New airspace: Dick Smith
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New airspace: Dick Smith
Has anyone an opinion on the new air space (NAS) that has been put forward by Dick Smith. It is a US standard system which means no safety check but I would think the regional guys would not be impressed as it means that some IFR aicraft will be out there unknown to ATC. This means that the SAAB and Dash drivers must content with the PIFR pilots and other charter companies who choose not to plan and therefore no ATC directed traffic.
It seems to me that it is good for the local GA company with reduced costs but I think its a worry. Can the regional and charter pilots really be happy for separation with no radar and some pilots IFR with no plan????
Yes it might save money but at what overall cost?
It seems to me that it is good for the local GA company with reduced costs but I think its a worry. Can the regional and charter pilots really be happy for separation with no radar and some pilots IFR with no plan????
Yes it might save money but at what overall cost?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hijacking the topic a little already and as much as I hate to be on the same side as Dick....
We may scoff and chuckle about the US aviation system and industry as a whole.
But from a safety & efficiency comparison....
They are really no worse (or better) statistically than Australia & New Zealand.
and they have WX, Terrian and conjestion to deal with as well!
Therefore, are we suffering overall from overpolicing & overregulation for no real benifit?
We may scoff and chuckle about the US aviation system and industry as a whole.
But from a safety & efficiency comparison....
They are really no worse (or better) statistically than Australia & New Zealand.
and they have WX, Terrian and conjestion to deal with as well!
Therefore, are we suffering overall from overpolicing & overregulation for no real benifit?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere in Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they adopt the US system will they also adopt the US system of primary radar or will that cost too much. the controllers need to be able to see all aircraft even the ones that dont turn on a transponder..
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Well it's an IRS nowdays, but the AHRS were fun.
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we open our minds and get over the belief that Aussie or NZ is safer that the US then we may be able to look at this thing on a objective fashion. Think back to all the fear over "E" airspace and how many accidents we have had since that came in.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#1AHRS, I wonder what type of flying you do in Australia? I know pretty much what aircraft you do or at least did at one point fly if your name is any indication.
I doubt we think our airspace is currently any safer or less safe than anywhere else but the notion of IFR traffic in cloud without a plan and therefore not passed as a conflict could be concerning. We do not have radar that would pick the aircraft up if the transponder was off or not working. GPS accuracy changes the randomness of tracking and probably increases the risk of collision. Private instrument rating over time probably increases the overall inexperience of IFR pilots ( perhaps ). I understand the chances of impact are very low ( around the lottery winning odds ) for a passenger on an aircraft under these circumstances ( the numbers are slightly more interesting if this is your career ).
I would like to bet that perhaps it's the over worked charter pilot working for the near extinct charter company and the inexperienced private IFR pilots who will not be lodging plans. These combinations added to less than acceptable radar make it difficult for ATC and the other pilots to identify and clear the traffic risk does it not?? Please tell me if I am not being objective enough or that I misunderstand the point. I will listen... Remember the pilots have to convince themselves this is a good idea before they have a hope of saying to the passengers that it is acceptable risk and money saved is worth it!
I doubt we think our airspace is currently any safer or less safe than anywhere else but the notion of IFR traffic in cloud without a plan and therefore not passed as a conflict could be concerning. We do not have radar that would pick the aircraft up if the transponder was off or not working. GPS accuracy changes the randomness of tracking and probably increases the risk of collision. Private instrument rating over time probably increases the overall inexperience of IFR pilots ( perhaps ). I understand the chances of impact are very low ( around the lottery winning odds ) for a passenger on an aircraft under these circumstances ( the numbers are slightly more interesting if this is your career ).
I would like to bet that perhaps it's the over worked charter pilot working for the near extinct charter company and the inexperienced private IFR pilots who will not be lodging plans. These combinations added to less than acceptable radar make it difficult for ATC and the other pilots to identify and clear the traffic risk does it not?? Please tell me if I am not being objective enough or that I misunderstand the point. I will listen... Remember the pilots have to convince themselves this is a good idea before they have a hope of saying to the passengers that it is acceptable risk and money saved is worth it!
fromwayback
The topic has been covered before - do a search in this forum with "airspace" and open the one titled "New Airspace proposal" in particular.
There is a long way to go if this model is implemented, with many issues to be addressed eg. ICAO non-compliance with many aspects, implications of class E corridors (width, VHF radio coverage down to 700' etc) and pilot & ATC procedures developed.
