New Airspace proposal
Neddy, On reflection you are correct in that perhaps the use of "shame" was the result of too much red! Certainly my understanding is that the Airservices safety case is "deficient" in that various matters required by CASA are either not addressed or incomplete. It is also rumoured that when CASA went to the Airservices Safety people to clarify some issues, they new nothing of the case… which seems a bit weird! One would have thought they would have been part of its preparation?
Pikey, Good to see you posing on this forum. It can only do good for AOPA to enter into the debate. I think you need to realise that anonymity is the mainstay of this forum and part of the reason for its success in the open discussion of issues. The fact is that AOPA got hit for six under the reign of the past three Presidents and your membership numbers reflect this. You have a lot of ground to recover and I wish you luck. The airspace debate is far from over and you would do well to seek your own independent advice and not turn to Dick as being the wizard on this subject which although well versed he is not. Both you and Dick refuse to acknowledge there is a significant culture difference between pilots in Australia and North America (as indicated in one of your recent editorials) and this, believe it or not, is one of the main reasons behind the difficulty in the implementation of any significant change.
Let the debate continue.
Pikey, Good to see you posing on this forum. It can only do good for AOPA to enter into the debate. I think you need to realise that anonymity is the mainstay of this forum and part of the reason for its success in the open discussion of issues. The fact is that AOPA got hit for six under the reign of the past three Presidents and your membership numbers reflect this. You have a lot of ground to recover and I wish you luck. The airspace debate is far from over and you would do well to seek your own independent advice and not turn to Dick as being the wizard on this subject which although well versed he is not. Both you and Dick refuse to acknowledge there is a significant culture difference between pilots in Australia and North America (as indicated in one of your recent editorials) and this, believe it or not, is one of the main reasons behind the difficulty in the implementation of any significant change.
Let the debate continue.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA Aust, I appreciate you posting a copy of the letter to the Minister, I hope you don't mind a question or two about the content of your letter?
You have utilised the example of the LA Basin:
"Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Los Angeles basin was on the radio to the proposed LLAMPS extent."
Captain Midnight pointed out a few factual errors in your letter, but I am keen to know why you used the example of the LA Basin? I assume you are referring to all aircraft in Class G in the LA Basin. Compared to other forms of airspace, there is very little Class G airspace in the LA Basin.
I guess I could also say,
"Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Sydney basin was on the radio to the proposed LAMPS extent."
Your statement appears to be a hypothetical situation not based upon fact, because this situation just won't happen.
Since you used the LA Basin as an example, do you have any figures on the number of the following aircraft that also utilise Class G in the LA Basin with regular fixed wing traffic:
- Ultralights. .- Gliders. .- Non-transponder equipped aircraft. .- Balloons. .- Non-radio equipped aircraft
You have concerns with the operation of these same aircraft types in Class G in Australia and comparative numbers would be illustrative of some differences perhaps?
Aircraft in Class G in the US also make extensive use of Flight Following, which mitigates many safety concerns in heavily trafficked areas (particularly the LA Basin, for example). The same service is not available in Australia, but is an essential part of the US Class G. Where do these procedures fit in with your and Mr Smith's proposed "proven" airspace, who do you plan on charging for it, and how do you plan to implement it in Australia, considering that this subject has been well debated in the past?
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Lodown ]</p>
You have utilised the example of the LA Basin:
"Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Los Angeles basin was on the radio to the proposed LLAMPS extent."
Captain Midnight pointed out a few factual errors in your letter, but I am keen to know why you used the example of the LA Basin? I assume you are referring to all aircraft in Class G in the LA Basin. Compared to other forms of airspace, there is very little Class G airspace in the LA Basin.
I guess I could also say,
"Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Sydney basin was on the radio to the proposed LAMPS extent."
Your statement appears to be a hypothetical situation not based upon fact, because this situation just won't happen.
Since you used the LA Basin as an example, do you have any figures on the number of the following aircraft that also utilise Class G in the LA Basin with regular fixed wing traffic:
- Ultralights. .- Gliders. .- Non-transponder equipped aircraft. .- Balloons. .- Non-radio equipped aircraft
You have concerns with the operation of these same aircraft types in Class G in Australia and comparative numbers would be illustrative of some differences perhaps?
Aircraft in Class G in the US also make extensive use of Flight Following, which mitigates many safety concerns in heavily trafficked areas (particularly the LA Basin, for example). The same service is not available in Australia, but is an essential part of the US Class G. Where do these procedures fit in with your and Mr Smith's proposed "proven" airspace, who do you plan on charging for it, and how do you plan to implement it in Australia, considering that this subject has been well debated in the past?
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Lodown ]</p>
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Pike,
Our colleague Gaunty has stated clearly and appropriately the inadequacy of your advocacy for the AOPA position on the LAMPS v NAS proposal. I second his comments. Shouting, assertions and exclamations do not make an argument.
May I invite to respond to some specific questions on the matters raised in your letter to the minister?
Charges. .1.What is AOPA's position on charges as outlined in the NAS proposal? . .2. What matters remain to be clarified?. .3. What further industry input is required, in the view of AOPA, to resolve the issue of charges on the general aviation industry?. .4. In AOPA's view what charging regime should be in place for general aviation in Australia and specifically, to what extent should general aviation carry the burden for services it does use?
