New airspace: Dick Smith
Thanks Cogwheel but my point is why put up such a radical proposal with no alternative nav system available? It shows the way the system works, or more to the point doesn't.
It reveals much about senior management at AsA and CASA and their attitude towards and understanding of aviation, particularly GA.
It reveals much about senior management at AsA and CASA and their attitude towards and understanding of aviation, particularly GA.
Grandpa Aerotart
Well I would have to agree with anyone who says NDBs have seen their day...it's probably time to consign them into the history books alongside VAR and aural null homing...but that doesn't mean replace them with nothing, or merely put in GPS approaches instead.
This goes to my point about scattering a bunch more VOR/DMEs around...they should be in place instead of NDBs...and you can have a backup GPSNPA as well.
Even Indonesia has a system built virtually entirely around VHF navigational equipment...I cannot remember the last time in Asia I used an NDB...other than for a renewal of my rating.
I think that having an aerodrome only serviced by a GPSNPA, with no terrestrial navaids as backup must surely impact safety, when you consider who owns the said satelites....it aint Oz!
If the Pollies, Toller, Smith and whomever are serious about safety they'll do the following;
1/. The Government MUST acknowledge their constitutional responsibilties for the provision of basic infrastructure....free in recognition of it's essential contribution to the Australian economy. This would include Better radar coverage, more ATC/FS officers with less frequency sharing.
2/. CASA/ASA or whatever they call them next must have as part of their mandate the nurturing of a healthy Industry.
3/. Part of 2/. above is to ensure, via industry oversight, that non performers or bad apples are weeded out, but in an entirely fair and transparent manner. That new entrants to the industry in whatever discipline meet high standards...that means set the exams and flight tests at a reasonable level of difficulty/standard and fail anybody who doesn't meet them...repeatedly if need be until they ****** off and find something else that they are more suited too. That means more Examiners out in the field, more ATOs and a National Standard that leaves little room for fancifull interpretation. It goes without saying that theory/practical exams must be 'real world' and not some of the drivel that we have had to learn and discard up 'till now.
4/. Taxation of essential components like capital equipment(aircraft etc) spares, fuel etc are in line with what a viable industry can afford. Cost recovery on top of a myriad of taxes is unacceptable.
5/. Industry involved in technical innovation, aircraft/engine/fuel design & production must be extended Govt assistance in whatever way is deemed appropriate...anybody remember Victa
Now tell me that wouldn't have been better than god knows how many millions flowing to the US for the purchase of numerous C152s, Piper and Beechcraft trainers.
7/. All taxes, levies, user charges, airways/nav charges etc to be put in a fully accountable Govt Trust Fund, like the one in the US, and set aside for maintaining and upgrading services to the industry.
8/. NO MORE SELLING OFF THE FARM TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Privatization benefits no-one except a very few who have so much money they don't need any help anyway...if the last 20 years have proven nothing else it's proven that.
After all of the above we may even have an industry & system to be proud of...instead of the $hitfight we are meandering around at present.
Chuck.
PS. I went back to my last post, after a few hours cool off, and re read it thinking it was too much of a rant and might need to be culled. I decided to leave it as is.
This goes to my point about scattering a bunch more VOR/DMEs around...they should be in place instead of NDBs...and you can have a backup GPSNPA as well.
Even Indonesia has a system built virtually entirely around VHF navigational equipment...I cannot remember the last time in Asia I used an NDB...other than for a renewal of my rating.
I think that having an aerodrome only serviced by a GPSNPA, with no terrestrial navaids as backup must surely impact safety, when you consider who owns the said satelites....it aint Oz!
If the Pollies, Toller, Smith and whomever are serious about safety they'll do the following;
1/. The Government MUST acknowledge their constitutional responsibilties for the provision of basic infrastructure....free in recognition of it's essential contribution to the Australian economy. This would include Better radar coverage, more ATC/FS officers with less frequency sharing.
2/. CASA/ASA or whatever they call them next must have as part of their mandate the nurturing of a healthy Industry.
3/. Part of 2/. above is to ensure, via industry oversight, that non performers or bad apples are weeded out, but in an entirely fair and transparent manner. That new entrants to the industry in whatever discipline meet high standards...that means set the exams and flight tests at a reasonable level of difficulty/standard and fail anybody who doesn't meet them...repeatedly if need be until they ****** off and find something else that they are more suited too. That means more Examiners out in the field, more ATOs and a National Standard that leaves little room for fancifull interpretation. It goes without saying that theory/practical exams must be 'real world' and not some of the drivel that we have had to learn and discard up 'till now.
