuinely requires Class C to achieve the necessary separation assurance, without, in practical terms, needing radar.

Hence the preponderance of radar in Class C.

Tootle pip!!

Ledsled,

Class D at Gatwick? Good. Let's do it here. Up to C.

Radar improves efficiency? Agree. Tell your mate Dick, who can tell his mate John Anderson to pull Dick's demand that John issue a mandate to install radar for C. I think I got that right. :confused:

You've had a couple of months to research it: what is meant, exactly, by "Continuous Two Way" comms by VFR in E? Waiting, waiting, waiting...

Risk Management? "Vanishingly small" risk of a Tobago Airprox with a RPT jet in E soon after non-radar Free-in-E is introduced. Keep at it, son. You'll go places. :ok:

Can't wait for the Tassie announcement tomorrow. What's the bet Dick will be making it from a tree with Bob holding the brolly? :}

Bloggs,

If "Regional" examples are anything to go by, it means non-stop yacking, so that some aircraft who might like to comply with CARs 166 can't get a word in edgeways.

This is probably allied to the "Marconi" theory of lift ---- when the lips stop flapping, the aeroplane quits flying.

As to your fundamental ignorance of simple and straightforward statistical terms, we all know you don't have a clue, but I, for one, am somewhat mystified as to why you want to keep underlining said ignorance.

Tootle pip!!

Plumbum?

Just man the TWR and with the installed equipment, there is no problem. C over D...its very simple with radar and wamlat.

Anyway...you guys missed the boat...even if the wranga wanted to change anything..she is now hamstrung by the caretaker provisions of the election period....you guys are spouting nothing but hot air and windbaggery of the poorest standard.

Oz,
He did???
Care to provide a reference.
Tootle pip!!

Ledsled,

Just keep ducking, just keep ducking... Stay on the ball, sled me old. No clue about "Continuous Two Way"? I hope you don't operate VFR in E... Methinks you're not the expert you make yourself out to be if you can't answer such a fundamental question.

Oh, I understand Vanishingly small means "jeez, it just happened when it wasn't supposed to, for the next thousand years!" :ok:

Is it a full moon by any chance?

www.dicksmithlyer.com.au

Stationair8,
With a website like that it is! :ok:

Reminds me of that other exquisite publication of a few years back during one of the previous NAS debacles: Aiming Higher alias "The Flaming Liar".

II certainly do, and I get so uptight about the "safety" of E, that it always put my pulse rate up from 58 to at least 58.5.

It's a very great pity that you and your cohorts apparently don't have any experience outside you local " little Australia" comfort zone, part of the point John McCormick was making last Wednesday at the SCC --- then you might find how myopic your local focus is, and how much better a number of countries do it, compared to Australia.

Actually, your "fun" definition of Vanishingly Small is quite incorrect, once again underlining your fundamental ignorance of even quite basic statistical method.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The only definition I know of ( my words) re: Continuous Two Way Communications means the ability of two stations to communicate, when required, without a technical break. Which means no "out of range", however you want to put it. It includes HF voice, despite all its shortcomings.

That comes from UK CAA CAPs, when I find a copy, maybe I will get around to scanning it and posting.

Only in Australia would anybody get so wound up about it, rather than accepting the obvious everyday meaning.

Ledsled,

Yes Yes Yes, come on, cut the warries (JMac has already spun me the VFR-in-E-over-LAX furphy, where VFR have to be on freq, talking, with a transponder - good idea that) and tell us what is meant by "Continuous Two Way", you know, the procedure you use every time you fly in E. :=

Oooh, OK, I'll try that tomorrow with MEL Centre, since the same rule applies to IFR, and see how far I can get.

OK, I'll bite. What is "Vanishingly small " in statistical terms? I'll use it in a letter to the Tassie editor tomorrow.

Bloggs,

Get out and smell the roses.

The transponder requirement over KLAX has nothing to do with E airspace, and everything to do with the transponder veil that surround all Class B airspace in the US.

Sure, there is a frequency to be on, but read the KLAX local chart for VFR lanes ( through the B) --- then tell us all where the "mandatory" talking is !!

Have a look at where the E starts, height-wise, over KLAX.

KLAX and KSFO are the two areas I know really well, both in large and small aircraft, ( and so does John McCormick) you are looking at it from your myopic "little Australia" perspective --- but what else would we expect.

Tootle pip!!

How to avoid the Launy hold and peek!
 

The missed approach from the 32L ILS is :- Track 313, climb to A031 ............

.... and where did the Virgin 73 hold? .... hmmmm ..... why ..... one might hypothesise that the FMS flew the MA then said, "well what now" ... crew response .... Enter Hold

... none of this would have happened if the MA was - track 313 to A041, passing A031 turn left, track to the LT VOR, then to NIE

by doing so, provide a vertical and lateral race track to and from the IAF for the ILS

BUT HEY, NOBODY FROM ATSB, CASA OR ASA ASKED THOSE WHO KNOW THE AIRSPACE FOR ANY INPUT.

