Australian Airspace Discussion

[Dick Smith]

Gundog01, you state that it would be nice to have radar controlled airspace and you believe the reason we do not have this is:

Because someone has done the risk analysis (i hope) and decided, you know what, the cost of implementing this outweighs the benefits derived.

I wish that were true. You will find that no risk analysis has been done on this particular issue. Airspace or procedural changes normally only come in after people are killed. I was the one who pushed for Flight Service airspace which was covered by radar to be taken over by air traffic controllers so we could use the radar – not only for traffic purposes, but also to help prevent CFIT accidents.

So far I have failed in relation to proper use of the radar. However eventually – hopefully before the inevitable accident occurs – we will introduce the necessary procedures so our existing radar coverage is optimised for safety.

I have been involved in airspace and regulatory change for over 20 years, and every change I have successfully introduced has been resisted by those who are against change.

I mentioned previously how the Victor 1 lane in Sydney was aggressively opposed by an ex-Department of Aviation bureaucrat, Mr Alan Green, who was then working for Qantas. He managed to stop the Victor lane from being introduced for over 18 months and nearly succeeded.

A small number of people who are in positions of influence and believe that everything we have done in the past is correct and it should never even be queried, let alone changed. For example, we still have airline aircraft on two-way routes flying accurately by GPS and RVSM along the centre line of the route. Over 100 people have been killed in Brazil because of this. I wonder when we will actually bring in a regulatory change in Australia that will help to prevent this type of accident.

[james michael]

Dick

If this was not a farce it would be laughable.

How you goin' with that link to FSI?

Keep your mind closed as much as you want to James Michael, keep supporting the status quo and the exact Airservices/CASA/Department “don’t change anything” direction, and more people will die.

I'm supporting a major change that includes traffic information in the cockpit. You are NOT.

Now, Dick, I want you AND EVERYONE to consider this next quote by you today very carefully

If we wait until we introduce ADS-B and we have not conquered the total resistance to change regarding the procedures, we will not get the safety advantages.

I have before me a local magazine that tells me the following (clipped to save space and my red for emphasis):

Not just a mock up, this is a working airborne model that has been well tried and tested locally.

The unit should market for around USD $6000 which puts it fitted to a VFR aircraft out here just about bang on the $10,000 subsidy.

So far so good, you can meet the requirement to send ADS-B OUT so you are ATC identified – but what’s in it for you flying around in Class G outside ATC cover?

The real benefit is that it has the bonus of including integrated ADS-B IN so ADS-B equipped traffic can be displayed on your panel mounted equipment (e.g. Garmin 430/530, and even G1000 glass screens) or handhelds like your GPS or your Palm Pilot.

Dick, do you have TCAS on your aircraft? Dick, do you or don't you consider that a safety benefit exists in a unit fitted to Australian GA aircraft AT NO COST TO THEM that gives traffic advisory (with aural alert being added shortly).

Dick, have you known of the existence of this unit and been unusually reticent in sharing the information - because it would overwhelm your position that ADS-B offers no safety benefits? I think Niles is bang on the money - how do we conquer your resistance to change?

Back to accidents - here is some data so we know the number of cases in total, perhaps you can trot out how many of these were ATC and RADAR preventable.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/q...RPTCHARTER.jpg

[Dick Smith]

Niles Crane, your following statement in post #192 is untrue and clearly defamatory.

Dick was addiment that all he wants to do when flying is listen to his commercial radio, (ipod, cd's) at all times when not in a terminal area!

Dick, this is the most selfish proposal of airmanship I have ever heard and as I heard it direct from your mouth, I now listen to nothing you say.

No such telephone conversation has ever taken place and I have never held such a simplistic belief. It is obvious that you have posted this on a thread discussing radar usage in an attempt to discredit me so that readers will not accept that my views are genuinely held.

I suggest that you contact me urgently on phone number 0408 640 221 or email [email protected] so we can discuss the facts of the matter and a correction can be posted.