4/. Taxation of essential components like capital equipment(aircraft etc) spares, fuel etc are in line with what a viable industry can afford. Cost recovery on top of a myriad of taxes is unacceptable.
5/. Industry involved in technical innovation, aircraft/engine/fuel design & production must be extended Govt assistance in whatever way is deemed appropriate...anybody remember Victa
Now tell me that wouldn't have been better than god knows how many millions flowing to the US for the purchase of numerous C152s, Piper and Beechcraft trainers.7/. All taxes, levies, user charges, airways/nav charges etc to be put in a fully accountable Govt Trust Fund, like the one in the US, and set aside for maintaining and upgrading services to the industry.
8/. NO MORE SELLING OFF THE FARM TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Privatization benefits no-one except a very few who have so much money they don't need any help anyway...if the last 20 years have proven nothing else it's proven that.
After all of the above we may even have an industry & system to be proud of...instead of the $hitfight we are meandering around at present.
Chuck.
PS. I went back to my last post, after a few hours cool off, and re read it thinking it was too much of a rant and might need to be culled. I decided to leave it as is.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 20th May 2002 at 12:20.
If you want to put it in a simple way.....
It is the accountants that run Airservices,
It is the Lawyers that run CASA
Neither care about safety or a viable industry, just keeping their necks out of the noose and their juicy pay packet.
Neither really care or understand the industry they are screwing into the ground. Only when we get a pile of scrap metal somewhere do the pollies listen, but then it is too late. The rot set in back in 1985 with the Henry Bosh report on cost recovery.
The problem is that Dick really does care about the industry but because he is a proponent of change, not many like his message even tho it may be good in the long run.
It is the accountants that run Airservices,
It is the Lawyers that run CASA
Neither care about safety or a viable industry, just keeping their necks out of the noose and their juicy pay packet.
Neither really care or understand the industry they are screwing into the ground. Only when we get a pile of scrap metal somewhere do the pollies listen, but then it is too late. The rot set in back in 1985 with the Henry Bosh report on cost recovery.
The problem is that Dick really does care about the industry but because he is a proponent of change, not many like his message even tho it may be good in the long run.
Grandpa Aerotart
Do you think I could remember what that report was called...The Bosch Report.....of course set up by pollies to tell them what they wanted to hear. At the time AOPA and others were saying..."But the fuel tax we pay already covers all the costs with change!"
They were of course drowned out in the chorus of 'right thinking' from the brown nose brigade.
On a good day I'm prepared to accept that Smith honestly believes he has the best interests of the industry at heart....he just suffers the same problems all Zealots suffer.....a difficulty listening to opinions that differ from his own 'Enlightened View'
The airspace that we play in in jets(Mascot etc) doesn't need any massive changes...it works just fine....maybe a few tweeks here and there but that's about it.
The airspace that GA plays in way out in the never never needs nothing more than good communications (more FS and satelite uplink VHF) and reliable VHF navaids ( + Satelite backup).
The airspace where Jets and GA mix needs good radar, more FS officers, better navaids (ILSs at more regional airfields for instance)
In other words no massive overhauls or hugely new systems....just more of what we've got....extended radar coverage for those places where IFR Dash 8s and Regional Jets mix with young blokes in Cherokee 6s, 210s, Chieftains....and the odd millionaire in his Slowtation. By the way Dick I've been flying a C560 a bit lately....not impressed mate, but then you're shorter than I am
There are a lot of really important issues within our industry which need good heads thinking out sound solutions.....Dicking about with halfarsed airspace trials is fiddling while Rome burns...and shouldn't be Tollerated.
Chuck.
They were of course drowned out in the chorus of 'right thinking' from the brown nose brigade.
On a good day I'm prepared to accept that Smith honestly believes he has the best interests of the industry at heart....he just suffers the same problems all Zealots suffer.....a difficulty listening to opinions that differ from his own 'Enlightened View'
The airspace that we play in in jets(Mascot etc) doesn't need any massive changes...it works just fine....maybe a few tweeks here and there but that's about it.
The airspace that GA plays in way out in the never never needs nothing more than good communications (more FS and satelite uplink VHF) and reliable VHF navaids ( + Satelite backup).
