Australian Airspace Discussion
Dick, I know bugger all about TAAATS and not too much on how ATC operates at Cairns ... however, from an idiot's of view ... if MSAW was operating at Cairns, we would be talking about an Approach scenario with about 10 aircraft all descending into the one aerodrome, on a small scale screen...
I would think that would be quite a different scenaio than an Enroute Sector with many more aircraft descending into many different aerodromes in many different weather patterns ..with many different trafic conflicts going on ... on a large scale screen
I would think that would be quite a different scenaio than an Enroute Sector with many more aircraft descending into many different aerodromes in many different weather patterns ..with many different trafic conflicts going on ... on a large scale screen
Thread Starter
C-change, you state:
No, not surprised, as I’ve always known that most controllers consider that I have genuine beliefs in furthering aviation in this country, and that in most things we would see eye to eye.
It is interesting that when I sold my Citation VH-MGC, the new owner put on the flight plan each time it was filed “Aircraft no longer owned by Dick Smith.” No doubt he thought an aircraft owned by Dick Smith would get some type of harassment from the air traffic controllers. This has never been true. I have had excellent and fair service from Aussie controllers.
Regarding visiting the Centre, I would love to do it but I don’t think you quite understand how paranoid the Airservices management is about me. It looks as if they are really insecure in their positions. For example, on this site on 5 February 2008, I was invited by one of the controllers to sit at the console at Melbourne Centre. I jumped at the chance and he said he would arrange it. (See here). I was ready to fly to Tullamarine and spend half a day in the Centre.
What happened? He could never get it approved. I contacted the controller a number of times and management simply would not give an answer. I’m hardly likely to turn up at a Centre without it being pre-arranged – I know how that would be viewed by the management.
I once made an informal call to the controllers in a country town tower. I was welcomed like I have always been. The controllers were friendly and we discussed lots of issues – many we agreed about and some which we didn’t. Within days, a memo was sent around by Airservices – which obviously alluded to me – saying how people were not to visit towers without prior approval (or words to that effect).
Yes, I would love to visit a Centre, but I don’t want to unnecessarily get someone into trouble or affect their career.
Dick, you need to spend some time in one of the centres. I think you would be surprised at how well you would actually be received and welcomed.
It is interesting that when I sold my Citation VH-MGC, the new owner put on the flight plan each time it was filed “Aircraft no longer owned by Dick Smith.” No doubt he thought an aircraft owned by Dick Smith would get some type of harassment from the air traffic controllers. This has never been true. I have had excellent and fair service from Aussie controllers.
Regarding visiting the Centre, I would love to do it but I don’t think you quite understand how paranoid the Airservices management is about me. It looks as if they are really insecure in their positions. For example, on this site on 5 February 2008, I was invited by one of the controllers to sit at the console at Melbourne Centre. I jumped at the chance and he said he would arrange it. (See here). I was ready to fly to Tullamarine and spend half a day in the Centre.
What happened? He could never get it approved. I contacted the controller a number of times and management simply would not give an answer. I’m hardly likely to turn up at a Centre without it being pre-arranged – I know how that would be viewed by the management.
I once made an informal call to the controllers in a country town tower. I was welcomed like I have always been. The controllers were friendly and we discussed lots of issues – many we agreed about and some which we didn’t. Within days, a memo was sent around by Airservices – which obviously alluded to me – saying how people were not to visit towers without prior approval (or words to that effect).
Yes, I would love to visit a Centre, but I don’t want to unnecessarily get someone into trouble or affect their career.
Thread Starter
Peuce ,Why go to extremes so that no improvements are made.
Why not trial at just one airport with big jets and mountains- say Proserpine . Who knows it may just save 150 lives.
Why not trial at just one airport with big jets and mountains- say Proserpine . Who knows it may just save 150 lives.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I for one would enjoy having you at a centre, remote TCU or tower to show you what really goes on. We are professionals and do pride ourselves on what we do and would welcome the chance to show you what really goes on behind the scenes, and discuss your concerns. As I and others have said your proposal has merit, but it is not the simple matter you make it out to be.
To the other pilots reading this, please do not hesitate to ask ATC for assistance. C-change talks about an US and THEM mentality, lets try to knock this on the head. ATC are there to assist YOU. We can't always do the things you want due to work levels e.g. putting a flightplan in on the air. When we can when requested, we ring companies , refuellers , etc and try to do those things we are not required to. I know SY FLOW tries hard to accomodate runway changes to save taxying time.
We don't do things just to muck you about. We are not resistant to change, we want to make sure that what is changed will be better for safety than what we had, and achievable with the resources available. We are constantly changing things.