If you do not do this, I will take action as I did with Caroline Tulip to obtain your identity through the courts. I will be successful and the costs will be high. If I am successful with the following defamation action, you will be paying these costs – and possibly more.

[Niles Crane]

Dick, I apologise for my previous statement.

You are correct, the conversation never took place and your airmanship is exemplary.

I am sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Niles

[Willoz269]

Dick,
Your Quite:

"How much per passenger? Not much compared to staying alive."



How was your cost case for how many lives could be expendable when you closed Proserpine and other towers??? Why are you telling us now that ASA should do what you DIDN"T do and spend millions in getting more people and coverage (either radar or otherwise) in Class G and mixed airspace to provide another layer of safety.

I ask you again, didn't you call this "affordable safety"???

[Dick Smith]

Willoz269, during my time as Chairman of the CAA, the towers were closed or opened using the approved establishment and discontinuance formula. If I remember correctly, this values human life at about $1 million. A scientific approach was then used to work out whether the local tower was an effective way of spending the dollars.

You seem to have forgotten that the decision at the time was to go to the AMATS changes, which meant the airspace at Proserpine would go to Class E and be controlled from the Centre. Of course, this never happened because of resistance to change.

In relation to affordability, that is what I have always maintained. You should look to see if spending the safety dollars is an effective way of spending out resources. I believe that following the international system (where there is Class E airspace to low levels at busy jet airline airports) is a very effective way of spending the safety dollars.

It is interesting to note that CASA has refused to use the FAA establishment and discontinuance formula for towers such as Avalon. I understand this is because it will clearly show that the tower should be manned. Why otherwise would a proven formula not be used?

In relation to providing a better radar service at our non-tower airports, I can assure you that no safety study has been done. The prejudice against doing this is so fixed that no one has dared to actually see what it would cost and whether it was an effective way of saving the safety dollar.

If you would like to see what was planned with the airspace at the time of the AMATS changes in 1991, I suggest you look here.

[max1]

A quick re-read through and we might appreciate why there is a level of angst in this thread.
I have tried to keep the posts in time order.

The tread started out with Dick giving his quick and easy take on how to use the radar, its inherent alarms and the available controllers to implement this at no cost. LHRT after ringing Dick comes back on as a convert, and quoting Dick as an Authority (read your posts LHRT).

People who actually work with TAAATS and in the centres say it could be done , would add to safety, but would cost alot and require alot more bodies to do effectively due to unique Australian sector sizes. Dick continues that it wouldn't take anymore people or cost anything.

Dick then decides okay hire more controllers. People continue to say it would give a greater level of safety but also point out what that cost would be. Dick then decides that we have admitted that it is not impossible, (I couldn't find a post of someone saying it was impossible, but lots of posts from people saying it was possible just not as easily and cheaply as Dick envisages)

Dick then gives all who don't agree completely with him a spray about their closed minds and resistance to change. Dick quotes ' But they do it O/S' even though it has already been posted that we have large geographic sectors compared to the rest of the World.

Here are some selective quotes:

Well apparently the software for this function already exists but is not turned on / installed
Nett cost would be pretty much zero, it certainly can not hurt.
LHRT ater talking to Dick.

I am quite happy to do this if directed, just show me how it can be done with the staff we already have on the areas of airspace we cover.MAX1

Honestly, why would you require more controllers ?.LHRT

All the equipment is in place, it is completely automatic, it would cost nothing. ( no more controllers, it might slow down your game of solitare as the computer would have another tiny little program running ).
Am I seeing someone resisting change for the sake of resisting change ?
LHRT

To have this system at Proserpine would require no more staff. Dick

What logical reasons could you or Max honestly muster up to justify this to not be benficial to safety ?, LHRT

Answer is, if you want this to be done 100% of the time make sure the controllers is not overwhelmed doing this to the detriment of their other separation responsibilities. i.e look at the traffic densities, peaks and troughs and make sure you have the staff to cover these. Max1