The airspace where Jets and GA mix needs good radar, more FS officers, better navaids (ILSs at more regional airfields for instance)
In other words no massive overhauls or hugely new systems....just more of what we've got....extended radar coverage for those places where IFR Dash 8s and Regional Jets mix with young blokes in Cherokee 6s, 210s, Chieftains....and the odd millionaire in his Slowtation. By the way Dick I've been flying a C560 a bit lately....not impressed mate, but then you're shorter than I am
There are a lot of really important issues within our industry which need good heads thinking out sound solutions.....Dicking about with halfarsed airspace trials is fiddling while Rome burns...and shouldn't be Tollerated.
Chuck.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 20th May 2002 at 16:59.
My motivation? To win a bet!
I've got a bet going as to how many times I can prove the adage "there's no fool like and old fool", in the course of one thread. I double my money again if I nominate who I can get to prove it.
Keep up the good work - it's money for jam.
Keep up the good work - it's money for jam.
$1.00 bet.....
I’m sorry I’ve been silent for so long, however as stated on this thread, I have been flying my Cessna Caravan from Bankstown to Republic Field in New York. I attended the Lindbergh 75th anniversary.
It also gave me a chance to update on the USA system, especially Class G non-radar non-radio areas. Not only did I fly the Caravan from Monterey in California through to New York, but I also flew back to LAX in a friend’s Falcon 10, landing 4 times checking various airspace procedures.
Here are a few answers.
Spodman, yes, the idea of moving to the USA NAS system came from Qantas. I suggest you check directly with David Forsyth, their Executive General Manager, Aircraft Operations.
The “terminal area” means the approach and departure area for an airport. It does not have any strict specifications, it is self-evident.
The NAS system means that pressurised airline aircraft will fly in a minimum of Class E airspace enroute, and with a minimum of a directed traffic service when performing an instrument approach. Non-pressurised aircraft will fly without a directed traffic service in Class G airspace, however if they request the service, a Class E corridor can be provided. Obviously this all depends on an objective safety case. It would not be sensible to upgrade Class G airspace to a higher level if the cost benefit study showed that dollars would be misallocated.
In relation to the US system and traffic information, our system will be identical – i.e. if the air traffic controller knows of the traffic this will be passed on (on a workload permitting basis) just as it is in the USA. This is not just IFR traffic but VFR as well
Most importantly, radar coverage depends on traffic density. We have approximately 10% of the radar coverage of the USA, with 5% of the traffic density. We plan to follow the procedures used in the USA in radar airspace, and the procedures used in the USA in non-radar airspace.
I suggest that those interested have a look at my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au for details of airports in the USA which do not have radar coverage for the instrument approach area.
Alidad, I did not state that Ansett went broke because of regulatory charges, I said that one of the reasons “Ansett went broke is that costs were higher than income.”
Four Seven Eleven, full details of the cost savings will be provided by an independent organisation (the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics) as stated in the Minister’s announcement dated 13 May 2002.
*Lancer*, IFR aircraft will maintain separation in Class G airspace by using the existing directed traffic service in the terminal area, and by using self-announcements in enroute airspace. This is identical to the system used in the USA and Canada.
Druglord, you have the key to one of the reasons for moving to the US system when you state
I agree, having just spent 5 days flying in the USA. The reason they have such high compliance rates, especially for VFR aircraft, is that the system is very simple. VFR aircraft are not constantly looking down at charts to work out what area frequency to be on, as there are none. They are taught that when flying enroute, to avoid the circuit area of aerodromes, and if they are going to approach or depart from an aerodrome to monitor and self-announce on the CTAF frequency. This is simple, straightforward, and leads to a very high level of compliance and safety.
Bevan666, you comment:
As advised previously, airline aircraft – which really should be pressurised to be called an airline aircraft – will be fully separated in a minimum of Class E airspace, and given traffic information when on approach or departure from an airport. If, by the ‘big sky’ theory, you mean the theory of probability, the answer is yes. Virtually all aviation safety is based on mathematical probability criteria – or so I have been told by the experts – and it seems logical. Why else would Qantas be flying twin engine 767s over long ocean passages unless they were confident that the probability of a dual engine failure was so low as to be acceptable? Obviously, dual engine failure is often an airworthiness issue, but I believe airspace issues should be calculated in the same way.
Triadic, your comment
is not strictly correct. The instigator of moving to the USA NAS system was the Qantas Chief Pilot, Ian Lucas. He was also strongly supported by Mick Toller.