Changes. .5. What additional changes does AOPA propose, if any, to the LAMPS model to make it acceptable to AOPA? Alternatively, is it AOPA's position that LAMPS in any form is unacceptable?
Radio calls. .6. Accepting your position of VFR radio calls, do you accept that it has the potential to create for the regional RPT community a situation where they may arrive for an approach at a country airport oblivious to any VFR traffic in the area? . .7. May we imply from your sentence "If general aviation is to be kept at its present low level of operation, it might work" that the current radio calls act as a limit on general aviation operations at the present time? If your answer is in the affirmative what evidence does AOPA have to support this contention? If your answer is no, would you please explain just exactly what you mean.
Opinion. .8. Does the statement "I am of the opinion that their views are not necessarily representative of the more moderate views of the silent rank and file" represent a) your personal opinion or b) the opinion of AOPA, its board and its members. If your answer is b) would you care to provide ppruners with a summary of the information supporting that view and the discussions, and alternative points of view considered by AOPA, in reaching its position.
NAS. .9. Why specifically is NAS the preferred model for AOPA? What specific advantages has AOPA identified in NAS, over LAMPS, that provides real and measurable advantages for AOPA members, and presumably general aviation? What measures were used to arrive at your position of support for NAS? Did you canvass members in any formal way to determine their attitude to the proposed changes? If not, why not?
Additional information. .10. Is the letter posted on pprune the sum total of the AOPA's submission to the government on NAS? If it is not, would you please post, subject to Woomera's concurrence, any additional material submitted to the minister, such as safety analyses, member surveys, studies of the benefits or otherwise of the US system or independent comparisons between NAS and LAMPS that may have been undertaken by AOPA in support of its position.
Our colleague Gaunty has stated clearly and appropriately the inadequacy of your advocacy for the AOPA position on the LAMPS v NAS proposal. I second his comments. Shouting, assertions and exclamations do not make an argument.
May I invite to respond to some specific questions on the matters raised in your letter to the minister?
Charges. .1.What is AOPA's position on charges as outlined in the NAS proposal? . .2. What matters remain to be clarified?. .3. What further industry input is required, in the view of AOPA, to resolve the issue of charges on the general aviation industry?. .4. In AOPA's view what charging regime should be in place for general aviation in Australia and specifically, to what extent should general aviation carry the burden for services it does use?
Changes. .5. What additional changes does AOPA propose, if any, to the LAMPS model to make it acceptable to AOPA? Alternatively, is it AOPA's position that LAMPS in any form is unacceptable?
Radio calls. .6. Accepting your position of VFR radio calls, do you accept that it has the potential to create for the regional RPT community a situation where they may arrive for an approach at a country airport oblivious to any VFR traffic in the area? . .7. May we imply from your sentence "If general aviation is to be kept at its present low level of operation, it might work" that the current radio calls act as a limit on general aviation operations at the present time? If your answer is in the affirmative what evidence does AOPA have to support this contention? If your answer is no, would you please explain just exactly what you mean.
Opinion. .8. Does the statement "I am of the opinion that their views are not necessarily representative of the more moderate views of the silent rank and file" represent a) your personal opinion or b) the opinion of AOPA, its board and its members. If your answer is b) would you care to provide ppruners with a summary of the information supporting that view and the discussions, and alternative points of view considered by AOPA, in reaching its position.
NAS. .9. Why specifically is NAS the preferred model for AOPA? What specific advantages has AOPA identified in NAS, over LAMPS, that provides real and measurable advantages for AOPA members, and presumably general aviation? What measures were used to arrive at your position of support for NAS? Did you canvass members in any formal way to determine their attitude to the proposed changes? If not, why not?
Additional information. .10. Is the letter posted on pprune the sum total of the AOPA's submission to the government on NAS? If it is not, would you please post, subject to Woomera's concurrence, any additional material submitted to the minister, such as safety analyses, member surveys, studies of the benefits or otherwise of the US system or independent comparisons between NAS and LAMPS that may have been undertaken by AOPA in support of its position.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Faulconbridge, New South Wales, Oz
Posts: 64
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few comments from someone who is LAMP/NAS neutral.
. .1) I think the airspace does need major revision, so the 'do nothing' option is one I reject.
2) First change is to reduce the ridiculous volumes of airspace that are restricted and classed C and above. Probably North American paradigms (11/9 apart) would apply.
Part of the reason we have so many VCAs is there are so many places in the way where they are likely to happen. Not condoning, just observing.
3) Second change is to get rid of local anomalies, they are a pain for someone coping with upmty ump different nations. I appreciate that choosing the International standard is an exercise in itself.
4) Third thing is to move resources from DTI to class E. Class E works very well (for me anyway), and if I'm driving something in dirty weather or fast(ish) then I'll choose to route in E over G.
I find DTI a worry as it's a bit like Clayton's ATC. Sometimes it's great, and sometimes it's a trap. I prefer to be controlled, or have no controller-like third party involved. Idiot clear, and like many I sure can be an idiot. If dumping DTI gives more E for the same dollar, great.
5) While I use radio assistance heaps for aiding see and avoid I absolutely don't support mandating radio anywhere there is no controller. I think MBZs are a joke, non-radio aircraft won't miss out because of a once-in-a-blue-moon RPT. Again not condoning, just observing.
So the fourth thing is to downgrade MBZs to CTAF.
