To all Dick dislikers...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek,
My mistake! When you said in the first post “primary radars” I mistakenly thought you were referring to “primary radars”.
But now I see that you are referring to SSR radars at what used to be called Primary Control Zones (ten or so years ago) and yes these are the ones that are up for replacement beginning as early as 2008. Sixteen of them I believe.
As to cheap CDTI devices, undoubtedly there will be such. There are already various manufacturers utilising PDAs for WX and moving map displays. Wouldn’t mind one myself! As for them being of a standard likely to be TSO’d (or ATSO’d) so that they could be used for separation, well that’s probably just after handheld GPSs are certified for IFR use and NPAs!
So I guess we’re down to them being used by VFR to enhance "see and avoid". Hmmmm!
There you are we are back to the original thread after a slight diversion due traffic!
Chimbu,
Almost had the same occur to me near Goulburn some years back as happened to your friend in the Bonanza. Fast low wing descending from behind on a slower high wing. Luckily we were both sensible enough to have made an appropriate position report and made suitable adjustments to our tracks. Ya know what? Cost me, and him, nuthin and saved us heaps!
My mistake! When you said in the first post “primary radars” I mistakenly thought you were referring to “primary radars”.
But now I see that you are referring to SSR radars at what used to be called Primary Control Zones (ten or so years ago) and yes these are the ones that are up for replacement beginning as early as 2008. Sixteen of them I believe.
As to cheap CDTI devices, undoubtedly there will be such. There are already various manufacturers utilising PDAs for WX and moving map displays. Wouldn’t mind one myself! As for them being of a standard likely to be TSO’d (or ATSO’d) so that they could be used for separation, well that’s probably just after handheld GPSs are certified for IFR use and NPAs!
So I guess we’re down to them being used by VFR to enhance "see and avoid". Hmmmm!
There you are we are back to the original thread after a slight diversion due traffic!
Chimbu,
Almost had the same occur to me near Goulburn some years back as happened to your friend in the Bonanza. Fast low wing descending from behind on a slower high wing. Luckily we were both sensible enough to have made an appropriate position report and made suitable adjustments to our tracks. Ya know what? Cost me, and him, nuthin and saved us heaps!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wherever I'm told
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See and avoid should be the last line of defence not the first.
I nearly found out in a big way not long ago. I saw the aircraft on the opposite direction track, I turned right as we are taught, the aircraft went past me on the same level and about 30 feet to my left.... my angle of bank at the time was just passing through approx. 10degrees. Had he been right in front... well you know.
Also how often as an IFR pilot entering a busy MBZ etc and BEING aware of the six other aircraft have you said 'where is he', even when you know they are only 2 miles ahead and 1000 feet removed.
Basic airmanship, CRM, CFIT etc. Every course you ever sit in aviation always mentions the fact that we should use every resource available to increase safety. We already have see and avoid and other resources, why take them away?
Heres a novel idea. The average private pilot cannot afford a safety pilot to do the seeing, so why dont they trade in their radios for a new HUD?
I nearly found out in a big way not long ago. I saw the aircraft on the opposite direction track, I turned right as we are taught, the aircraft went past me on the same level and about 30 feet to my left.... my angle of bank at the time was just passing through approx. 10degrees. Had he been right in front... well you know.
Also how often as an IFR pilot entering a busy MBZ etc and BEING aware of the six other aircraft have you said 'where is he', even when you know they are only 2 miles ahead and 1000 feet removed.
Basic airmanship, CRM, CFIT etc. Every course you ever sit in aviation always mentions the fact that we should use every resource available to increase safety. We already have see and avoid and other resources, why take them away?
Heres a novel idea. The average private pilot cannot afford a safety pilot to do the seeing, so why dont they trade in their radios for a new HUD?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have refrained from comment on this post because anything I say is invariably "sent to Coventry" by the closet rabble that are let out like baying dogs and seemingly encouraged by some of the moderators.
Be this as it may, I cannot let the comments by Chimbu Chuckles go unanswered regarding the Lord V35B incident at TOC.
Bill was my instructor at RAC also and introduced me to taildraggers in a 210 HP Chipmunk.
I believe it is he you are talking about.
The fact of the matter was, that the V35 took off on RW 27 and turned left into the Blanik which was in the circuit at the time.
Seems that the Beechcraft was climbing and the blanik, in the circuit was hardly in a position to come from behind and above.
The pilot of the Blanik is still around and I've met him to tell the story.
Sixteen odd years was it, perhaps things get mixed up in time, but the irony was, I met before and after both blokes.
Give someone at TOC a ring and you may get the full story.
Ax.
Be this as it may, I cannot let the comments by Chimbu Chuckles go unanswered regarding the Lord V35B incident at TOC.