BIK_116.80, you mention flying in the UK Class G airspace. As you would know, airline aircraft descend through Class G to non-radar control zones in many places in the UK. Whilst a radar service is often provided during the working week, during weekends when the military radar service closes down, these aircraft descend on a see and avoid basis. It should be noted that the UK Class G airspace goes to FL245 and it is possible to fly IFR in the UK from Lands End to Johno’groats in Class G airspace on a no plan, no cost basis.
Capcom, I understand a BASI/ATSB report actually stated that the incidents during the Class G demonstration dropped off dramatically in the final weeks. I will look for a copy of this information if you desire it.
Cogwheel, thanks very much for your true comment and I would like to quote it here.
I can assure you that I genuinely believe that we can be leaders in the world in running viable aviation businesses. That is why I am interested in bringing in reforms that will remove unnecessary costs so we can compete in a global environment.
It also gave me a chance to update on the USA system, especially Class G non-radar non-radio areas. Not only did I fly the Caravan from Monterey in California through to New York, but I also flew back to LAX in a friend’s Falcon 10, landing 4 times checking various airspace procedures.
Here are a few answers.
Spodman, yes, the idea of moving to the USA NAS system came from Qantas. I suggest you check directly with David Forsyth, their Executive General Manager, Aircraft Operations.
The “terminal area” means the approach and departure area for an airport. It does not have any strict specifications, it is self-evident.
The NAS system means that pressurised airline aircraft will fly in a minimum of Class E airspace enroute, and with a minimum of a directed traffic service when performing an instrument approach. Non-pressurised aircraft will fly without a directed traffic service in Class G airspace, however if they request the service, a Class E corridor can be provided. Obviously this all depends on an objective safety case. It would not be sensible to upgrade Class G airspace to a higher level if the cost benefit study showed that dollars would be misallocated.
In relation to the US system and traffic information, our system will be identical – i.e. if the air traffic controller knows of the traffic this will be passed on (on a workload permitting basis) just as it is in the USA. This is not just IFR traffic but VFR as well
Most importantly, radar coverage depends on traffic density. We have approximately 10% of the radar coverage of the USA, with 5% of the traffic density. We plan to follow the procedures used in the USA in radar airspace, and the procedures used in the USA in non-radar airspace.
I suggest that those interested have a look at my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au for details of airports in the USA which do not have radar coverage for the instrument approach area.
Alidad, I did not state that Ansett went broke because of regulatory charges, I said that one of the reasons “Ansett went broke is that costs were higher than income.”
Four Seven Eleven, full details of the cost savings will be provided by an independent organisation (the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics) as stated in the Minister’s announcement dated 13 May 2002.
*Lancer*, IFR aircraft will maintain separation in Class G airspace by using the existing directed traffic service in the terminal area, and by using self-announcements in enroute airspace. This is identical to the system used in the USA and Canada.
Druglord, you have the key to one of the reasons for moving to the US system when you state
“. . . but the US has without doubt, the most efficient ATC in the world and much easier to understand, resulting in probably a lot less VCAs. The sooner the better.”
Bevan666, you comment:
“Without traffic information are we not just applying the ‘big sky’ theory to separation?”
Triadic, your comment
“Qantas was NOT the author or part author of the NAS paper . . .”
BIK_116.80, you mention flying in the UK Class G airspace. As you would know, airline aircraft descend through Class G to non-radar control zones in many places in the UK. Whilst a radar service is often provided during the working week, during weekends when the military radar service closes down, these aircraft descend on a see and avoid basis. It should be noted that the UK Class G airspace goes to FL245 and it is possible to fly IFR in the UK from Lands End to Johno’groats in Class G airspace on a no plan, no cost basis.
Capcom, I understand a BASI/ATSB report actually stated that the incidents during the Class G demonstration dropped off dramatically in the final weeks. I will look for a copy of this information if you desire it.
Cogwheel, thanks very much for your true comment and I would like to quote it here.
“The problem is that Dick really does care about the industry but because he is a proponent of change, not many like his message even tho it may be good in the long run.”
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome back Mr Smith
Thanks for your replies so far. A supplementary if I may:
1. If the cost savings are yet to be determined, what was the basis for selecting a particular model in the first place?
Edited to add: Given the above, what was the basis for your statements that the NAS model would save $50 million per year?
And back to my original question:
This becomes more important now that both the minister and yourself have stated that the cost benefits of the NAS (and any other model) have not even been determined yet.
