The sounds of silence............Nov 27th
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest that if you are going to ban WMH you should ban the original as well. Not only childish, but all of his posts are specifically to gain a reaction and not any input into the arguements. It is just as useless as emails about where to get viagra and money from nigeria. Be consistent thanks. Or do you only moderate from one camp?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: middle earth
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inceased Safety................ Where?
Dick........... How can you base your studies on the safety level of the american system when there are so many factors that differ between both systems. For starters, if you are going to reduce costs in air traffic control, how about passing some of them onto the consumer in the way of upgraded radar. It might be well and fine for yourself as you buzz up and down the east coast of australia which has 90% radar coverage but, how bout the rest of australia once you get west of say, the great dividing range. I believe that one of the successes of the american system is that although much of it is see and avoid.... their air traffic controllers have 100% situational awareness of who is where.
Have you stopped to think about the rest of australia outside the radar zones where if you had the minimum visibility, even in something as small as a C206, going head on with another of the same type, you only have 40 seconds until a collision. Now the human brain takes 20 seconds to compute whether their is a confliction, that is on average, so allow another 10 seconds for a fudge factor, and you have reduced our lifespan to 10 seconds..... just enough time for us to say " holy shhhhhh.........". The mere fact of this timing also relies on you picking up something the size of a fly at 5km, both seeing each other at the same time and both taking corrective action as per the regulations and your training......
I also found it funny to get home last week and see Mr Anderson in his speech on the New Airspace to cabinet...." Mr Speaker, i must stress again.... everyone wanted this new airspace, QANTAS wanted it, Virgin wanted it....... all Australian Operators wanted it". He then went on to say " and i must stress Mr Speaker, there have been NO near misses, nor is there likely to be". If this is not the best example of polititians at their best(lying), I don't know what is. Need i remind you dick of 2 Metros head to head 36 secs from collision in the NT in the first few days,both of whom were perfectly correct within your new airspace (the only person who had any idea was the air traffic controller who was nearly having a heart attack), secondly Virgin and a light aircraft, both of whom were also perfectly legal in your new system. If i remember correctly, your industry consultation was to the effect of " here it is boys, we are getting it, stiff ****, any questions?". You might as well just not have even bothered to have told us anything and just changed it off your own back.
I also must point out to you that most of a pilots situation awareness comes from position reports over the radios. While i do agree that there is often a lot of useless chatter, I disagree that removing the boundaries and frequencies will improve safety. How can it when your "educational material" specifies [b] MONITOR AN APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY[b]...... how the bloody hell can we do this when you remove the appropriate frequency!!!!!!!! Pull your head out of your ass dick and stop being a DICK!!!!! Fair enough we need changes, just not yours!!!!!!
Have you stopped to think about the rest of australia outside the radar zones where if you had the minimum visibility, even in something as small as a C206, going head on with another of the same type, you only have 40 seconds until a collision. Now the human brain takes 20 seconds to compute whether their is a confliction, that is on average, so allow another 10 seconds for a fudge factor, and you have reduced our lifespan to 10 seconds..... just enough time for us to say " holy shhhhhh.........". The mere fact of this timing also relies on you picking up something the size of a fly at 5km, both seeing each other at the same time and both taking corrective action as per the regulations and your training......
I also found it funny to get home last week and see Mr Anderson in his speech on the New Airspace to cabinet...." Mr Speaker, i must stress again.... everyone wanted this new airspace, QANTAS wanted it, Virgin wanted it....... all Australian Operators wanted it". He then went on to say " and i must stress Mr Speaker, there have been NO near misses, nor is there likely to be". If this is not the best example of polititians at their best(lying), I don't know what is. Need i remind you dick of 2 Metros head to head 36 secs from collision in the NT in the first few days,both of whom were perfectly correct within your new airspace (the only person who had any idea was the air traffic controller who was nearly having a heart attack), secondly Virgin and a light aircraft, both of whom were also perfectly legal in your new system. If i remember correctly, your industry consultation was to the effect of " here it is boys, we are getting it, stiff ****, any questions?". You might as well just not have even bothered to have told us anything and just changed it off your own back.
