Australian Airspace Discussion
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Saying something after the fact does not erase the small forrest of documentation from the last 15 years of meddling that proves the exact opposite!
but if thats what you need to sleep at night 
For the record do you now support subsidised 1090ES ADS-B for GA and Flight Service OCTA? Just a yes or no will suffice
Thread Starter
No Not stop ADSB, just delay the decision so we have all the facts and it doesn't result in another MLS fiasco with tens of millions of industry money being wasted.
In a few days you will hear of another Airservices stuffup with tens of millions of dollars being written off. All of this money could have been used to train more controllers or pay them a market salary-- now the money has gone from Australia to the USA - just like the Seasprite ONE billion $ loss.
Re Benalla, this is how an ATC told me it would work.
When the aircraft went 500' below the LSA of 7100' about 30 miles east of Benalla the MSAW would have been activated as the Pilot would not have reported visual or cancelled IFR as he was still in IMC. The controller would have called the pilot to check if he had failed to report visual. The pilot would have reported that the aircraft was still in IMC. The controller would then have issued an urgent safety alert with the instruction to climb to 7100'
Six people would most likely be alive today.
Re Flight Service I did change the system so that FSO's were like FSO's in the rest of the world ie providing an ICAO type flight information service. Our FSO's were providing an en -route traffic information service as if they were some type of lower paid and lower skilled ATC.
The safety problem with the system was that we could not use the advantage of radar as the FSO's were not radar rated.
I will look forward to your phone call.
In a few days you will hear of another Airservices stuffup with tens of millions of dollars being written off. All of this money could have been used to train more controllers or pay them a market salary-- now the money has gone from Australia to the USA - just like the Seasprite ONE billion $ loss.
Re Benalla, this is how an ATC told me it would work.
When the aircraft went 500' below the LSA of 7100' about 30 miles east of Benalla the MSAW would have been activated as the Pilot would not have reported visual or cancelled IFR as he was still in IMC. The controller would have called the pilot to check if he had failed to report visual. The pilot would have reported that the aircraft was still in IMC. The controller would then have issued an urgent safety alert with the instruction to climb to 7100'
Six people would most likely be alive today.
Re Flight Service I did change the system so that FSO's were like FSO's in the rest of the world ie providing an ICAO type flight information service. Our FSO's were providing an en -route traffic information service as if they were some type of lower paid and lower skilled ATC.
The safety problem with the system was that we could not use the advantage of radar as the FSO's were not radar rated.
I will look forward to your phone call.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The practicalities....
...bad weather on the eastcoast: 80 a/c doing 80 GPS APPs into 80 different aerodromes, each below the enr lsalt: 80 alarms...10 ATCs operating 10 sectors; 2 TIBAs.
Work it out Dick! More resources required.... more cost to the aviating public: user pays!!
How many other a/c were below LSALTs on visuals when the unfortunate BLA accident occurred?
Close ASA as a business enterprise: revert to Govt agency??
Work it out Dick! More resources required.... more cost to the aviating public: user pays!!
How many other a/c were below LSALTs on visuals when the unfortunate BLA accident occurred?
Close ASA as a business enterprise: revert to Govt agency??
Thread Starter
Poc ATC costs us over $600 m a year. It's main purpose is to prevent accidents.
A most common form of airline accident is a CFIT.
In all leading Aviation countries I have flown in a procedure exists so that ATC is used to prevent CFIT accidents in radar covered enroute airspace.
A procedure does not exist in Australia because all enroute airspace below 12500' was previously the responsibility of radio operators who were not trained or allowed to use radar.The procedures have never been updated because of resistance to change and a lack of an ethos to copy proven success from others.
There will not be 80 alarms- there will only be an alarm from a pilot who has failed to report visual or is about to die.
Keep your mind closed until 120 people die at Proserpine, Canberra or a similar airport with good radar coverage and mountains in the vicinity. I hope it's not your family.
A most common form of airline accident is a CFIT.
In all leading Aviation countries I have flown in a procedure exists so that ATC is used to prevent CFIT accidents in radar covered enroute airspace.
A procedure does not exist in Australia because all enroute airspace below 12500' was previously the responsibility of radio operators who were not trained or allowed to use radar.The procedures have never been updated because of resistance to change and a lack of an ethos to copy proven success from others.
There will not be 80 alarms- there will only be an alarm from a pilot who has failed to report visual or is about to die.
