Australian Airspace Discussion

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day 'K9',

Don't get too excited mate - you'll only be disappointed......

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day Dick,

Quote;
"it would have been great if a proper radar service (that also assisted pilots in not running into the ground) was offered."

YOU had the power....twice....to really 'change' things for the better.....but......

Quote;
"We did not use the existing radar effectively at Benalla because we do not have the procedures in place."

What if we substitute the word 'procedures' with 'STAFF to monitor and advise'...?

My thoughts, is all......

[Chimbu chuckles]

With the same logic shouldn't the pilots also be working for the government- bit like Aeroflot.

No Dick, that is a straw man argument.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. The ATC system, as it has evolved, exists ONLY because of and for the benefit of high density RPT Passengers/aircraft.

As such the 'Users' in 'User Pays' are the commercial passengers sat in the back of regional and domestic/international mainline aircraft. The 'Users' are also the tax payers of Australia who demand a safe aviation transport system to base an economy on.

If every GA aircraft disappeared from the face of the earth tonight the ATC system would remain essentially unchanged from tomorrow onwards. If every transport category aircraft likewise fell off the planet tonight the ATC system would be redundant in its entirety 5 seconds later.

That is why in the US (remember them - the system you never shut up about how good it is?) funds the Federal Aviation Authority - a non profit Government department through a system of ticket taxes on the airlines and a minimal fuel tax on everyone else.

That is the only fair system...anything else is despicable spin from dishonest politicians (tautology?).

Note we already pay fuel tax...and GST on that fuel tax...double taxation!!!!!

[C-change]

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.

It already is a government Dept. but the problem is, it is run just like a private sector corporation with an agenda to make money for its primary shareholder, ie the Government. They forgot about the "for the taxpayer" bit a long time ago.

Maximise profits, treat staff like crap, spend as little as possible to increase profits, look for further cost saving measures that also piss staff off and performance based bonus for managers that comply.

It would be interesting to hear from the older ATC's out there that worked for the Dept. of Civil Aviation and whether it was a better organisation with respect to service provided (Not airspace structure).

Most out there are still missing the point at the moment. Radar, ADS-B, whatever, serves no purpose at all when there is no one to monitor/separate/disable alarms etc.

[K-941]

cut and paste the posts immediately above from:-

- Dog One
- GRIFFO
- Chuck
and
- C-change

That is the story here the rest is piss poor spin to attempt to deflect past wrongs

You will be held accountable Mr

[Dick Smith]

Re the US-not a minimum fuel tax - a very substantial fuel tax which results in those flying VFR and getting virtually no service paying the same as those who fly IFR and getting a superb service.

At least those flying VFR here and keeping away from tower airports pay virtually nothing to AsA -as it should be.

[K-941]

At least those flying VFR here and keeping away from tower airports

wrong much of the VH VFR operate at towered airports - and they mostly love it - and life! what they hate is the 'User pays' bills

pay virtually nothing to AsA -as it should be

yep and still have the advantage of ATS safety - and they mostly love it - and life! except for the 'User pays' landing charge

One minute you want to drown the industry in ATC for IFR OCTA in the great fark all (and presumably the additional GA 'User pays' IFR charge that you keep telling us YOU CAN AFFORD), yet do not want IFR to have 146 subsidised NAV's (with maps and TAWS) ala the JCP, and;

then you condone VFR avoiding ATC terminal areas! - hang on, what about WLM? or is it OK for VFR to go off the coast over nasty sea's, but just not you and yours in your VFR TURBINE helo?

Yet just today, in this august place, you rant on about how good GAAP (for VFR and IFR in VMC) is - which is it

The piss weak 'zippers' you are using to attempt to hold together your burgeoning spin driven facade are failing fast - Mr

Stand clear of the waste gate all - venting imminent

[Dick Smith]

VFR in a terminal area have the back up of being able to look out and see a mountain or another aircraft.

IFR dont have this backup when in IMC and thats why I would like to see us use our radar and ATC when it is available.

I strongly support ATC for busy terminal areas such as Bankstown--it all depends on traffic density.

Don't you understand risk management?