And a third question:
3. You have been chairman of the CAA and later CASA. Will you accept a senior position in the new airspace authority, if one is offered by the Minister? Have any discussions regarding any such offer taken place?
Four Seven Eleven, full details of the cost savings will be provided by an independent organisation (the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics) as stated in the Minister’s announcement dated 13 May 2002.
Edited to add: Given the above, what was the basis for your statements that the NAS model would save $50 million per year?
And back to my original question:
2. It seems to be an accepted fact that you have been a supporter of the NAS proposal since its inception. If you accept this, would you like to comment on any conflict of interest which may have arisen by virtue of your participation in the panel which was formed to assess airpace models. In effect, was your mind already made up before the first meeting?
And a third question:
3. You have been chairman of the CAA and later CASA. Will you accept a senior position in the new airspace authority, if one is offered by the Minister? Have any discussions regarding any such offer taken place?
Last edited by Four Seven Eleven; 24th May 2002 at 09:28.
Welcome back Dick, and thanks for the reply. Not having experienced the US airspace system first hand I'll pose a few questions.
In class G airspace in the US, enroute IFR flights self separate using broadcasts. Does this pose any issues with frequency congestion? How are these frequencies managed and allocated(as in areas, routes etc?)? I am thinking in terms of the impact to small RPT routes served by non pressurised airliners (PA31, C404 etc).
I take your point about the use of probabilities with enroute IFR in class G. It is interesting though to consider the impact of the use of IFR GPS in terms of actually increasing the likelyhood of a collision when enroute (with GPS cross track errors are in the order of metres, not miles now). Many IFR GPS's lack the ability to specify a default track offset which would somewhat mitigate this risk.
Maybe the best way to answer these questions is for me to ferry your C208 home...
Bevan..
In class G airspace in the US, enroute IFR flights self separate using broadcasts. Does this pose any issues with frequency congestion? How are these frequencies managed and allocated(as in areas, routes etc?)? I am thinking in terms of the impact to small RPT routes served by non pressurised airliners (PA31, C404 etc).
I take your point about the use of probabilities with enroute IFR in class G. It is interesting though to consider the impact of the use of IFR GPS in terms of actually increasing the likelyhood of a collision when enroute (with GPS cross track errors are in the order of metres, not miles now). Many IFR GPS's lack the ability to specify a default track offset which would somewhat mitigate this risk.
Maybe the best way to answer these questions is for me to ferry your C208 home...
Bevan..
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since a lot of opinions are being aired, I'll offer mine.
Having performed the FS and the ATC function in a variety of airspace, I have been following this debate with much interest. When I first gained a pilots license, we had what can only be described as the pinnacle of service available (flight following for VFRs, free updates of charts and manuals etc.). Was it necessary? Probably not. It was good though. So now we have progressed to the current situation, driven by cost. That is the sole reason. User pays, cost recovery, call it what you will. Cost. Now that almost no service is provided, even to IFR RPTs flying outside the J, safety is actually coming into question. Cost is no longer a factor. Cost is as low as it can go. ASA has incrementally reduced the costs to the point where it can go no lower. The only costs now available to ASA to remove, is directed traffic, and navaids. Neither propsed new airspace model will allow that. The DTI now being provided is done so by ATC, as an 'extra'.
So here we are.
Mr Smith is pushing a lassaiz faire model, which if implemented to true US standards will be more flexible than the current or LLAMP model, but which will cost more. When ASA realise that, they will be very upset. I can safely make such a statement because I can see the impracticality of applying Mr Smiths proposal to what now happens. If a service is to be available on demand- such as DTI to IFR, you must have someone following the traffic, ready to provide the service. ie. staff must be trained, available and waiting. ie paid. As happens in the US. At the moment , the service (or lack of it) is quantifiable, rostered for and irksome to ASA. Their response will be to qualify the service as 'when available', thereby escaping the need to add staff- just have the current staff do it 'when available'.
I really hope you have the courage of your convictions, Mr Smith, and ensure the proposal will be adequately staffed. And before I get the barrage of 'you're biased' or 'ATC just trying to protect jobs'- I have to point out; I don't work there any more and therefor have nothing to gain, I have worked under the regime of 'doing DTI when you are not busy' (that certainly isn't in the US model) and it is a debacle, I am not pushing any barrow, I am not trying to put $hit on the NAS model, the jobs are already gone (too late for that). If anything, shifting the DTI to airport basings (CAGRO as at Ayers Rock) will create jobs. It's just that ASA won't be paying the salaries (cost shifting).
