The sounds of silence............Nov 27th
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, do not worry about these back scratches and arm chair pilots.
It is only a very minor few who do not like the new changes; it is all driven by job security fears, disguised under the banner of “Air Safety Fears & Scare Mongering”.
It is only a very minor few who do not like the new changes; it is all driven by job security fears, disguised under the banner of “Air Safety Fears & Scare Mongering”.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Mr Smith,
But the ‘system’ does exist. It is claimed to be the United States system, which has existed for many years. In your in-depth analysis prior to recommending such a system, you no doubt would have done comparisons between the Australian and United States systems, taking into account the differences between infrastructure levels, and come to some sort of safety conclusions.
So, what empirical data did you use to determine that:
a) NAS will be safer, less safe or just as safe as the system it replaces.
b) That the interim phases of NAS (i.e. prior to the end state model) will be safer, less safe or just as safe as the system it replaces.
c) That the benefits of Class E airspace, where it replaces Class C, outweigh the reduction in separation service, and therefore safety.
With respect to only commonsense being used, that argument only holds water when there is no opportunity to use an analysis based upon fact. That is not the case with NAS, where it is allegedly based upon an existing system with a healthy historical database of facts upon which to base such an analysis.
The minister continually claims (as late as yesterday) that ‘we are moving towards a safer system’. I am sure that you agree it would be reckless for the minister to rely on guesswork on a matter of public safety. He claims to know that NAS will be not merely safe, but safer than our current system. He must have received detailed advice upon which to make such a claim. Can you provide the evidence upon which this claim is based?
The ultimate question: Is NAS safer or less safe than pre-NAS? (It would be an extraordinary coincidence if two such dissimilar systems were exactly equally safe, but that is a remote possibility) Please provide evidence to support your answer.
Are you saying that you did examine why we were different before changing the system? What were the results of the examination?
Four Seven Eleven, you also state that statistics and empirical data exist to “prove that the B767 is safer than the Electra”
These statistics and empirical data were not proved before the 767 was introduced. It is the same with the airspace. Commonsense has to be used as to whether a result is more likely to be so because of the rational argument and judgement that is used in making the decision.
These statistics and empirical data were not proved before the 767 was introduced. It is the same with the airspace. Commonsense has to be used as to whether a result is more likely to be so because of the rational argument and judgement that is used in making the decision.
So, what empirical data did you use to determine that:
a) NAS will be safer, less safe or just as safe as the system it replaces.
b) That the interim phases of NAS (i.e. prior to the end state model) will be safer, less safe or just as safe as the system it replaces.
c) That the benefits of Class E airspace, where it replaces Class C, outweigh the reduction in separation service, and therefore safety.
With respect to only commonsense being used, that argument only holds water when there is no opportunity to use an analysis based upon fact. That is not the case with NAS, where it is allegedly based upon an existing system with a healthy historical database of facts upon which to base such an analysis.
The minister continually claims (as late as yesterday) that ‘we are moving towards a safer system’. I am sure that you agree it would be reckless for the minister to rely on guesswork on a matter of public safety. He claims to know that NAS will be not merely safe, but safer than our current system. He must have received detailed advice upon which to make such a claim. Can you provide the evidence upon which this claim is based?
The ultimate question: Is NAS safer or less safe than pre-NAS? (It would be an extraordinary coincidence if two such dissimilar systems were exactly equally safe, but that is a remote possibility) Please provide evidence to support your answer.
Again in relation to frequency boundaries, I do not know of any country in the world that shows frequency boundaries on charts. This does not mean that we should follow this without question, however we should at least examine why we are different.
Jet_A_Knight, here is the answer that CASA gave to BASI in relation to their see and avoid “absolute” recommendation.
Jet_A_Knight, in relation to your complex combination of radio frequencies etc in Griffith and Narrandera, I believe the situation hasn’t changed much. That is, that if you think a typical VFR pilot would be able to monitor such a complex range of frequencies and absorb what is going on, I think this is unlikely.
In the USA, with 20 times the density of air traffic in roughly the same land mass, simple US CTAF procedures work – with no requirement or recommendation to monitor ATC when enroute – and give a slightly higher level of safety than we obtain in Australia (when taking equivalent traffic densities into account).
Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.
Please note that the US does not use a radar service in the CTAF area. It relies on simple radio procedures, good discipline and remaining vigilant.
You state:
I believe you may have a misunderstanding in relation to the education material. The facts are simple. If you are flying enroute in the airspace normally used for approach and departure at an airport, you monitor the frequency of that airport. What could be simpler? It is also recommended, just as in the USA, that if you are not planning to land at an airfield that you plan your flight (where practical) to avoid the airspace normally used for approach and departure traffic at that airport.
A most important point about monitoring ATC frequencies when VFR enroute. When you or your friends go driving on the weekend, you are not forced to constantly monitor the truck CB channel. It could be shown that there would be a slight increase in safety if you did this, as once every 5 or 10 years, you may hear of an accident that was around the bend or over the top of a hill. Presumably the reason it is not mandatory to monitor the truck channel, is that people want to relax when they are driving privately on a weekend and may even wish to listen to their stereo while looking at the magnificent scenery. Couldn’t this be the same with people flying privately?
Rather than force them to monitor the ATC frequency, why not let them fly enroute, avoiding the approach and departure airspace of airports, and then allow them to fly in blissful silence? Surely that would be fair if you wanted to compare flying privately with driving privately.
