Class C radar direction

[Shitsu_Tonka]

mjbow2

ok - but why?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Lodown
.
... yes alas that chestnut is still floating around ... reality is that it matters not whether it is C or E the complexity increases with reduced vertical split ... but you are right .. there are the usual protagonists arguing for privatisation ... you can imagine the cost to industry implications
.
.... Oh well, greater minds than us eh
.
MJ
.
I take it you will be whinging to Dick Smith when your costs escalate and/or you are swapping paint with VFR's … or will that be AsA’s fault also
.
Fokker
.
.. love it :-)

[Dick Smith]

Spodman, in relation to the official NAS document which has been approved by Cabinet, you state:

is now lining cat boxes around the country

This may be what you hope for, but it is official Government policy and it is a damn good document.

The implementation characteristics you are talking about I believe come from an Airservices Discussion paper V1.4. Do you understand that Airservices has a commercial vested interest in not supporting the Government approved NAS policy? Why else would Minister Truss have made the decision to move the legislative responsibility for airspace away from Airservices to CASA?

The reason is simple. There is a conflict of interest in having the people in charge of the legislation also being able to profit personally from the decisions they make. It would be the equivalent of having the executives of a toll road company, who get a bonus on the profits of the organisation, having the legislative responsibility of where toll roads should go – obviously a conflict of interest.

You state:

Why not make a clear statement about increased risk for E over C?

I have covered this consistently. You cannot just separate the Class E airspace away from the Class D airspace controller who has to spread his or her workload. What is the use of changing Class E to Class C to make it “safer” whilst decreasing the safety of the Class D below where the collision risk is far higher? That is why we have different airspace categories. It is to give the same level of safety (as far as possible) at each location.

Surely it is obvious to you that the risk of collision below 4,500 feet is greater than the risk in the link airspace above? Why then are you supporting Class D airspace where the risk is greater and Class C airspace where the risk is obviously less? This is a classic example of “upside down” airspace. It’s like designing an airline aircraft with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part connected to the fuselage.

Albizia, I did not change the scenario at Albury at all. On the initial example I did not give a distance. It was you who decided to pick a distance south of Albury for the flight to make it as convenient as possible. The distance I picked (20 miles) is a typical example of what happens when someone is flying in that airspace.

Creampuff, you state:

The government could sack those troublesome Airservices neddies in a trice for not implementing the direction

You will find, if you check, that all of the Board members have been replaced since the direction was given, so obviously you are correct.

Scurvy.D.Dog, unfortunately I just don’t have the staying power to answer every one of your points. Or why don’t you organise a bit of a casual meeting in Launy where we can debate the issues and people can decide for themselves which is the best outcome for Australian aviation?

I can answer a few small points. You state:

why is Part 71 still only draft Mr Smith??

I’ve answered this one on PPRuNe before. There is a mythical claim that I have somehow stopped Part 71 from being completed. Once again, a great compliment, but simply not correct. I have never been asked by a Minister, or anyone else who has the decision making ability, about Part 71.

I did note that Part 71 is written in a way to keep the status quo. That is, the hurdle rates for establishing Class D and Class C airspace are so high that the status quo will remain. It is a classic example of “over consultation” with the industry which has a profit advantage in making sure that there are no Class D towers at places like Ayers Rock and Avalon.

I love your comment:

Twr/App controller D services could be provided up to A100 or perhaps higher FL125 … that is where the TWR/APP Centre split should be .. not lower!!

Talk about resistance to change! I thought FL125 was where it was a number of years ago. Yes, this maximises the number of tower controllers and gives them a staggering amount of airspace. However my belief is that we follow what Airservices are doing in the United States, where the tower airspace is as small as possible (2,500 ft AGL and 4.3 miles) allowing the controller to concentrate where the collisions are likely to occur – in the circuit area, on the approach to the runway, or on the runway itself.

If you have one tower controller at a place like Albury or Coffs Harbour being responsible for the close-in traffic, as well as traffic to FL125 (including all overflying traffic), this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility. Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision.

… and how exactly is an enroute controller expected to zoom into a range suitable to monitor terrain clearance ….

Scurvy.D.Dog, there is no need to. The minimum safe altitude alarm (or equivalent) in the TAAATS system would be enabled, and is only disabled when the aircraft reports that it is visual or on the approach. This works in other countries so you would think it would work here and it may save a few lives – Benalla is an example.