Bill was my instructor at RAC also and introduced me to taildraggers in a 210 HP Chipmunk.
I believe it is he you are talking about.
The fact of the matter was, that the V35 took off on RW 27 and turned left into the Blanik which was in the circuit at the time.
Seems that the Beechcraft was climbing and the blanik, in the circuit was hardly in a position to come from behind and above.
The pilot of the Blanik is still around and I've met him to tell the story.
Sixteen odd years was it, perhaps things get mixed up in time, but the irony was, I met before and after both blokes.
Give someone at TOC a ring and you may get the full story.
Ax.
Grandpa Aerotart
Axiom,
I was not apportioning blame on the glider pilot...my memory of it is as you say, they took off and climbed into the Blanik's flight path...merely using it as an example of the limitations of see and avoid. Bill was a mighty fine chap and so was Paul Hardy. Both very experienced and consumate professionals. Be that as it may, as the story was recounted to me the impact was around the ruddervators and they then lost control.
Chuck.
I was not apportioning blame on the glider pilot...my memory of it is as you say, they took off and climbed into the Blanik's flight path...merely using it as an example of the limitations of see and avoid. Bill was a mighty fine chap and so was Paul Hardy. Both very experienced and consumate professionals. Be that as it may, as the story was recounted to me the impact was around the ruddervators and they then lost control.
Chuck.
Mr Kerans, you state
Well how about CAR 252A...
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 252A
Emergency locator transmitters
(1)
On and after 31 July 1997, the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft that is not an exempted aircraft, may begin a flight only if the aircraft:
(a)
is fitted with an approved ELT:
(i)
that is in working order; and
(ii)
whose switch is set to the position marked "armed", if that switch has a position so marked; or
(b)
carries, in a place readily accessible to the operating crew, an approved portable ELT that is in working order.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2)
Subregulation (1) does not apply in relation to a flight by an Australian aircraft if:
(a)
the flight is to take place wholly within a radius of 50 miles from the aerodrome reference point of the aerodrome from which the flight is to begin; or
(b)
the flight is, or is incidental to, an agricultural operation; or
(c)
CASA has given permission for the flight under subregulation 134 (1); or
(d)
the aircraft is new and the flight is for a purpose associated with its manufacture, preparation or delivery; or
(e)
the flight is for the purpose of moving the aircraft to a place to have an approved ELT fitted to the aircraft, or to have an approved ELT that is fitted to it repaired, removed or overhauled.
So therefore for flights of greater than 50nm do we not indeed have mandated ELT's ?
But if Govt or Airlines try to make GA pay ADSB will die like mandated ELTs
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 252A
Emergency locator transmitters
(1)
On and after 31 July 1997, the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft that is not an exempted aircraft, may begin a flight only if the aircraft:
(a)
is fitted with an approved ELT:
(i)
that is in working order; and
(ii)
whose switch is set to the position marked "armed", if that switch has a position so marked; or
(b)
carries, in a place readily accessible to the operating crew, an approved portable ELT that is in working order.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2)
Subregulation (1) does not apply in relation to a flight by an Australian aircraft if:
(a)
the flight is to take place wholly within a radius of 50 miles from the aerodrome reference point of the aerodrome from which the flight is to begin; or
(b)
the flight is, or is incidental to, an agricultural operation; or
(c)
CASA has given permission for the flight under subregulation 134 (1); or
(d)
the aircraft is new and the flight is for a purpose associated with its manufacture, preparation or delivery; or
(e)
the flight is for the purpose of moving the aircraft to a place to have an approved ELT fitted to the aircraft, or to have an approved ELT that is fitted to it repaired, removed or overhauled.
So therefore for flights of greater than 50nm do we not indeed have mandated ELT's ?
I challenge anybody to see a jet from front on at a distance of 5-10 nm.
Go to the airport and look at how small a 737 is from front on when it is at the end of the runway (and you are at the other end). In most cases you would be looking at it from 1 to 1.5 nm away - and you know it is there, and where to look.
Now put yourself in an aeroplane, you are navigating VFR, so I assume that you occasionally glance at WAC's, flight plan, the occasional engine instrument etc.
Now scan through as many degrees as you can, paying particular attention to over your right shoulder.
My jet is to your right, high, and closing at 7 miles a minute.
You are below me, well outside my field of view, and as I approach you I cannot see you, nor due to the geometry of the flight deck windows, as well as the checks etc, will I ever see you.
I will however feel the thump when I run you down.
See and avoid is a crock, and we want DTI to give us at least a fighting chance. If we could get VFR back into the traffic messages we would gladly take that also.
the majority of airports in this country were established to support a commercial air service of some form. This being the case the commercial air services should have a reasonable level of say.