As I said happy to do it if mandated but give us the resources i.e People and computing power, to do it. Affordable Safety. I agree this would be beneficial to safety, but it will cost. Max1

To provide a proper minimum safe altitude alerting service at Benalla would cost nothing. No more air traffic controllers, no extra radar and in the case of the Benalla accident, six people would no doubt be alive today if the changes had been introduced. Dick

If it requires the employment of some extra ATC's so be it- Dick

Mate, I'm sure the procedure you're suggesting would work great and people would get used to it quickly but they DO NOT have enough staff to run the current airspace or even the major airports. C-Change to Dick

C Change, So it is a staffing problem- not as others claim "impossible" to do. Dick.

Dick,
What you say re surveillance of Approaches is doable. Most problems in the world are doable if you throw the resources, committment and money at them. Max1

Max1, it is a futile waste of time answering your posts. Your mind is obviously closed. Dick

What happens is the same old posters come on with their fixed views saying there is no way we can actually improve the service we give here. Dick

Dick, I do not have a closed mind, I have in fact said it could be done. I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out. Max1

This is the crux of the matter for ATC, continually chasing false alarms to the detriment of all the other things we do. Lots more staff required. Max1

1) Many on here are very closed minded and appear to have a very much "deer in the headlights" hatred towards anything Mr Smith posts, LHRT

I think I have stated repeatedly that what you want can be done. But it will cost. Ferris

Dick,
You were told that TAAATS supported MSAW with a manual? insert of LSALT. You were told, or assumed, incorrectly.

Ferris is correct. The TAAATS MSAW is a crude blunt instrument. It cannot use proprietary terrain databases, it must have one constructed within its own software parameters. This has entailed thousands of hours of work by the DATA section in years past. The maintenance of the data equally requires hours of input (don't forget we are talking about obstacles as well as terrain, and obstacles change). 40 years


Dick,
You are reading these posts as though people are against you. Controllers believe your idea has merit and would improve safety. We are attempting to give you advice as to why it is not the simple matter of a cheap and quick software update, a few procedure changes, and away we go. Max1

That normally means it won’t happen, or it won’t be successful, but we will still be able to say that we have open minds and we are always trying something new.
Dick (in regard to MLS but about Australian Aviation in general.There is truth in this.)

Yes it may cost a few extra dollars - but why is that your concern? Dick

If there is radar and ATC available, why not use it. Dick

"This is despite the fact that Flight Safety International states that the most important safety mitigators to prevent CFIT accidents are ATC and radar."
Dick

In your latest post, you used these words
"Just that Flight Safety International say that they are two of the most important safety mitigators."
My bolding and italics Dog One

That they are the "most important" or "two of the most important" hardly makes a difference in the eyes of those with open minds who do not want to be involved in a CFIT accident. Dick

Gundog, why is it economically feasible for ATC to provide such a service in radar covered airspace in Europe, Canada and the US but not here? Dick

CB is an easy solution but not easily solved.More staff allows for 24/7 ops with App and TWR providing a TMA service. No need for the en-route guys to do APP on ridiculous scales. C-Change

Over the last 10 pages , Dick has come out with an idea and viewpoint that others have seen merit but also problems with. By page 10 we have learnt, and Dick has hopefully come to realise that his idea has merit , but will require signicant upgrade to TAAATS functionality and an increase in controllers or warm bodies to man the radars to achieve his desired outcome.

I have been told I am closed minded, resistant to change, have fixed views, am a 'dinosaur' and the new breed will fix everything and embrace Dick, and it is futile to answer my posts.

Lucky , most of us have thick-skins. I have been disappointed that some have 'gone the man' and not the ball, on both sides of the fence. But understand the frustrations.

Dick, you do have some good (and bad) ideas but this isn't a p!ssing competition. This is actually a good but very expensive idea.

You talk about surrounding yourself with good people and listening to them. You might not realise it, but you have been surrounded by some good people here.

[Gundog01]

Gundog, why is it economically feasible for ATC to provide such a service in radar covered airspace in Europe, Canada and the US but not here?