You state:

you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes …

Yes, because commonsense said that by looking at a reference system we could get very good data on how safe the resultant airspace would be. The aeronautical study way (as used in the Class E above Class D Airservices safety case) can end up with manipulated data to support the status quo. This is what happened. If we can accept Boeing 747 previous safety history for certification, why not do the same with airspace?

Lodown, you state:

Roll on the efforts for regional tower privatisation.

I don’t necessarily like the idea of privatisation – that could end up like the airports – but I can’t see what is wrong with what Airservices is doing in the USA. That is, giving a competitive quote to the FAA to operate small towers at a very much lower price, without the huge overheads of a federal organisation. The same thing could happen here. I have been contacted by air traffic controllers who would like to operate their own towers on a competitive basis. All air traffic controllers insist on competition in just about everything else they purchase – why can’t pilots benefit from a little bit of competition when it comes to purchasing air traffic services?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Scurvy.D.Dog, there is no need to. The minimum safe altitude alarm (or equivalent) in the TAAATS system would be enabled, and is only disabled when the aircraft reports that it is visual or on the approach. This works in other countries so you would think it would work here and it may save a few lives – Benalla is an example.

Dont you think that is a big call Dick?

If an enabled MSAW was inhibited when the pilot called established on the approach how would that have saved the aircraft at Benalla?

Mjbow,

You obviously don't fly around aerodromes with busy CTAF's - if you did there is no way you would completely endorse the NAS and it's required and recommended radio broadcasts. The frequency congestion and overtransmissions are ridculous and dangerous.

[Chief galah]

Of the ex pilots I have worked with, not many have made good ATC’s.
Of those not so good, it's been obvious their thought processes have been along different paths to those of the better career controllers.
That appears to be the case in the proposals/scenarios put forward by pilots in this thread. Pilots supposing how controllers should act is just an example of how wrong their concept is of the ATC game.
Controllers dread the thought of being involved in the unthinkable incident. They know that no matter what airspace rules are in place, the various legal personnel will find a way to attribute some blame to ATC.
This is why low level E airspace is an anathema to controllers. Controlling IFR’s and having unnotified VFR’s in the same airspace, just does not make sense to them.
As Albizia pointed out, Tower can provide much more efficient control than Centre, because the separation standards available in Tower airspace are considerably less restrictive than in Centre airspace. I don’t think our thread instigator realizes this.
I also think that one man's VMC is the others IMC. It's all very well to say CAVOK, but in between that and IMC, there are a myriad of conditions that make "see and avoid" questionable.

CG

[peuce]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility. Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision.

This is why people get confused by your position and feel that it changes with the breeze.

You are the one who decided to integrate Flight Service tasks into the ATC system ... so that Controllers have to seperate some of their aircraft, give traffic to another segment and ignore others.

If this isn't an "incredible diffusion of responsibility" ... what is?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[apache]

My vision follows the NAS policy

wonderful... my vison follows PLAYBOY policy.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

On your comments on post NAS airspace you have some diagrams using the word ROADBLOCK.



Considering what Albizia and others have said here, there does not appear to be any evidence to support your assertions that there are even delays, let alone ROADBLOCKS. After all, Roadblocks according to the Oxford Dictionary means: a barrier put across a road by the police or army to stop and examine traffic.

Your use of the word ROADBLOCK is not only emotive, it doesn't even make sense.

Where is there any benefit for anyone in going through the rigmerole, yet again, of reclassifying the airspace and providing a lower level of service (Dirt Road'ish some might suggest) for no proven economic benefit, and a definite degradation of the level of safety and service that is provided?

Couldn't the limited resources that are available be better spent in other ways? For example, more radar coverage to provide E Airspace to a lower level where G currently exists? (Of course some interest groups would probably lobby against this because of the Transponder requirment).

What about a radar approach service for Avalon or even Maroochydore?