Also the proposal is not immune from the requirement for a comprehensive safety case as some seem to believe, and there has been no costing released as yet. Airservices has said that they will implement any system they are told to, and if it costs more for them to run, they will increase their charges. LAMP was said to save money, and the NAS to cost more.
Things will drag on and ultimately we might see a few mods to the existing system and that might be it.
The topic has been covered before - do a search in this forum with "airspace" and open the one titled "New Airspace proposal" in particular.
There is a long way to go if this model is implemented, with many issues to be addressed eg. ICAO non-compliance with many aspects, implications of class E corridors (width, VHF radio coverage down to 700' etc) and pilot & ATC procedures developed.
Also the proposal is not immune from the requirement for a comprehensive safety case as some seem to believe, and there has been no costing released as yet. Airservices has said that they will implement any system they are told to, and if it costs more for them to run, they will increase their charges. LAMP was said to save money, and the NAS to cost more.
Things will drag on and ultimately we might see a few mods to the existing system and that might be it.
Fromwayback
I think you may be getting the two airspace proposals mixed up. The NAS USA system (as initiated by Qantas and CASA and supported by myself) is the one that keeps the minimum of a directed traffic service for airline traffic. The LAMP proposal, which was designed and supported by regional pilots, is the one that has airline aircraft operating without any directed traffic service.
I would suggest you look at my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au for further details.
To put it simply, the LAMP proposal not only removed the directed traffic service enroute in Class G, but also removed the directed traffic service where airline aircraft were performing instrument approaches at non-tower airports.
The NAS proposal retains the directed traffic service in the terminal area at non tower airports but removes it enroute in Class G. There will, however, be Class E airspace to a lower level of 8,500’ in radar airspace, and FL145 in non-radar airspace. This results in all pressurised airline aircraft being able to fly enroute with a full separation service. Under the NAS system, in the terminal area a directed traffic service will be provided by ATC as a minimum, and we will move to Class E airspace in the terminal area where traffic density requires.
Yes, cost saving is an important part of NAS. The estimate is that it will save at least $50 million per year. Pilots seem to forget that the primary reason Ansett went broke is that costs were higher than income. I am personally very concerned about employing the maximum number of people in aviation. We can assist with this by having the most efficient airspace system.
As I have stated previously on PPRuNe, if anyone wants information on the NAS proposal please give me a phone call on 02 9450 0600 or mobile 0408 640 221.
I think you may be getting the two airspace proposals mixed up. The NAS USA system (as initiated by Qantas and CASA and supported by myself) is the one that keeps the minimum of a directed traffic service for airline traffic. The LAMP proposal, which was designed and supported by regional pilots, is the one that has airline aircraft operating without any directed traffic service.
I would suggest you look at my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au for further details.
To put it simply, the LAMP proposal not only removed the directed traffic service enroute in Class G, but also removed the directed traffic service where airline aircraft were performing instrument approaches at non-tower airports.
The NAS proposal retains the directed traffic service in the terminal area at non tower airports but removes it enroute in Class G. There will, however, be Class E airspace to a lower level of 8,500’ in radar airspace, and FL145 in non-radar airspace. This results in all pressurised airline aircraft being able to fly enroute with a full separation service. Under the NAS system, in the terminal area a directed traffic service will be provided by ATC as a minimum, and we will move to Class E airspace in the terminal area where traffic density requires.
Yes, cost saving is an important part of NAS. The estimate is that it will save at least $50 million per year. Pilots seem to forget that the primary reason Ansett went broke is that costs were higher than income. I am personally very concerned about employing the maximum number of people in aviation. We can assist with this by having the most efficient airspace system.
As I have stated previously on PPRuNe, if anyone wants information on the NAS proposal please give me a phone call on 02 9450 0600 or mobile 0408 640 221.
RE: Airspace reform and recent comments
If you were going to form a new airline and decided that you needed aircraft, you wouldn’t first get a group of pilots together to design the aeroplane. Surely you would look around the world to see if a proven design was available. This would be the prudent and professional way to go. However with LAMP, a group of pilots and air traffic controllers (most with no overseas experience at all) got together to design an airspace system.
This is despite the fact that there are airspace systems around the world that are the equivalent of a Boeing 747. They have evolved under tremendous pressure, cost vast amounts of money, and had the potential of hugely expensive litigation. It is sensible to at least look at these systems – which are available for free – and copy where practical.