Safer? A full US model is safer than what we have now. Will we get a full US model? Up to you, Mr Smith.
Having performed the FS and the ATC function in a variety of airspace, I have been following this debate with much interest. When I first gained a pilots license, we had what can only be described as the pinnacle of service available (flight following for VFRs, free updates of charts and manuals etc.). Was it necessary? Probably not. It was good though. So now we have progressed to the current situation, driven by cost. That is the sole reason. User pays, cost recovery, call it what you will. Cost. Now that almost no service is provided, even to IFR RPTs flying outside the J, safety is actually coming into question. Cost is no longer a factor. Cost is as low as it can go. ASA has incrementally reduced the costs to the point where it can go no lower. The only costs now available to ASA to remove, is directed traffic, and navaids. Neither propsed new airspace model will allow that. The DTI now being provided is done so by ATC, as an 'extra'.
So here we are.
Mr Smith is pushing a lassaiz faire model, which if implemented to true US standards will be more flexible than the current or LLAMP model, but which will cost more. When ASA realise that, they will be very upset. I can safely make such a statement because I can see the impracticality of applying Mr Smiths proposal to what now happens. If a service is to be available on demand- such as DTI to IFR, you must have someone following the traffic, ready to provide the service. ie. staff must be trained, available and waiting. ie paid. As happens in the US. At the moment , the service (or lack of it) is quantifiable, rostered for and irksome to ASA. Their response will be to qualify the service as 'when available', thereby escaping the need to add staff- just have the current staff do it 'when available'.
I really hope you have the courage of your convictions, Mr Smith, and ensure the proposal will be adequately staffed. And before I get the barrage of 'you're biased' or 'ATC just trying to protect jobs'- I have to point out; I don't work there any more and therefor have nothing to gain, I have worked under the regime of 'doing DTI when you are not busy' (that certainly isn't in the US model) and it is a debacle, I am not pushing any barrow, I am not trying to put $hit on the NAS model, the jobs are already gone (too late for that). If anything, shifting the DTI to airport basings (CAGRO as at Ayers Rock) will create jobs. It's just that ASA won't be paying the salaries (cost shifting).
Safer? A full US model is safer than what we have now. Will we get a full US model? Up to you, Mr Smith.
Grandpa Aerotart
ferris,
My point exactly...only put a lot more succinctly...and with a little less emotion.
So Dick....you answered most everyone else's concerns except mine...how about it?
Chuck.
My point exactly...only put a lot more succinctly...and with a little less emotion.
So Dick....you answered most everyone else's concerns except mine...how about it?
Chuck.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIngle Pilot IFR Drivers (Unpressurised) - Are we not worthy??
I for one am sick of being regarded as a second class operator because I operate an non-pressurised, non RPT, commercial aircraft.
There are many drivers who operate single pilot IFR ops all weathers, day/night in CTA and Class G, yet somehow, the people behind the NAS don't believe we deserve a level of safety and assurance that multi crew pressurised aircraft deserve. We have to absorb all the workload, and don't have another pilot to keep an eye on things as well, or give assistance, and now, even ATC won't be able to help either.
I for one am looking forward to requesting DTI or other info on a particularly bad night (in ClassG) and being told 'not available'.
I sincerely hope the money saved by compromising our safety will go to a worthy cause .........that way, whilst I am up to my neck in workload and $hite weather, and under pressure, I'll feel a little better knowing that some village somewhere in Africa will have clean drinking water.
There are many drivers who operate single pilot IFR ops all weathers, day/night in CTA and Class G, yet somehow, the people behind the NAS don't believe we deserve a level of safety and assurance that multi crew pressurised aircraft deserve. We have to absorb all the workload, and don't have another pilot to keep an eye on things as well, or give assistance, and now, even ATC won't be able to help either.
I for one am looking forward to requesting DTI or other info on a particularly bad night (in ClassG) and being told 'not available'.
I sincerely hope the money saved by compromising our safety will go to a worthy cause .........that way, whilst I am up to my neck in workload and $hite weather, and under pressure, I'll feel a little better knowing that some village somewhere in Africa will have clean drinking water.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genuinely grateful for the information DS.
Still puzzles me though. If it was a Qantas idea why is there no white rat on the document?
Your comparisons between radar coverage and traffic density seem a bit suspect to me. With statistics you can prove that everybody has 2.3 legs and owns a hyena.
