Flightwatch: the disgrace continues
Kaptain Kremin taking over
So your point of view is all military aircraft should stay inside mil airspace is it? Therefore logic suggests all private a/c should stay inside their training areas and no mid airs will ever happen?! Of course navigation skills will degrade and the defence force won't have any experience at going anywhere outside their training areas to fight wars...but what are the chances of that occuring soon....
As a last point get your whizz wheel out and see how far an a/c goes at 480kts in 15mins, try and work out a turning radius at that speed and see what type of airspace you need to play in.
handing over
So your point of view is all military aircraft should stay inside mil airspace is it? Therefore logic suggests all private a/c should stay inside their training areas and no mid airs will ever happen?! Of course navigation skills will degrade and the defence force won't have any experience at going anywhere outside their training areas to fight wars...but what are the chances of that occuring soon....
As a last point get your whizz wheel out and see how far an a/c goes at 480kts in 15mins, try and work out a turning radius at that speed and see what type of airspace you need to play in.
handing over
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZ..... in one of your quieter moments with yourself take a gander in the DAH at how much airspace is available GL up for WAR learning ops. Other activities eg practice for people who like to hear those bang bang noises in their ears or blokes (?)who like to randomly kick a ball and then climb up other blokes back's are also segregated from the normal population. My point is that:
1. Yes you can do that solely in MIL airspace
2. Don't fool yourself - you will not see the one that you smack into even with your enhanced F111 human (yes human)eyeball
3. NOTAM airspace will permit others to avoid, if they can get access to them,
4. what's wrong with doing it in Mil airspace (just requires a little effort at planning)
5. What was ever wrong with the permanent published LJR's that used to be.
BTW OZ, I cannot risk disclosure however I am pro MIL (like you wouldn't believe) I believe that we can safely accommodate and enhance all op requirements for all users with a bit of errort. NAIPS does not enhance this.
handing over....
[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: KAPTAIN KREMIN ]
1. Yes you can do that solely in MIL airspace
2. Don't fool yourself - you will not see the one that you smack into even with your enhanced F111 human (yes human)eyeball
3. NOTAM airspace will permit others to avoid, if they can get access to them,
4. what's wrong with doing it in Mil airspace (just requires a little effort at planning)
5. What was ever wrong with the permanent published LJR's that used to be.
BTW OZ, I cannot risk disclosure however I am pro MIL (like you wouldn't believe) I believe that we can safely accommodate and enhance all op requirements for all users with a bit of errort. NAIPS does not enhance this.
handing over....
[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: KAPTAIN KREMIN ]
KK..taking over
first to business
ex F111. Did I at any time say I was speaking from experience? Maybe its just common sense. If your point goes to credibility we can talk (you complain) about Kiwi pilots joining the RAAF and then RAAF pilots joining the RAF.
KK How can we have an argument if you won't argue...
A very polite response and although I disagree with some of it as we both appear to be pro aviation we will save it for a bar somewhere.
Most activity of this type is confined to Notamed areas and then the airspace is released ASAP on completion.
first to business
ex F111. Did I at any time say I was speaking from experience? Maybe its just common sense. If your point goes to credibility we can talk (you complain) about Kiwi pilots joining the RAAF and then RAAF pilots joining the RAF.
KK How can we have an argument if you won't argue...
A very polite response and although I disagree with some of it as we both appear to be pro aviation we will save it for a bar somewhere.
Most activity of this type is confined to Notamed areas and then the airspace is released ASAP on completion.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: your worst nightmare
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ftrplt:
With all due respect to you, "hoping it is us that sees you" doesn't really sound like a confident reassurance of positive separation. Who sees who first is pretty much irrelevant outside of a dogfight scenario, the closing speed is the same on both sides. If you think you can rely on visual sightings alone for separation, then the only safety net you have is 'big sky' theory. Is there any need to tell you about its few weakpoints?
Jarse:
I hear ya! Agreed and equally frustrated, I dont think I phrased what I was saying properly.
With all due respect to you, "hoping it is us that sees you" doesn't really sound like a confident reassurance of positive separation. Who sees who first is pretty much irrelevant outside of a dogfight scenario, the closing speed is the same on both sides. If you think you can rely on visual sightings alone for separation, then the only safety net you have is 'big sky' theory. Is there any need to tell you about its few weakpoints?
Jarse:
I hear ya! Agreed and equally frustrated, I dont think I phrased what I was saying properly.
