The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Australian Airspace Discussion

Old 27th Sep 2008, 04:18
  #61 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Yes, and it's the % of CFIT accidents that occur with aircraft fitted with GPWS that we should also help prevent.

If FSI say that two of the best mitigators are ATC and radar, why not use them.

I have GPWS in my aircraft and I have found they are not faultproof- thats why I would be happy to pay a little extra and have the safety backup of ATC and radar where it is already available.

You seem to be hell bent on protecting the existing AsA position- why?

Is it that your lifetime working for the Governmnent has somehow ingrained in you the belief that some type of infallibility results!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 04:26
  #62 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Max How about a comment on BK. Surely you would agree that the obvious safety problem could be easily fixed?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 04:44
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick

I'm not hell bent on protecting the ASA position - I'm just exercising your 'open mind' on the alternatives.

A lifetime working for the Government? Not me so you had best review your thinking.

Perhaps post either the FSI report or the link to encourage more open mindedness?

I do remember this re GPWS:

TCAS safety rules were followed internationally by TAWS, the Terrain Awareness and Warning System, which is an enhanced ground proximity warning system that has been compulsory in the US for all turbine aircraft of six or more seats since March 29, 2005.

This is the greatest safety innovation of the past decade, yet there is no similar requirement for its use in Australia. Old ground proximity warning devices only look down and issue an alert to pull up, often when it is too late. TAWS looks forward.

If this requirement for TAWS had been in force in Australia on May 7 last year it is most likely that our worst airliner crash in 30 years at Lockhart River in Far Northern Queensland would not have occurred – yes, 15 people could be alive today.

Bit in red Dick - ATC or radar?
james michael is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 06:59
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
The problem Dick & Lefty is that what you are proposing sounds great in principle ... but like all good ideas, the problems start appearing in the detail.

That is why we have Safety Cases, Cost Benefit Analyses and Technical Specs etc etc etc when a new idea is proposed.

Some of us believe we can see some of the potential issues in implementing your idea ( eg. at least one extra radio communication and at least one extra Controller input would be required for EVERY instrument approach to an uncontrolled aerodrome). You don't see those problems as relevant. Perhaps you are right and we are wrong.

I would suggest that the only way your idea has a chance of being implemented is if you (or someone you can persuade) puts, at least, a decent business proposal and safety case together and submitts them to ASA for consideration.

As has been said before, throwing it at us isn't going to get it done, and I think ASA has enough on its plate at the moment, so I can't see them initiating it.
peuce is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 07:01
  #65 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
JM This is painful. Not one or the other,-both if they are available. Thats why our jets have 2 engines and for RPT, 2 pilots. Its called "fail safe".

Peuce, The safety case and policy decision was done years ago. Believe it or not , it is a fundamental part of NAS.

If such a procedure can work in the US, and in Canada, there is just a chance it could work here.

I pay a substantial amount for the IFR ATC service so I would like to have some assistance where the risk is greatest- like going into Bankstown or into Moorabbin over Mt Dandenong when in IMC.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Sep 2008 at 07:18.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 07:20
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr Smith. In your example
If still in IMC at WATLE the pilot is instructed by Sydney approach to "leave control area on descent- call Sydney radar 124.55"
We are set up for a classic CFIT as no descent altitude is given by ATC.
Lets say the pilot makes an error and descends too early and is about to hit a ridge in the famous Blue Mountains with peaks to 4000' amsl
Uhmmm, get a VTC or WAC and mark WATLE on it.
If you're at WATLE, going eastwards to Bankstown, then all the high-terrain is north, south and west of WATLE., ie. it is not in front of you.
Biggles_in_Oz is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 07:35
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick

Great SY wx for fishing, eh?

I just found a ML VTC, motivated by BIO above, and find the Mt Dandenong TV towers on the VTC are 2567' at 15 Nm to run YMMB.

If you are in IMC with likelihood of hitting something 2567' high 15 Nm from the airfield ......................... time for a BFR or at least borrow my Garmin 495 as it will assist
james michael is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 09:12
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick,

I don't work that airspace, it is not even in the room I work in. Maybe someone working SY TCU would care to comment?