[K-941]

Oh I understand risk management spin management is a different kettle of fish altogether

[Dog One]

Risk management is a very interesting topic. Practised by every one in one form or another. It was noted that Airservices didn't like the previous risk management of the introduction of E airspace outside of radar. When the DJ 737 got a bit close to the unknown VFR aircraft at Launceston, it was noted the haste at which a radar repeater was installed to prevent a re-occurrence. Risk management can be a useful tool or a dangerous tool, depending on the data used to reach conclusions.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Re the US-not a minimum fuel tax - a very substantial fuel tax which results in those flying VFR and getting virtually no service paying the same as those who fly IFR and getting a superb service.

US Fuel taxes are 21.9 cents/usg on jet fuel and 19.4 cents/usg tax on avgas.

That is 5.78 cents/liter Avtur and 5.125 cents/liter Avgas Dick

And that for full access to the ATC system.

Substantial?

We pay triple that in avgas GST alone and get sweet **** all for our money IFR or VFR!

Don't you understand risk management?

Do you?

I don't think you do. I think you're an enthusiastic amateur and a condescending, sanctimonious one at that.

We had a good system 25 years ago until YOU helped the beaurocrats and pollies destroy it.

[ferris]

Dick wrote

Re Benalla, this is how an ATC told me it would work.

I really wanted to be swayed by your compelling argument, Dick, but my suspicions that you know not what you do, are confirmed.

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

Every aircraft in IMC will desend below the sector lowest safe. How do you propose to stop every single IMC descent triggering an alarm? Do you envisage a protected area around an aerodrome into which an aircraft may descend without alarming? How big should the area be? What sort of approach? Which runway? Different pilots, different aircraft, different profiles. Do you see, Dick? Do you?

The controller would have called the pilot to check if he had failed to report visual

After having received traffic statement prior to descent, do pilots monitor area freq or CTAF, for how long, and when do they change? When is the inbound call made? This is single pilot IFR ops we are talking. How many CTAFs have VHF comms with the relevent centre down to the levels you need (decision height)?

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'

No. I suspect that pilots, when queried about descending below the lowest safe, believe they know where they are- or they wouldnt be doing it- and (rolling eyes) would reply to such calls with a glance at the GPS and a "yes, yes, I know, as advised I'm ON DESCENT"- especially when the alarm/alert is so common that it gets ignored (like RAMs etc). Certainly, ATC dont and cant INSTRUCT pilots OCTA to do anything.

Six people would most likely be alive today.

As sad as this particular situation is, I disagree. The usable radar coverage is marginal to 4500' there, and certainly does not exist at the terrain level. Even if you spent the many millions of dollars required to enable accurate terrain maps to be sampled by software watching for an infringement of, say, 1000' of any terrain, the radar coverage for the accident you hold up as the grail for your proposal DOES NOT REACH LOW ENOUGH TO ALARM PRIOR TO ANY CFIT. The error chain has to be broken much higher for radar to play a part. I put it to you that only a small minority of CFIT could be prevented by the existing surveillence capability. Especially when you consider the practical aspects of applying your "idea". ATC is not the tool to break the chain. It's a misuse/allocation of resources. The many millions of dollars your "idea" would cost would be much better spent equipping aircraft (pilots) with the tools.

Oh, and btw..

The safety problem with the system was that we could not use the advantage of radar as the FSO's were not radar rated.

If your grief with FS (as it was then) was as you describe- why didnt you give FS radar feeds and ratings? Seems emminently safer and more sensible THAN WHAT YOU DID. If you had so resourced FS, the industry wouldnt have saved the BILLION DOLLARS you incessantly lay claim to being responsible for, I suppose. And maybe six people would be alive today?