I entirely agree that with a commercial pilot it is totally different. A commercial pilot is paid to be in the air, and is therefore paid to constantly monitor a radio frequency. Surely a private pilot should be allowed to have a different, quieter and simpler method of flying if it can be done safely.
I believe the US system – where there is not even a recommended frequency for enroute flying – shows that this can be done with very high levels of safety.
What do others think?
Chief galah, thanks for the advice direct to me regarding the Essendon approach. I no doubt thought I’d been issued a visual approach by Melbourne Approach, however I was obviously mistaken.
Thanks for the advice
BASI Research Report – ‘Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle’, 1991
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority responded to Recommendations 1 and 4 of the above report on 12 November 2001 having noted that most of the recommendations, including those concerning the implementation of TCAS and education initiatives, have been implemented and continue to provide positive safety outcomes. (CASA’s 1998 response to the other four recommendations in the report (2, 3, 5 and 6) were classified by the then BASI as CLOSED - ACCEPTED.) As CASA has noted, since the 1991 BASI report was released, the 1995 Risk Management Standard has been promulgated.
Recommendation 1 “The CAA should take into account the limitations of see-and-avoid when planning and managing airspace . . .”
CASA response: CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace.
“. . . and should ensure that unalerted see-and-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services.”
CASA response: CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. The wording of the recommendation reflected its time and was prior to the 1995 Standards Australia AS/NZS4360 Risk Management Standard. CASA also understands that the use of the absolute “never” is not consistent with current ATSB practice.
To accept the absolute form of the recommendation would require the allocation of Class D or higher airspace wherever scheduled services operate. This would result in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with risk.
ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft. ICAO has introduced both of these classifications with the full knowledge of the limitations of see-and-avoid. ICAO makes no recommendation in relation to scheduled services not operating in these airspace classifications.
Overly discounting the effectiveness of see-and-avoid and devising unique procedures has itself led to unintended consequences that are unresolved. Pilots may scan significantly less and become over reliant on radio alerting through a concept known as diffusion of responsibility. The BASI report RP/93/01 (December 1993) and the continuing incident reports that are being filed listing near misses in mandatory radio Class E and G airspace may support this concern. CASA believes that radio alerting is only effective when the alerting area is small with readily identifiable reporting points so that the alert is specific.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has classified the CASA response as CLOSED – ACCEPTED on the basis that CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace and has indicated that appropriate risk management techniques will be used to establish airspace regulatory safety requirements. ATSB agrees that the use of the absolute ‘never’ has been overtaken by risk assessment.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority responded to Recommendations 1 and 4 of the above report on 12 November 2001 having noted that most of the recommendations, including those concerning the implementation of TCAS and education initiatives, have been implemented and continue to provide positive safety outcomes. (CASA’s 1998 response to the other four recommendations in the report (2, 3, 5 and 6) were classified by the then BASI as CLOSED - ACCEPTED.) As CASA has noted, since the 1991 BASI report was released, the 1995 Risk Management Standard has been promulgated.
Recommendation 1 “The CAA should take into account the limitations of see-and-avoid when planning and managing airspace . . .”
CASA response: CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace.
“. . . and should ensure that unalerted see-and-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services.”
CASA response: CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. The wording of the recommendation reflected its time and was prior to the 1995 Standards Australia AS/NZS4360 Risk Management Standard. CASA also understands that the use of the absolute “never” is not consistent with current ATSB practice.
To accept the absolute form of the recommendation would require the allocation of Class D or higher airspace wherever scheduled services operate. This would result in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with risk.
ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft. ICAO has introduced both of these classifications with the full knowledge of the limitations of see-and-avoid. ICAO makes no recommendation in relation to scheduled services not operating in these airspace classifications.
Overly discounting the effectiveness of see-and-avoid and devising unique procedures has itself led to unintended consequences that are unresolved. Pilots may scan significantly less and become over reliant on radio alerting through a concept known as diffusion of responsibility. The BASI report RP/93/01 (December 1993) and the continuing incident reports that are being filed listing near misses in mandatory radio Class E and G airspace may support this concern. CASA believes that radio alerting is only effective when the alerting area is small with readily identifiable reporting points so that the alert is specific.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has classified the CASA response as CLOSED – ACCEPTED on the basis that CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace and has indicated that appropriate risk management techniques will be used to establish airspace regulatory safety requirements. ATSB agrees that the use of the absolute ‘never’ has been overtaken by risk assessment.
In the USA, with 20 times the density of air traffic in roughly the same land mass, simple US CTAF procedures work – with no requirement or recommendation to monitor ATC when enroute – and give a slightly higher level of safety than we obtain in Australia (when taking equivalent traffic densities into account).
Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.
Please note that the US does not use a radar service in the CTAF area. It relies on simple radio procedures, good discipline and remaining vigilant.
You state:
So why make aircraft outside of an airfield’s airspace monitor that airspace that they may have no intention of entering?
A most important point about monitoring ATC frequencies when VFR enroute. When you or your friends go driving on the weekend, you are not forced to constantly monitor the truck CB channel. It could be shown that there would be a slight increase in safety if you did this, as once every 5 or 10 years, you may hear of an accident that was around the bend or over the top of a hill. Presumably the reason it is not mandatory to monitor the truck channel, is that people want to relax when they are driving privately on a weekend and may even wish to listen to their stereo while looking at the magnificent scenery. Couldn’t this be the same with people flying privately?