"Surely you would agree that the obvious safety problem could be easily fixed? "
Dick, I don't know, see above. There maybe a whole bunch of reasons why/ why not it is a good/bad idea. I don't have that expertise so feel it is not my place to comment. I do have a problem when you say that this could EASILY be fixed.

We(controllers) are not change resistant, over the last 10+ years the change to our workplace and procedures has been huge. Our underlying issue has been that we want the changes to be researched,resourced, and managed well.
Most of us have had no simulator refresher training for 3+ years (under whose tenure does that tie in with?) This means, unlike pilots, we are not put through the ringer in the simulator to see how we cope with unusual situations.

In the Benalla situation, after all the carry-on, the undeniable truth is either the pilot or his equipment stuffed up, you are advocating a role for controllers that WE are the last line of defence and will carry the can in this situation.
If you want that, ensure that we have the resources and personnel to do this. Unfortunately,(see previous posts and research Reason model) this situation will probably happen again, only this time a controller would carry the lions share of the blame.

Dick

"Lefty' You are correct -It's not as dificult to do as others make out It is more about resistance to change than anything else."

Tell me how easy it is do. If you want the pilot error to be picked up EVERY single time there is a mistake, without fail, it will have to be resourced properly.

What is the penalty/ responsibilty for the pilot who forgets to report visual, who forgets to report that he is deviating off track outside controlled airspace, who is not monitoring the correct frequency, who has descended below MSA inadvertently. You are putting the onus on the controller to pick up everyone of these, and from my straw poll in Brisbane Centre these situations occur multiple times on a daily basis, and so far we haven't had a CFIT with controller responsibility.
Does the pilot get three strikes and then his licence pulled? Even though he was aviating and navigating and THEN communicating. Your scenario has to be that the alarm will ONLY go off when there IS a real problem. As you have been told this is currently not the case. 95% of alarms are spurious because the controller already knows there is a problem and the machine is just checking.

Last edited by max1; 27th Sep 2008 at 09:40.
max1 is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 10:30
  #69 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Biggles, what happens if the pilot is given the instruction to descend before WATLE?

All you and JM are doing is trying to justify that the 1940's procedures designed for FSO's are suitable for ATC's in 2008. They are not!

Re Benalla, no not the last line of defence and having to carry the can- just another line of defence that may result in people not being killed.

You appear to believe that in en- route airspace the controllers responsibility should be limited to aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance and not be involved in CFIT avoidance which is ten times more likely to happen.

How come ATC's in Canada and the US are happy to have this responsibility?

And the Kyeema ran into Mt Dandenong in 1938 killing 18 -if a pilot made an error when IFR in the same vicinity today ATC would not even know if the aircraft was visual or in cloud and would not be able to assign an altitude anyway.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Sep 2008 at 10:42.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 12:46
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr Smith.
You originally sited a scenario with WATLE as the descent point., now you've changed it, (sigh), to have a descent before WATLE.
To be in CTA prior to WATLE implies a descent from above 7500'.
The terrain in that region is around the 4000' level., therefore a fairly high rate of descent, or a long shallow descent, would be required before a CFIT. (assuming IMC are to the surface).
If you're in IMC prior to WATLE, then you'd better be IFR rated, which means that you have a reasonable idea of where you are, and what the LSALT is in your region., so sure, the controller may clear you to leave CTA early, but they, (nor any sane person) would expect you to do a descent to below LSALT unless specifically cleared to do so.

I love the inherent security of having another set of eyes (ATC) watching what I do, but I have a glimmering of just how difficult and complex things can be from the ATC's perspective.

