LAMP Low level airspace project. LOOK OUT FOR THIS ONE!!
Thread Starter
LAMP Low level airspace project. LOOK OUT FOR THIS ONE!!
I suggest that Aussie pilots have a look at what Airservices want to do. CASA is supposed to sign off on it early next year, hopefully they don't. AsA want to remove ANY DTI (directed traffic information) for IFR aircraft. In other words self seperate, with huge areas on a DAF (designated area freq).
http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotc.../LAMP/LAMP.htm
http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotc.../LAMP/LAMP.htm
Thread Starter
Oink
Yes I fly VFR as well as IFR. In cloud with paying passengers, how do I SEE to AVOID?
Also VFR guys can't press the button and call Mayday. Well you can but AsA will not be listening. They do not wish to provide a service in G airspace!
Yes I fly VFR as well as IFR. In cloud with paying passengers, how do I SEE to AVOID?
Also VFR guys can't press the button and call Mayday. Well you can but AsA will not be listening. They do not wish to provide a service in G airspace!
It's all about affordable safety. Read the aircrash books and see how Oz learnt the hard way to build up its great system and how now the people who want to make maximum profit are tearing it down. It took a real dick to start all of this. And yes I have been putting my thoughts on paper to my boss. If all the money that will be saved (yeah right!) went into buying aircraft TCAS RADIOs and ELT's I might shift my view, but the same people who want this new system are the ones who protest the loudest about this type of thing.
This came up a while back on a busy thread; I was kind of hoping it had died a natural death, because I think the loss of directed traffic to IFR OCTA and the reliance on interception of radio calls for successful separation is bull****.
I didn't do anything further than have a whinge on Pprune then, but if there's any way we can have an input and stop this joke occurring I'd like to have my 2 bob's worth.
What's the appropriate way to respond, anyone in the know?
I didn't do anything further than have a whinge on Pprune then, but if there's any way we can have an input and stop this joke occurring I'd like to have my 2 bob's worth.
What's the appropriate way to respond, anyone in the know?
Airservices have spent almost M$10 on LLAMP to date and the gos is that it is dead in the water. Another effort at airspace reform goes down the gurgle and we all pay for it!
But wait, there's more! Big meeting of industry heavies on the 20th Dec hosted by the Minister will see an alternative on the table. Rumour is that it will look like the North American model with lots more class E where you don't have DTI but you get separation.
But wait, there's more! Big meeting of industry heavies on the 20th Dec hosted by the Minister will see an alternative on the table. Rumour is that it will look like the North American model with lots more class E where you don't have DTI but you get separation.
Some of you just don't get it! There WILL be airspace reform as that is what the minister and government wants. What have YOU done to contribute to the debate over the past 10 years since AMATS in 1991?
The bad boy in this case is not Dick as some of you may think, but the people running (?) airservices who care more for the $ than the service they dont provide.
The only hope you have of avoiding change is to have the government change their policy on cost recovery which is behind all this and much as we might want to return to the days of DCA it aint gonna happen.
The time is fast approaching where a model will appear and we will have to wear it with very little chance to discuss much of it.
As for Dick, well you can try and work with him and get some of the things you want or you can fight him and get nothing.
The bad boy in this case is not Dick as some of you may think, but the people running (?) airservices who care more for the $ than the service they dont provide.
The only hope you have of avoiding change is to have the government change their policy on cost recovery which is behind all this and much as we might want to return to the days of DCA it aint gonna happen.
The time is fast approaching where a model will appear and we will have to wear it with very little chance to discuss much of it.
As for Dick, well you can try and work with him and get some of the things you want or you can fight him and get nothing.
Moderator
Good grief, what a link, on Icartus' post! Looks like an assignment for someone doing a uni degree in middle management "In 200 words justify something unjustifiable. Use as many w@nk words as possible without actually saying anything. Ensure "cost effective" is repeated at regular intervals."
In these days of cost recovery, can we get the ten mill back so that we can afford some more safety?
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
In these days of cost recovery, can we get the ten mill back so that we can afford some more safety?
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
So Cogwheel, as per my question, what are the appropriate ways to have our input?
I'd like to get my 2 cents worth into the ear of someone who can influence the outcome.
I'd like to get my 2 cents worth into the ear of someone who can influence the outcome.
Armoutthewindow.....
The ways to be involved are:
Through your RAPAC
Your union (AFAP etc)
Your General Manager
The representative association that you or your company are a member of (eg: RAAA AOPA etc)
You must however be objective and constructive. If you don't like something then put up an alternative etc.
The ways to be involved are:
Through your RAPAC
Your union (AFAP etc)
Your General Manager
The representative association that you or your company are a member of (eg: RAAA AOPA etc)
You must however be objective and constructive. If you don't like something then put up an alternative etc.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 343/24 YKBL
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone explain to me the logic behind the proposed MBZ ( ie steps out to 80NM )
Is there a reason why there are steps between SFC and 1000 AGL / 7nm then 1000 AGL and 7500 AMSL / 25 NM...... what is with the 1000 FT AGL part.
Can someone give me an example of what might be -
A defined portion of airspace within an MBZ for sports operations so they may be able to conduct activities without complying with MBZ radio and broadcast requirements.
Would this apply to PJE, and if ( in theory )the MBZ frequency will change to a DAF, how could the PIC flying PJE's above an MBZ safely conduct parachute ops. when there may be no need to comply with MBZ radio and broadcast requirements ?
Is there a reason why there are steps between SFC and 1000 AGL / 7nm then 1000 AGL and 7500 AMSL / 25 NM...... what is with the 1000 FT AGL part.
Can someone give me an example of what might be -
A defined portion of airspace within an MBZ for sports operations so they may be able to conduct activities without complying with MBZ radio and broadcast requirements.
Would this apply to PJE, and if ( in theory )the MBZ frequency will change to a DAF, how could the PIC flying PJE's above an MBZ safely conduct parachute ops. when there may be no need to comply with MBZ radio and broadcast requirements ?
The proposed 1000' step allows for VFR / Sports use of airspace than cannot be used by IFR. The other proposed steps ensure mandatory radio in areas used by IFR/RPT.
MBZ is a procedure, not a parcel of airspace, so your PJE requirements would not change.You would make the calls on the DAF.
The cut-outs would allow sports activities and would be away from IFR routes etc.
Thats my interpretation anyway.
MBZ is a procedure, not a parcel of airspace, so your PJE requirements would not change.You would make the calls on the DAF.
The cut-outs would allow sports activities and would be away from IFR routes etc.
Thats my interpretation anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still marvel at our parochial public service answers to 21st century airspace requirements. Lot's of NDB's and HF. Every where else I've flown they just stick another radar head in and then classify the surrounding airspace according to type of operation & rate of movement. This is the case in some so called "third world" countries I've operated in. Seems to work well enough. Why is it that we still seem to be on the manual "plotting table" mental model? 
re MBZs. Certainly that is the interpretation by many, but when you get down to it, it is nothing other than Class G airspace within which certain procedures apply with defined boundaries.