Rather than force them to monitor the ATC frequency, why not let them fly enroute, avoiding the approach and departure airspace of airports, and then allow them to fly in blissful silence? Surely that would be fair if you wanted to compare flying privately with driving privately.
I entirely agree that with a commercial pilot it is totally different. A commercial pilot is paid to be in the air, and is therefore paid to constantly monitor a radio frequency. Surely a private pilot should be allowed to have a different, quieter and simpler method of flying if it can be done safely.
I believe the US system – where there is not even a recommended frequency for enroute flying – shows that this can be done with very high levels of safety.
What do others think?
Chief galah, thanks for the advice direct to me regarding the Essendon approach. I no doubt thought I’d been issued a visual approach by Melbourne Approach, however I was obviously mistaken.
Thanks for the advice
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Springfield, USA
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooney Op
Nice one mate! I hope you don't spend too much time with your head in the cockpit now, as you do in the sand.
Dick
Thats great rationale, but I don't recall too many instances where weather has made me not conform and drive on the right hand side of the road.
Good to see the govt has its priorities right with the major terroism threats out in aboriginal communities. 93m well spent!
I had four flights in and out of Sydney yesterday, all VFR. It was nice and quiet on the radio, except for 125.8 where the old bloke in the floatplane is still quacking away, self-announcing that he was on the way from Rose Bay to North Head, Long Reef, the Bahai temple and then a water landing at Palm Beach. Several times in each direction.
Who cares?
He is so slow that he will not pose a collision risk to anybody. Previously he has said that he makes all these calls because idiots in their Cherokees fly too low around Barrenjoey and scare him. Is that a good enough reason to be quacking all the way from Rose Bay?
Who cares?
He is so slow that he will not pose a collision risk to anybody. Previously he has said that he makes all these calls because idiots in their Cherokees fly too low around Barrenjoey and scare him. Is that a good enough reason to be quacking all the way from Rose Bay?
IT IS QUIET SOMETIMES!???
With the introduction of the NAS can anyone enlighten me as to why a REX SAAB taxying at ORG would fail to acknowledge my final call on CTAF? THEN fail to acknowledge the fact that I was backtracking and still on the R/W when they taxied on for T/O?
THEN finally respond belatedly after I asked "DO YOU RECEIVE?" with, "Yeah, we were on the other frequency copying traffic."
All the way from the parking area to the lined up position?
I thought that the NAS was intended to reduce radio clutter on Centre frequencies. What a great example of poor airmanship. Eh, Andy?
Life's a bitch, then you fly!?
With the introduction of the NAS can anyone enlighten me as to why a REX SAAB taxying at ORG would fail to acknowledge my final call on CTAF? THEN fail to acknowledge the fact that I was backtracking and still on the R/W when they taxied on for T/O?
THEN finally respond belatedly after I asked "DO YOU RECEIVE?" with, "Yeah, we were on the other frequency copying traffic."
All the way from the parking area to the lined up position?
I thought that the NAS was intended to reduce radio clutter on Centre frequencies. What a great example of poor airmanship. Eh, Andy?
Life's a bitch, then you fly!?
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno: do they need to get airways clearance on the ground, or is IFR pick-up already available to them? If not, maybe that's why they are still on an area freq. when taxiing. I would agree its pretty poor airmanship if they weren't monitoring your transmissions: not sure if they are required to acknowledege? For non-TWR airfields in UK an acknowledgement would not necessarily be expected.
Andy
Andy
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manwell, I must admit that I wouldn't necessarily answer you either. Why? In both situations, you have the right of way.
First, did you address your calls specifically to the SAAB or as an 'all stations' call?
Assuming an 'all stations' call; regarding your call on finals. If I'm taxying, then I'm clear of you. Why respond? I'm not traffic to you and you're not traffic to me until the time I enter the runway. You're not about to smack into me.
Backtracking call...I could see what you were doing and I wouldn't be taking off with you still on the runway anyway, assuming VFR conditions. Your call has told me what you are doing. If you didn't address the call to me specifically, then in the grand scheme of things, a response would be well down my list of priorities. As pilot of the SAAB, the responsibility lies with me to ensure the runway is clear prior to takeoff and you have the right of way. If I commence the take-off with you still on the runway, then I have far bigger problems than an aversion to or inability to use the radio.
Having said that, I would have made a call entering the runway and I would have tacked on that I was preparing for takeoff after the previous aircraft had cleared the runway. But that's just me.
There are many radio procedures that were/have been carried over from the days of full reporting. I can't see the necessity of a taxying call at a CTAF. I would be listening out for inbound traffic, but I don't see the need for a taxying call unless there is an obvious conflict arising or if perhaps the weather is soupy IFR.
First, did you address your calls specifically to the SAAB or as an 'all stations' call?
Assuming an 'all stations' call; regarding your call on finals. If I'm taxying, then I'm clear of you. Why respond? I'm not traffic to you and you're not traffic to me until the time I enter the runway. You're not about to smack into me.
Backtracking call...I could see what you were doing and I wouldn't be taking off with you still on the runway anyway, assuming VFR conditions. Your call has told me what you are doing. If you didn't address the call to me specifically, then in the grand scheme of things, a response would be well down my list of priorities. As pilot of the SAAB, the responsibility lies with me to ensure the runway is clear prior to takeoff and you have the right of way. If I commence the take-off with you still on the runway, then I have far bigger problems than an aversion to or inability to use the radio.