Dick surely you can answer this yourself. Take a look and the size of the aviation industries in the countries mentioned compared to ours. More industry equals more government support equals better services.

Now i'm not saying that justifies doing nothing, but it is an economical reality that the government won't hand out money for more ATC based on near CFIT incidents, when typically it is pilot error that leads to such incidents, not a lack of radar controllers.

[Bob Murphie]

In the interests of accuracy james michael, can you give me a reference to the magazine you quote to state

“The unit should market for around USD $6000 which puts it fitted to a VFR aircraft out here just about bang on the $10,000 subsidy”.

I suspect you are being conveniently vague about the suitability and cost of fitment of this equipment and if, as I suspect it is unsuitable, does the subsidy extend to Non TSO’d equipment?

[Dick Smith]

Owen ,Canberra clearly has radar to very low levels- you have told us so.

On post 187 you even told us you provide a radar service below 8500' when the airspace is class G.

You clearly do not provide a service that will stop planes flying into mountains there and that is what I am on about.

I agree that this will require en route controllers to be trained to do approach work (as they do in other countries) and also require smaller sectors.

All of this will cost money.

No one has ever looked at the cost and benefit of this because minds have been made up.

I do not agree that "class E without survailance has been proven to be dangerous and irresponsible"

It is certainly a step up from class G and two incidents in 12 months do not provide enough data to make such a finding.

I would prefer to have low level class E at a place like Port Macquarie because it not only includes a transponder requirement but you also get a control service if IFR.

[james michael]

Max 1

Great compendium. All it needs is Dick's safety case.

Owen

Much appreciated - makes sense now.

Bob Murphie

Yes the article destroys the argument of your team doesn't it - ADS-B IN integrated in the unit fitted within the cross industry subsidy price and it will be TSO. ADS-B IN, as I think you have previously noted, was the safety feature on which much of the JCP hinged. Well Bob, here it is FREE.

I'll answer your question when Dick stops hiding from mine.

Dick

Here's my summary, much briefer than Max's.

You went Niles as a show of force yesterday - probably needed a diversion from the way your arguments are going down the gurgler. Yet you have no compunction in making improper comments about other posters who are anon, that being your excuse. Very poor taste in my opinion.

You have not provided a link substantiating your rhetoric about FSI and what they said. I suspect your ground shifting is because you are on quicksand.

You ramble on rhetorically about affordable safety and being open minded about it. Where is your support for the Australian (note, Bob) consortium launching the integrated ADS-B unit that enables all GA VFR and IFR pilots to have traffic from other ADS-B equipped aircraft ANYWHERE in Australia. RPT regional pilots would probably find that much more safety oriented than an ATC radar triple checking their choice of socks.

Answer - you test everything against your predetermined USA NAS religion and if it does not fit it is rejected by you. I believe Australia has no hope of airspace or associated technology innovation if you have anything to do with it - unless the yanks do it first. Debating matters with you is useless as you have no desire to do anything but push your crusade.

The stats on the aviation fatals are on an earlier post - should be easy for you to demonstrate to this group how many would have been saved by your proposals.

[Bob Murphie]

james michael;

You have plucked some gadget from some magazine that may or may not be TSO'd in the future, (so it's not now), which you fail to elaborate on and use that as a case that somehow destroys "my teams" credibility? Whatever that "team" may be.

To be TSO'd the gadget obviously is C146 ICAO standard. This is the only gadget that would attract the subsidy.

(if that ever eventuates, then, we will see if it is free or not).

When was the last time you had a radio of any sort installed in an aircraft that qualifies you to know how much the fitment costs would be? and how exactly does "my teams credibility" fit into an airspace discussion?

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

James,

You went Niles as a show of force yesterday - probably needed a diversion from the way your arguments are going down the gurgler.

As a spectator of that event I would have to disagree with your statement, it would appear Niles was bullsh1tting and Dick called his bluff, and won. Nothing evil in that.