Perhaps a plate amendment might be a far more effective fix rather than a one in one out Class E million dollar ****-up :ok:

Ledsled,
I shall consult my brain's trust on the RT but the transponder requirement (1201) is for the lane, not because the aircraft is in B specifically. What this shows that "standard ICAO" airspace is an oxymoron. Countries quite rightly chuck in extra requirements or change the basic ICAO guidelines as they see fit (as Peter Cromarty well knows from his UK time). The fundamentalists who say E is this, E is that and it can't be anything else should get their heads out of the sand as the yanks have done.

Anyway, back to Launy. What we have there, at last (one wonders if it was introduced only because of the publicity of the VFR airprox - certainly, the portable radar was) is surveillance in the form of MLat. What a golden opportunity to get VFR in the system and improve safety for all. But no, it's not about that, is it Ledsled and Dick? It's about the Free in GE brigade being able to go wherever and whenever they please and to hell with anybody in their way. VFR are not "allowed" to be actively involved, are they?

To take up a point you raised earlier:
G is the same as E WRT radio (more stringent, actually) and transponder use above 10k. But more importantly, IFR calls in G are designed specifically for VFR to build a traffic picture. In E, our calls are not. Until we call the tower, we make NO position calls that would benefit VFR. She's eyeballs out and hope for the best. Good system...not.

Jaba,
I too was a bit surprised when I read the Virgin crew firstly held at the altitude they did and secondly held where they did. I would have been tootling along at 7000ft or so down to the south east ready to do my next ILS after JQ got out of the way or at least to the overhead then hold on final. So let's introduce blanket Class E (and make no mistake, this will end up everywhere, surv or not, if Dick gets his way) to fix this problem. Hugely hypocritical of Dick to not therefore demand an immediate return to C over D to prevent a recurrence of the Tobago Airprox.

If declining pilot standards caused this issue, then surely the same declining pilot standards will increase the probability of a "silent" VFR not assimilating IFR traffic in E and having a midair?

You can't have it both ways, NAStronauts. Your current argument is irrational. As for vanishingly small, that fairly describes the level of logic of the argument.

Oh, and by the way, where's the CBA on E over D verses C over D?

Big news in the Hobart Mercury and Launceston Examiner today.

Expert slams Tassie airports Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania

Dick Smith says Tasmanian flights need better radar approach rules Airport radar `needs upgrade' - Local News - News - Politics - The Examiner Newspaper


At 10.16pm on 1 May 2008,

Launy tower used to be open 24 hours a day until the early 1990's when the experts decided it should close at 10pm .

A question for Mr Smith, who actually signed of to reduce the tower hours in the early 1990's and for what reason?

Wasn't the grand plan to actually close the tower permantly?

This is how I look at it.

From my experience in ATS, IFR pilots have been successfully self-separating themselves during instrument approaches in G(F) since Moses was a child. In the majority of cases they use vertical arrangements to assure separation.

So, it's not an inherently un-safe procedure.

Now we have 2 fast IFRs, who probably haven't had as much experience in self-separating ... stuff it up. There was no separation assured.

The questions for me now are:

1. Should IFR Jet RPT aircraft be self-separating?
2. If yes, should re-training of the offending pilots be sufficient? Or, should we put in place a 'system' to protect them, if they similarly stuff up again?
3. If they shouldn't self-separate, how do we arrange for the provision of appropriate ATS intervention at that location?

Is it ATSB's responsibility to ask those questions?
If it is ...then obviously they have decided that self-separation is OK

Sue CASA for manslaughter?
 

Can someone actually point to another country that actually allows self separation for 2 airliners where radar coverage exists? Which country actually allows this? Answer this Class E deniers!

It is stunning that the ATSB has not recommended the proper use of radar and now multilateration. If I were a family member of the Mount Hotham or Benalla victims I would have sued CASA for failure to implement the life saving use of radar which would have clearly prevented both those accident.

It has been on the government agenda for over 10 years and been resisted by incompetent bureaucrats for far too long.

Do we really need to kill 222 people in mid air collision in radar covered airspace to prove the stupidity of the ATSB, CASA and Air Services Australia?


What is so painfully obvious that all you class E deniers fail to see is that the closest we have come to a mid air collision with an airliner and/or a CFIT in recent times have involved IFR, not VFR aircraft in radar covered non controlled airspace.

Orange -IFR/IFR (airliner)
Canberra - IFR/terrain (airliner)
Benalla -IFR/ terrain
Mount Hotham - IFR/terrain
Launceston - IFR/IFR (airliner)

All of these incidents and accidents have happened in uncontrolled radar covered airspace that Australia has refused to upgrade to controlled airspace. Astonishing stupidity.

When CASA kills, yes kills hundreds of people in radar covered class G airspace because you lot refused to employ common sense I just hope I am not your pilot.