I assume this kind of decision would now be in the hands of CASA(OARS) with all their expertise in such matters?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

This just in... from Feb 2005

Deputy PM committed to air radar
By BRAD WORRALL

THE Federal Government has denied claims the installation of radar at Albury airport would not go ahead.
The election promise by Deputy Prime Minister Mr John Anderson would proceed as planned a spokesman from his office, Mr Bill McKinley, said.
“The decision to install radar at Albury is legally binding and will go ahead,” Mr McKinley said.
“Airservices Australia identified it as one of 10 regional airports where safety would be improved by radar.
“Nothing has changed since that time.
“Unless an independent analysis can show the airport is safer than the previous advice that recommended the radar then nothing will change in the future.”
Labor Senator Mark Bishop claimed that a cheaper option of air traffic control would and should be adopted.
The Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast technology allows planes to continuously broadcast their position, altitude and other data.
It also relies on all aircraft having transponders to report their position via the GPS system.
“We use the ADSB system in the centre of Australia where there is a radar black hole,” a Government spokesman said.
“The technology has enormous prospects in the future but at the moment is limited to aircraft travelling above 30,000 feet.
“It will be rolled out in time but at the moment it will not help improve air safety in the 10 regional centres identified by Airservices last year.”
It is understood that Airservices Australia is reluctant to spend the|$100 to $140 million required to implement the radar in the regional centres.

This new doubt, at the time, over the commitment to the policy probably stemmed from JA's Media Release during the heady days of the 2004 Election campaign:

LABORS PLAN TO REDUCE SAFETY AT TEN REGIONAL AIRPORTS
The Labor Party's aviation policy shows again why it cannot be trusted to govern Australia.

The policy makes it clear that Labor would reduce aviation safety at ten major regional airports, compared to the level of safety under a re-elected Coalition Government.

The Coalition Government has directed Airservices Australia to install new radar facilities at Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Maroochydore, Rockhampton and Tamworth.

The radar facilities will include primary and secondary surveillance radar, terminal control area workstations in the main Airservices Australia air traffic control centres, tower displays and VHF radio and communications links.

The new radar equipment will increase safety for the 3.8 million passengers a year who travel through these airports.

Labor would rescind the direction. It would not require Airservices Australia to install the radar equipment at these airports, because it says it would be too expensive. It is a shocking and cynical decision; it shows that Labor cannot be trusted with critical issues like aviation safety. - (My underlining)

Hmmm, so what does this say about John Anderson and his governments 'commitment', and degree of 'cynicism' then?

Australian Financial Review September 2, Page 3

Air traffic regulator and operator Airservices Australia yesterday said a last-minute directive from the federal government to install radar in a string of regional airports could cost the aviation sector, including Qantas, as much as $150 million.
Airservices spokesman Richard Dudley told The Australian Financial Review that the regulator learned of Transport Minister John Anderson's order only on Tuesday afternoon when a staff member spotted it on an aviation website.
Mr Anderson's move came after the Airservices board decided on Friday to introduce changes to airspace rules that will mean pilots at a number of regional airports will have to fly under the control of an air traffic controller not just upon landing and take-off as is now the case but also as they approach and circle above an airport.
In a move designed to improve safety, Mr Anderson said that "at the earliest time" Airservices should provide those airports affected by the change with an operating air traffic control tower and radar.
Mr Dudley said Airservices estimated about 10 airports would be affected, including Launceston, Hobart, Mackay and Alice Springs.
The cost of the radar, extra training and additional staff was expected to be about $150 million, he said.
But he said Airservices still had to clarify with the government where that money would come from, saying that if it did not come from the government, "it would be paid for by our customer base."
However, a spokesman for Mr Anderson said: "We're of the view that it won't be an impost on the general aviation sector."
Asked if the announcement had come as a surprise to Airservices, Mr Dudley replied: "Just a little."
"The board of Airservices Australia were certainly not consulted in relation to this direction."
A spokesperson for Qantas said the airline was aware of the change but would wait until it had a formal briefing from the government before making a comment.
Mr Anderson's spokesman said his impression was that the matter had been discussed with the regulator.

There seems to be little doubt when you read through the press articles at the time (Yes - I have them all archived) that the direction from John Anderson was politics of the highest (or is that lowest?) order, during the run up to an election campaign. Even Airservices Australia's response at the time was questioning, between the lines, the economic logic of it all.

Why is it really any surprise at all that the 'earliest time' has stretched out to now? The direction appears to be practically ambit.

I am sure you will agree(?)

BTW - this was the directive:

“I, JOHN DUNCAN ANDERSON, Minister for Transport and Regional Services, pursuant to s.16 of the Airservices Act 1995, give the following direction to AA.