6) I think 3 miles a minute is fast enough in uncontrolled airspace. I fly Robinson helicopters, I think you can understand I don't appreciate stuff moving excessively fast whopping by without seeing me.
. .Just opinions, please argue! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
. .1) I think the airspace does need major revision, so the 'do nothing' option is one I reject.
2) First change is to reduce the ridiculous volumes of airspace that are restricted and classed C and above. Probably North American paradigms (11/9 apart) would apply.
Part of the reason we have so many VCAs is there are so many places in the way where they are likely to happen. Not condoning, just observing.
3) Second change is to get rid of local anomalies, they are a pain for someone coping with upmty ump different nations. I appreciate that choosing the International standard is an exercise in itself.
4) Third thing is to move resources from DTI to class E. Class E works very well (for me anyway), and if I'm driving something in dirty weather or fast(ish) then I'll choose to route in E over G.
I find DTI a worry as it's a bit like Clayton's ATC. Sometimes it's great, and sometimes it's a trap. I prefer to be controlled, or have no controller-like third party involved. Idiot clear, and like many I sure can be an idiot. If dumping DTI gives more E for the same dollar, great.
5) While I use radio assistance heaps for aiding see and avoid I absolutely don't support mandating radio anywhere there is no controller. I think MBZs are a joke, non-radio aircraft won't miss out because of a once-in-a-blue-moon RPT. Again not condoning, just observing.
So the fourth thing is to downgrade MBZs to CTAF.
6) I think 3 miles a minute is fast enough in uncontrolled airspace. I fly Robinson helicopters, I think you can understand I don't appreciate stuff moving excessively fast whopping by without seeing me.
. .Just opinions, please argue! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Err, Mr Chips,
My main drama with LLAMPS is the loss of DTI in G airspace.
I think that in this day and age of technology, it is both ill-advised and unnecessary to expect IFR flights to intercept, assess and separate themselves from others. Maybe OK on a nice day, but in bad Wx with a lot of traffic, not something I'd particularly like to be doing.
For E to work, you need radar, don't you? Not a lot of that out of the east coast 'J-Curve'. So there will still be a lot of people flogging around in cloud on a 'hear-and-be-heard' (maybe) basis, as I understand it, cursing as they go, no doubt.
If the decision-makers had the will, I'm sure an OCTA DTI service could be provided for IFR over the whole of the country. If not, they're not really trying hard enough, I reckon.
My main drama with LLAMPS is the loss of DTI in G airspace.
I think that in this day and age of technology, it is both ill-advised and unnecessary to expect IFR flights to intercept, assess and separate themselves from others. Maybe OK on a nice day, but in bad Wx with a lot of traffic, not something I'd particularly like to be doing.
For E to work, you need radar, don't you? Not a lot of that out of the east coast 'J-Curve'. So there will still be a lot of people flogging around in cloud on a 'hear-and-be-heard' (maybe) basis, as I understand it, cursing as they go, no doubt.
If the decision-makers had the will, I'm sure an OCTA DTI service could be provided for IFR over the whole of the country. If not, they're not really trying hard enough, I reckon.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Faulconbridge, New South Wales, Oz
Posts: 64
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair comment- although there's heaps of radar covered class G airspace in that J curve.
I feel we should have the radar anyway.
After all Canada, with a similar population density, has RAMP right across the country (except for the frozen far North). We are paying charges and taxes that if properly administered would cover the infrastructure I believe. We're just not getting great value IMO.
That's my opinion, and my preference. I do make ATC systems for a living from time to time, I am therefore biased for sure.
Edited addition- You can do class E without radar as long as traffic density is light. Computers run a profile from flight plan, using position reports, estimates & performance data so flights can be depicted on a no-radar PPI type display.
Controllers are also pretty neat with strips, sums and separation procedures. It works elsewhere in the world.
[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: chips_with_everything ]</p>
I feel we should have the radar anyway.
After all Canada, with a similar population density, has RAMP right across the country (except for the frozen far North). We are paying charges and taxes that if properly administered would cover the infrastructure I believe. We're just not getting great value IMO.
That's my opinion, and my preference. I do make ATC systems for a living from time to time, I am therefore biased for sure.
Edited addition- You can do class E without radar as long as traffic density is light. Computers run a profile from flight plan, using position reports, estimates & performance data so flights can be depicted on a no-radar PPI type display.
Controllers are also pretty neat with strips, sums and separation procedures. It works elsewhere in the world.
[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: chips_with_everything ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings leather-bound steam driven Tsnake!
All very pertinent questions. The very fact that you (we) need to ask them is an indictment on this whole sham (thanks Bonez) of selecting an airspace model.
Whether or not US/North American system (which NAS is not, sorry pikey but it ain't) is suitable or not is irrelevent without a full and complete assessment, open to all to see. How in God's name does it happen that a single person can hijack a reform process with such a superficial load of codswallop?
Interesting question you raised regarding evidence as to the support within AOPA for the "so-called" AOPA position. Very quick to accuse others of not representing the views of their members while simultaneously projecting a personal view as that of an organisation.
Seagoon: I'm as sane as the next man!. .Eccles: Little does he know I'm the next man!
All very pertinent questions. The very fact that you (we) need to ask them is an indictment on this whole sham (thanks Bonez) of selecting an airspace model.