Dick,

I do not agree that "class E without surveillance has been proven to be dangerous and irresponsible"

From my experience Dick, I would not agree with that statement, Class E without surveillance and below flight levels is in my opinion a very false environment.

I believe the present configuration of E in the west works ( above FL180 ) well as it is in the Flight Levels, pretty much everything up there is IFR, anyone with an aircraft capable of these operations is IR.

Having flown around SY in the short grey days of NAS, it was very very scarey, didn't the RAAF voluntarily ground all their aircraft ?.

Before anyone launchess another tirade against me, re-read post #142.

[james michael]

LHR

Not arguing that Niles may have been outside the pale - what I am pointing out is that it was an excellent diversion PLUS if you want to backtrack some other threads you will find that Dick had no compunction in denigrating others with improper assertions, in my case using the fact I was anon as his rationale that he could abuse a non-real entity. I am reminded of a philosopher (Greek or Latin, not sure) named Hypocrisies.

His burning need to identify other posters and try and flush them out despite the forum rules is probably part of that issue.

No tirade desired against you - you have put a reasonable proposition although I think your pendulum has swung past the middle since you rang Dick and received your hyper-injection of his religion

To cut to the chase, you will note Dick has not answered my questions. Should he do so, we will really move the debate forward re SAFETY, not his crusade for his interpretation thereof.

Bob Murphie

Yours is easy.

What team - the ones running interference for Dick and anti-ADS-B no matter the facts. No reader has to be a rhodes scholar to - as but one example - deduce the genesis of Xinhua, eh

TSO 146 is the only gadget that will attract the 'subsidy'? - Bob, have you considered reading the JCP? After you so do, you could also read the NFRM for ADS-B. But, to save you effort, here's an extract:

On and after 28 June 2012, the geographical position transmitted by the
equipment must be determined by:
(a) a GNSS receiver that meets TSO-C145a or TSO-C146a as in force on
19 September 2002; or
(b) another system acceptable to CASA for this purpose.

Bob, become like Dick - open your mind. ADS-B IN for free in the subsidy changes the whole equation and deserves wide support.

What's it all got to do with airspace - ask any regional RPT driver - ADS-B allows the CTAF R to become the CTAF A with traffic info BOTH ways, plus you can put the cream on the cake with Class E cones over CTAF A and provide CTA protection all the way.

[Flying Binghi]

Just to underline the cost of TSO'ed ADS-B, probably a fairly accurate costing here -

Current Alaska (ADS-B) cost estimates range from $14,000 to $18,500 per aircraft for installation and the hardware.

Extract via -
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories...80831035.shtml

As an aside, re how costs affect pilots - I was talking to somebody the other day who said they quit their AOPA (Oz) memberhip when membership costs near doubled. (plus its a rich mans club)

[Flying Binghi]

Bing (M)

You edited your last personal attack, you have been told before there is no kickback in this for me, try and debate the topic despite alternative instruction from your master.

james michael, So now your putting it that a 'free' ADS-B is not the kickback your after - or is there other 'kickback' possibilitys ???

re being told before - best remind me of the post.

james michael, I do note, again, that you are being unusually polite to me - no calling me "dickmite", "Flying Bung", etc, as what happened on other (now edited) threads.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

James,

although I think your pendulum has swung past the middle since you rang Dick and received your hyper-injection of his religion

Never a NAS convert, as per my post 142.

Am quite aware of who Dick Smith is and broadly what he stands for, his ethos is quite different to mine.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I standby my statements regarding MSAW and the determination of some to try to sink any of Dicks opinions, i.e. where does Niles find his motivation ?, although I believe I know the answer to that one.

Change at any cost is something I do not agree with, change where needed/benefit is to be gained is a good thing.

People that resist change for sake of resisting change will be left in my wake.

[tail wheel]

"No tirade desired against you - you have put a reasonable proposition although I think your pendulum has swung past the middle since you rang Dick and received your hyper-injection of his religion."