Affordable safety, anyone?

pps. Where is the billion btw? Industry would be very grateful to see it. I'm sure you'll agree

[max1]

Dick,
Its time for you to admit that in relation to the myriad alarms that go off on controller screens, that you really have no idea on how and why they go off. As I have stated TAAATS is a machine, the alarms go off where the machine thinks there may be a problem, not when all defences have been breached.
We have STCA (imminent collision risk, usually when aircraft are self separating after being given traffic),RAM (aircraft outside the flightplanned corridor, usually when aircraft are manouevering for approach OCTA), MPR (missed position report, aircraft not reported within 3 minutes) CLAM ( mode C disagrees with reported level, usually due signal garbling) and others. If I had a dollar for everytime a system alarm went off in Brisbane Centre, I kid you not, I would be a very rich man and not have to work. You seem to have blind faith in your supposition that alarms only go off when there IS a problem.

I have asked before and will now do so again. Get your US and Australian controllers to come on these forums and give us their FIRST HAND views on your second hand quotes. Ask your Aus controller mate how often the alarms go off. Could you name him/her on here or quote their experience.

Don't forget there are 11 000+ controllers in the US ( supposed to be about 13 000 but we'll leave FAA stuff-ups out), and about 750 in Australia, leave aside all the arguments about traffic density, and lets think about what the sector sizes must be.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, this is so unbelievable I don’t know where to start my answer. It is obvious that your mind is totally closed or it is set in concrete.

I made no mention of aircraft (to quote you) “descending below the sector lowest safe”. I’m talking about the lowest safe altitude further than 25 miles from Benalla.

I don’t actually envisage any complex system around airports. I would simply copy proven systems from the United States, Canada or Europe.

You appear to be so isolated you think that if we are going to introduce this system we will have to design it ourselves – a bit like a Nomad – instead of just buying or copying a proven system.

You state things like:

Even if you spent the many millions of dollars required to enable accurate terrain maps to be sampled by software …

This shows your complete lack of knowledge. Any school child can click onto Google and read the altitude mapping taken by the space shuttle of the whole world. You can buy a complete TAWS database from Garmin for $500, giving the terrain contours for the world.

Giving Flight Service radar feeds and ratings would have been the height of stupidity when we already had trained air traffic controllers who could take responsibility for the lower airspace. No other country in the world has trained Flight Service operators to use radar. They use trained air traffic controllers because controllers can actually control aircraft – i.e. turn left, turn right, climb or descend. That is what they are trained to do.

My suggestion is that you lift up the phone and talk to one enroute low level US or Canadian controller who provides instrument approaches in radar covered airspace. They will tell you how simple it is, and how many times they have potentially saved lives.

Max1, it is a futile waste of time answering your posts. Your mind is obviously closed. Surely the number of air traffic controllers depends on the number of planes that are being controlled or given traffic information. Australia actually has more air traffic controllers employed per IFR aircraft than the USA.

This is not a fair comparison, however are you really telling me that we cannot provide an MSAW service for at least one airport – say Proserpine? I bet we will after 150 people die there.

[Dick Smith]

I know there are many people who read PPRuNe who have lateral thinking minds and would like to copy the best from around the world if it was to save the lives of themselves and their passengers.

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.

I have received a number of private messages asking why I don’t get an American air traffic controller to come on and explain how it works there. The reason is simple. A number of years ago an American air traffic controller – the manager of Juneau Tower, Steve Turner – came on under the name ATCNORTH to explain how a US Class D tower works. In three or four posts these same Aussie ATCs came on and said he clearly wasn’t a controller as they didn’t accept his views.

In fact, Steve is not only an experienced professional air traffic controller, but he had been to Australia and stayed here with the President of the Australian Civil Air union. In the end, Steve naturally said it was a waste of time posting and explaining how international air traffic control works, because these people had their minds so closed they would never, ever listen.

As I stated previously, there are new young controllers coming along, and I notice from the phone calls and emails I receive that they have more of an open mind. I can see in the years to come that we will be able to move forward to more modern and safer air traffic control procedures.

For Ferris to claim that a pilot, when called and told that he was below the legal lowest safe altitude in cloud, would call back and say, “Yes, yes, I know, as advised, I’m on descent,” just shows the complete lack of understanding of how a pilot in IMC in a mountainous area in bad weather would react to such a call.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Whilst several posts ago I bowed out of this topic as it was my opinion that many on this thread are so blind to a reasonable argument and dogmatic attacking anything Dick has to say that, well quite frankly I could not see any point in engaging in a public lynching, irrespective of that facts.