Whether or not US/North American system (which NAS is not, sorry pikey but it ain't) is suitable or not is irrelevent without a full and complete assessment, open to all to see. How in God's name does it happen that a single person can hijack a reform process with such a superficial load of codswallop?
Interesting question you raised regarding evidence as to the support within AOPA for the "so-called" AOPA position. Very quick to accuse others of not representing the views of their members while simultaneously projecting a personal view as that of an organisation.
Seagoon: I'm as sane as the next man!. .Eccles: Little does he know I'm the next man!
Chaps and Chapesses,
The latest edition of AOPA magazine contains a major amplification of the DS/QF proposal, as supported by AOPA.
It does answer many of the questions raised in various posts on this thread.. .Tootle Pip !!
The latest edition of AOPA magazine contains a major amplification of the DS/QF proposal, as supported by AOPA.
It does answer many of the questions raised in various posts on this thread.. .Tootle Pip !!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few things from a controller who works with DTI/E-airspace every day,. . I agree with the earlier comment that for E-airspace to work properly and safely you need radar, as the system is based on giving directed traffic on IFR and radar-observed VFR aircraft. So if no radar only half the picture is available.
Now to Chips comment that we have a lot of radar in the J-curve. At FL250 and above yes we do, but the radar coverage that counts when talking E-airspace is FL125-200 and unfortunately that is sadly lacking once more than about 150NM inland from Melbourne.
On the whole LAMP proposal, my understanding is that from an ATC standpoint (not AirServices but the actual controllers), there are many serious issues to still be addressed, one major one being, that in contrast to all the savings to the industry by reducing controllers, LAMP will in fact increase ATC's needed due to the increased separation service required.
The phrase that all you Metro, Dash-8 and Saab pilots will have to get used to hearing if LAMP comes in will be "Clearance not available remain outside controlled airspace", and considering that will mean remaining 7,500ft, you won't be happy. Cheers...
. .P.S From what I hear Dicks proposal is just **** into the wind but, he's done it before so he could do it again...gulp.
Now to Chips comment that we have a lot of radar in the J-curve. At FL250 and above yes we do, but the radar coverage that counts when talking E-airspace is FL125-200 and unfortunately that is sadly lacking once more than about 150NM inland from Melbourne.
On the whole LAMP proposal, my understanding is that from an ATC standpoint (not AirServices but the actual controllers), there are many serious issues to still be addressed, one major one being, that in contrast to all the savings to the industry by reducing controllers, LAMP will in fact increase ATC's needed due to the increased separation service required.
The phrase that all you Metro, Dash-8 and Saab pilots will have to get used to hearing if LAMP comes in will be "Clearance not available remain outside controlled airspace", and considering that will mean remaining 7,500ft, you won't be happy. Cheers...
. .P.S From what I hear Dicks proposal is just **** into the wind but, he's done it before so he could do it again...gulp.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinions of the type of people who feel the need to insult others from under the hood of anonymity, and then try to pass themselves off as Crusaders against the Forces of Evil remains. They are exactly what I said they were. I address my remarks to the many who read but who do not necessarily post, as it is important that they are not led to believe rubbish is fact simply because it is unrebutted. When the first Airspace Reform Proposal was torpedoed by the vested interests that are still peddling their half-truths on this site, I was President of the Australian International Pilot's Association. My concerns were mainly with "shorthaul", in particular the B737 operation into Ayers Rock etc, as in the main the proposals didn't affect the average B767 or B747 pilot much if at all. In order to listen to face to face responses to concerns, real or imagined, I convened a meeting between the AIPA Shorthaul representative, the Longhaul representative, the AFAP representative, and Dick Smith. I had not met Smith before this Airspace Proposal surfaced. The AFAP rep, who as far as I could ascertain hadn't flown outside the confines of N.S.W. wouldn't attend as he said "Dick Smith has nothing to teach me." The debate has stayed at that level ever since.It was the first time that I had encountered the blind jealousy or whatever it is that motivates this hostility against Dick Smith from "professional pilots" and of course the Air Traffic Controllers Union and disaffected CASA staff. I fully confess that Dick's speech and subsequent rebuttal made sense to me, and I might immodestly add that I have flown in most ATC environments, from the uncontrolled radar assisted bunfight in Viet Nam to the peace and quiet of the Australian outback and most in between. I was astounded when the B737 pilot said. "Well I am persuaded but how can I admit that to the others?" Just what was going on here? I can understand that Dick's undoubted impatience and abruptness might offend many whose egos are at risk, (or whose jobs are at risk) but does that make him wrong? He has, for whatever reason, studied Airspace for years, his ideas are almost purely derived from the US system, (despite absolutely incorrect claims to the contrary,) and he knows his stuff. (None of which might make him lovable I admit.) For those who do not wish to read the AOPA postion as detailed in the magazine, that is fine by me, but I do not intend to repeat it here. A few furphys though. E airspace is not dependent on radar. It is of course and obviously enhanced by radar, but one way to look at E is simply a better way to provide Directed Traffic Information. Why make the pilots sort out separation when some person sitting in an office with a table in front of him has the picture? As he is a Controller he issues clearances to those to whom he previously gave information only. That is E, as transparent to VFR as G is, but with added safety of a Controller instead of only information. Radar is better, but no more essential than it is in G. VFR traffic remains in E as it was in G, no more or less dangerous. VFR traffic rarely speaks in the US, except around airports, on CTAFs. There are not even "area frequencies" to speak on. Like the idea or hate it, works fine. I flew from Nashville