If:

(a) On the date on which this direction commences, a volume of airspace above Class D airspace above an airport was classified as Class E airspace, and

(b) After the commencement of this direction, AA re-classifies that volume of airspace to Class C airspace, AA must, in performing its function under s.8 of the Airservices Act 1995 of providing facilities and services, provide an operating ATC control tower at the airport and an approach radar control service at the earliest time one can be supplied and installed."

[SM4 Pirate]

I have covered this consistently. You cannot just separate the Class E airspace away from the Class D airspace controller who has to spread his or her workload. What is the use of changing Class E to Class C to make it “safer” whilst decreasing the safety of the Class D below where the collision risk is far higher? That is why we have different airspace categories. It is to give the same level of safety (as far as possible) at each location.

Surely it is obvious to you that the risk of collision below 4,500 feet is greater than the risk in the link airspace above? Why then are you supporting Class D airspace where the risk is greater and Class C airspace where the risk is obviously less? This is a classic example of “upside down” airspace. It’s like designing an airline aircraft with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part connected to the fuselage.

Ok, now it's my turn to bite.

The risk is the risk is the risk. We have what we have; to change the risk, you must have a positive 'Cost Benefit Analysis', risk must be reduced or where it increases there must be savings.

E is more ATC costly than C in the enroute environment (cost neutral in a tower environment). E is more risky than C, fact. (So where you replace C with E you have negative CBA; not so where you replace G with E, reducing risk does not need fiancial offset, just needs to be justified and consulted properly)

This is why ASA rolled back and you know it; they were liable in the event that a VFR pilot with low hours got it wrong and failed to see and avoid when they would have been previously subjected to a clearance. I believe one board member (at the time) was happy with carrying that liablity many others were not.

So the 'phase' of NAS increased risk without realising a cost saving to justify that increased risk; it doesn’t matter that you reduced risk at the circuit, cause you can argue that didn't improve or got worse, cause the ATCs still had the airspace up higher, it was just class E. Even if end state reduced risk, you weren't at end state until you actually got there.

Using the logic that C over D = roadblock, the IFR aircraft in E were more distracting to the class D tower controller than when in Class C as now there are unknown VFRs out there getting in the way, (which needed reaction not planning, very hard without surveillance); ie The risk increased in the airspace above Class D (E vs C) and it increased the risk in the circuit because the ATC were more distracted by the Class E above when compared to Class C)

Dick, I agree with some of your logic about risk and the need for change, just not the conclusions that are drawn from that logic.

Ok I must be one of the "f-worders" that we're not allowed to mention, right, in the past that is the bucket I have been put in.

The same logic you apply to the poor tower bodies not being able to look away from their empty circuits and runways where the risk if 'higher', (only when there is traffic there) is not applied to the enroute environment that can just by the effective stroke of the pen take on all that Class E (effective ATC scanning rates and concentration ability is sadly reduced now, cause we spend a lot of our time scanning empty screens for that mythical VFR pop-up, had one today and had to issue a safety alert, love Class E) and equally so take on low level E let downs to 'protect' the IFRS from CFIT outside (in many cases) effective surveillance; so what is the point.

What is the point of Class E above FL180? Is it ICAO or FAA complient?

There is such a thing as Class C enroute airspace, but there is no such beast for tower operations that are not commensurately supported by an approach service; at present that approach service is conducted in the tower; take it away to save the circuit/runway risk and who does it? Class E is the panacea for the risk reduction in Class D, no address them a separate issues.

I would love to see you state that Class E airspace should be introduced along the lines of your characteristics, but support the controllers when they say to do it effectively they need surveillance and more consoles so that LSALTS etc can be effectively managed; ie you can't monitor a procedural approach in class E, and you can't monitor one or more approaches a large enroute screen safely without increasing the risk elsewhere.

Points where I agree with Dick Smith:
1) IFRs (especially PAX carrying ones) should get at least Class E protection to the IFR minima.
2) IFRs should be able to declare themselves VFR when they reasonably decide it is safe.

But point 1 will come at more cost, is that cost worth the risk you are addressing. Dick your message is that the naughty ATCs and IFRS get in the way of VFR or set-up roadblocks to exclude VFRs; but what is reality.