To take a common computer analogy., how often have you clicked the OK button to a popup message without fully understanding what you've just 'OKed' ?.
It's actually a widespread human problem, (and a major reason for the existence of the 'Recyle Bin').
I'd prefer to not have ATCO's becomming desensitised by frequent alarms occurring every time that I exceed some lateral or vertical tolerance.
Biggles_in_Oz is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 14:04
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick, often I read things in your post which clearly show your lack of understanding of the ATC task. Often I dont bother (as generally others have a go at trying to give you the expert advice you so often claim to listen to anyway ), however...
You appear to believe that in en- route airspace the controllers responsibility should be limited to aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance and not be involved in CFIT avoidance
That is exactly the case. En route control and terminal control are two different disciplines. That is not to say that a controller is precluded from doing both- it just isnt the case in oz, and would require massive change on a fundamental level- I'll let you research why etc. rather than bore the audience with long explanations.
You also appear to deftly avoid aspects of the US system in your "just simply turn the alarms on and ask the pilot to report visual" scenario (beyond the already mentioned radar coverage, sector sizes etc etc).
THE US HAS FLIGHT SERVICE. SOMEONE (whose name suddenly escapes me?????) thought it would be a good idea to get rid of flight service in oz, as we didnt need the overservicing. OVERSERVICING!!
THE US SYSTEM HAS FLIGHT FOLLOWING. THE US SYSTEM has many things that oz could provide, but that would not be affordable. AFFORDABLE. Yet when you say the changes to MSA alerting would cost almost nothing because the computer does the monitoring and just provides alerts- WHO ACTS ON THE ALERTS? I wonder- did Dick Smith Electronics stores sack all the cleaners, then after a few years decide that the stores did need cleaning, but the shop assistants could just do the cleaning in between other tasks and therefore cleaning costs almost nothing? And with only half the compliment of staff....I wonder.....those lazy shop assistants...they could have an electronic device that detects when the dirt gets to a certain depth to alert the shop assistants to the imminent need for cleaning.....

Now, it seems that a poster here (whose name escapes me), is advocating that the ATC (note air traffic CONTROL) service provider, which due to fundamentally flawed philosphical collisions between safety and profit, is unable to provide even uninterrupted ATC, should now do flight service- and not just 1940's style flight service, but should be doing super-enhanced flight service. This same poster, who dismantled FS, now wants more of it. No FS in the NAS end state, yet MORE FS-type tasks. FS=advice. ATC= CONTROL. Yet here we are, having advocation of ATC doing advisory tasks. Cant wait til the US goes to their proposed in-or-out airpsace, then we can go full circle and have that advocated here. Surely you agree, Dick?

For those (LHR et al) who are swayed by the opinions of someone who is not an air traffic controller/FSO on these matters really need to get some clear thinking skills. Have a discussion with an ATC to get the other side of the story. (Are they change-resistant, or change fatigued? AsA is drowning with idiotic change).

ps. Dick, I would REALLY appreciate it if you could give me a blow-by-blow hypothetical description of how Benalla would've played out differently with your MSA alert scenario in place. You keep quoting it, so just tell us what you think would've happened- if your proposal to "use the radar properly" had been in place. This might change many people's minds- surely you agree?

Please, Left Handed Rock thrower, Dick, Dick's disciples- anyone...a blow-by-blow account of what would've happened at Benalla under the "report visual" proposal.

Last edited by ferris; 27th Sep 2008 at 14:39.
ferris is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 01:09
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by james michael
OS
what's the distance on your screen between YBLA and the approach points - not Nm, inches or cms or part thereof?
I'm not OS, but I do work the same airspace with him and having just measured on the 420NM screen:

YBLA to BLAEI: 13 millimetres
BLAEI to BLAEE: 6.5 millimetres
TrenShadow is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 01:43
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mariner Trench
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LHRT, nice boat.

Did you catch anything?

Dick Smith now calls you 'Lefty'....after only one phone call....makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Deepsea Racing Prawn is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 01:56
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tren

Gratias. Thanks for the 'measured' effort.

So if we multiply such items across the TAAATS screen my feeling is you will need really good eyesight and a visual scan for alerts far ahead of anything I need to do in the cockpit

Unless the alert program LHR (I think) suggested was very selective of only genuine alerts indicating risk, my thought is that ATCs would be micro managing their screens without much benefit.
james michael is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 11:16
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The critical point being missed by lots of people on this thread is that there is not enough controllers to manage the current airspace, let alone take on more responsibilty.

Are we jumping the gun calling for a trial and implementation for a procedure (that I like) without the staff and other resources to carry it out properly?