to New Orleans and back, and the first person to whom I spoke was the Tower in New Orleans. Had I called on the ATC frequency the Controller would have been amazed as Sydney Tower would be if I called him transitting Victor One (the VFR corridor past Sydney Airport Coastal, introduced as a result of AOPA efforts.) Radar is not "everywhere" in the US, but it is true that it does usually exist at those small D towered airports that are overlain with E airspace, and I am not comfortable with jet aircraft climbing into E unless it is in a radar environment. I have flown B747s and B767's in E and it is not comfortable, but then watching a "fast mover" pulling up from a bombing pass heading my way while undoubtedly the pilot was looking over his shoulder at his handiwork was inspiring, but somehow "see and be seen" worked. There are times when VFR should talk of course, but if an occasional non radio aircraft needs to go to a country airport like Dubbo, must it be completely excluded? It is possible to get a non radio clearance into a towered airport, but not into a Mandatory Broadcast Zone! The original proposal in the 90's was to allow non radio in at low level but this was beaten by those regional pilots, and it is not all of them, who believe that only they should exist. It would be boring to go through it all here, but for those who believe that, as planned in LLAMPS, all VFR aircraft should report "climbing, descending, and every 30 minutes" or that most of NSW should be a no go zone for non radio, arrogant old me thinks that you are absurd. And I'll be signing my name.. .Bill Pike
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: AOPA Aust ]</p>
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: AOPA Aust ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am interested in the assumption of the AOPA Preident the E works fine even outside rader airspace, but he has a problem with "...and I am not comfortable with jet aircraft climbing into E unless it is in a radar environment. I have flown B747s and B767's in E and it is not comfortable,...". .Am I alone in thinking that he is pushing a barrow that he is not comfortabe with?. .What is the difference between a "Jet" and any other IFR aircraft?
twodogsflying
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: twodogsflying ]</p>
twodogsflying
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: twodogsflying ]</p>
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts have again turned to moral decision making. What temperament drives an intransigent self-centred interest, altruistic, or doomsayer's point of view.
Some possible choices in this airspace debate are:
1. Self-centred - I am passionate, loud and strongly support the airspace model which most closely matches my self-interest(s). I will demonise all other models.
2. Altruistic - I also am fervent, and aggressive, but will support the airspace model, which provides the greatest good for the broader community. I'm prepared to override my desire for higher levels of system safety when convinced that the level of safety offered is very good and restrictions, regulations and other constrictions are minimised; thereby providing freedom of opportunity.
3. Doomsayer - I am most indignant, and in your face; I will only support the airspace model that provides the highest level of system safety to all types of operations, otherwise aircraft will collide (one day?). I oppose any model that reduces the current level of system safety.
In our society we highly regard the leader and statesman whom, against a tide of opposition, brings about worthwhile reform, but will devalue arguments put in an aggressive and domineering fashion. Meanwhile, we also highly regard the dissenters (whistleblowers) in our societies who are entitled to be heard and protest, and sometimes have altered us to unseen dangers. We always need a fulsome debate, but how do we resolve the impasse, while we value freedom from regulation, a fair deal, and acceptance of personal risk.
I contend that when pilots and airspace managers/designers can suspend self-interest and view the whole bowl of fruit (resist focusing on the single bad grape), it is possible to present the Australian community with an airspace model, which passes the "greatest good" test and is worthy of general support.
Some possible choices in this airspace debate are:
1. Self-centred - I am passionate, loud and strongly support the airspace model which most closely matches my self-interest(s). I will demonise all other models.
2. Altruistic - I also am fervent, and aggressive, but will support the airspace model, which provides the greatest good for the broader community. I'm prepared to override my desire for higher levels of system safety when convinced that the level of safety offered is very good and restrictions, regulations and other constrictions are minimised; thereby providing freedom of opportunity.
3. Doomsayer - I am most indignant, and in your face; I will only support the airspace model that provides the highest level of system safety to all types of operations, otherwise aircraft will collide (one day?). I oppose any model that reduces the current level of system safety.
In our society we highly regard the leader and statesman whom, against a tide of opposition, brings about worthwhile reform, but will devalue arguments put in an aggressive and domineering fashion. Meanwhile, we also highly regard the dissenters (whistleblowers) in our societies who are entitled to be heard and protest, and sometimes have altered us to unseen dangers. We always need a fulsome debate, but how do we resolve the impasse, while we value freedom from regulation, a fair deal, and acceptance of personal risk.
I contend that when pilots and airspace managers/designers can suspend self-interest and view the whole bowl of fruit (resist focusing on the single bad grape), it is possible to present the Australian community with an airspace model, which passes the "greatest good" test and is worthy of general support.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like everyone else perhaps I'm not comfortable simply with what I am not familiar. This arrived today.. ." to confirm that there are literally hundreds of airports in the. . United States at which there is no radar coverage and that airliners,. .including jets, routinely use "see and avoid" as there only means of. . separation from other traffic. Among the many examples are such famous. . western skiing destinations as Sun Valley, Idaho; Jackson, Wyoming; and. . Vail, Colorado.. . All parties are very satisfied with the practicality and safety of this. . procedure and there is no suggestion that the procedure is inadequate or. . should be changed."