For God sake, get off your sanctimoneous soap box, accept others have a right to opinions which may be contrary to your own and if you possess the qualifications and experience, start rationally and professionally debating the issue.

If not, the thread gets closed!!!

Why do I have to read this repetitious cr@p every day?

[james michael]

Bing

Wow, this airspace discussion covers a lot of ground.

In order, your two posts.

I say again, there is NO kickback in this for me.

I am being polite to you because you have stopped the circular whizz bomb GPS argument.

I note your comment on the cost of TSO ADS-B at an early stage of the marketing cycle - the article I read is at a different time I believe.

Not sure how you move to an association membership re airspace but I had a quick google and it was actually fascinating and since you mentioned it, worth a researchers thoughts.

A quick search discloses AOPA Oz moved their subscriptions from $40 to $96 in 1995/96 - a massive increase at a time of evident political internal unrest.

I'm uncertain who was President around that time - any nominations would be of interest as it is somewhere around the Munro / Smith era I think but uncertain.

My research supports your thinking. Citing Tony Mitchell on 17 April 2001:

As we approach this election we all need to reflect on the fact that Boyd Munro and Dick Smith gave us "Location Specific Charging" and "User Pays". Dick Smith gave the Australian aviation world "Affordable Safety" which in the light of the CASA initiated Ansett farce might prove to be an even bigger burden than most of us are prepared to carry.
Think long and hard before we create yet another series of costly crusades.The last thing AOPA needs is a messiah, what it needs is a Committee of 9 "honest men".

And you are certainly correct about the walkout of members thereafter. Citing Russell Kelly on 30 April 2001:

Roger, you and about 4,000 other members have left AOPA during the past 6 years.

That's 95/96 to 2001 - perhaps Dick is better equipped to answer your rich man's club thought?

Back to airspace?

[james michael]

TW

Apology, your post ensued while I was responding to Binghi.

LHR

change where needed/benefit is to be gained is a good thing.

At the risk of offending TW that is exactly why I have been asking Dick to debate.

If you read the JCP you will find some qualified and experienced analysis as follows:

CASA conducted an analysis of 26 ‘normal operation’ CFIT accidents that occurred between 1991 and 2000. Of these, 23 involved the pilot losing visual reference to the external environment through deterioration of the weather, a situation where a terrain display in the cockpit may have assisted with situational awareness.

Analysis concluded that up to 13 CFIT accidents (i.e. 50%) and 26 fatalities (50%) could have been prevented if the pilot had been able to effectively utilise information from a moving map terrain display in the cockpit and taken avoidance action.

and

In cost-benefit work carried out by the FAA in 20059 to estimate the effectiveness of an ADS-B derived display of navigation and terrain information to aircraft not already equipped with a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS), the FAA concluded that the safety effectiveness was approximately 53 % in adverse weather conditions and approximately 18% when no adverse conditions prevail.

and

Although the analysis does not examine potential midair collisions involving regular public transport aircraft, since none have occurred, it did examine a number of passenger-carrying and fatal charter collisions. Most of these were amenable to prevention using this technology. CASA therefore considers that widespread fitment of the light aircraft fleet should also result in reduced collision risk for air transport operations, particularly in the vicinity of aerodromes with a mixture of operations.

This analysis was also presented to ABIT in June 200510 and is available at
ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT). The analysis also received favourable review from ASFA and the Flight Safety Foundation and was endorsed by ASTRA in May 2005.

In a finding similar to CASA’s conclusion, and following recent work to estimate the
effectiveness of ADS-B to reduce the risk of midair collisions, the FAA has
concluded that ADS-B should be approximately 72.3% effective at reducing collision risk, provided that each aircraft in a collision pair is equipped with ADS-B OUT and at least one of the aircraft is equipped with ADS-B IN11.

I think the above is living proof that a positive focus by Dick and his team on SUPPORTING Australian ADS-B has a potentially higher salvation rate than his desires for radar backup of LSALT, route, etc. Give it some thought.