A $60 million dollar jet and 180 passengers (plus 7 cew) is a high price to pay to let people opt out of the system because they don't want to play nice. the airspace isn't exclusive to any one group, and individual groups should not be allowed to opt out and duck their fiscal responsibilities.
We all pay for roads, in some cases in places where we would never consider driving, it doesn't mean we can not pay even though commercial trucking uses the same roads. People don't complain about that, why should the same situation be tolerated in aviation.
Yes it is expensive, but that is the nature of the beast. I have spent many thousands getting my qualifications as a pilot, and I don't begrudge the money, but I didn't expect that I could do it all for free and let the rest of the users pay...
Go to the airport and look at how small a 737 is from front on when it is at the end of the runway (and you are at the other end). In most cases you would be looking at it from 1 to 1.5 nm away - and you know it is there, and where to look.
Now put yourself in an aeroplane, you are navigating VFR, so I assume that you occasionally glance at WAC's, flight plan, the occasional engine instrument etc.
Now scan through as many degrees as you can, paying particular attention to over your right shoulder.
My jet is to your right, high, and closing at 7 miles a minute.
You are below me, well outside my field of view, and as I approach you I cannot see you, nor due to the geometry of the flight deck windows, as well as the checks etc, will I ever see you.
I will however feel the thump when I run you down.
See and avoid is a crock, and we want DTI to give us at least a fighting chance. If we could get VFR back into the traffic messages we would gladly take that also.
the majority of airports in this country were established to support a commercial air service of some form. This being the case the commercial air services should have a reasonable level of say.
A $60 million dollar jet and 180 passengers (plus 7 cew) is a high price to pay to let people opt out of the system because they don't want to play nice. the airspace isn't exclusive to any one group, and individual groups should not be allowed to opt out and duck their fiscal responsibilities.
We all pay for roads, in some cases in places where we would never consider driving, it doesn't mean we can not pay even though commercial trucking uses the same roads. People don't complain about that, why should the same situation be tolerated in aviation.
Yes it is expensive, but that is the nature of the beast. I have spent many thousands getting my qualifications as a pilot, and I don't begrudge the money, but I didn't expect that I could do it all for free and let the rest of the users pay...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I enjoy reading about NAS and ADS-B in the same argument. So Mike Smith is now using ADS-B as a supporting argument for the implementation of NAS, or is it the other way round? Has he run out of rational supporting arguments for the implementation of NAS so he is resorting to futuristic what-ifs?
I could just as easily argue with ADS-B that we would be safer under the current system. It would be cheaper and more economical in the long run too.
ADS-B looks promising and there are certainly many people pushing for its introduction, but to justify NAS on the basis of possible future technology seems irresponsible and unprofessional.
I could just as easily argue with ADS-B that we would be safer under the current system. It would be cheaper and more economical in the long run too.
ADS-B looks promising and there are certainly many people pushing for its introduction, but to justify NAS on the basis of possible future technology seems irresponsible and unprofessional.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we're getting it
Lodown,
Linking the two is paramount; as we are a long way off getting ADS-B, much testing, much debate, much budgeting required etc.
Phase 3 and onwards delayed until the further roll out of ADSB technology is my mail.
So we should have further stages of NAS by 2008.
First we get 'full' (with holes) coverage at FL350; then when we prove it works, we get all jet's fitted etc. Then we need approval for the third stage of ADSB. Total coverage of all 'radar' blind spots. Massive cost, $100M... benefit? Will it happen. Safety vs Cost? Who pays?
Bringing all this onto the TAAATS platform takes much time, software development, ATC traning, sector re-design standard evalutation etc.
NAS is linked to ADSB, no question.
Bottle of rum
Linking the two is paramount; as we are a long way off getting ADS-B, much testing, much debate, much budgeting required etc.
Phase 3 and onwards delayed until the further roll out of ADSB technology is my mail.
So we should have further stages of NAS by 2008.
First we get 'full' (with holes) coverage at FL350; then when we prove it works, we get all jet's fitted etc. Then we need approval for the third stage of ADSB. Total coverage of all 'radar' blind spots. Massive cost, $100M... benefit? Will it happen. Safety vs Cost? Who pays?
Bringing all this onto the TAAATS platform takes much time, software development, ATC traning, sector re-design standard evalutation etc.
NAS is linked to ADSB, no question.
Bottle of rum
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neddy
Apologies, and flight plans are still pink and green aren't they
Dont get me going on TSO. TSO is rubbish and is used by CASA to make things too expensive!!!
TSO makes no difference. It is the same electronics anyway. Electronics is so relaible these days we just plain don't need TSO anymore. But again, CASA jobs at stake here!!!
ADSB with CDTI should cost about $1200. If the govt pays then there is no GST. Fitting, who knows. But it aint hard. put a GPS in my plane the other day, comes with a loom so what's the difficulty??