But then I forgot,Australian pilots have a different "culture", don't they?... whatever in God's name that might mean. . .(To answer "Two Dogs ..", jets go faster son.)
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: AOPA Aust ]</p>
But then I forgot,Australian pilots have a different "culture", don't they?... whatever in God's name that might mean. . .(To answer "Two Dogs ..", jets go faster son.)
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: AOPA Aust ]</p>
Bill,
Maybe you are a bit out of touch with some aspects including the "culture" differences that have been mentioned.
Firstly, in regard to Class E, it is not the other IFR aircraft that IFR pilots are concerned about, but the fact that any VFR about when there is no radar may not be party to alerted see and avoid because there is no frequency / radio requirement in Class E for VFR. The difference now is that on the area frequency, at least there is a frequency for everyone to be on, should they so choose. This is a vast difference to existing procedures and will take some time and effort before it is accepted.
In regard to the culture issue. There is most certainly a large difference between the culture of pilots in Australia and various overseas countries including the USA. You just have to look at the flying schools and instructors and how things are taught to see the first differences where in fact some cultures are "taught". To give you just one example… In the USA if a practice is "recommended" you get almost 100% compliance. To obtain the same levels of compliance in Australia, you have to MANDATE the procedures. Why else would we have made a CTAF a MBZ??
I doubt if you would see it looking down… you have to look in from the sides to see it in the big picture, but it is most definitely a significant issue in regard to ANY change proposal in Australia. If you don't consider the culture issues when change is proposed it will fail. Why do you think every change since the AMATS change in 91 has bit the dust…???
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: bonez ]</p>
Maybe you are a bit out of touch with some aspects including the "culture" differences that have been mentioned.
Firstly, in regard to Class E, it is not the other IFR aircraft that IFR pilots are concerned about, but the fact that any VFR about when there is no radar may not be party to alerted see and avoid because there is no frequency / radio requirement in Class E for VFR. The difference now is that on the area frequency, at least there is a frequency for everyone to be on, should they so choose. This is a vast difference to existing procedures and will take some time and effort before it is accepted.
In regard to the culture issue. There is most certainly a large difference between the culture of pilots in Australia and various overseas countries including the USA. You just have to look at the flying schools and instructors and how things are taught to see the first differences where in fact some cultures are "taught". To give you just one example… In the USA if a practice is "recommended" you get almost 100% compliance. To obtain the same levels of compliance in Australia, you have to MANDATE the procedures. Why else would we have made a CTAF a MBZ??
I doubt if you would see it looking down… you have to look in from the sides to see it in the big picture, but it is most definitely a significant issue in regard to ANY change proposal in Australia. If you don't consider the culture issues when change is proposed it will fail. Why do you think every change since the AMATS change in 91 has bit the dust…???
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: bonez ]</p>
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to Bill Pike, my worry with Class E Airspace outside radar coverage is the fact that unlike G airspace we are giving the IFR aircraft to climb, descend, divert off track etc, giving the impression to the pilot that all is being looked after for them as it is in C airspace. Yet as we know their could and quite often is a VFR lurking out the bottom of that cloud, and the problem I have personally experienced is the pilots fall into a false sense of security and aren't looking out. Why is it that as controllers we are not allowed to give instructions eg. climb,descend,turn left/right in Class G because it could cause them to bang into a VFR we are not aware of, yet in Class E outside radar coverage we are able to give these instructions.
Should VFR's transiting E Airspace outside Radar coverage be required to call ATC to at least alert us of their presence. And if so is that workable or desirable. Either way I still do feel E Airspace, while giving the IFR's a warm fuzzy feeling, is inherently unsafe outside radar coverage, in the most part due to that warm fuzzy feeling being unwarranted.
Should VFR's transiting E Airspace outside Radar coverage be required to call ATC to at least alert us of their presence. And if so is that workable or desirable. Either way I still do feel E Airspace, while giving the IFR's a warm fuzzy feeling, is inherently unsafe outside radar coverage, in the most part due to that warm fuzzy feeling being unwarranted.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill
Good to see my Arrrrogance has not stoped you from posting. Lets see and hear more on the topic.
You must agree that at least the info is getting out there and we are having a discussion, all be it from several well established view points.
PS Gutless whimp ?, ill give you arrogance any day. Even with one r.
Good to see my Arrrrogance has not stoped you from posting. Lets see and hear more on the topic.
You must agree that at least the info is getting out there and we are having a discussion, all be it from several well established view points.
PS Gutless whimp ?, ill give you arrogance any day. Even with one r.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PGH raises an interesting set of groups represented in this debate.
Quote:. .Altruistic - I'm prepared to override my desire for higher levels of system safety when convinced that the level of safety offered is very good and restrictions, regulations and other constrictions are minimised; thereby providing freedom of opportunity.
We must be convinced that the level of safety is very good !!. .Irrespective of motive or view, the thing bogging this process down revolves around the Responsibility for and qualification of those making the design and safety decisions.. .Those same individuals must of course be equipped with the experience necessary to make informed SAFE decisions with Independent and Competent safety processes.. .No one group or individual has the right to enforce change that has not undergone the necessary processes after taking into account the views of ALL stakeholders.
AOPA Aust
Quote:. .It was the first time that I had encountered the blind jealousy or whatever it is that motivates this hostility against Dick Smith from "professional pilots" and of course the Air Traffic Controllers Union and disaffected CASA staff.