If you want to get the big end on town you need to link the NAS to LTOP to get your CBA over the line; ie introduce NAS and we'll stop fuel wasting noise sharing. (but that's worth it's own thread).

I have controlled now for over 10 years, and always had Class C (excluding the 12 month event) not once have I denied a VFR a clearance; I have said the phrase "Clearance not available remain OCTA" closely followed by "standby" implying I've got nothing and I need to talk to someone else to organise the clearance or find some details if I'm the only one involved.

Dick I have in the past attempted to make my points to you directly, I would love to do so again, but would love for you to listen to me, not just talk over me. I think that airspace reform can happen, should happen and must happen; but the method currently applied, crash or crash through, manipulate and politicise the process, hang on a few dodgy words published by a minister but drafted elsewhere is not the best way forward.

Where is the ‘vision’ beyond the USA system, where is the vision beyond CASA draft part 71. Why introduce characteristics not used at large, “VFR on TOP” “Visual climb and Descent in E”, “Flight Following – RIS” etc; all ‘headline events’ all not wanted or used in general, although RIS is at least seen daily, unlike the others limited to annual events.

Where it appears to fall down from my end, is change management / consultation is not real; it is stated to be real, but consultation is not a briefing. The CTAF (R) / CTAF / MBZ and the area frequency debacle is a classic example; it was a change, with a change in risk; not in itself dangerous, but changed. The people opposed to the change did so because they could see benefit from the change; but they could see the change causing location specific problems. Has the world ended in the CTAF environment, no, is the circuit safer, probably but it’s really hard to tell, is the surrounding airspace more risky with frequency confusion abounding, absolutely, but is that risk a show stopper, no.

That is enough for now; I don’t want this to be a thread going down the usual lines of ‘f-worders or the flat earth society’ and ‘terry towellers and sheep’ on opposite sides; where I fear it is headed (and ultimately bans all around again); but perhaps both sides could take a deep breath before hitting the post button. Consider this ‘do I need to criticise the person to prove my point’; despite the difficulty in doing that; I’ve probably done it myself…

Enough for now, I'm getting back in my box.

[fixa24]

I currently control at a class d tower, and have NEVER refused a clearance to any VFR aircraft. I have been able to issue one at alternate levels, a few times i have had to hold special VFR aircraft out for no more than 5 minutes in IMC conditions to facilitate IFR aircraft instrument approaches.

This crap about being refused clearances really irks me...

Yet daily i see aircraft skirting my airspace at low levels, bumping around the weeds and mountains, but for a simple clearance request they could have been cruising in smooth air.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

…. in one ear and out the other
.
It is clear from the wide spread opinion and technical understanding displayed in this thread (and myriads of threads past), the arguments we mount are sound, based on factual, practical experience and data.
.
Unless and until you can mount sensible contrary plans that are supportable in factual and practical ways that Improve safety beyond what we currently have, then opinions will not change!
.
…. I might add, I and others who have no other interest except a fierce defence of common sense, efficient, safety practical application of air navigation services, will continue to show the folly of ill thought out, questionable attempts to further undermine our industry, and that includes commercial, recreational and sport aviation … all apparently in the name of change for changes sake! (I suspect the real reasons for your vigour are somewhat more self centric, and well known to most, however I will no longer be giving you currency to complain in this place)

Scurvy.D.Dog, unfortunately I just don’t have the staying power to answer every one of your points.

… staying power? .. or is it you have no supportable retort? …. How about having a crack at the important technical questions raised …. otherwise your ‘fobbing off’ is typical and cheap!

Why don’t you give me a ring on 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221?

… why don’t I, because I am not about to have you claim X or Y was said in a phone conversation with no recourse. That is why the arguments are mounted here and elsewhere with a wide audience as participants/witnesses … is that why you would prefer the phone?

Or why don’t you organise a bit of a casual meeting in Launy where we can debate the issues and people can decide for themselves which is the best outcome for Australian aviation?