Icarus.
Playing with sematics old mate. I said (or at least meant) 'madatory fitted ELT's' which is what got stopped. I think you are just trying to start a fight.
AK
Apologies, and flight plans are still pink and green aren't they
Dont get me going on TSO. TSO is rubbish and is used by CASA to make things too expensive!!!
TSO makes no difference. It is the same electronics anyway. Electronics is so relaible these days we just plain don't need TSO anymore. But again, CASA jobs at stake here!!!
ADSB with CDTI should cost about $1200. If the govt pays then there is no GST. Fitting, who knows. But it aint hard. put a GPS in my plane the other day, comes with a loom so what's the difficulty??
Icarus.
Playing with sematics old mate. I said (or at least meant) 'madatory fitted ELT's' which is what got stopped. I think you are just trying to start a fight.
AK
Mr Kerans, my old mate, no I am not trying to start a fight. There are already plenty around that I could join in. 
I am merely trying to point out that making sweeping statements such as ..
you risk undermining your own credibility on this forum.
As a reasonably unbiased observer of this thread I along with other readers have only one measure of the competence of a poster and that is the veracity of statements that can be checked against known facts, rules regs etc. It is also very hard if you don't actually type what you mean.
Now as we both agree, we do have mandatory ELT's in most cases, except for the C152, C150 type aircraft that only operate in say the training area associated with their operation.
So following your analogy, ADSB would not die if the government or Airlines mandate it's use. How airlines could mandate its use is beyond me however.
I think the most pertinent post so far is from Dehavilland Driver. Try seeing another aircraft at a closing speed of say even 360 knots, that is a Baron and a Navajo closing almost head on.
360 knots is 6nm in one minute. At what distance do you realistically think you will see them? 1 nm maybe 1 1/2nm. So at 1 nm they are 10 seconds away from cold fusion and breaking noise abatement rules.
I am merely trying to point out that making sweeping statements such as ..
But if Govt or Airlines try to make GA pay ADSB will die like mandated ELTs.
As a reasonably unbiased observer of this thread I along with other readers have only one measure of the competence of a poster and that is the veracity of statements that can be checked against known facts, rules regs etc. It is also very hard if you don't actually type what you mean.
Now as we both agree, we do have mandatory ELT's in most cases, except for the C152, C150 type aircraft that only operate in say the training area associated with their operation.
So following your analogy, ADSB would not die if the government or Airlines mandate it's use. How airlines could mandate its use is beyond me however.
I think the most pertinent post so far is from Dehavilland Driver. Try seeing another aircraft at a closing speed of say even 360 knots, that is a Baron and a Navajo closing almost head on.
360 knots is 6nm in one minute. At what distance do you realistically think you will see them? 1 nm maybe 1 1/2nm. So at 1 nm they are 10 seconds away from cold fusion and breaking noise abatement rules.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what.
Icarus, I think you are one of those fraidy cat pilots that needs a security blanket, hence you don't trust the NAS.
You therefore attack everyone who is supporting this change.
Now, via your posts, show me why I'm wrong.
Pat
Icarus, I think you are one of those fraidy cat pilots that needs a security blanket, hence you don't trust the NAS.
You therefore attack everyone who is supporting this change.
Now, via your posts, show me why I'm wrong.
Pat
Okay I'll bite. Why not?
My actual position is that I don't see any strong rational reason for the changes, certainly the reasons given are dubious. Where will the cost savings come from?
Have you been to a roadshow with John & Martha? Mike Smith skips over details like there is no tomorrow. John & Martha believe NAS will reinvigorate the GA sector. How? It presumes that airspace is what is stopping people flying now. I agree (I think) with Mr Kerans that there are many more areas to look at cost cutting to make flying more affordable and accessible.
Yes I like a security blanket. It is called alerted see and avoid and DTI when I am IFR. My paying passengers also expect it.
If that makes me a
then meeeooowwwww. 
By the way I don't believe I have "attacked" anyone. I picked up Mr Kerans on a small point as he was incorrectly trying to illustrate his (otherwise good) point by using a fallacious argument about ELT's.
My final thought is if NAS is not demonstrablysafer, cheaper and more efficient than what we have now why change it?
My actual position is that I don't see any strong rational reason for the changes, certainly the reasons given are dubious. Where will the cost savings come from?
Have you been to a roadshow with John & Martha? Mike Smith skips over details like there is no tomorrow. John & Martha believe NAS will reinvigorate the GA sector. How? It presumes that airspace is what is stopping people flying now. I agree (I think) with Mr Kerans that there are many more areas to look at cost cutting to make flying more affordable and accessible.
Yes I like a security blanket. It is called alerted see and avoid and DTI when I am IFR. My paying passengers also expect it.