Having said that, I would have made a call entering the runway and I would have tacked on that I was preparing for takeoff after the previous aircraft had cleared the runway. But that's just me.
There are many radio procedures that were/have been carried over from the days of full reporting. I can't see the necessity of a taxying call at a CTAF. I would be listening out for inbound traffic, but I don't see the need for a taxying call unless there is an obvious conflict arising or if perhaps the weather is soupy IFR.
Last edited by Lodown; 5th Dec 2003 at 22:05.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Thanks for the CASA response. Can you point me in the direction of wher I may find that please?
Re Griffith/Narrandera example, you say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in relation to your complex combination of radio frequencies etc in Griffith and Narrandera, I believe the situation hasn’t changed much. That is, that if you think a typical VFR pilot would be able to monitor such a complex range of frequencies and absorb what is going on, I think this is unlikely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you completely underestimate the capabilities of a private pilot. This situation is NOT complex! Maintaining a listening watch is a basic part of piloting and the pilot should have proven their competency at this during the PPL flt test. In any case, this 'complexity' can be solved quite easily, by the VFR pilot listening to a KNOWN area frequency outside of a CTAF, instead of having to eeny-meeny-minee-moe the 'appropriate frequency'. In the situation above, the VFR pilot will have heard the SAAB's taxi call and be able to put 2 and 2 together that there is a strong possibility that the two craft will cross paths. Situational awareness enhanced = chance of collision reduced.
Having the area frequencies removed from the charts is what adds complexity to what was previously black and white: You are at this point, this point lies within the 124.1 frequency area, that is the frequency that should be monitored. If you are in a CTAF/MBZ, or approaching one about to enter, you monitor that frequency. That is hardly rocket science. With the new system, the 'typical VFR' is now faced with more facts to consider (now am I closer to Narrandera or Griffith or am I outside of both, wait, let me just find where so I can avoid them -WHAT? They don't appear on my any of my charts? Oh, f*ck it! It doesn't matter, I haven't heard anybody out here anyway...) spending more time 'inside the cockpit' not seeing and avoiding, trying to find the IFR approach paths to both airports and wherethey lie in relation to his current position and whether they are in his path creates a MORE complex and stressful situation and make another decision to try to make and figure out which frequency is appropriate. Can you not see this??
OR
Airservices could be smarter and make GTH & NAR share a common frequency which would solve the whole equation - both aircraft would know of each other - risk reduced
The above example illustrates that a change in the system creates risks that were not previously there, and are not adequately considered.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the USA, with 20 times the density of air traffic in roughly the same land mass, simple US CTAF procedures work – with no requirement or recommendation to monitor ATC when enroute – and give a slightly higher level of safety than we obtain in Australia (when taking equivalent traffic densities into account).
Please note that the US does not use a radar service in the CTAF area. It relies on simple radio procedures, good discipline and remaining vigilant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US do have countless more enroute navaids that people use for navigating (unlike in Aus where most are located at an airfield), ALOT more radar coverage (if not the whole continent, then it would be fair to say that a SIGNIFICANTLY greater proportion of the US airspace is covered by radar than here) and alot more airports, especially towered airports. There are alot of CTAF's as well, which means that if you monitor common ctaf frequencies you get a bigger snapshot of the traffic arriving and departing and enroute etc cause the airports are closer together and their airspace and frequencies intermingle and cover a greater geographical area than the fields in Australia that tend to be genrally more spaced out. I realise that they do not use radar in the CTAF, proportionally more of their CTAF's (and the resulting app/dep paths) lie within radar coverage and are under the eye of watchful controllers and 'the system'which helps guard the app/dep points.
The radio procedures for use in a ctaf/mbz in Aus is hardly complex, but yes does rely on good discipline and remaining vigilant - this is without question. If a PPL (or an ATPL) for can't do the above, then I argue that they are not suitably qualified, competent or current and should have their flying priveleges revoked until they can demonstrate the required standards.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no argument that the US system is a good one - look at the infrastructure they have, the manpower and equipment - both of which does not exist here, despite the lower trafiic density and population. I think you will find that the amount of infrastructure, and the manpower to run it, is still proportionately greater in the US than here, after all, they have greater resources to run it - the reality is, we don't. Thereofre, if you don't have the money to run a US system, run an Australian system, even if it is a hybrid, but do it properly, with proper consultation and address, seriously, the concerns of the AIRSPACE USERS, not just disregard them.
It is a matter of argument that the US system is infact 'good enough', even for the FAA. That's why they are working toward a NAS2. Will Australia follow suit, or just stick to the 'old' US NAS, which we are told is worlds best practice, but the FAA see it necessarily isn't.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A most important point about monitoring ATC frequencies when VFR enroute. When you or your friends go driving on the weekend, you are not forced to constantly monitor the truck CB channel. It could be shown that there would be a slight increase in safety if you did this, as once every 5 or 10 years, you may hear of an accident that was around the bend or over the top of a hill. Presumably the reason it is not mandatory to monitor the truck channel, is that people want to relax when they are driving privately on a weekend and may even wish to listen to their stereo while looking at the magnificent scenery. Couldn’t this be the same with people flying privately?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not the car analogies are appropriate.