Keep your mind closed until 120 people die at Proserpine, Canberra or a similar airport with good radar coverage and mountains in the vicinity. I hope it's not your family.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the money, stupid....
Dick et al,
ASA makes a profit of around $100m anually.
The 'management' of ASA make bonuses directly related to that profit.
I doubt that there are any ATCs who would argue that what Dick proposes re CFIT prevention is a worthy aim of ATC.
BUT
ATC's are not the ones signing the cheques. ASA are not about to degrade their profit by a single cent in the pursuit of mere safety.
You talk of software changes - where are the software engineers?
Controller recurrent training has been cut back to a level I can only describe as pathetic, let alone with any new procedures to be trained up.
Dick, if you want to change this change resistant culture you speak of, talk to the head bean counters (I'll bring my own popcorn) not the coalface controllers who are busting their privates to keep the current system running.
GA makes no profit, therefore there is no corporate interest.
Re-align the objectives of the board (and with it the government) away from mega profit to actually providing a service and you could find things happening in a way you could not have dreamt possible.
Off to the Bloody Tower.
ASA makes a profit of around $100m anually.
The 'management' of ASA make bonuses directly related to that profit.
I doubt that there are any ATCs who would argue that what Dick proposes re CFIT prevention is a worthy aim of ATC.
BUT
ATC's are not the ones signing the cheques. ASA are not about to degrade their profit by a single cent in the pursuit of mere safety.
You talk of software changes - where are the software engineers?
Controller recurrent training has been cut back to a level I can only describe as pathetic, let alone with any new procedures to be trained up.
Dick, if you want to change this change resistant culture you speak of, talk to the head bean counters (I'll bring my own popcorn) not the coalface controllers who are busting their privates to keep the current system running.
GA makes no profit, therefore there is no corporate interest.
Re-align the objectives of the board (and with it the government) away from mega profit to actually providing a service and you could find things happening in a way you could not have dreamt possible.
Off to the Bloody Tower.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Apology, this will be a longish post but it is my 'be nice to Dick' week so I need to be detailed, as I feel there is a very valid further discussion point in the KIR post.
Airservices data are as follows:
Of those aircraft weighing more than 15.1 tonnes (mostly RPT), 2,573 aircraft contribute $671 million towards the total revenue of $679 million (i.e. 98.8%).
An estimated 6,010 aircraft below 5.7 tonnes (and not flown by significant training schools), representing 65% of the total billable aircraft, are mainly aeromedical and private aircraft operating out of regional and GAAP locations; they contribute $4.0 million.
At the other extreme, around 2,000 customers together pay less than $50,000 per year. Out of the total customer base of 9,300, 33% of our billable customers contribute only $120,000 per year to our revenue (as shown in Figure 9). These customers use our services infrequently and are mainly transport (i.e. not training) flights. In this segment, 1,674 operators pay less than $250 per year; of those, 833 pay less than $50 per year.
Airservices make the following points and I believe they are relatively unarguable in a User Pays environment:
- Prices should have a relationship to the cost of providing services.
- Prices should encourage economically efficient resource use and allocation.
- The charging basis should recognise the key drivers giving rise to the need, or trigger, for investment in new services. (E.G your proposal)
The forthcoming SDE environment will group lower level GA and regional RPT separate from CC pairs and high level heavies.
What then do we have:
An ATC presence focussed on a relatively small number of IFR aircraft in E and G.
Now your philosophy is (my underline):
Where we fail in Australia is the treatment of IFR and airline aircraft at non-tower airports. Many times in my Citation I have had a superb service from the major airport and enroute, however when I land at a place like Port Macquarie, I am handed over into “do it yourself airspace” where I have to become the air traffic controller when in IMC. I would far prefer the system I have experienced in the USA and Canada where, at the busier non-tower airports, air traffic control is responsible for separation. I have found that in practice, the delays are not greater in these countries than those I experience in Australia, and the system (utilising Class E airspace in terminal areas) is very much simpler for the pilot – and I believe safer.
The consequence I suspect is that if they adopt what you propose and provide extra ATC to provide the service - then extra charging will follow. And, if you want ATC service for LSALT, RAM, etc, plus separation at CTAF, I do not believe you can argue it is not resource intensive.
I have not found anyone seriously arguing against the concept of extra ATC support providing an extra safety mitigator - the issue is who is campaigning for this two condom approach to safety other than you?