But now this thread has reach an all time low, Ferris in post: 122 you state it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT, in this case refering to Benalla, YOU ARE WRONG, I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA.

TNP travelling from YSBK to YBLA, tracking to BLA from AY:

NOTE:
Route LSALT is not published,
Grid LSALT is 7100,
25nm MSA 3000,
10nm MSA 3500,
The RNAV approach commences at ~11nm BLA.

If TNP was at 6100ft in IMC at ~30nm BLA, alarm bells should be ringing, someone is about to screw the pooch.

Ferris explain to me how on at 1042 ( Here ), the pilot was below all relevant LSALT, i.e 7100 and outside the 25nm MSA, but thats OK ?.

A MSAW system would have alerted the ATCO to this situation, i.e the Aircrafts X,Y and Z position versus the GPWS database would have shown the issue.

I say again, I am not a supporter of the beast that was NAS, but this MSAW system would probably have saved the day in this situation.

Max and company you can prattle on all day about work load and staff, you are right, there is a ASA staff shortage and sectors are too big, it should be remedied, you guys and gals deserve more money and a better work/ home balance, do not let that get in the way of positive change/ progress.

To young pilots, do not listen to posters like Ferris, they clearly do not understand what happens in the aircraft, if you are in IMC, do not descend below LSALT until you enter a MSA ( via DME, TSO GPS or cross radial or station passage on an approach ) or get visual.

Think of the LSALT's and MSA as "protected area's", unless you can travel from one protected area to another without leaving a protective area, don't do it.

If you become dis-orientated on an approach, go around carry out the published missed approach.

For anyone interested, we caught half a bucket of school whiting and a couple Cod (lightly floured on the BBQ).

[Dick Smith]

Of course the obvious question is, “Why doesn’t CASA do something about this?” Talk about useless space. Remember that CASA now has the responsibility for airspace. Over a year ago, they set up the Office of Airspace Regulation, and even brought in from the United Kingdom a manager to run this.

What has happened since then? Just about zero. I wonder if they even read these posts and realise that an accident like Benalla could happen again tomorrow. Why is it that the organisation is so bereft of leadership that no one is simply game to make a decision.

Let’s look at the ATSB. Did they make a recommendation that Airservices should look at procedures at Benalla to prevent this type of accident being repeated? Of course not. Even though the ATSB recommends pilots read the Flight Safety Foundation document on Controlled Flights Into Terrain – and that document shows the most important safety mitigators are radar and ATC – they made no recommendation that we actually use the radar properly at Benalla and similar airports to save lives.

That is because the investigators at the ATSB are ex-military controllers whose minds are totally fixed in concrete. I’m sure their brains would say, “That is uncontrolled airspace. That means air traffic controllers do not have a responsibility. Five hundred people could kill themselves for all we care. Pilots shouldn’t make mistakes.”

As I’ve said continuously, we will end up with a major accident at Proserpine, killing over 100 people, and then the changes will be made. Let’s hope the people who are responsible are held responsible.

[james michael]

Tis always interesting to consider the lessons of history in examining the present. This link may assist newbies understand the full context of these discussions.

Four Corners - 29/03/99: Crash Through Or Crash. Australian Broadcasting Corp

and

A dictim that might have kept CASA out of the pickles - Local News - News - Columns - The Canberra Times

[TrenShadow]

LhRT:30NM BLA from AY would be within the 25 MSA of WGT, I believe in the 6300', if not the 3000' 10NM MSA (haven't got a map handy to confirm distances).Even with the 6300' case, if the a/c is showing 6100' on my radar console, that is within MODE C tolerance

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Hi Tren,

A valid point (purley academic of course), except the distance AY-BLA is 54nm ( and Wangaratta is 6300 ), therefore 4 nm outside "protected area", which is not legal, i know this is splitting hairs, but the rules are quite clear.

I do not believe jumping between enroute aerodrome MSA's is a safe practice and would not offer a turbine any fuel savings, would significantly reduce ones capacity for maintaining the big picture