… the industry in Launy have open access to me 24/7 … we provide first class terminal area and tower services to local GA, Charter, AeroMed, Commercial Regional and RPT operators (QANTAS, VIRGINBLUE, Eastern Airlines and JETSTAR) …. I am sure they would have a view on the services we (and our colleagues from ML Radar) provide, and I would not presume to comment on their behalf, however I am sure they will post if they have anything to say (good or bad) .. I am well aware of the number of industry personnel (both locally and elsewhere) who read these pages! … what I can tell you is that I (and my colleagues) sleep well at night!
.
… as for a ‘casual debate’ … what is the point … you have on a number of occasions in the past been approached by me (in person) to discuss some of these issues … your inability to listen to or accept a contrary view from anyone is borne out in this place also. It makes the exercise futile … I do not like or appreciate being talked at or over!
.
You know who I am, and my work for industry, both professionally as an ATC, and as a voluntary Unicom service provider (at GA airshow and fly-in events) … I do not give a rats ring gear that you know who I am …. I also do not care for your attempts to silence dissenting opinions with threats ….. I stand by the opinions I hold, and the comments I make as I can back them with testimony and documented fact ….. your modus operandi to attack those who disagree shows the hollowness of your agenda .. were it robust or justifiable .. it would not matter to you (or anyone else for that matter) what any of us think ….. go your hardest!
.
… re: Part 71 …. were you the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority during the early CASR drafting process?
... were you liasing with CASA and the Minister for Transport in your capacity as a member of the Airspace Reform Group?
.
.. you were able to introduce CA/GRO (Flight Service by another name) and remove Flight service (F) services prior to that … are you suggesting you had no influence, input or knowledge of Part 71?
.
… and please do not think that I am in any way complimenting you!

I did note that Part 71 is written in a way to keep the status quo. That is, the hurdle rates for establishing Class D and Class C airspace are so high that the status quo will remain.

…. How do you suppose those thresholds were reached? …. or is that another baseless slur directed at a wide cross-section of industry

It is a classic example of “over consultation” with the industry which has a profit advantage in making sure that there are no Class D towers at places like Ayers Rock and Avalon.

…. ‘over consultation’ …. speaks volumes … what would you prefer .. unilateral decision making …. How many industry groups were included in the consultation AND formulation of your ‘vision’ AusNAS? .. what a load of cobblers …. and, I might add, a slanderous slur at those in industry involved in the consultation and formulation of these service thresholds

I love your comment:

Twr/App controller D services could be provided up to A100 or perhaps higher FL125 … that is where the TWR/APP Centre split should be .. not lower!!

Talk about resistance to change! I thought FL125 was where it was a number of years ago.

….. funny thing that! ….. why do you suppose it was at that height …. Bet you cannot rattle off a list of reasons why it would be better (safer and more efficient) at a lower level!?

Yes, this maximises the number of tower controllers and gives them a staggering amount of airspace.

… cobblers … state how and why that is true … cause I can sure as hell tell you why it ain’t .... and before you go on about radar again .... compare apples with apples .... compare centre procedural and twr procedural or centre radar with tower radar .... because in this day and age, the data can be provided to either/both locations!

However my belief is that we follow what Airservices are doing in the United States, where the tower airspace is as small as possible (2,500 ft AGL and 4.3 miles)

… Airservices inherited the airspace arrangement at those towers

allowing the controller to concentrate where the collisions are likely to occur – in the circuit area, on the approach to the runway, or on the runway itself.

…. Hmmm.. see the difference, separate Radar approach provided (and paid for) by the FAA …. Do you see the difference? .. and why this arrangement is different in the Australian context?

If you have one tower controller at a place like Albury or Coffs Harbour being responsible for the close-in traffic, as well as traffic to FL125 (including all overflying traffic), this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility.

…. No, sensible, safe allocation of finite resources …. You were banging on for years about ‘affordable safety’ … seems to me (and others) you are so concerned about your previous aviation polices turning around and bitting you on the empennage that you now want the industry to pay a bucket load more money for things you spent years trying to get rid of, such as ATC Towers (in favour of Unicom or CA/GRO), FS (in favour of ATC providing the FS function), Full SAR availability for VFR (in favour of Mum held SARTIMES) the list goes on ….

Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision.

….. nice headline, but as usual you do not tell the whole story …. NASA also included traffic complexity and densities in that outcome …. Design Aeronautical Studies determine those things …. you know .. those Design Aeronautical Studies you so despise and trivialise!

you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes …

Yes, because commonsense said that by looking at a reference system we could get very good data on how safe the resultant airspace would be.