That would have to be a sizeable percentage of the Aviation Industry wouldn’t it Bill? . .I assume the hostility was not limited to this one time, perhaps people are hostile because they are not happy with Mr Smiths proposed changes and his method of Consultation..!
Quote:. .For those who do not wish to read the AOPA postion as detailed in the magazine, that is fine by me, but I do not intend to repeat it here. A few furphys though.
Isn’t the purpose of your involvement on this forum to persuade us of the merits of NAS? Important questions have been asked here and your response is dismissive and defensive. That does not change any opinions!
Quote:. .E airspace is not dependent on radar. It is of course and obviously enhanced by radar, but one way to look at E is simply a better way to provide Directed Traffic Information.
This is true IMHO, VFR are required to maintain continuous two-way communication – Great! However outside radar coverage unless they have TCAD or similar and the Transponder on, the warm and fuzzy IFR’s will likely not see or hear or hear about “Huey” on his first solo Nav with no idea of who the hell he should be talking too or listening and looking for. ATSB ( BASI ) have made the failings of see and avoid or as I call it “Shiite.. What was that…Oh well we missed!” Perfectly clear.
Quote:. .Why make the pilots sort out separation when some person sitting in an office with a table in front of him has the picture? As he is a Controller he issues clearances to those to whom he previously gave information only..
Your correct again Bill! . .“Some person” in an office with a table in front of him has the picture..!. .He or She cannot separate or give credible traffic information to IFR on VFR “Huey” because He or She does not know about him.. .Moreover, Bill in his DHC8 with TCAS can’t hear him but might see him if Huey remembered to switch the TXPDR to ON!. .Jane in her PA31 without TCAD can’t hear or see him!!. .Jane had better have good eyes and be lucky enough to be looking in the right place at the right time !!!
Quote:. .Radar is not "everywhere" in the US, but it is true that it does usually exist at those small D towered airports that are overlain with E airspace, and I am not comfortable with jet aircraft climbing into E unless it is in a radar environment.
Well, three outa three – I agree. .So unless Radar exists, 2 phases of every IFR and VFR flight are going to be potentially very dangerous, Climb and descent... .I am sure that Jane has a worse time than Bill in the climb, nose high, checks, nav, etc to divert her only saviour ( Her Eyes ) from looking out for Huey..
Quote:. . I have flown B747s and B767's in E and it is not comfortable, but then watching a "fast mover" pulling up from a bombing pass heading my way while undoubtedly the pilot was looking over his shoulder at his handiwork was inspiring, but somehow "see and be seen" worked.
In the Boeing at the time Bill ?. .Military Guy should have seen your behemoth, good thing you weren’t adjusting the Tackle or God forbid, looking at the instruments which I assume occurs at some point during the flight. Oh and I suppose the TCAS might have given you a hint to look for him.. .If Jane had been in the area in the PA31 she would have missed the whole show..Oh well, what she doesn’t know won’t hurt her, eh Bill !!!
Quote:. .It is possible to get a non radio clearance into a towered airport, but not into a Mandatory Broadcast Zone!
With good reason! . .People sitting in an office behind a table as you put it, have the picture.. .ATC can organise a time and track and alternate means of communication ie Mobile Phone ( Got one of them Bill ?) and separate traffic accordingly.
It is my experience from having spent many many hours at an ATC Tower console that See and Avoid is fundamentally flawed as a sole means of separation. . .I wish I had a dollar for every time I have witnessed 2 light aircraft operating in VMC with traffic information and instructions issued to sequence and avoid a collision, and still pass in close proximity.. .I am also a Pilot, and a very aware of the small field of vision available in most aircraft.
If your proposal addresses these issues, post it.
Quote:. .Altruistic - I'm prepared to override my desire for higher levels of system safety when convinced that the level of safety offered is very good and restrictions, regulations and other constrictions are minimised; thereby providing freedom of opportunity.
We must be convinced that the level of safety is very good !!. .Irrespective of motive or view, the thing bogging this process down revolves around the Responsibility for and qualification of those making the design and safety decisions.. .Those same individuals must of course be equipped with the experience necessary to make informed SAFE decisions with Independent and Competent safety processes.. .No one group or individual has the right to enforce change that has not undergone the necessary processes after taking into account the views of ALL stakeholders.
AOPA Aust
Quote:. .It was the first time that I had encountered the blind jealousy or whatever it is that motivates this hostility against Dick Smith from "professional pilots" and of course the Air Traffic Controllers Union and disaffected CASA staff.
That would have to be a sizeable percentage of the Aviation Industry wouldn’t it Bill? . .I assume the hostility was not limited to this one time, perhaps people are hostile because they are not happy with Mr Smiths proposed changes and his method of Consultation..!
Quote:. .For those who do not wish to read the AOPA postion as detailed in the magazine, that is fine by me, but I do not intend to repeat it here. A few furphys though.
Isn’t the purpose of your involvement on this forum to persuade us of the merits of NAS? Important questions have been asked here and your response is dismissive and defensive. That does not change any opinions!
Quote:. .E airspace is not dependent on radar. It is of course and obviously enhanced by radar, but one way to look at E is simply a better way to provide Directed Traffic Information.