That has always been my belief. I have been fortunate to run three successful businesses in my lifetime and my formula has always been to copy the success of others.
I spoke to a number of pilots and air traffic controllers on the LAMP team and they stated that they had no in depth knowledge of how the North American airspace system worked, and wished they did.
When we originally worked on the AMATS changes in 1990 – 1991 (which was the initiative to move to the US system) we took a team of Australian pilots and ATCs to the USA and Canada and flew in the airspace and stood in the control towers. We did this in airspace where there was no radar or VHF coverage. The team agreed that the North American system was the way to go.
If you were going to form a new airline and decided that you needed aircraft, you wouldn’t first get a group of pilots together to design the aeroplane. Surely you would look around the world to see if a proven design was available. This would be the prudent and professional way to go. However with LAMP, a group of pilots and air traffic controllers (most with no overseas experience at all) got together to design an airspace system.
This is despite the fact that there are airspace systems around the world that are the equivalent of a Boeing 747. They have evolved under tremendous pressure, cost vast amounts of money, and had the potential of hugely expensive litigation. It is sensible to at least look at these systems – which are available for free – and copy where practical.
That has always been my belief. I have been fortunate to run three successful businesses in my lifetime and my formula has always been to copy the success of others.
I spoke to a number of pilots and air traffic controllers on the LAMP team and they stated that they had no in depth knowledge of how the North American airspace system worked, and wished they did.
When we originally worked on the AMATS changes in 1990 – 1991 (which was the initiative to move to the US system) we took a team of Australian pilots and ATCs to the USA and Canada and flew in the airspace and stood in the control towers. We did this in airspace where there was no radar or VHF coverage. The team agreed that the North American system was the way to go.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to PPRUNE ds!
Initiated by QANTAS, hand on your heart, really????
One question about traffic, some pilots I have discussed this with think the main advantage of NAS over LAMP is directed traffic information in Class G. I reviewed the proposal after your post and see the word "terminal". What does this mean exactly, you only get traffic if a CAGRO is established, or from ATS?
As I understand the US system, if ATC are aware of traffic information they pass it to any aircraft known to be on their frequencies. Why the departure from the US model here? Perhaps because they can get meaningful information to pass from their radar system? According to sources on these forums their coverage includes most of their traffic, (except "little podunk airports" as S. Voight puts it).
Initiated by QANTAS, hand on your heart, really????
One question about traffic, some pilots I have discussed this with think the main advantage of NAS over LAMP is directed traffic information in Class G. I reviewed the proposal after your post and see the word "terminal". What does this mean exactly, you only get traffic if a CAGRO is established, or from ATS?
As I understand the US system, if ATC are aware of traffic information they pass it to any aircraft known to be on their frequencies. Why the departure from the US model here? Perhaps because they can get meaningful information to pass from their radar system? According to sources on these forums their coverage includes most of their traffic, (except "little podunk airports" as S. Voight puts it).
One of my concerns with NAS (and LAMP) are how to provide or arrange mutual separation in class G where no directed traffic information exists. I can see an environment of massive frequency congestion as IFR flights broadcast position reports to try and establish whether a conflict exists.
Obviously this is not a problem when tooling about VFR (or IFR clear of cloud) but it is when you are flying in the white stuff. I for one are rather concerned about not knowing about other prossibly conflicting traffic when IFR.
The aircraft I fly spend all their time below 10,000' and in most cases this will be in class G airspace. I will not know who is out there.
It has already been identified that we need to reduce the number of broadcasts on our area frequencies (esp when they are tied together via relay over very large areas). Taking away directed traffic info doesnt seem to be a way of reducing this.
Are their any maps/charts showing where Class E will be down to 8500'? (just the melb-brissy corridor?) How far from a non-tower aerodrome will traffic information be provided?
Bevan..
Obviously this is not a problem when tooling about VFR (or IFR clear of cloud) but it is when you are flying in the white stuff. I for one are rather concerned about not knowing about other prossibly conflicting traffic when IFR.
The aircraft I fly spend all their time below 10,000' and in most cases this will be in class G airspace. I will not know who is out there.
It has already been identified that we need to reduce the number of broadcasts on our area frequencies (esp when they are tied together via relay over very large areas). Taking away directed traffic info doesnt seem to be a way of reducing this.
Are their any maps/charts showing where Class E will be down to 8500'? (just the melb-brissy corridor?) How far from a non-tower aerodrome will traffic information be provided?
Bevan..