I have instructed my family to sue CASA and Airservices should I be involved in a midair collision or CFIT accident in radar covered Class G airspace for failure to implement NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.

You are so concerned about VFR aircraft in clear weather that you fail to see the REAL threat... IFR/IFR-and terrain in bad weather. Remarkable stupidity.

Upgrade to NAS now, before its too late.

MJBOW2
Airline Pilot

So has a flat rate of tax ... but I can't see that coming in anytime soon.

So I assume your position is that, no matter what the cost benefit position is ... if there is radar coverage ... it must be controlled airspace and it must be manned. Is that a reasonable and realistic position to hold?

Peuce

I would welcome with open arms a scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis to determine airspace design.

Common sense tells us that if a scientifically validated Cost Benefit Analysis were done in this country we would NEVER have Class C over D or C over E. If our airspace design wasn't so bloody dangerous at regional airports it would be world class joke!

And yes, there is an extraordinarily cost effective class of controlled airspace available for all radar covered areas. Arguably a pittance more to run than class G. Its called Class E.

Upgrade to NAS now!

MJBow2,
Class act, mate. You say that but you fly in it.

Wrong.

As for Benalla and Mt Hotham, if you're prepared to cough up a million or so for another console just to "protect" those operations from CFIT, then go for it.

Canberra? You are aware that the MSAWS of TAAATS is available in any class of airspace (being part of the FIS), are you not? The service is not dependent on E.

C over D "bloody dangerous". Please explain.

For the NAStronauts generally, hundreds of thousands of IFR flights have successfully self-separated in Australia's G+ over decades, and saved millions and millions of dollars. All RPT would have had the benefit of a Flight Service station to keep tabs on what was going on. But that was all chucked out when Dick arrived with his fabled non-radar E that did away with FSSs; let's not mention it would have gridlocked the airspace system.

Now, we have a "breakdown of separation", with you all screaming from the rooftops. But when the lighty almost cleaned up the 737 at the very same place we are talking about here (after only a couple of months of E airspace), you screamed that "they missed, didn't they?!!!!, what is the problem??!!. There are no separation standards in E!!". There are none in G, actually, either, for that matter). This incident was a result of a failure of the system. The lighty incident was the result of a fundamentally flawed system that provided NO protection from the outset. It is a bit rich implying we had only one VFR/IFR conflict ion but we've had 5 IFR incidents. The reason for only 1 VFR/IFR airprox is that the airspace type was SHUT DOWN soon after. You are statistical fraudsters, bending and twisting the arguments to suit your Free in GE paranoia. VCA's? Why don't we add a 10nm buffer to all CTA to reduce the risk to IFR RPT pax?

The other aspect of your scare-mongering is that MLat has only been in operation in Tas for a few months. Give the system a break, for goodness sake!

I am not opposed to radar/surv E, provided VFR advises the controller he's there for a transponder check (let's use the technology to protect everybody). I do not agree, however, that an A380 should have to dodge a VFR in E. You can't ride a horse on a freeway, so get/keep out of the way of a multi-hundred pax jet.

So, C/D during tower hours, surv-E outside (which means VFR advise ATC they are there - you know, "Continuous Two Way"). Oh, and a bit of re-training for certain IFR pilots on keeping out of each other's way!

I suppose we do have Dick to thank. If it was not for him introducing non-radar E in 2003, the lighty/737 airprox wouldn't have happened, the temporary radar wouldn't have been put in, and MLat wouldn't have been set up. I wonder what it's going to take to get the same in BME and KTA? I know - put in some non-surv E over the top and have an airprox. Oops, isn't that what OAR are going to do?

mjbow2,

I think the professionals, as opposed to 'aviation expert(s)' might disagree. I'd wager my house that the cost of providing E as opposed to G would be significant. However, if the move was made why not go C, which provides a higher level of protection for RPT? The professionals have repeatedly informed us that the delta between E and C is non-existent or, at worst, 'vanishingly small.'

I just do not understand your slavish adherence to an airspace classification that relies on chance when it comes to IFR/VFR separation; a metaphorical spin of the roulette wheel if you like. I am reminded of born-again Christians that have just attended a Billy Graham rally.

By the way, I think there was a typo in one of your previous entries:

I think that maybe you might have meant 'Downgrade to NAS now!'

mjbow2

You are a funny ol' thing ;)

USNAS or DickNAS? .. as we all know the two are light years apart in real terms. :=

In the case of Launy and Hobart, what do you recommend:-

1. DickNAS .... Class E over little D; or
2. USNAS .... Class C or B

As those are the two options in real life.

As has been demonstated in proper Aerostudies of late, the current

3. Australian/ICAO C over D is safe, efficient and not in need of change ;) ask some of the crews who operate through on a regular basis if they think C over D (done from the tower) is less than best.

As for sueing, who should folks sue if Airlines cannot stick to operating during published service hours, or their bean counters decline offers of out of hours service coverage?

Hmmm, thought not :D