It should be obvious that cars travel at generally 1/3 the speed of even a Warrior, on clearly defind paths, on clearly defind sides of those paths, the closing speeds of the cars on the other side of the clearly defind path are a lot slower (but still lethal) than 630km/h (DHC-8 and PA28) with the ability to come to a complete stop at the side of one of these clearly defind paths at any time. Maybe others can spend some time elaborating.
If we use the analogy above with regard to fulfilling 'peoples' wishes' then we may as well do away with alot of other regulations that control peoples'desires during flying. For example, do we get rid of the minimum altitude requirements because alot of pilots like 'low flying' and doing 'beat ups'? Some of these guys would argue that it is safe enough because they have done it a squillion times and it was great fun, and it didn't result in an accident so far!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than force them to monitor the ATC frequency, why not let them fly enroute, avoiding the approach and departure airspace of airports, and then allow them to fly in blissful silence? Surely that would be fair if you wanted to compare flying privately with driving privately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are VFR pilots to know where the app/dep paths of airfieds are? How are they to find out where the IAP take IFR aircraft? if they bother to download DAPs from the web, how are they supposed to read and understand the procedures?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I entirely agree that with a commercial pilot it is totally different. A commercial pilot is paid to be in the air, and is therefore paid to constantly monitor a radio frequency. Surely a private pilot should be allowed to have a different, quieter and simpler method of flying if it can be done safely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are ALL entitled to a safe airspace - including the passengers - we all have the right to fly relaxed without wondering if this is the last day in their life - and if you are going to use that airspace, then a safe set of rules should apply to all common users.
The prime directive, to steal a phrase, is a safe airspace system.
The lack of radio frequency information, a lack of common frequencies is just plane dumb, I don't care what they do in the 'States. They also have liberal gun laws, that doesn't necessarily make that appropriate for us.
If you are a private pilot (or an ATPL) and cannot handle to fly and listen to the radio, you are in the wrong place. By 'dumbing down'the system to accomodate private pilots who find it easier to blunder about the sky than it is to stay current and on top of the procedures required, and assimilate in an integrated and safe airspace, the majority of the users - commercial passenger and freight aircraft - are exposed to greater risks. Since when did the minority rule?
In closing.
I do not want to kill the joy in private pilots enjoying their flying with their friends and families in a relaxed manner - all aviators enjoy the same.
(Now trying not to sound like Gerry Springer!!!)
However, with this endeavour, and flying is an endeavour, there comes RESPONSIBILITY. A responsibility to ensure a high standard of airmanship and all that entails, even if it means it's a bit more difficult than firing up the engine when ever you want and going wherever you want whenever you want. You have a responsibility to other airspace users to maintain a safe standard of recency, knowledge and skill level.
Dumbing down the system to accomodate the few pilots who do not adhere to these principals, and do not want to contibute their (proportionately) small financial part in the upkeep of the system, dilutes the safety for us all'- including the passenegrs and people on the ground.
Thanks for the CASA response. Can you point me in the direction of wher I may find that please?
Re Griffith/Narrandera example, you say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in relation to your complex combination of radio frequencies etc in Griffith and Narrandera, I believe the situation hasn’t changed much. That is, that if you think a typical VFR pilot would be able to monitor such a complex range of frequencies and absorb what is going on, I think this is unlikely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you completely underestimate the capabilities of a private pilot. This situation is NOT complex! Maintaining a listening watch is a basic part of piloting and the pilot should have proven their competency at this during the PPL flt test. In any case, this 'complexity' can be solved quite easily, by the VFR pilot listening to a KNOWN area frequency outside of a CTAF, instead of having to eeny-meeny-minee-moe the 'appropriate frequency'. In the situation above, the VFR pilot will have heard the SAAB's taxi call and be able to put 2 and 2 together that there is a strong possibility that the two craft will cross paths. Situational awareness enhanced = chance of collision reduced.
Having the area frequencies removed from the charts is what adds complexity to what was previously black and white: You are at this point, this point lies within the 124.1 frequency area, that is the frequency that should be monitored. If you are in a CTAF/MBZ, or approaching one about to enter, you monitor that frequency. That is hardly rocket science. With the new system, the 'typical VFR' is now faced with more facts to consider (now am I closer to Narrandera or Griffith or am I outside of both, wait, let me just find where so I can avoid them -WHAT? They don't appear on my any of my charts? Oh, f*ck it! It doesn't matter, I haven't heard anybody out here anyway...) spending more time 'inside the cockpit' not seeing and avoiding, trying to find the IFR approach paths to both airports and wherethey lie in relation to his current position and whether they are in his path creates a MORE complex and stressful situation and make another decision to try to make and figure out which frequency is appropriate. Can you not see this??
OR
Airservices could be smarter and make GTH & NAR share a common frequency which would solve the whole equation - both aircraft would know of each other - risk reduced
The above example illustrates that a change in the system creates risks that were not previously there, and are not adequately considered.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the USA, with 20 times the density of air traffic in roughly the same land mass, simple US CTAF procedures work – with no requirement or recommendation to monitor ATC when enroute – and give a slightly higher level of safety than we obtain in Australia (when taking equivalent traffic densities into account).