I still believe the provision of TSO 146 GPS plus ADS-B OUT and IN resolves much of your concern without the ongoing charging increase to all who fly IFR.
You are pursuing a campaign that may increase enroute charges for ALL operators flying IFR. User pays is here to stay. I would expect at least strong support from the RAAA if there is a substantial safety benefit.
Bing (M)
To answer your question on the other thread and save a second post there, I am quite happy to cite data from a reliable source but - as I mentioned with humour to Creamy recently - I research for myself and if you wish to query or canvass the data - YOU take it up with the source.
Apology, this will be a longish post but it is my 'be nice to Dick' week so I need to be detailed, as I feel there is a very valid further discussion point in the KIR post.
Airservices data are as follows:
Of those aircraft weighing more than 15.1 tonnes (mostly RPT), 2,573 aircraft contribute $671 million towards the total revenue of $679 million (i.e. 98.8%).
An estimated 6,010 aircraft below 5.7 tonnes (and not flown by significant training schools), representing 65% of the total billable aircraft, are mainly aeromedical and private aircraft operating out of regional and GAAP locations; they contribute $4.0 million.
At the other extreme, around 2,000 customers together pay less than $50,000 per year. Out of the total customer base of 9,300, 33% of our billable customers contribute only $120,000 per year to our revenue (as shown in Figure 9). These customers use our services infrequently and are mainly transport (i.e. not training) flights. In this segment, 1,674 operators pay less than $250 per year; of those, 833 pay less than $50 per year.
Airservices make the following points and I believe they are relatively unarguable in a User Pays environment:
- Prices should have a relationship to the cost of providing services.
- Prices should encourage economically efficient resource use and allocation.
- The charging basis should recognise the key drivers giving rise to the need, or trigger, for investment in new services. (E.G your proposal)
The forthcoming SDE environment will group lower level GA and regional RPT separate from CC pairs and high level heavies.
What then do we have:
An ATC presence focussed on a relatively small number of IFR aircraft in E and G.
Now your philosophy is (my underline):
Where we fail in Australia is the treatment of IFR and airline aircraft at non-tower airports. Many times in my Citation I have had a superb service from the major airport and enroute, however when I land at a place like Port Macquarie, I am handed over into “do it yourself airspace” where I have to become the air traffic controller when in IMC. I would far prefer the system I have experienced in the USA and Canada where, at the busier non-tower airports, air traffic control is responsible for separation. I have found that in practice, the delays are not greater in these countries than those I experience in Australia, and the system (utilising Class E airspace in terminal areas) is very much simpler for the pilot – and I believe safer.
The consequence I suspect is that if they adopt what you propose and provide extra ATC to provide the service - then extra charging will follow. And, if you want ATC service for LSALT, RAM, etc, plus separation at CTAF, I do not believe you can argue it is not resource intensive.
I have not found anyone seriously arguing against the concept of extra ATC support providing an extra safety mitigator - the issue is who is campaigning for this two condom approach to safety other than you?
I still believe the provision of TSO 146 GPS plus ADS-B OUT and IN resolves much of your concern without the ongoing charging increase to all who fly IFR.
You are pursuing a campaign that may increase enroute charges for ALL operators flying IFR. User pays is here to stay. I would expect at least strong support from the RAAA if there is a substantial safety benefit.
Bing (M)
To answer your question on the other thread and save a second post there, I am quite happy to cite data from a reliable source but - as I mentioned with humour to Creamy recently - I research for myself and if you wish to query or canvass the data - YOU take it up with the source.
To answer your question on the other thread and save a second post there, I am quite happy to cite data from a reliable source but - as I mentioned with humour to Creamy recently - I research for myself and if you wish to query or canvass the data - YOU take it up with the source.
Thread Starter
JM, you simply havn't got a clue. I understand you have never even owned your own aircraft-- I can see why.
Yes I am happy to pay for a proper IFR service at a place like Port Macquarie- and even happier when that service is given to the airline jets which fly there.
ADSB fitted to small VFR aircraft will have them all appearing on ATC screens wherever there is a ground station. What will ATC do with all of this extra information? No doubt they will provide a traffic information service on traffic that is already known about.
I know that this is what you are obsessed with. In the days before the AMATS changes RPT aircraft were given traffic information on all VFR aircraft.
This was a unique system to Australia and over a billion dollars has been saved since we decided to follow worlds best practice.