Radar is good, but in the Class E airspace I have had the most to do with (YMIA corridor) separation is mostly achieved with VOR/DME (with help from GPSRNAV where fitted). It works because where there is no radar we have that VOR/DME coverage. There are plenty of places without VOR/DME here, yet in the US system pictures like this http://www.airchart.com/NewWeb/pages/ac_ifr_dtl.html seem to indicate there are lots over there. Maybe enough to provide an efficient service?
Has anybody thought how much more restrictive these procedures and airspace will be here, especially in those areas with low levels of GPS fitment?
Regarding traffic. I think I understand now that flights known to me will know about traffic I can see, and any other "un-controlled" flights that choose to tell me where they are? But how is the poor controller supposed to record all this? It seems to me that in this "terminal" area, traffic would basically be restricted to stuff seen on radar plus:
Arriving flights - on departing flights waiting for a clearance.
Departing flights - on flights cleared for an approach.
Coz' thats all TAAAAATS can see.
Still puzzles me though. If it was a Qantas idea why is there no white rat on the document?
Your comparisons between radar coverage and traffic density seem a bit suspect to me. With statistics you can prove that everybody has 2.3 legs and owns a hyena.
Radar is good, but in the Class E airspace I have had the most to do with (YMIA corridor) separation is mostly achieved with VOR/DME (with help from GPSRNAV where fitted). It works because where there is no radar we have that VOR/DME coverage. There are plenty of places without VOR/DME here, yet in the US system pictures like this http://www.airchart.com/NewWeb/pages/ac_ifr_dtl.html seem to indicate there are lots over there. Maybe enough to provide an efficient service?
Has anybody thought how much more restrictive these procedures and airspace will be here, especially in those areas with low levels of GPS fitment?
Regarding traffic. I think I understand now that flights known to me will know about traffic I can see, and any other "un-controlled" flights that choose to tell me where they are? But how is the poor controller supposed to record all this? It seems to me that in this "terminal" area, traffic would basically be restricted to stuff seen on radar plus:
Arriving flights - on departing flights waiting for a clearance.
Departing flights - on flights cleared for an approach.
Coz' thats all TAAAAATS can see.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman,
I think the problem here is that you think you will be doing DTI. What I believe will happen is the CAGRO thing; DTI will become an aerodrome function, enroute DTI will be phased out. That is the way NAS reads to me. That way ASA can cost-shift DTI to the airport owner/airline/somebody else. Odd behaviour for a 'business' trying to source new 'revenue streams'. It does get around the old chestnut of providing a service to the uneconomical areas (most of the country). CAGROs will only go in where someone can afford them.
I think the problem here is that you think you will be doing DTI. What I believe will happen is the CAGRO thing; DTI will become an aerodrome function, enroute DTI will be phased out. That is the way NAS reads to me. That way ASA can cost-shift DTI to the airport owner/airline/somebody else. Odd behaviour for a 'business' trying to source new 'revenue streams'. It does get around the old chestnut of providing a service to the uneconomical areas (most of the country). CAGROs will only go in where someone can afford them.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More questions......
Scenario:
An uncontrolled aerodrome, with Class E airspace to 1200FT AGL above. IMC conditions, no VHF coverage on the ground, radar coverage down to 4,000FT AGL.
A Navajo (not HF equipped) taxies (making all of the appropriate broadcasts - unheard by ATC) and departs. On first contact with ATC, is told "clearance not available, remain outside control area"
ATC has traffic which precludes a clearance - unless radar identified. Catch 22 - the aircraft has to climb into CTA to become identified.
Questions:
Does the pilot:
a) Remain outside CTA and risk a CFIT
b) Climb to maintain terrain clearance and commit a VCA
c) Other
Does the ATC:
a) Refuse to issue a clearance, knowing the above
b) Issue a clearance and commit a breakdown of separation
c) Other
Discuss............
An uncontrolled aerodrome, with Class E airspace to 1200FT AGL above. IMC conditions, no VHF coverage on the ground, radar coverage down to 4,000FT AGL.
A Navajo (not HF equipped) taxies (making all of the appropriate broadcasts - unheard by ATC) and departs. On first contact with ATC, is told "clearance not available, remain outside control area"
ATC has traffic which precludes a clearance - unless radar identified. Catch 22 - the aircraft has to climb into CTA to become identified.