…. Common sense … that would be common sense that ignored the advice of safety and airspace experts from CASA and AsA that pointed out the differences and the net safety impact?

The aeronautical study way (as used in the Class E above Class D Airservices safety case) can end up with manipulated data to support the status quo. This is what happened.

…. Provide proof of this slanderous slur or retract it immediately …. If there were any veracity to your claim you would have continued with your anti-rollback court case …. why did you not continue with that?

If we can accept Boeing 747 previous safety history for certification, why not do the same with airspace?

… because you cannot introduce a DeHavilland Comet and call it a Boeing 747 ….. the product must be the same for Christ sake!

[Chris Higgins]

Scurvy,

I don't think that his intentions are anything less than admirable; to drag Australia kicking and screaming into the 21st century making available affordable technologies to improve safety.

I did not witness the vindictiveness that many have alluded to in Dick Smith.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

I don’t necessarily like the idea of privatisation – that could end up like the airports

… glad you have grasped that concept!

– but I can’t see what is wrong with what Airservices is doing in the USA.

…. One assumes it would be a ‘light’ quote to get in the door …. How much do you think they make (considering it still costs the US/industry separately to provide approach services via the FAA)? … how much ‘actual’ cross subsidy in human capital and support services goes to those towers from the ANSP in Australia?

That is, giving a competitive quote to the FAA to operate small towers at a very much lower price, without the huge overheads of a federal organisation.

… perhaps it would be appropriate to compare the costs Airservices Australia federal organisation carry in support of the contracted US towers?

The same thing could happen here.

…. are you suggesting that the Federal ANSP (Airservices Australia) would provide tower contractors:-

- Tech support personnel
- Tech systems
- Land hold and lease costs
- Data access (radar and/or ADS-B)
- Building maintenance
- Operational compliance costs
- Operations Support (mapping, documents etc)
- Insurance (operational)
- .. and the myriad of other time and cost requirements not listed

…… for free? … NOT … cross subsidisation is not permitted remember!

I have been contacted by air traffic controllers who would like to operate their own towers on a competitive basis.

… if there are any (perhaps those cut lunch commandos)…. They must be intellectual giants …. Are they really thinking they can REALLY provide ATS Tower and Approach services for less?

They are going to provide there own:-

- Quality ATS Personnel (at an acceptable rate … you know … peanuts and monkeys)
- Operations Support (mapping, documents etc)
- Licensing and compliance (medical etc)
- Training and retention of operations staff
- Operational compliance costs (Regulator Audits etc)
- Insurance (operational)
- Specialist Aviation systems Tech support personnel
- Specialist Aviation Tech systems
- Data access (radar and/or ADS-B)
- Aviation Security compliance
- Time involved with stakeholder consultation and compliance
- IT systems
- IT support
- General maintenance contracts and/or personnel
- Building maintenance
- Insurances (other)
- Rates
- Land hold and lease costs
- .. and the myriad of other time and cost requirements not listed
.
.. for less than the National ANSP with the synergies and economies of scale available? ….. you must be joking!
.
… and if it were contemplated to provide some of these services to a contractor for free to enable a false reduction in contract cost …. It will be counter argued that the same cost relief should be applied to the AsA provided tower service!

All air traffic controllers insist on competition in just about everything else they purchase – why can’t pilots benefit from a little bit of competition when it comes to purchasing air traffic services?

… I have to say that is one of the daftest comparisons I have ever heard! … as consumers of goods, we make decision on whether there are multiple options available, we all consider quality, price, etc when deciding on which brand to buy!
.
Air traffic services are natural monopolies and as such require price regulation (such as occurs with the ACCC)!
…. Would you have a situation where lowest price is the only criteria on which to base a purchase decision?
.. or have that purchase decision made for you by a system that perhaps only looking at lowest cost??
.. the industry will not really know how safe or expeditious that contracted service will be (because you cannot try before you buy), and once that contract is awarded, there is no going back!
.
… for someone who purports to be a champion of safety and quality of services for the Australian travelling public …. You really have some strange perhaps even ideologically naïve ideas!

Chris Higgins
.
… the usual sagacious input …. like him, no answers to the technical, just baseless accusations!
.

I don't think that his intentions are anything less than admirable; to drag Australia kicking and screaming into the 21st century making available affordable technologies to improve safety.