If that makes me a
fraidy cat
By the way I don't believe I have "attacked" anyone. I picked up Mr Kerans on a small point as he was incorrectly trying to illustrate his (otherwise good) point by using a fallacious argument about ELT's.
My final thought is if NAS is not demonstrablysafer, cheaper and more efficient than what we have now why change it?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: On Top
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE DON'T WANT F'ING NAS YOU DICK!!!
Manwell
The biggest problem with the *rick is that he seems to be a megalomaniac who for some god only knows reason, won't listen to the Australian aviation community. That goes for Pilots, Controllers, the Military and Ground support staff.
No-one I know wants this stupid airspace - except - you guessed it - the *rick! - and his henchmen.
We have a very good system that was designed by Australians - who the hell cares if it doesn't conform exactly with ICAO!!
If the *rick was such a friggin' patriot he would be patriotic about our system - and support it.
I get the feeling that he is just a self serving so and so who is mucking around in an industry in which he wishes he had a professional background but doesn't .
The biggest problem with the *rick is that he seems to be a megalomaniac who for some god only knows reason, won't listen to the Australian aviation community. That goes for Pilots, Controllers, the Military and Ground support staff.
No-one I know wants this stupid airspace - except - you guessed it - the *rick! - and his henchmen.
We have a very good system that was designed by Australians - who the hell cares if it doesn't conform exactly with ICAO!!
If the *rick was such a friggin' patriot he would be patriotic about our system - and support it.
I get the feeling that he is just a self serving so and so who is mucking around in an industry in which he wishes he had a professional background but doesn't .
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have at least 4 attempts at airspace reform in the last decade or so. All were driven by (some) Australians. All were vigorously supported by (some) Australians. All were fought against by (some) Australians. All had elements that were unacceptable to (some) Australians. All were killed by (some) Australians.
Say what you like, passing traffic in crap weather is not ATC's job. It should stop now. We should separate where required, regulate the traffic into airports where required, or not be involved. Just because we do something now, because of a pathetic history of achieving changes, doesn't justify continuing to do it.
LLAMP was a last-ditch attempt to achieve a consensus view. Everybody was consulted and their concerns addresses and mitigated. It wasn't just killed by Dick & our pathetic excuse for an Aviation Minister. CASA, the military and GA representatives all had knives in their hands as well.
The only way anybody will be able to achieve change here is if it is imposed, regardless if pilots, operators, service providers or passengers do or don't like it. If anybody other than Dick was pedalling this bike I think I would be much happier, but I do think it's going somewhere useful.
With our nanny-culture safety management systems, the only way ANYTHING can be implemented when some involved THINK its unsafe is to import a system from somewhere else. If this was coming from any other nation on Earth than the decidedly-on-the-nose-lately Goobers I would be much happier, but I can't point at anybodies system I would prefer. Not even at ours.
I reckon we're stuck with it, and him.
Say what you like, passing traffic in crap weather is not ATC's job. It should stop now. We should separate where required, regulate the traffic into airports where required, or not be involved. Just because we do something now, because of a pathetic history of achieving changes, doesn't justify continuing to do it.
LLAMP was a last-ditch attempt to achieve a consensus view. Everybody was consulted and their concerns addresses and mitigated. It wasn't just killed by Dick & our pathetic excuse for an Aviation Minister. CASA, the military and GA representatives all had knives in their hands as well.
The only way anybody will be able to achieve change here is if it is imposed, regardless if pilots, operators, service providers or passengers do or don't like it. If anybody other than Dick was pedalling this bike I think I would be much happier, but I do think it's going somewhere useful.
With our nanny-culture safety management systems, the only way ANYTHING can be implemented when some involved THINK its unsafe is to import a system from somewhere else. If this was coming from any other nation on Earth than the decidedly-on-the-nose-lately Goobers I would be much happier, but I can't point at anybodies system I would prefer. Not even at ours.
I reckon we're stuck with it, and him.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the majority of the problem is that we are sick of being told 'it's the US model"; it's proven...
Whilst certain elements are the US model; there are significant differences; which are ignored on the basis that 'it's the US model'; it's proven...
I wouldn't mind getting the US model; but don't tell me there are no differences.
1) IFR Pick-up, is a VFR procedure to get an IFR clearance; here it's an IFR procedure to proceed VFR...
2) G Airspace is effectively non existant; where it does exist, it in areas where it is unusable by IFR; LSALTS above base of E. etc...
3) No E space above FL180...
4) Radar coverage is significant and covers most E airspace totally.
5) CTA is designed to keep IFR operations inside CTA; E to 1200AGL or 700 AGL.