You pilots out there need to be paying more attention and making a lot more noise about the lack of ATCO's and the large areas of Class C airspace that have NO controller watching during TIBA. This is a more critical and pressing issue. 3rd world procedure in an apparent 1st world country.

Fix the staff situation and anything down the track is possible. With enough staff there is no reason why Aust couldn't have a radar FS operating in class G (not withstanding the obvious coverage limitations). CLAM wouldn't be required, as no level asigned in class G, with software setup to Grid and/or track LSALT. When pilot calls on freq descending from CTA and receives traffic statement, add on " ABC, no IFR traffic, report when visual". ABC reports "visual" and clicking on something similar to the "C" prompt turns off Grid/LSALT alarm. If ABC approaches 200' of Grid/LSALT (similar to CLAM) alarm goes off and ABC challenged for in flight conditions or approach intentions.

Anyway its just food for thought and would only work with, 1. more staff, 2. smaller sectors and 3. much better coverage. I'm sure plenty out there will rip into me an I know this is more like a TMA procedure but it could be done if the above problems ever get solved.

One solution to improve radar coverage in the short term would be to include all Military Radar feeds into TAATS.
Why would you only take selected feeds? (Saves money)

Military ATC take all en-route and TMA feeds within 100Nm of each base.

Looking forward to your replies now that I have my flak jacket and helmet on.

Last edited by C-change; 28th Sep 2008 at 11:20. Reason: Protective clothing
C-change is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 11:41
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Replace the word RADAR with Surveillance in the above summation and you have nailed it
K-941 is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 14:00
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C-Change. I doubt anyone in the industry doubts that it CAN be done, I take issue with the "one who knows all" that this is a simple thing- a mere change of procedure and the flick of an alarm switch. One never understands what his agenda really is.....I mean, he campaigns against ADS-B, the thing which would enable many of his wants, he rabbits on incessantly about putting resources to risks, yet seems happy to throw lots of resources at whatever risk he thinks fit (this very issue for example), closes FS, yet loves all the FS-type things they have in the US, campaigns like a bull in a china shop over things he claims strangle the life out of GA (holding at air force boundaries), yet remains silent on the real costs in GA (charging regime, corporatisation of infrastructure assets, fuel tax etc). He is an enigma.
ferris is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 15:57
  #78 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Well said ferris - is enigma a clever word for prat?

As I said over and over again during the NASdebates, there is a LOT of stuff needs fixing before we get to airspace.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 22:20
  #79 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Ferris, You would understand my agenda if you spent 10 minutes on the phone with me. Despite over 1000 posts from yourself you still do not have the slightest grasp on what I am on about.

My beliefs are consistent and based on an objective criteria.

I have always stated that I am a strong supporter of ADSB - just not leading the world when we do not even use our present radar effectively.

I did not close FS - in fact if you look at previous threads you will see it was my legal action that has kept it going.

The AMATS changes that I was responsible for included two automated FS stations and VHF outlets across Australia - identical to the US NAS.

Have some guts and phone me rather than continue to defame me. ph 0408 640 221

And by the way- one of the greatest risks in Australia at the moment are further CFIT accidents because we do not make effective use of our present Radar- do you deny this?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 22:53
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I dont want to drag the thread too far away- but since you asked; YES, I deny/dont think that CFIT is "one of the greatest risks in Australia at the moment are further CFIT accidents because we do not make effective use of our present Radar". There are far greater risks- to whit 3rd world TIBA airspace, derailing of ADS-B fitout by amateurs etc etc.

A strong supporter of ADS-B? I thought someone with your ability to drive an agenda would be whipping this horse home instead of lining up the guns to stop it. Funny way of supporting something.

Didn't close FS???? That's just weasel words. You gutted it, then pretend to ride to the rescue of it's last vestiges.


Defaming you, Dick, would involve making statements that weren't true. Pretty sure if I had done any such thing it would've been lawyers at 20 paces long ago.

And I will indeed phone you. Gutless? yeah, right.

Still waiting for your blow-by-blow description of what would've happened in the Benalla case you cite as being a shining example of how your proposition would save the day. I'm ready to be swayed- such a simple and transparent lesson for us all awaits. Surely you agree?
ferris is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.