Please note that the US does not use a radar service in the CTAF area. It relies on simple radio procedures, good discipline and remaining vigilant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US do have countless more enroute navaids that people use for navigating (unlike in Aus where most are located at an airfield), ALOT more radar coverage (if not the whole continent, then it would be fair to say that a SIGNIFICANTLY greater proportion of the US airspace is covered by radar than here) and alot more airports, especially towered airports. There are alot of CTAF's as well, which means that if you monitor common ctaf frequencies you get a bigger snapshot of the traffic arriving and departing and enroute etc cause the airports are closer together and their airspace and frequencies intermingle and cover a greater geographical area than the fields in Australia that tend to be genrally more spaced out. I realise that they do not use radar in the CTAF, proportionally more of their CTAF's (and the resulting app/dep paths) lie within radar coverage and are under the eye of watchful controllers and 'the system'which helps guard the app/dep points.
The radio procedures for use in a ctaf/mbz in Aus is hardly complex, but yes does rely on good discipline and remaining vigilant - this is without question. If a PPL (or an ATPL) for can't do the above, then I argue that they are not suitably qualified, competent or current and should have their flying priveleges revoked until they can demonstrate the required standards.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no argument that the US system is a good one - look at the infrastructure they have, the manpower and equipment - both of which does not exist here, despite the lower trafiic density and population. I think you will find that the amount of infrastructure, and the manpower to run it, is still proportionately greater in the US than here, after all, they have greater resources to run it - the reality is, we don't. Thereofre, if you don't have the money to run a US system, run an Australian system, even if it is a hybrid, but do it properly, with proper consultation and address, seriously, the concerns of the AIRSPACE USERS, not just disregard them.
It is a matter of argument that the US system is infact 'good enough', even for the FAA. That's why they are working toward a NAS2. Will Australia follow suit, or just stick to the 'old' US NAS, which we are told is worlds best practice, but the FAA see it necessarily isn't.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A most important point about monitoring ATC frequencies when VFR enroute. When you or your friends go driving on the weekend, you are not forced to constantly monitor the truck CB channel. It could be shown that there would be a slight increase in safety if you did this, as once every 5 or 10 years, you may hear of an accident that was around the bend or over the top of a hill. Presumably the reason it is not mandatory to monitor the truck channel, is that people want to relax when they are driving privately on a weekend and may even wish to listen to their stereo while looking at the magnificent scenery. Couldn’t this be the same with people flying privately?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not the car analogies are appropriate.
It should be obvious that cars travel at generally 1/3 the speed of even a Warrior, on clearly defind paths, on clearly defind sides of those paths, the closing speeds of the cars on the other side of the clearly defind path are a lot slower (but still lethal) than 630km/h (DHC-8 and PA28) with the ability to come to a complete stop at the side of one of these clearly defind paths at any time. Maybe others can spend some time elaborating.
If we use the analogy above with regard to fulfilling 'peoples' wishes' then we may as well do away with alot of other regulations that control peoples'desires during flying. For example, do we get rid of the minimum altitude requirements because alot of pilots like 'low flying' and doing 'beat ups'? Some of these guys would argue that it is safe enough because they have done it a squillion times and it was great fun, and it didn't result in an accident so far!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than force them to monitor the ATC frequency, why not let them fly enroute, avoiding the approach and departure airspace of airports, and then allow them to fly in blissful silence? Surely that would be fair if you wanted to compare flying privately with driving privately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are VFR pilots to know where the app/dep paths of airfieds are? How are they to find out where the IAP take IFR aircraft? if they bother to download DAPs from the web, how are they supposed to read and understand the procedures?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I entirely agree that with a commercial pilot it is totally different. A commercial pilot is paid to be in the air, and is therefore paid to constantly monitor a radio frequency. Surely a private pilot should be allowed to have a different, quieter and simpler method of flying if it can be done safely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are ALL entitled to a safe airspace - including the passengers - we all have the right to fly relaxed without wondering if this is the last day in their life - and if you are going to use that airspace, then a safe set of rules should apply to all common users.
The prime directive, to steal a phrase, is a safe airspace system.
The lack of radio frequency information, a lack of common frequencies is just plane dumb, I don't care what they do in the 'States. They also have liberal gun laws, that doesn't necessarily make that appropriate for us.
If you are a private pilot (or an ATPL) and cannot handle to fly and listen to the radio, you are in the wrong place. By 'dumbing down'the system to accomodate private pilots who find it easier to blunder about the sky than it is to stay current and on top of the procedures required, and assimilate in an integrated and safe airspace, the majority of the users - commercial passenger and freight aircraft - are exposed to greater risks. Since when did the minority rule?
In closing.
I do not want to kill the joy in private pilots enjoying their flying with their friends and families in a relaxed manner - all aviators enjoy the same.
(Now trying not to sound like Gerry Springer!!!)
However, with this endeavour, and flying is an endeavour, there comes RESPONSIBILITY. A responsibility to ensure a high standard of airmanship and all that entails, even if it means it's a bit more difficult than firing up the engine when ever you want and going wherever you want whenever you want. You have a responsibility to other airspace users to maintain a safe standard of recency, knowledge and skill level.
Dumbing down the system to accomodate the few pilots who do not adhere to these principals, and do not want to contibute their (proportionately) small financial part in the upkeep of the system, dilutes the safety for us all'- including the passenegrs and people on the ground.
Last edited by Jet_A_Knight; 6th Dec 2003 at 08:20.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
Thank you for your replies so far. Perhaps more informative than your replies has been your silence on any empirical data used to support NAS, either at the design stage, or during your role on the ARG. Throughout your contributions to these forums, it has always been the questions which you refuse to answer rather than your answers themselves, which I have found most illuminating.