These are all important and significant differences; which have ramifications on both Pilot and Controller workloads; 'see and avoid' is becoming the primary means of 'self separation'; fair enough with slow moving VFR traffic, but totally unacceptable for Jet, turbo-prop operations.
Also, any truth to the rumour than 6 weeks ago a turbo-prop hit a VFR on top in the US? 19 dead...?
Bottle of Rum
Whilst certain elements are the US model; there are significant differences; which are ignored on the basis that 'it's the US model'; it's proven...
I wouldn't mind getting the US model; but don't tell me there are no differences.
1) IFR Pick-up, is a VFR procedure to get an IFR clearance; here it's an IFR procedure to proceed VFR...
2) G Airspace is effectively non existant; where it does exist, it in areas where it is unusable by IFR; LSALTS above base of E. etc...
3) No E space above FL180...
4) Radar coverage is significant and covers most E airspace totally.
5) CTA is designed to keep IFR operations inside CTA; E to 1200AGL or 700 AGL.
These are all important and significant differences; which have ramifications on both Pilot and Controller workloads; 'see and avoid' is becoming the primary means of 'self separation'; fair enough with slow moving VFR traffic, but totally unacceptable for Jet, turbo-prop operations.
Also, any truth to the rumour than 6 weeks ago a turbo-prop hit a VFR on top in the US? 19 dead...?
Bottle of Rum
Grandpa Aerotart
I find it fascinating that while claiming how wonderfull NAS will be and how much it will save they, the two Smiths/Manwell can't give reasonable answers to reasonable questions.
The VFR on top procedure just seems to me to be rubbish. Why not simply have IFR planned/VFR procedures? Then if the weather deteriorates you simply proceed IFR. Couldn't be due to the difficulty in charging people money could it?
Why do we have VFR only and IFR only cruising levels. What was wrong with evens west/odds east? We certainly DO NOT have enough traffic to need the extra cruising levels!!
karrank if that's not Air Traffic CONTROL'S job, or part of it, what is their job?
sm4 correct. They claim it's a proven system but when you actually study the US system the differences are dramatic. So I wonder why we must have their (da 2 smiffs) peculiarly Australian system when the existing peculiarly Australian system, that everyone understands and that is demonstratively safer than NAS, it's unacceptable because it 'does not comply with ICAO/worlds best practise' or any number of other platitudes.
I've said it over and over. Our system is at least the equal of any in the world and does not require massive overhaul. Tweaking around the edges yes. It is also unreasonable to accept that changes can or should be driven from the perspective of amatuers, either individually or groups. The airways system exists for reasons of commerce. Those who wish to use it for fun, and I count myself in that group as well as deriving a living fom it, should fit in with the primary users...not the other way.
Our fuel taxes and GST already cover more than what we 'cost' the system, which would need to exist in it current form even if < 3000kg VFR/IFR Charter/fun didn't exist. As an example when I fly this weekend down to NSW I will be paying probably in excess of $100 in fuel taxes of one kind or another to the Govt. I'll be VFR because the aircraft needs an Instrument 9 to be otherwise. Despite contributing this money I'm essentially not welcome in the system and should, according to 'da 2 smiffs', leave my radios off and stay out of everyones way visually.
If I was an IFR Baron on a charter I would be paying double the above but still be required to pay airways charges. What does it cost for the existing system to watch me proceed south on the screens or ackowledge perhaps two radio calls per hour? What does it cost to pass on known traffic and QNHs? When you look at what AsA charge in airways charges I reckon $20+/ hr in fuel taxes more than covers it already!!!
Taxed into oblivion is why this industry is sick. Airways reform has nothing to do with it.
When the ARG can't answer questions with honest answers and they employ Yanks to try and convince us that NAS will revitalise Australian Aviation it's no wonder they have little credibility!!
Chuck.
The VFR on top procedure just seems to me to be rubbish. Why not simply have IFR planned/VFR procedures? Then if the weather deteriorates you simply proceed IFR. Couldn't be due to the difficulty in charging people money could it?
Why do we have VFR only and IFR only cruising levels. What was wrong with evens west/odds east? We certainly DO NOT have enough traffic to need the extra cruising levels!!
karrank if that's not Air Traffic CONTROL'S job, or part of it, what is their job?
sm4 correct. They claim it's a proven system but when you actually study the US system the differences are dramatic. So I wonder why we must have their (da 2 smiffs) peculiarly Australian system when the existing peculiarly Australian system, that everyone understands and that is demonstratively safer than NAS, it's unacceptable because it 'does not comply with ICAO/worlds best practise' or any number of other platitudes.
I've said it over and over. Our system is at least the equal of any in the world and does not require massive overhaul. Tweaking around the edges yes. It is also unreasonable to accept that changes can or should be driven from the perspective of amatuers, either individually or groups. The airways system exists for reasons of commerce. Those who wish to use it for fun, and I count myself in that group as well as deriving a living fom it, should fit in with the primary users...not the other way.