Questions:
Does the pilot:
a) Remain outside CTA and risk a CFIT
b) Climb to maintain terrain clearance and commit a VCA
c) Other
Does the ATC:
a) Refuse to issue a clearance, knowing the above
b) Issue a clearance and commit a breakdown of separation
c) Other
Discuss............
4711 - Easy answer..
Locations that have class E down to 1200 would have VHF coverage on the ground. These locations would be limited to those used by regional RPT etc.
In fact such locations would only be selected on the basis of traffic type and mix. Otherwise any class E base would be much higher which would allow conflicts to be resolved in G as they are now.
Locations that have class E down to 1200 would have VHF coverage on the ground. These locations would be limited to those used by regional RPT etc.
In fact such locations would only be selected on the basis of traffic type and mix. Otherwise any class E base would be much higher which would allow conflicts to be resolved in G as they are now.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cog - a concise and helpful answer. Of course the difference will be the lack of DTI in that class G airspace.
Having looked at the proposal, I don't see a lot of problems which can't be ironed out. The major ones appear to be:
1) Costs will be 'transferred' from Airservices to other agencies. This will mean that the money has to be gathered somehow. Could end up either costing more or costing the same but having to pay more people.
2) IFR in class G not receiving a DTI. WIll be interesting to see the safety case on this one.
As you will have gathered from my previous posts and the questions (as yet unanswered but let's wait until after the Narromine fly-in ) I have some concerns with the process rather than specifically the proposal itself.
My feelings:
a) Dick Smith is an entrepeneur, and has been successful in this field. Entrepeneurs (i.e. those who risk their own money) only succeed if they are single minded, determined, able to succeed against the odds, able to weather storms of criticism, able to defeat opposition and 'crash or crash through.'
b) Twice in the past, Mr Smith has held a position of responsibility under the public purse (CAA and CASA). Both times, he tried to intitiate change and failed. 'Public servants', i.e. those who risk your, money, safety, etc. will not succeed if they are single minded, determined, able to succeed against the odds, able to weather storms of criticism, able to defeat opposition and 'crash or crash through.'. Public service requires someone with much geater skills than these. Decisions by public agencies are accountable to the public and to parliament. Public agencies are not there to indulge the whims of individuals, no matter how well-intentioned or influential (or even right). To put it another way, justice must not only be done, but must be SEEN to be done.
c) With respect, Mr Smith is a well-intentioned person who holds strong opinions. THe second of these qualities should have disqualified him from holding a position on the recent board.
d) The NAS proposal would have been better served if Mr Smith had remained what he was: a strong advocate of NAS. You cannot be both a player and an umpire.
e) IF implemented, NAS will either
Having looked at the proposal, I don't see a lot of problems which can't be ironed out. The major ones appear to be:
1) Costs will be 'transferred' from Airservices to other agencies. This will mean that the money has to be gathered somehow. Could end up either costing more or costing the same but having to pay more people.
2) IFR in class G not receiving a DTI. WIll be interesting to see the safety case on this one.
As you will have gathered from my previous posts and the questions (as yet unanswered but let's wait until after the Narromine fly-in
) I have some concerns with the process rather than specifically the proposal itself. My feelings:
a) Dick Smith is an entrepeneur, and has been successful in this field. Entrepeneurs (i.e. those who risk their own money) only succeed if they are single minded, determined, able to succeed against the odds, able to weather storms of criticism, able to defeat opposition and 'crash or crash through.'
b) Twice in the past, Mr Smith has held a position of responsibility under the public purse (CAA and CASA). Both times, he tried to intitiate change and failed. 'Public servants', i.e. those who risk your, money, safety, etc. will not succeed if they are single minded, determined, able to succeed against the odds, able to weather storms of criticism, able to defeat opposition and 'crash or crash through.'. Public service requires someone with much geater skills than these. Decisions by public agencies are accountable to the public and to parliament. Public agencies are not there to indulge the whims of individuals, no matter how well-intentioned or influential (or even right). To put it another way, justice must not only be done, but must be SEEN to be done.
c) With respect, Mr Smith is a well-intentioned person who holds strong opinions. THe second of these qualities should have disqualified him from holding a position on the recent board.
d) The NAS proposal would have been better served if Mr Smith had remained what he was: a strong advocate of NAS. You cannot be both a player and an umpire.
e) IF implemented, NAS will either
- Succeed because we will make it succeed, always wondering if we should have taken the trouble to really look at the options available; or
- Fail because of resistance, based on the process rather than the model itself