Not one life has been lost because of this change yet you are obsessed with bringing the VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.
We now have TCAS- whats wrong with using that as the safety backup when all the other proven procedures have failed.
You are clearly convinced that AsA are doing the right thing for Australia. Why don't you get a job there and then "sell" there views without having to hide your name.
After all thats one of the reasons our forefathers went to war- to preserve the freedom of speech that you are so frightened to partake in.
Yes I am happy to pay for a proper IFR service at a place like Port Macquarie- and even happier when that service is given to the airline jets which fly there.
ADSB fitted to small VFR aircraft will have them all appearing on ATC screens wherever there is a ground station. What will ATC do with all of this extra information? No doubt they will provide a traffic information service on traffic that is already known about.
I know that this is what you are obsessed with. In the days before the AMATS changes RPT aircraft were given traffic information on all VFR aircraft.
This was a unique system to Australia and over a billion dollars has been saved since we decided to follow worlds best practice.
Not one life has been lost because of this change yet you are obsessed with bringing the VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.
We now have TCAS- whats wrong with using that as the safety backup when all the other proven procedures have failed.
You are clearly convinced that AsA are doing the right thing for Australia. Why don't you get a job there and then "sell" there views without having to hide your name.
After all thats one of the reasons our forefathers went to war- to preserve the freedom of speech that you are so frightened to partake in.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: HK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, A correction if I may, you say in answer to James M :
I know that this is what you are obsessed with.
In reality the man is only obsessed with his own self generated "Importance" the outcome will only dent his Ego.
When the inevitable demise of ADSB is announced he will slink away for a few days , but like a bad penny he will come back with the next techo solution to a problem that doesn't exist .
I know that this is what you are obsessed with.
In reality the man is only obsessed with his own self generated "Importance" the outcome will only dent his Ego.
When the inevitable demise of ADSB is announced he will slink away for a few days , but like a bad penny he will come back with the next techo solution to a problem that doesn't exist .
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bing (M)
Is it too hard for you to comprehend that if USA AOPA takes a position it is not up to me to spell it out for you? I'm a member, not their President - I don't even speak american.
See if this helps http://democrats.science.house.gov/M..._testimony.pdf
Dick
How does one have a 'nice to Dick' week when you go the man yet again and get even the first line of your reply wrong. This is typical attack by you when you lack fact and data and it is not aiding your credibility.
What did you smoke on the weekend
Pardon? Son of JCP equips transponder equipped aircraft (you know, the ones in the system) with ADS-B and does not alter any existing system arrangements. What on earth are you on about?
Then you are back on about ones right to remain anon on here. Give it up Dick, the one obsessed is YOU. Every second post you challenge the rule at the bottom of this page. Some of us just don't want to be people of fame - accept it, Dick.
Readers will note you did not answer my questions, so just to re-summarise:
- are you aware your campaign will undoubtedly increase costs for all GA IFR operators if you succeed
- is the RAAA supporting your campaign
- is anyone supporting your campaign.
Xinhua
That was a quick return - nothing like backup I/D is there - a trojan effort
Is it too hard for you to comprehend that if USA AOPA takes a position it is not up to me to spell it out for you? I'm a member, not their President - I don't even speak american.
See if this helps http://democrats.science.house.gov/M..._testimony.pdf
Dick
How does one have a 'nice to Dick' week when you go the man yet again and get even the first line of your reply wrong. This is typical attack by you when you lack fact and data and it is not aiding your credibility.
What did you smoke on the weekend
you are obsessed with bringing the VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.
Then you are back on about ones right to remain anon on here. Give it up Dick, the one obsessed is YOU. Every second post you challenge the rule at the bottom of this page. Some of us just don't want to be people of fame - accept it, Dick.
Readers will note you did not answer my questions, so just to re-summarise:
- are you aware your campaign will undoubtedly increase costs for all GA IFR operators if you succeed
- is the RAAA supporting your campaign
- is anyone supporting your campaign.
Xinhua
That was a quick return - nothing like backup I/D is there - a trojan effort
Thread Starter
With ADSB wherever there is an outlet- and there will be 100's across Australia the ADSB equipped aircraft will appear on the ATC screen in Brisbane or Melbourne.
With transponders and TCAS the traffic will only appear on the TCAS screen in the aircraft when away from radar coverage.
This will mean ,just as now, ATC will not have paints of low level transponder equipped VFR aircraft on their screens from remote parts of Australia.