I also must point out to you that most of a pilots situation awareness comes from position reports over the radios. While i do agree that there is often a lot of useless chatter, I disagree that removing the boundaries and frequencies will improve safety. How can it when your "educational material" specifies [b] MONITOR AN APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY[b]...... how the bloody hell can we do this when you remove the appropriate frequency!!!!!!!! Pull your head out of your ass dick and stop being a DICK!!!!! Fair enough we need changes, just not yours!!!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
winstons_my_heros_my_hero
I concur with Topzalp. Winston, BIK & others constantly refer to ATC as self-absorbed & brain dead, and their ideal ATC comes out of the closet and WOOMERA goes and BANS him
Besides, nobody has been allowed (despite being selected) to move from the crisper to approach for years.
Besides, nobody has been allowed (despite being selected) to move from the crisper to approach for years.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't consider banning Whingestun oh great moderator. One post from this exceptionial contributer does more damage to NAS than any 10 reasoned arguments from the anti-NAS chorus.
Go on Whingey, tell us again how all Australians are useless layabouts who need a lesson in everything from the Americans!
You really do know how to win friends and influence people don't you bloke. keep up the good work.
Go on Whingey, tell us again how all Australians are useless layabouts who need a lesson in everything from the Americans!
You really do know how to win friends and influence people don't you bloke. keep up the good work.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You, as 'someone who probably should know', confidently stated that, in the USA, controllers routinely query non-mode-C VFR paints as to their level. When pressed as to how they did this (or how we would in Australia) when the pilots were not on the ATC frequency, the discussion suddenly dried up.
I continue to put my point of view to AOPA and Dick Smith. I am there, like here, only one voice.
AK
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Your current opposition to the 'no monitoring the freq' policy is commendable. Not being an AOPA member, I have no reason or right to be concerned that you only appear to have realised the import of the frequency issue after implementation.
What I was referring to when I said that the discussion had ‘dried up’ was your confident assertion that US controllers would routinely ‘query’ unidentified VFR aircraft as to their level or other information, Given that you had said:
I therefore ask you:
1) How do they do it?
2) How do you know?
3) What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?
It seems that there are too many players in this sorry saga who make bald statements like:
“It is safer” or
“They do it in the US”
“…I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.”
… without even the slightest attempt to back up their statements with solid facts. Some of these people are accountable to the parliament, others to the minister and others to their members. Is it asking too much that serious issues like air safety are based upon fact rather than unsubstantiated opinion and personal crusades. Casual conversations with ‘someone who should know’ just do not cut it.
As a matter of interest, you would no doubt have guessed that NAS occupies the minds and conversations of ATCs around the country. In the many NAS-related conversations I have had, both before and since 27 November, not once has a controller mentioned the impact of NAS on jobs, or in any way commented upon ‘industrial’ issues. Without exception the conversations have revolved around concerns about safety or procedures.
So, next time you deride legitimate concerns about safety as ‘union scare-mongering’, at least enhance your own credibility by providing the slightest hint of a shred of evidence to support your claim. Unsubstantiated abuse says more about the lack of substance in your own argument than it says about those you attempt to insult and denigrate.
Your current opposition to the 'no monitoring the freq' policy is commendable. Not being an AOPA member, I have no reason or right to be concerned that you only appear to have realised the import of the frequency issue after implementation.
What I was referring to when I said that the discussion had ‘dried up’ was your confident assertion that US controllers would routinely ‘query’ unidentified VFR aircraft as to their level or other information, Given that you had said:
Oh, and before you ask, yes they do it in the US.
1) How do they do it?
2) How do you know?
3) What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?
It seems that there are too many players in this sorry saga who make bald statements like:
“It is safer” or
“They do it in the US”
“…I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.”