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Ansett did not go broke because of regulatory charges. They were operating in the same cost environment as every other player in that respect.
Ansett went broke because it's management and staff had not adjusted from the two airline environment to one of a deregulated market place. Flight attendants getting paid more than $80K per annum to do 2 flights per week in lazy, inefficient, and unproductive. Would you have paid these sorts of rates for semi-skilled labour? The Australian population should not be expected to subsidise inefficent organisations. Aviation is in the contemporary world a fundamental part of a nation's infrastructure- the more cost efficent the better from a work practices point of view.
What we do not want to see is the quality of our services sacrificed purely for monitory gain. It is the governments responibility to provide basic infrastructure in which private enterprise can function (roads, hospitals, ATC etc)
It is the quality of these structures that makes sets us apart from 3rd world countries. A midair collision between an airliner, and VFR traffic will make us no better a place to live than a country such as Bangaladesh (sp) where ferry sinkings due corruption, and lack of regulation are a SAD way of life.
Kind regards
alidad
Edited for unproductive comments , This is not personal, it's about everyone having the right to and expressing their own opinion and views for debate. Last warning , Woomera
Ansett did not go broke because of regulatory charges. They were operating in the same cost environment as every other player in that respect.
Ansett went broke because it's management and staff had not adjusted from the two airline environment to one of a deregulated market place. Flight attendants getting paid more than $80K per annum to do 2 flights per week in lazy, inefficient, and unproductive. Would you have paid these sorts of rates for semi-skilled labour? The Australian population should not be expected to subsidise inefficent organisations. Aviation is in the contemporary world a fundamental part of a nation's infrastructure- the more cost efficent the better from a work practices point of view.
What we do not want to see is the quality of our services sacrificed purely for monitory gain. It is the governments responibility to provide basic infrastructure in which private enterprise can function (roads, hospitals, ATC etc)
It is the quality of these structures that makes sets us apart from 3rd world countries. A midair collision between an airliner, and VFR traffic will make us no better a place to live than a country such as Bangaladesh (sp) where ferry sinkings due corruption, and lack of regulation are a SAD way of life.
Kind regards
alidad
Edited for unproductive comments , This is not personal, it's about everyone having the right to and expressing their own opinion and views for debate. Last warning , Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 14th May 2002 at 04:59.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome
Dear Mr Smith
Welcome to PPRuNe. Unfortunately, it hasn't taken long for personal vitriol to be directed against you. Hopefully the moderators will keep a close eye on this. Having said that, I do not wish to create the impression that I agree with the bulk of your intiatives over the last few years. I will, however, attempt to maintain civility while expressing my views.
I do have a couple of questions which you might hopefully be able to answer:
1. Could you provide the basis for this estimate? As I understand the NAS proposal, it lowers controlled airspace from current levels. Therefore, the number of air traffic controllers required would seem to remain stable or increase. I agree that cost savings can be identified within the current system, but I do not understand how the NAS proposal - of itself - will lead to such significant savings.
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?
Welcome to PPRuNe. Unfortunately, it hasn't taken long for personal vitriol to be directed against you. Hopefully the moderators will keep a close eye on this. Having said that, I do not wish to create the impression that I agree with the bulk of your intiatives over the last few years. I will, however, attempt to maintain civility while expressing my views.
I do have a couple of questions which you might hopefully be able to answer:
Yes, cost saving is an important part of NAS. The estimate is that it will save at least $50 million per year.
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?
Alidad you wrote:
Is this not what DS has been pushing all along?
you also wrote:
Can you explain to me how the NAS proposal increases the risk of a mid-air collision between an airliner and VFR traffic?
Aviation is in the contemporary world a fundamental part of a nation's infrastructure- the more cost efficent the better from a work practices point of view.
you also wrote:
A midair collision between an airliner, and VFR traffic will make us no better a place to live than a country such as Bangaladesh (sp) where ferry sinkings due corruption, and lack of regulation are a SAD way of life.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer to question one
4711,
The answer for your first question to Heilcopter Jelly is yes, it will lead to an increase of ATC, but this will not happen as its not cost effective to ASA. Therfore the service will "not be available" due to ATC "workload", in Mr Jellys new airspace. So who gets shafted????
ps, nice perfume, do they still make it?