.. you are entitled to your opinion, perhaps like the rest of us, you might explain why you hold that opinion!

I did not witness the vindictiveness that many have alluded to in Dick Smith.

… that is probably because you have not held a supportable contrary view to him! …

[Spodman]

…but it is official Government policy and it is a damn good document.

Said minister doesn’t seem to agree.

http://www.dotars.gov.au/aviation/ai...anagement.aspx

“But if we are to maximise the benefits of future stages, we will need to change how we approach its implementation.

Future stages will be implemented subject to the results of an enhanced analytical process, including cost-benefit and a single common risk management framework. This will include the use of an Australian Standard Risk Management Framework that is being formulated between relevant aviation agencies. Future reforms will also be subject to the results of closer consultation with stakeholders and take account of the impact of upcoming technological developments. The analysis will take account of developments in the airspace regimes of other jurisdictions, including within the United States and the European Union, to challenge our systems and approaches, and to help decide future changes in Australia.” (my bolding)

Like I said, in the catbox.

The implementation characteristics you are talking about I believe come from an Airservices Discussion paper V1.4.

So you don’t like them now and are walking away??? Or are you actively fighting against the ‘characteristic’ concept now. I wish I’d bought a program.

Surely it is obvious to you that the risk of collision below 4,500 feet is greater than the risk in the link airspace above?

I expect there would be more collision pairs if you analysed the traffic, but don’t agree there is more collision risk in the current, proven, airspace arrangements. Spin it how you like.

The minimum safe altitude alarm (or equivalent) in the TAAATS system would be enabled, and is only disabled when the aircraft reports that it is visual or on the approach.

You said earlier you wanted us to monitor the approach.

At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.

How will we do that with MSAW if we turn it off when you say you’re doing an approach? It isn’t actually practical to turn it off for each arrival, we will just have a new opportunity for frenzied beeping and “help! Help! Everything is normal!” messages from TAARTS. We will need to zoom in.

what would you prefer .. unilateral decision making ….

While your lengthy discourses are a good read Mr. Dog you have summed him up beautifully in 7 words. Well done

[Chris Higgins]

Scurvy,

After 23 years of flying and being licensed...or licenced in three different countries and having just returned from France and Italy in a Citation X, I can state unequivocally that Australia has the most bastardised and difficult to understand governing agency, charging system, and airspace system in the world.

I can't believe that somebody who has retired from QF or CX, (who has some street credibility and knows what s/he is talking about), hasn't taken the reigns and fixed it once and for all.

[Lodown]

There have been riders from the FAA, RAAF, CX and elsewhere willing to take the reigns. They've been, tried and gone, several through the influence exerted by the subject of your email.

[Chris Higgins]

Lodown,

I'm not championing any one individual; this is not an election campaign. It's about fixing something that's broken.

I don't care who fixes it, as long as it gets done.

If you don't like Dick Smith, find somebody that you all do like and get it done!

[Dick Smith]

Fixa24 you state:

Yet daily i see aircraft skirting my airspace at low levels, bumping around the weeds and mountains, but for a simple clearance request they could have been cruising in smooth air.

I’m sure you realise the significance of what you have said. That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).

Why do pilots have that perception? I can assure you it is because of practical experience. While I am delighted that you have never refused a clearance to VFR aircraft, I can assure you that VFR aircraft are often extensively delayed or diverted because of our procedural separation standards – which probably come from the 1930s.

Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.

SM4 Pirate, you state:

increased the risk in the circuit because the ATC were more distracted by the Class E above when compared to Class C

I can understand what you are saying, however if you talk to an American controller (or no doubt to Voices of Reason who posted this here) it is obvious that this “distraction” is pretty well a unique Australian problem. US controllers love Class E airspace. US airline pilots love Class E airspace. So what is the difference? I reckon it is a complete lack of education and training.

Could I suggest that Aussie controllers talk to the controllers in the contract towers that Airservices are running in the United States? I’m sure they will tell you that they love the airspace configuration because they can concentrate in the area where aircraft are most likely to collide. You will find that the controllers in the Class D towers (both contract and non-contract) in America are not “distracted” by VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace above.

Lodown, please keep to the facts. I have not at any time been sacked from any aviation position.

[Atlas Shrugged]

who has some street credibility and knows what s/he is talking about

That just about sums it up, doesn't it!