This is true IMHO, VFR are required to maintain continuous two-way communication – Great! However outside radar coverage unless they have TCAD or similar and the Transponder on, the warm and fuzzy IFR’s will likely not see or hear or hear about “Huey” on his first solo Nav with no idea of who the hell he should be talking too or listening and looking for. ATSB ( BASI ) have made the failings of see and avoid or as I call it “Shiite.. What was that…Oh well we missed!” Perfectly clear.
Quote:. .Why make the pilots sort out separation when some person sitting in an office with a table in front of him has the picture? As he is a Controller he issues clearances to those to whom he previously gave information only..
Your correct again Bill! . .“Some person” in an office with a table in front of him has the picture..!. .He or She cannot separate or give credible traffic information to IFR on VFR “Huey” because He or She does not know about him.. .Moreover, Bill in his DHC8 with TCAS can’t hear him but might see him if Huey remembered to switch the TXPDR to ON!. .Jane in her PA31 without TCAD can’t hear or see him!!. .Jane had better have good eyes and be lucky enough to be looking in the right place at the right time !!!
Quote:. .Radar is not "everywhere" in the US, but it is true that it does usually exist at those small D towered airports that are overlain with E airspace, and I am not comfortable with jet aircraft climbing into E unless it is in a radar environment.
Well, three outa three – I agree. .So unless Radar exists, 2 phases of every IFR and VFR flight are going to be potentially very dangerous, Climb and descent... .I am sure that Jane has a worse time than Bill in the climb, nose high, checks, nav, etc to divert her only saviour ( Her Eyes ) from looking out for Huey..
Quote:. . I have flown B747s and B767's in E and it is not comfortable, but then watching a "fast mover" pulling up from a bombing pass heading my way while undoubtedly the pilot was looking over his shoulder at his handiwork was inspiring, but somehow "see and be seen" worked.
In the Boeing at the time Bill ?. .Military Guy should have seen your behemoth, good thing you weren’t adjusting the Tackle or God forbid, looking at the instruments which I assume occurs at some point during the flight. Oh and I suppose the TCAS might have given you a hint to look for him.. .If Jane had been in the area in the PA31 she would have missed the whole show..Oh well, what she doesn’t know won’t hurt her, eh Bill !!!
Quote:. .It is possible to get a non radio clearance into a towered airport, but not into a Mandatory Broadcast Zone!
With good reason! . .People sitting in an office behind a table as you put it, have the picture.. .ATC can organise a time and track and alternate means of communication ie Mobile Phone ( Got one of them Bill ?) and separate traffic accordingly.
It is my experience from having spent many many hours at an ATC Tower console that See and Avoid is fundamentally flawed as a sole means of separation. . .I wish I had a dollar for every time I have witnessed 2 light aircraft operating in VMC with traffic information and instructions issued to sequence and avoid a collision, and still pass in close proximity.. .I am also a Pilot, and a very aware of the small field of vision available in most aircraft.
If your proposal addresses these issues, post it.
[quote]the blind jealousy or whatever it is that motivates this hostility against Dick Smith from "professional pilots" and of course the Air Traffic Controllers Union and disaffected CASA staff. <hr></blockquote>
This statement is a great way to foster a spirit of cooperation between AOPA and a sizeable portion of the rest of the Industry.
AOPA - what you need (and seem to have been unable to provide for as long as I've been in this game) is someone who has the ability to appreciate the viewpoints of others, and work with them in a friendly cooperative manner to develop an airspace model acceptable to all users. This closeted adversarial attitude and direct contact with the Minister every time something doesn't go the way you think it should alienates everybody.
I also make a few other points:
<ul type="square">[*]"E" airspace outside radar coverage means delays as ATC has to provide procedural separation. .[*]to provide radio contact down to the hundreds of base 700/1200FT "E" corridors ATC would, I suspect, require quite a number of additional VHF outlets ($$$$$$), also additional workload = likely increased staffing. .[*]any model that makes RPT reliant on unalerted see and avoid could attract the interest of the insurance companies (wasn't this an issue during the "G" trial fiasco - someone?). .[*]I am informed that the Victorian RAPAC yesterday was uncomplimentary (to put it mildly) of the NAS & the driver and how LAMP has been hijacked at the 11th hour, and intends communicating same to the Minister. . .[/list]
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: CaptainMidnight ]</p>
This statement is a great way to foster a spirit of cooperation between AOPA and a sizeable portion of the rest of the Industry.
AOPA - what you need (and seem to have been unable to provide for as long as I've been in this game) is someone who has the ability to appreciate the viewpoints of others, and work with them in a friendly cooperative manner to develop an airspace model acceptable to all users. This closeted adversarial attitude and direct contact with the Minister every time something doesn't go the way you think it should alienates everybody.
I also make a few other points:
<ul type="square">[*]"E" airspace outside radar coverage means delays as ATC has to provide procedural separation. .[*]to provide radio contact down to the hundreds of base 700/1200FT "E" corridors ATC would, I suspect, require quite a number of additional VHF outlets ($$$$$$), also additional workload = likely increased staffing. .[*]any model that makes RPT reliant on unalerted see and avoid could attract the interest of the insurance companies (wasn't this an issue during the "G" trial fiasco - someone?). .[*]I am informed that the Victorian RAPAC yesterday was uncomplimentary (to put it mildly) of the NAS & the driver and how LAMP has been hijacked at the 11th hour, and intends communicating same to the Minister. . .[/list]
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: CaptainMidnight ]</p>