The difference is substantial and is no doubt why the FAA is not planning to mandate ADSB below 10,000' in non terminal areas.
With transponders and TCAS the traffic will only appear on the TCAS screen in the aircraft when away from radar coverage.
This will mean ,just as now, ATC will not have paints of low level transponder equipped VFR aircraft on their screens from remote parts of Australia.
The difference is substantial and is no doubt why the FAA is not planning to mandate ADSB below 10,000' in non terminal areas.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 29th Sep 2008 at 07:36.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Now I'm really confused.
You say a post ago I'm obsessed with bringing VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.
Now you state ADS-B does NOT get them all there.
Which is it?
You say you want ATC to be responsible for separation even to busy CTAF.
You say you want extra ATC alarm coverage and monitoring of your situation when aviating.
Then you argue against bringing VFR into the ATC system.
Which do you want?
ADS-B outlets -
Now I have read your book, wouldn't it be reasonable for you to reciprocate and read the JCP? "Hundred's across Australia" - haven't I told you a million times not to exaggerate
That's two first lines wrong in two consecutive posts, Dick. Given you are having a bad day and are not going to answer the questions, let's recess?
Now I'm really confused.
You say a post ago I'm obsessed with bringing VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.
Now you state ADS-B does NOT get them all there.
Which is it?
You say you want ATC to be responsible for separation even to busy CTAF.
You say you want extra ATC alarm coverage and monitoring of your situation when aviating.
Then you argue against bringing VFR into the ATC system.
Which do you want?
ADS-B outlets -
there will be 100's accross Australia
That's two first lines wrong in two consecutive posts, Dick. Given you are having a bad day and are not going to answer the questions, let's recess?
FS = Lower form of ATC???
Dear Dick,
"Re Flight Service I did change the system so that FSO's were like FSO's in the rest of the world ie providing an ICAO type flight information service. Our FSO's were providing an en -route traffic information service as if they were some type of lower paid and lower skilled ATC."
I DON'T THINK SO.................
I NEVER thought of myself or my job - service to the industry - as some form of a lower skilled ATC.
I DID think of myself as a professional FSO providing a much needed communications and flight information service to aircraft, large and small, operating OUTSIDE CTA, arriving and departing from AD's NOT in CTA, and to those INTERNATIONAL aircraft on long range international routes - particularly those over the oceans of the world.
Not to mention the all important SAR alerting and plain old HELP! More often than not, on HF.
(Most accidents occurred OCTA i.e. on the ground below the CTA ...)
We all understand the leaps in technology - sat. VHF links vs the 'old' HF etc - but, the 'system' as it is now, is, in my opinion, rather deficient in both services and safety margins.
Without the required numbers of STAFF - be it ATC or your 'dreaded' FSO's -
the 'system' is diminished severely.
The correct BALANCE of STAFF of all diverse qualifications to provide the diversity of services required - each well qualified in their own right, and using the proper tools available - e.g. what's wrong with a group of STAFF utilising RADAR to provide a 'different' service to those acft outside CTA, and thus being able to perhaps prevent some of those unfortunate occurrences you relate to on other forums??
Note - not a CONTROL function, but an ADVISORY, in flight information service.?
We did not know if conflicting IFR traffic were in IMC or VFR conditions - it was not necessary - we simply needed to know who was where in relation to each other....
Anyway, you know the rest of this story.........
Cheers to all,
"Re Flight Service I did change the system so that FSO's were like FSO's in the rest of the world ie providing an ICAO type flight information service. Our FSO's were providing an en -route traffic information service as if they were some type of lower paid and lower skilled ATC."
I DON'T THINK SO.................
I NEVER thought of myself or my job - service to the industry - as some form of a lower skilled ATC.
I DID think of myself as a professional FSO providing a much needed communications and flight information service to aircraft, large and small, operating OUTSIDE CTA, arriving and departing from AD's NOT in CTA, and to those INTERNATIONAL aircraft on long range international routes - particularly those over the oceans of the world.
Not to mention the all important SAR alerting and plain old HELP! More often than not, on HF.
(Most accidents occurred OCTA i.e. on the ground below the CTA ...)
We all understand the leaps in technology - sat. VHF links vs the 'old' HF etc - but, the 'system' as it is now, is, in my opinion, rather deficient in both services and safety margins.