Anyone interested in this subject could have found data. Anyone entrusted with this task should have done so. A quick search reveals some interesting facts about mid-air collison risk in the US NAS system.
http://www.qsl.net/n6tx/prose/nmacrate.htm
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/selrej.html
http://www.aviation.uiuc.edu/UnitsHF...egmannhf01.pdf
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
According to the ATSB website (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/stats/stats1.cfm), the average number of hours flown in Austalia (including RPT and GA) between 1991 and 1999 was 4,418,356. On the assumption that the average flight length was approximately four hours, one could expect Australia to have a rate of mid-air collision for the same period, in the order of one per annum. This is obviously not the case.
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
Note: MAC = Mid Air Collision, NMAC = Near Mid Air Collision
As Autralia has – proportionately - more areas outside of radar coverage, it can be surmised that introduction of the U.S. system into our environment will lead to a proportionately higher risk of mid-air collision in Australia than the US. This is primarily becauses the US’s chief mitigator against risk (high levels of radar coverage) is absent in Australia.
Dick Smith:
Given that the risk of mid-air collision in the United States is greatest during day-time VMC, the ‘terrible weather’ might in fact be an unintended mitigator against risk. Our relatively benign weather patterns, which encourage more VFR flight, might aggravate against us in that regard.
To take Smith’s example to the extreme, 12 months of ‘terrible weather’ would reduce the risk of VFR/IFR mid-air collisions to zero!!
Combine that with large areas not covered by radar, and it seems that Australia is not like the United States at all. Per flight hour, our risk might in fact be greater.
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
Thus, it is not necessary for the system to go ‘wrong’ or for anyone to make an error for a NMAC to occur. NMACs are just one of the risks of the ‘system.’
The greatest risk of mid-air collision in the United States occurs:
a) In VMC by day (Australia has a lot of VMC)
b) Outside areas of radar covarge (85% in Austalia vs 15% in the US)
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
By removing the ability of ATC to provide alerts to IFR aircraft (e.g. Class E airspace outside radar coverage) we are reducing the pilot’s chances of visually acquiring the conflicting aircraft by a factor of eight.
Narinder Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann
A surprisingly large number of US mid-air collisions (26.6%) occur during the cruise stage of flight. Maneja and Wiegman attribute this to complacency and inattention. In the absence of any other alerts than visual cues, the risk of mid-air collision during the cruise phase remains high.
Narinder Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann
These studies show that the average human being is unable to maintain the visual lookout required to avert mid-air collisions between today’s high performance aircraft. Closing rates in excess of 500KTS in visibility of 10km require a near-constant scan. Add to this the limitations imposed by cockpit design and it becomes apparent that collisions cannot reliably be avoided by reference only to visual means.
This means that those 26.6% of NMACs which occur in the cruise phase are being ignored in the current (NAS) system.
Why? Just so that PPLs can fly in blissfull ................ silence?
Thank you for your replies so far. Perhaps more informative than your replies has been your silence on any empirical data used to support NAS, either at the design stage, or during your role on the ARG. Throughout your contributions to these forums, it has always been the questions which you refuse to answer rather than your answers themselves, which I have found most illuminating.
Anyone interested in this subject could have found data. Anyone entrusted with this task should have done so. A quick search reveals some interesting facts about mid-air collison risk in the US NAS system.
http://www.qsl.net/n6tx/prose/nmacrate.htm
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/selrej.html
http://www.aviation.uiuc.edu/UnitsHF...egmannhf01.pdf
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
There are currently about 60 Million flights per year conducted in the United States. For the past two decades, the number of midair collision accidents has averaged about 30 per year. Since each midair collision is presumed to involve two aircraft, it appears that one flight in a million ends in a midair collision.
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
The majority of MACs occur outside of radar coverage, as do a considerable fraction of General Aviation (GA) NMACs.
As Autralia has – proportionately - more areas outside of radar coverage, it can be surmised that introduction of the U.S. system into our environment will lead to a proportionately higher risk of mid-air collision in Australia than the US. This is primarily becauses the US’s chief mitigator against risk (high levels of radar coverage) is absent in Australia.
Dick Smith:
Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.
To take Smith’s example to the extreme, 12 months of ‘terrible weather’ would reduce the risk of VFR/IFR mid-air collisions to zero!!
Combine that with large areas not covered by radar, and it seems that Australia is not like the United States at all. Per flight hour, our risk might in fact be greater.
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
"the vast majority of near midair collision reports fail to indicate a violation or an assignable error on the part of either the operators of the aircraft or air traffic control personnel"
The greatest risk of mid-air collision in the United States occurs:
a) In VMC by day (Australia has a lot of VMC)
b) Outside areas of radar covarge (85% in Austalia vs 15% in the US)
H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
If a pilot receives a timely traffic alert, the pilot may spot the threatening aircraft and/or maneuver his aircraft to avoid a collision. It has been demonstrated when two aircraft are on a collision course, the probability of visual acquisition can be improved by a factor of eight if the pilot(s) receive accurate and timely traffic alerts.
Narinder Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann
A large number of MACs occurred when aircraft were in the approach phase (n=61, 38.6%) followed by cruise (n=42, 26.6%) and maneuver (n=27, 17.1%).
Narinder Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann
Using eye tracking devices to track pilots eye movements while flying a simulator with real-world cockpit views, they found that the pilots spent approximately 37% of their time attending to the outside world, a value that contrasts sharply with the FAA recommended figure of approximately 75%.