… without even the slightest attempt to back up their statements with solid facts. Some of these people are accountable to the parliament, others to the minister and others to their members. Is it asking too much that serious issues like air safety are based upon fact rather than unsubstantiated opinion and personal crusades. Casual conversations with ‘someone who should know’ just do not cut it.
As a matter of interest, you would no doubt have guessed that NAS occupies the minds and conversations of ATCs around the country. In the many NAS-related conversations I have had, both before and since 27 November, not once has a controller mentioned the impact of NAS on jobs, or in any way commented upon ‘industrial’ issues. Without exception the conversations have revolved around concerns about safety or procedures.
So, next time you deride legitimate concerns about safety as ‘union scare-mongering’, at least enhance your own credibility by providing the slightest hint of a shred of evidence to support your claim. Unsubstantiated abuse says more about the lack of substance in your own argument than it says about those you attempt to insult and denigrate.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4-7-11
When I see lies pretending to be facts, like the Canberra 'VFR' report, I will say so. That was a union beat up.
On another post I was derided for posting something with back up. Not one of those who had a go would post anything to back their assertations or accusations.
On the VB vs C421 incident, why when the union cries wolf is that OK, but when I post facts I am not playing fair???.
Seems 'your' side of the argument wants to apply certain rules and yet be immune to them themselves. (I wonder how the US will try Hussain
)
But anyway:
1) How do they do it?
Becuase pilots monitor the appropriate frequency. Appropriate is the keyword here, I don't think that has been explained properly or entirely by NASIG.
2) How do you know?
3) What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?
I have flown there. Having said that, the justification for 'chart simplification' doesn't really wash here and is possibly supportive of your argument that 'Australia isn't the US'.
Have a look at a sectional for the LA Basin!!!! Not even the BKT SYD mess compares with that.
That is why I am still at a loss as to why pilots in the same airspace above a certain height shouldn't at least be monitoring the same frequency.
Other than that, NAS seems to working.
AK
When I see lies pretending to be facts, like the Canberra 'VFR' report, I will say so. That was a union beat up.
On another post I was derided for posting something with back up. Not one of those who had a go would post anything to back their assertations or accusations.
On the VB vs C421 incident, why when the union cries wolf is that OK, but when I post facts I am not playing fair???.
Seems 'your' side of the argument wants to apply certain rules and yet be immune to them themselves. (I wonder how the US will try Hussain
)But anyway:
1) How do they do it?
Becuase pilots monitor the appropriate frequency. Appropriate is the keyword here, I don't think that has been explained properly or entirely by NASIG.
2) How do you know?
3) What evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?
I have flown there. Having said that, the justification for 'chart simplification' doesn't really wash here and is possibly supportive of your argument that 'Australia isn't the US'.
Have a look at a sectional for the LA Basin!!!! Not even the BKT SYD mess compares with that.
That is why I am still at a loss as to why pilots in the same airspace above a certain height shouldn't at least be monitoring the same frequency.
Other than that, NAS seems to working.
AK
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whinge... 
Quite astonshing that these whiners and moaners that spend close to 24/7 on this forum would dare attempt to label my good self with such an adept description of themselves...
Must stem back as a good Aussie trait, like calling their Queen and colonial masters pommes...
It is one thing to be embarassed by your own deficiencies and bludging union character, but quite another to make specfic attacks on objective observers. I rarely make an appearance, only to keep the viewers well informed, and keep a check and balance on the widespread misinformation being spread about by special interests... 
Quite astonshing that these whiners and moaners that spend close to 24/7 on this forum would dare attempt to label my good self with such an adept description of themselves...
Must stem back as a good Aussie trait, like calling their Queen and colonial masters pommes... It is one thing to be embarassed by your own deficiencies and bludging union character, but quite another to make specfic attacks on objective observers. I rarely make an appearance, only to keep the viewers well informed, and keep a check and balance on the widespread misinformation being spread about by special interests...