The answer for your first question to Heilcopter Jelly is yes, it will lead to an increase of ATC, but this will not happen as its not cost effective to ASA. Therfore the service will "not be available" due to ATC "workload", in Mr Jellys new airspace. So who gets shafted????
ps, nice perfume, do they still make it?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
While I think everyone here would like to see usage effectiveness maximised, and costs reduced for the good of the industry, Bevan raises a good point. If there is no traffic seperation service from ASA, and limited radar coverage, how do IFR aircraft in class G airspace maintain seperation? I would imagine this gets more complicated when pilots fly with reference to GPS as opposed to standard routes too...
Lancer
While I think everyone here would like to see usage effectiveness maximised, and costs reduced for the good of the industry, Bevan raises a good point. If there is no traffic seperation service from ASA, and limited radar coverage, how do IFR aircraft in class G airspace maintain seperation? I would imagine this gets more complicated when pilots fly with reference to GPS as opposed to standard routes too...
Lancer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i like dick!
You guys are too harsh. give dick a go!
Its better that at least there's one person out there that seems to care where this industry that we call aviation is headed. Maybe we could get somebody interested in GA one day!?
Its better that at least there's one person out there that seems to care where this industry that we call aviation is headed. Maybe we could get somebody interested in GA one day!?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
Quote: '...If you were going to form a new airline and decided that you needed aircraft, you wouldn’t first get a group of pilots together to design the aeroplane... '
Sadly, we won't see you follow similar philosophy when it comes to aviation maintenance if comments attributed to yourself on the announcement of your kiss and makeup with the Federal Minister for QF, are accurate.
Quote: '...If you were going to form a new airline and decided that you needed aircraft, you wouldn’t first get a group of pilots together to design the aeroplane... '
Sadly, we won't see you follow similar philosophy when it comes to aviation maintenance if comments attributed to yourself on the announcement of your kiss and makeup with the Federal Minister for QF, are accurate.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEDIA RELEASE - JOHN ANDERSON
13 May 2002
A54/2002
A NEW ERA IN AUSTRALIAN AIRSPACE
The Government has decided to adopt the National Airspace System (NAS) as the model for reform of Australian airspace, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, announced today.
The model was developed by aviator and businessman, Mr Dick Smith, and Qantas. The NAS proposal was selected following an examination by the Special Aviation Reform Group (ARG) which comprised a panel of industry leaders.
"I am pleased to accept the recommendations of the Aviation Reform Group and adopt NAS," Mr Anderson said.
"This model is based on the airspace model used in the world's leading aviation nation, the United States. A safety case will be required to be developed for NAS, and the existing processes will continue to be followed in finalising the safety case. The Implementation of NAS will mean that Australian airspace will be harmonised with ICAO's airspace classifications.
"NAS has the potential to reduce costs for the aviation industry and the fare-paying passengers. I must pay tribute to Mr Dick Smith and Qantas for developing this proposal. I would also like to thank the members of the ARG for completing the report within such a tight timeframe.
"Safety will be paramount in the development of NAS. It is vital that the mistakes of the past airspace reform attempts are not repeated. In particular, the aviation industry must be kept informed and involved with appropriate education programmes developed regarding the implementation of the system.
The ARG recommended:
(i) the National Airspace System (NAS) be selected as the preferred model for future airspace reform in Australia, subject to the development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) endorsement of a comprehensive implementation safety case, specifying an appropriate timeframe for all necessary industry communication and education programmes;
(ii) the ARG establish an Implementation Group to assist it in developing the NAS implementation process;
(iii) as an input to the Implementation Group's work, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics undertake a more comprehensive cost benefit study of the NAS plan to identify more clearly the net benefits to be gained from its implementation; and
(iv) work be immediately set in train for the establishment of an Airspace Directorate, separate from CASA or a corporatised Airservices Australia, to progress future airspace reform.
"These recommendations also signal another step towards the corporatisation of Airservices Australia," Mr Anderson said.
"My intention is to proceed towards the contestability of tower and rescue and fire fighting services. To complement this step, I intend to establish also the new Airspace Directorate to oversight the airspace reform process."
The members of the ARG are Mr Dick Smith AO, Mr John Forsyth (Chairman, Airservices Australia), Mr Ted Anson AM (Chairman, Civil Aviation Safety Authority) and Air Marshal Angus Houston (Chief of Air Force). They will now be joined by Mr Ken Matthews, Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services, who will chair the ARG.
Media Contact:
Paul Chamberlin (02) 62777680
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what proposals are planned for Oz, but the US has without a doubt, the most efficient ATC in the world and much easier to understand, resulting in probably a lot less VCA's. The sooner the better.