This means that those 26.6% of NMACs which occur in the cruise phase are being ignored in the current (NAS) system.
Why? Just so that PPLs can fly in blissfull ................ silence?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Dick. Nice to see you answering some of your critics here on PPrune. So, can you answer me this?
You seem to be skirting around the issue some here have touched on and one that has attracted a large amount of attention. That is the Incident that occured between the Virgin 737, C421 and B200 last week. Why? Is this an incident that you were dreading.
Why was this Cessna where he was? (highly congested IFR approach point to a major capitol city airport). A particular part of the new airspace you and your NASIG colleagues have told VFR pilots (obviously not this guy though) to avoid.
His position in a radar environment was known to the ATCO but not his altitude/FL. Why? Did the philosophy of transponder v. TCAS fail here? I say yes. If he had the Transponder set correctly, the TCAS RA would not have occured. Ample warning would have been recieved by the Virgin crew to avoid this situation in the first place.
In a nutshell, your new airspace has failed .
What are you going to do about it?
You seem to be skirting around the issue some here have touched on and one that has attracted a large amount of attention. That is the Incident that occured between the Virgin 737, C421 and B200 last week. Why? Is this an incident that you were dreading.
Why was this Cessna where he was? (highly congested IFR approach point to a major capitol city airport). A particular part of the new airspace you and your NASIG colleagues have told VFR pilots (obviously not this guy though) to avoid.
His position in a radar environment was known to the ATCO but not his altitude/FL. Why? Did the philosophy of transponder v. TCAS fail here? I say yes. If he had the Transponder set correctly, the TCAS RA would not have occured. Ample warning would have been recieved by the Virgin crew to avoid this situation in the first place.
In a nutshell, your new airspace has failed .
What are you going to do about it?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
Been meaning to ask this, but I thought I'd wait for the enquiry.
But you guys won't, so here goes.
1. C421 had transponder on, allegedly no Mode C.
2. C421 was in RADAR coverage close to the CTR.
Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.
So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.
I suggest this is the cultural difference, the difference between why NAS works in the US and CivilAir are doing their damdest to stop it working here.
I have decided to ignore the tripe, this is a union blowup pure and simple and, unfortunately, may only be resolved using the 'Reagan methodology' if this rubbish keeps popping up.
AK
But you guys won't, so here goes.
1. C421 had transponder on, allegedly no Mode C.
2. C421 was in RADAR coverage close to the CTR.
Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.
So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.
I suggest this is the cultural difference, the difference between why NAS works in the US and CivilAir are doing their damdest to stop it working here.
I have decided to ignore the tripe, this is a union blowup pure and simple and, unfortunately, may only be resolved using the 'Reagan methodology' if this rubbish keeps popping up.
AK
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek
I find it hard to believe that you are asking what I think you are asking.
Unless I misunderstand your question entirely, are you suggesting that ATC try to 'query' all unidentified VFR aircraft without a valid Mode C when they are closing on IFR aircraft?
Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.
So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.
So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.
Unless I misunderstand your question entirely, are you suggesting that ATC try to 'query' all unidentified VFR aircraft without a valid Mode C when they are closing on IFR aircraft?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to be able to do that. I used to be able to do that.
It would, however, require the pilot to know my frequency, so he could listen out for my calls. Now, he will be monitoring the ATIS, AERIS or 123.45, none of which I have at my console.
It would, however, require the pilot to know my frequency, so he could listen out for my calls. Now, he will be monitoring the ATIS, AERIS or 123.45, none of which I have at my console.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a nice one Snarek - fire the controllers.
PS Maybe you can answer this one, seeing as no one else will. What is the effective scan pattern in order to allown see and avoid of aircraft descending from above and behind?
PS Maybe you can answer this one, seeing as no one else will. What is the effective scan pattern in order to allown see and avoid of aircraft descending from above and behind?
So snarek you are going to take your bat and ball and head home...?
If your arguments like those of Dick and Mike Smith, were valid you would have persuaded many by your posts on this forum. Why hasn't that happened?
Two important questions raised by your post above:
1. How does the ATC query the VFR traffic in E airspace if the pilot does not know which frequency to use or in fact may be does not have a radio as they are not required?
2. How on earth is this an industrial issue? What do the ATCOs or pilot's have to gain by opposing NAS? Other than a long and productive life.
I have decided to ignore the tripe, this is a union blowup pure and simple and, unfortunately, may only be resolved using the 'Reagan methodology' if this rubbish keeps popping up.
Two important questions raised by your post above:
1. How does the ATC query the VFR traffic in E airspace if the pilot does not know which frequency to use or in fact may be does not have a radio as they are not required?
2. How on earth is this an industrial issue? What do the ATCOs or pilot's have to gain by opposing NAS? Other than a long and productive life.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heh heh heh
Hohoho
Much of the usual arm waving union motivated cr@p, and one reasoned response.
And this is what we need to know (well we know it, we want it reinforced via our members) so we can continue to monitor the implimentation of NAS, which happens to be the caveat on our support for the system.
I suggest you talk in a reasoned manner to any AOPA members you know, we are about to poll them on NAS via the magazine.
AK
Much of the usual arm waving union motivated cr@p, and one reasoned response.
It would, however, require the pilot to know my frequency, so he could listen out for my calls.
I suggest you talk in a reasoned manner to any AOPA members you know, we are about to poll them on NAS via the magazine.
AK