Without the required numbers of STAFF - be it ATC or your 'dreaded' FSO's -
the 'system' is diminished severely.
The correct BALANCE of STAFF of all diverse qualifications to provide the diversity of services required - each well qualified in their own right, and using the proper tools available - e.g. what's wrong with a group of STAFF utilising RADAR to provide a 'different' service to those acft outside CTA, and thus being able to perhaps prevent some of those unfortunate occurrences you relate to on other forums??
Note - not a CONTROL function, but an ADVISORY, in flight information service.?
We did not know if conflicting IFR traffic were in IMC or VFR conditions - it was not necessary - we simply needed to know who was where in relation to each other....
Anyway, you know the rest of this story.........
Cheers to all,
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 29th Sep 2008 at 05:14.
Thread Starter
Ex FSO GRIFFO, I think you have just given me an idea. Maybe if I get back in a position of influence, I could bring back the FSOs, give them radar, and train them to give a service to help prevent CFITs.
This may be the way to go as it looks as if the ATCs are not going to provide the service. This is sad because ATCs provide a CFIT prevention service in all radar covered airspace in both the USA and Canada.
You state:
You are correct. That is because you only provided a traffic information service. However when radar was installed in the 1950s, it would have been great if a proper radar service (that also assisted pilots in not running into the ground) was offered.
I’m sure you will agree that the most common problem we have with professional pilots in Australia at the moment is running into the ground – not running into other aircraft.
This may be the way to go as it looks as if the ATCs are not going to provide the service. This is sad because ATCs provide a CFIT prevention service in all radar covered airspace in both the USA and Canada.
You state:
We did not know if conflicting IFR traffic were in IMC or VFR conditions - it was not necessary - we simply needed to know who was where in relation to each other....
I’m sure you will agree that the most common problem we have with professional pilots in Australia at the moment is running into the ground – not running into other aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GRIFFO, I think you have just given me an idea.
I could bring back the FSOs, give them radar, and train them to give a service to help prevent CFITs.
until you removed them 
HURRAY
finally 
you have come to grasp what many have been saying TO YOU and others for years!Christ that was a hard slog
Maybe if I get back in a position of influence,
who makes the changes but goodo anyway 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some one is not stating all of the facts here. My understanding is that RPT CFIT accidents have been on the decline for some years now. The reason for the decline has been due to education, training and the installation of suitable equipment (EPGWS). I also understand that the Metro at Lockhart River was not EPGWS equipped, there was a lack of multi crew training, and very little CRM in the cockpit. This is a major reflection on CASA and the operator. After nearly 40 years in mult crew cockpits, my experiences indicate that CFIT prevention starts there, with procedures, situational awareness, checks and cross checks. EPGWS is the back up. I do not rely or expect one or two overworked ATC to provide me with terrain clearance. When you are enroute and you hear aircraft across the top half of Australia all working the same controller. Such a service would require a significant increase in staff at the coal face, which will never happen.
My greatest concern these days is going into CTAF's, where after giving all the necessary calls, you wonder at the silence from the many TCAS returns you have on your MFD. You also wonder how many other aircraft are out there with u/s or switched off transponders.
This country has wasted millions of dollars changing airspace to be like other countries, and has reduced the amount of services provided to the industry. In my view, ATC is necessary, there fore they should be a government department. Funded by the taxpayer for the taxpayers benefit and responsible to the taxpayer, such as Customs.
My greatest concern these days is going into CTAF's, where after giving all the necessary calls, you wonder at the silence from the many TCAS returns you have on your MFD. You also wonder how many other aircraft are out there with u/s or switched off transponders.
This country has wasted millions of dollars changing airspace to be like other countries, and has reduced the amount of services provided to the industry. In my view, ATC is necessary, there fore they should be a government department. Funded by the taxpayer for the taxpayers benefit and responsible to the taxpayer, such as Customs.
Thread Starter
With the same logic shouldn't the pilots also be working for the government- bit like Aeroflot.
The CFIT accidents have been on the decline around the world because all safety mitigators are used overseas.
Flight Safety International prescribes radar usage and ATC as the two most important mitigators.
We did not use the existing radar effectively at Benalla because we do not have the procedures in place.
The CFIT accidents have been on the decline around the world because all safety mitigators are used overseas.
Flight Safety International prescribes radar usage and ATC as the two most important mitigators.
We did not use the existing radar effectively at Benalla because we do not have the procedures in place.