Lackov,
the word 'hoping' was a bit tongue in cheek. The speed difference is not irrelevent, we only need to clear a small arc in front of our flight path to avoid a confliction, we have radar, eyes and altitude on our side. (Most lighties not spending a lot of time at 500ft AGL, croppies excluded). You on the other hand can get hit from anywhere within 360 degrees. All I was trying to say is that we are in the best position to see and avoid you. I have taken separation from lighties at low level on many occasions and I am sure they didnt even know I was there. With us at 500ft, getting visual on a lighty above the horizon is a lot easier for us than for you getting sight of a camouflaged jet below the horizon.
You seem to be saying that visual separation is not a valid technique, so does that mean that any VFR OCTA is a midair waiting to happen??
As an aside, the F18 is currently getting fitted with a transponder interrogator, so make sure you are squawking appropriately, even OCTA; they will see you a lot easier with it on.
the word 'hoping' was a bit tongue in cheek. The speed difference is not irrelevent, we only need to clear a small arc in front of our flight path to avoid a confliction, we have radar, eyes and altitude on our side. (Most lighties not spending a lot of time at 500ft AGL, croppies excluded). You on the other hand can get hit from anywhere within 360 degrees. All I was trying to say is that we are in the best position to see and avoid you. I have taken separation from lighties at low level on many occasions and I am sure they didnt even know I was there. With us at 500ft, getting visual on a lighty above the horizon is a lot easier for us than for you getting sight of a camouflaged jet below the horizon.
You seem to be saying that visual separation is not a valid technique, so does that mean that any VFR OCTA is a midair waiting to happen??
As an aside, the F18 is currently getting fitted with a transponder interrogator, so make sure you are squawking appropriately, even OCTA; they will see you a lot easier with it on.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: your worst nightmare
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I am saying that visual separation alone is not valid, but no I don't think that "every VFR OCTA is an accident waiting to happen", provided that means other than just visual separation are used. You said it yourself, you've taken action to visually avoid an aircraft that probably didn't even realise you were there, what happens when both parties don't even realise the other is there??
This is the whole point of the thread, if we are not given any FIS to tell us your whereabouts, then what chance do we have (in a no-coms environment)?? Doesn't sound like 'affordable safety' to me.
This is the whole point of the thread, if we are not given any FIS to tell us your whereabouts, then what chance do we have (in a no-coms environment)?? Doesn't sound like 'affordable safety' to me.
I think we have drifted off the topic on this one.
The problem is "Flightwatch" and the managers that don't manage it....
This is a safety of flight issue and they don't seem to realise that........
The problem is "Flightwatch" and the managers that don't manage it....
This is a safety of flight issue and they don't seem to realise that........
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re FLIGHTWATCH - yes it is broken and needs to be fixed; unlike the previous AVFAX etc system that was not broken but was fixed anyway (in a similar manner to how one would 'fix' a dog, if you get my drift......)
Re the LJR & MIL traffic etc; ExF111, Gaunty, The Voice et al - have a look at the Brit equivalent of BASI and you'll see TWO separate Tornado (the aircraft, not the weather)vs C152 incidents, both of which wer fatal & both were utterly avoidable with compliance from the assorted involved parties with regulations for the reading of NOTAMS & use of XPDRs, amongst other things.
My usual area of ops is below A100 and in the region of lots of fast jets, not all RAAF either. When they are operating there are the normal NOTAMs and also a general call on VHF Area freqs advising of the activity. Downside is that by the time the area controller finishs reading it all out the nucks have been and gone.....
Regards
Re the LJR & MIL traffic etc; ExF111, Gaunty, The Voice et al - have a look at the Brit equivalent of BASI and you'll see TWO separate Tornado (the aircraft, not the weather)vs C152 incidents, both of which wer fatal & both were utterly avoidable with compliance from the assorted involved parties with regulations for the reading of NOTAMS & use of XPDRs, amongst other things.
My usual area of ops is below A100 and in the region of lots of fast jets, not all RAAF either. When they are operating there are the normal NOTAMs and also a general call on VHF Area freqs advising of the activity. Downside is that by the time the area controller finishs reading it all out the nucks have been and gone.....
Regards
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cogwheel and others in the know.
Can you please explain the situation with FW now. I like many others are not sure where it exists in ATC organisation any more.
I hear that it is run seperately from AsA, that its is a private contractor. etc etc.
I think we will all benifit from an understanding of the organisation structure.