Our fuel taxes and GST already cover more than what we 'cost' the system, which would need to exist in it current form even if < 3000kg VFR/IFR Charter/fun didn't exist. As an example when I fly this weekend down to NSW I will be paying probably in excess of $100 in fuel taxes of one kind or another to the Govt. I'll be VFR because the aircraft needs an Instrument 9 to be otherwise. Despite contributing this money I'm essentially not welcome in the system and should, according to 'da 2 smiffs', leave my radios off and stay out of everyones way visually.
If I was an IFR Baron on a charter I would be paying double the above but still be required to pay airways charges. What does it cost for the existing system to watch me proceed south on the screens or ackowledge perhaps two radio calls per hour? What does it cost to pass on known traffic and QNHs? When you look at what AsA charge in airways charges I reckon $20+/ hr in fuel taxes more than covers it already!!! Taxed into oblivion is why this industry is sick. Airways reform has nothing to do with it.
When the ARG can't answer questions with honest answers and they employ Yanks to try and convince us that NAS will revitalise Australian Aviation it's no wonder they have little credibility!!
Chuck.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus
Yes, point taken and I will be more careful with my words.
Now to ADSB with CDTI. I figure (if we can stop CASA TSOing it into the millions) will cost about $3000. Fitting, well my R-LAME would do it for about $250 (if all looms, connectors etc are supplied).
That is $3250 for a NON-TSO'd CDTI unit in my cockpit. Not a lot, but for fleet owners or struggling pvt owners probably too much.
Now, who wants and needs it. Under NAS the regionals and airlines. Who will save money from it? All IFR and RPT because AsA will not have to build and/or replace rotating head equipment. I don't think we disagree on that.
VFR doesn't really need it, although some may want it. So, if it isn't paid for and isn't mandated you might get some info (even more dangerous if you rely on it) but not all.
If it isn't paid for (by govt) but is mandated I foresee a huge political battle the end result of which will be a 'compromise' where you only need it if you fly above (say) 8000' (again, not a lot of use and dangerous if you rely on it in the circuit).
If it is mandated and paid for, unit prices crash. A set fee for install can be contracted to put a dampner on ripoff R-LAMEs and every a/c will have one. Then, save for U/S equipment, you can descend into the melee in comfort.
But I sure hope this doesn't become another excuse for RPT jocks to not look out the window!!!
Oh,, how can Airlines mandate stuff, ask the Minister for QANTAS or the opposition's (Kerry O'Brien's) chief advisor for "aviation and anything else that gets the Hostie union more money at everone else's expence".
AK
AK
Yes, point taken and I will be more careful with my words.
Now to ADSB with CDTI. I figure (if we can stop CASA TSOing it into the millions) will cost about $3000. Fitting, well my R-LAME would do it for about $250 (if all looms, connectors etc are supplied).
That is $3250 for a NON-TSO'd CDTI unit in my cockpit. Not a lot, but for fleet owners or struggling pvt owners probably too much.
Now, who wants and needs it. Under NAS the regionals and airlines. Who will save money from it? All IFR and RPT because AsA will not have to build and/or replace rotating head equipment. I don't think we disagree on that.
VFR doesn't really need it, although some may want it. So, if it isn't paid for and isn't mandated you might get some info (even more dangerous if you rely on it) but not all.
If it isn't paid for (by govt) but is mandated I foresee a huge political battle the end result of which will be a 'compromise' where you only need it if you fly above (say) 8000' (again, not a lot of use and dangerous if you rely on it in the circuit).
If it is mandated and paid for, unit prices crash. A set fee for install can be contracted to put a dampner on ripoff R-LAMEs and every a/c will have one. Then, save for U/S equipment, you can descend into the melee in comfort.
But I sure hope this doesn't become another excuse for RPT jocks to not look out the window!!!
Oh,
, how can Airlines mandate stuff, ask the Minister for QANTAS or the opposition's (Kerry O'Brien's) chief advisor for "aviation and anything else that gets the Hostie union more money at everone else's expence".AK
AK
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If AirServices replaces Enroute radar with ADS/B the savings would apparantly pay for the aircraft gear for all the aeroplanes. I understand this is the Kiwi intention. It could be here, or it could be user-pays and a rooly big dividend for the feral gummint that year.
Chimbu, when its really IFR my job is separating. When its not IFR it doesn't matter what sort of dials are on the dashboard, alerted look-out-the-windows will do it. Pity we don't have much radar but.