Then we can shoot the rockets where they are deserved, certinaly not at the guys at the pointy end. There are of course some better than others and some who are good but very pissed off and effecting thier performance. Personaly I find the service good, but a friend of mine who flies a fair bit at night (IFR twin) tells me that the HF Freq have not been available a bit lately in the top end, not just the local ones but every one.
Stallie lets keep this one going and lets get the point across to the bosses at FW, AsA, Gov, etc.
As far as the eyes out side thing goes, all pilots use all the methods of traffic avoidance including, seeing, hearning, brefing and dare I say it Feeling (6 Sense).
Its just that some do it better than others.
Can you please explain the situation with FW now. I like many others are not sure where it exists in ATC organisation any more.
I hear that it is run seperately from AsA, that its is a private contractor. etc etc.
I think we will all benifit from an understanding of the organisation structure.
Then we can shoot the rockets where they are deserved, certinaly not at the guys at the pointy end. There are of course some better than others and some who are good but very pissed off and effecting thier performance. Personaly I find the service good, but a friend of mine who flies a fair bit at night (IFR twin) tells me that the HF Freq have not been available a bit lately in the top end, not just the local ones but every one.
Stallie lets keep this one going and lets get the point across to the bosses at FW, AsA, Gov, etc.
As far as the eyes out side thing goes, all pilots use all the methods of traffic avoidance including, seeing, hearning, brefing and dare I say it Feeling (6 Sense).
Its just that some do it better than others.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In Hope
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jamair
Your point of low level collisions in the UK is well known. It is for this reason that the Military basically 'own' large portions of the low level airspace structure, although, unfortunately the C152 etc. do go there often. Weather and visibility are also often more of a factor than that 'normally' experienced in Oz.
There is [was when I left] a move to get Australian airspace operators to also 'agree' that low level mil jet [& prop/rotor] aircraft be given greater 'freedom' below a certain altitude. How far that 'airspace management model' goes is up to those pushing the barrow. Consultation with Agops and other 'ultra' low level operators needs discussion.
Having said that, the sheer density of mil activity in the UK is higher than Oz, and careful consideration must be applied when comparing the two.
Additional to whatever model is proposed to alleviate the problems [and soon to be withdrawn] DTI is of concern.
I hope that the Industry Safety Panel are as active and vocal as they were last year.
AAMRAAM.
FYI: All of this is [was] being done at AsA, and being a 'corporate' business, it now wants to save money. One way is to dispence with service to low level operators [Civil pleasure craft and other 'free-loaders' like Mil types etc.]
State of play - A mess is in the building, despite the apparent 'good intention'of the designers.
....but as they say, it is no longer my problem. - Good luck with it all.
Cheers.
edit to spell only!
[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: Ex F111 ]
Your point of low level collisions in the UK is well known. It is for this reason that the Military basically 'own' large portions of the low level airspace structure, although, unfortunately the C152 etc. do go there often. Weather and visibility are also often more of a factor than that 'normally' experienced in Oz.
There is [was when I left] a move to get Australian airspace operators to also 'agree' that low level mil jet [& prop/rotor] aircraft be given greater 'freedom' below a certain altitude. How far that 'airspace management model' goes is up to those pushing the barrow. Consultation with Agops and other 'ultra' low level operators needs discussion.
Having said that, the sheer density of mil activity in the UK is higher than Oz, and careful consideration must be applied when comparing the two.
Additional to whatever model is proposed to alleviate the problems [and soon to be withdrawn] DTI is of concern.
I hope that the Industry Safety Panel are as active and vocal as they were last year.
AAMRAAM.
FYI: All of this is [was] being done at AsA, and being a 'corporate' business, it now wants to save money. One way is to dispence with service to low level operators [Civil pleasure craft and other 'free-loaders' like Mil types etc.]
State of play - A mess is in the building, despite the apparent 'good intention'of the designers.
....but as they say, it is no longer my problem. - Good luck with it all.
Cheers.
edit to spell only!
[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: Ex F111 ]
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMRAAM
Flightwatch is part of AusFIC, a section of Airservices. See http://www.airservices.gov.au/servic...fic/ausfic.htm
Direct your complaints to your industry rep or one of the contacts listed at http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotc...APAC/RAPAC.htm
Flightwatch is part of AusFIC, a section of Airservices. See http://www.airservices.gov.au/servic...fic/ausfic.htm
Direct your complaints to your industry rep or one of the contacts listed at http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotc...APAC/RAPAC.htm