Chimbu, when its really IFR my job is separating. When its not IFR it doesn't matter what sort of dials are on the dashboard, alerted look-out-the-windows will do it. Pity we don't have much radar but.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake up and smell the coffee
Honestly you guys are in dream land I have not read so much drivel in my life no wonder GA is falling apart here. everybodies reluctance to change and the Australian attitude that it works for us is bull****. We have one of the highest incident accident rates in aviation in the world not counting third world countries, instead of attacking everyone that tries to change things why not help.
Most of the fairy stories I have read on this post bare no resemblance to the truth about NAS or the ARG, I do not like to quote so I wont but to say that nobody from the industry is supporting this is garbage if fact at the NAS workshop most of the industry there supports the need for change but as usuall there are a few negative doom and gloom people present. Some of the things are correct yes US NAS is different and will not fit into Australia but the fact that there accident incident rate is lower than ours with 5 times as much traffic has got to have a plus, the argument about they have greater radar coverage is also crap. US ATC will not warn VFR merging traffic for fear of litigation in alot of cases. Australian air services has agreed to warn merging traffic if you really feel you need this kind of service listen into the frequency you feel will give you the service. Remember the frequencies you monitor are not mandatory only advisory.
I have flown in the sydney basin area for some years now as I instruct out of Bankstown on a daily basis this is arguably one of the most busy training areas in Australia sharing the same training area as three other GA aerodromes funny how in all this time I have not had to make a radio call in the traininig area to let other pilots know where I was or where I was going. I am also a member of berrima district aero club flying out of Mittagong on a regular basis and have never felt the need to ramble out position reports and have never even come close to another aircraft, to the post that claims he had a near miss I suggest you look out a little more and worry less about making position reports.
There is the argument that states making a position report only encourages less looking out the window, after all why do we need to we have told everyone where we are and if they were anywhere near then they would say something so I can relax and assume no one is around.
Facts- we have not got a system that is perfect, the new system is being tailored to suit our needs in Australia by highly experienced and respected people in the industry. If this system helps to eventually reduce incidents and accidents then we should encourage and help it move forward. For those of you that want more facts because you are so sceptical then get of your backsides and look it up there are so many refferences and studies on NAS now its not funny, if you cant be bothered or make a constructive comment then don't bother many of us out here want to rebuild GA not slate and destroy it, sure we can all quote accidents in the US but look at the big picture.
10,000 hour flight experience I respect your flying ability but not the I am always right because I have 10,000 hours to say so, well Im sorry but your not always right and your attitude is why GA is dying.
Well done AK keep the good work up and for all you out there that want to find spelling mistakes and errors in this post have fun I have no time to check it as I and others like me are too busy trying to build GA back up again.
Most of the fairy stories I have read on this post bare no resemblance to the truth about NAS or the ARG, I do not like to quote so I wont but to say that nobody from the industry is supporting this is garbage if fact at the NAS workshop most of the industry there supports the need for change but as usuall there are a few negative doom and gloom people present. Some of the things are correct yes US NAS is different and will not fit into Australia but the fact that there accident incident rate is lower than ours with 5 times as much traffic has got to have a plus, the argument about they have greater radar coverage is also crap. US ATC will not warn VFR merging traffic for fear of litigation in alot of cases. Australian air services has agreed to warn merging traffic if you really feel you need this kind of service listen into the frequency you feel will give you the service. Remember the frequencies you monitor are not mandatory only advisory.
I have flown in the sydney basin area for some years now as I instruct out of Bankstown on a daily basis this is arguably one of the most busy training areas in Australia sharing the same training area as three other GA aerodromes funny how in all this time I have not had to make a radio call in the traininig area to let other pilots know where I was or where I was going. I am also a member of berrima district aero club flying out of Mittagong on a regular basis and have never felt the need to ramble out position reports and have never even come close to another aircraft, to the post that claims he had a near miss I suggest you look out a little more and worry less about making position reports.
There is the argument that states making a position report only encourages less looking out the window, after all why do we need to we have told everyone where we are and if they were anywhere near then they would say something so I can relax and assume no one is around.
Facts- we have not got a system that is perfect, the new system is being tailored to suit our needs in Australia by highly experienced and respected people in the industry. If this system helps to eventually reduce incidents and accidents then we should encourage and help it move forward. For those of you that want more facts because you are so sceptical then get of your backsides and look it up there are so many refferences and studies on NAS now its not funny, if you cant be bothered or make a constructive comment then don't bother many of us out here want to rebuild GA not slate and destroy it, sure we can all quote accidents in the US but look at the big picture.
10,000 hour flight experience I respect your flying ability but not the I am always right because I have 10,000 hours to say so, well Im sorry but your not always right and your attitude is why GA is dying.
Well done AK keep the good work up and for all you out there that want to find spelling mistakes and errors in this post have fun I have no time to check it as I and others like me are too busy trying to build GA back up again.