If you are unsure of your position or have a problem call us. Unfortunately for the pilot reading here who doesn't have much to do with ATC, the vibe probably coming out through these exchanges is that ATC would give me short shrift if I called. As Dick states "This has never been true. I have had excellent and fair service from Aussie controllers.". If you have a problem call, if you are getting anomolous nav data, call us. Don't hesitate, we are there to help, not dispense judgement on you.
I for one would enjoy having you at a centre, remote TCU or tower to show you what really goes on. We are professionals and do pride ourselves on what we do and would welcome the chance to show you what really goes on behind the scenes, and discuss your concerns. As I and others have said your proposal has merit, but it is not the simple matter you make it out to be.
To the other pilots reading this, please do not hesitate to ask ATC for assistance. C-change talks about an US and THEM mentality, lets try to knock this on the head. ATC are there to assist YOU. We can't always do the things you want due to work levels e.g. putting a flightplan in on the air. When we can when requested, we ring companies , refuellers , etc and try to do those things we are not required to. I know SY FLOW tries hard to accomodate runway changes to save taxying time.
We don't do things just to muck you about. We are not resistant to change, we want to make sure that what is changed will be better for safety than what we had, and achievable with the resources available. We are constantly changing things.
If you are unsure of your position or have a problem call us. Unfortunately for the pilot reading here who doesn't have much to do with ATC, the vibe probably coming out through these exchanges is that ATC would give me short shrift if I called. As Dick states "This has never been true. I have had excellent and fair service from Aussie controllers.". If you have a problem call, if you are getting anomolous nav data, call us. Don't hesitate, we are there to help, not dispense judgement on you.
Thread Starter
Whats the tower got to do with using the radar properly -the radar controllers are in the Brisbane Centre.
It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.
Some peoples lives must be boring.
It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.
Some peoples lives must be boring.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
You surmise that the alarm would only go off when there is a grave and imminent threat to an aircraft, we are trying to tell you that the alarms go off when TAAATS thinks there may be a problem.
I have given an overview on here of the alarm functions and the myriad reasons they go off.
You state'
"It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted."
Quite happy for your idea to come in, put it in at Proserpine. But to roll it out Australia wide will need large amounts of money and the personnel (not necessarily controllers) to do it. We are not trying to stop it, just trying to give you a reality check on what would be involved.
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.
You surmise that the alarm would only go off when there is a grave and imminent threat to an aircraft, we are trying to tell you that the alarms go off when TAAATS thinks there may be a problem.
I have given an overview on here of the alarm functions and the myriad reasons they go off.
You state'
"It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted."
Quite happy for your idea to come in, put it in at Proserpine. But to roll it out Australia wide will need large amounts of money and the personnel (not necessarily controllers) to do it. We are not trying to stop it, just trying to give you a reality check on what would be involved.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apology - cannot resist a good laugh 
Dick, this is the Airspace thread - ADS-B is a separate thread 
(Smack's self on wrist and heads for hangar)
It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.
(Smack's self on wrist and heads for hangar)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Whats the tower got to do with using the radar properly -the radar controllers are in the Brisbane Centre.
It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.
Some peoples lives must be boring. - End Quote
What's the centre controllers got to do with Jets flying low around the mountains unless they are on final approach, in which case they would go to a regional tower, if it was there, unless you closed it down?
Whats the tower got to do with using the radar properly -the radar controllers are in the Brisbane Centre.
It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.
Some peoples lives must be boring. - End Quote
What's the centre controllers got to do with Jets flying low around the mountains unless they are on final approach, in which case they would go to a regional tower, if it was there, unless you closed it down?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAX1 said
Once upon a time Flight Checking Officers were tasked with checking pilot estimates in such a manner. Moving into TAAARTS, the implementation team were a bit stunned to not find a Rodoniscope on each console, Airways Museum Virtual Tour - Rodoniscope and so decided to waste everybody’s time by using the smegging ETO function instead, and writing a procedure that MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL to administer it, resulting in controllers bugging pilots regarding discrepancies involving sometimes an astonishingly small tolerance. If Australian ATC has time to administer complete bollocks like this maybe we could stop it and devote some time to ATC’ing in other internationally accepted manners. Other controllers just use what the pilot says, and mitigate pilots telling lies or making mistakes by implementing surveillance where the risk of errors causing unsavoury results is high.
Am going to read up on the msaw alert before I respond to the guts of this issue. Certainly agree that if a simple procedure will save lives, and it is done elsewhere, and is practical to implement, then we should do it. I don’t know either way if this is the case. It is also true that recent structural changes have placed all such airspace under the control of Regional Services, causing spectacularly huge sectors, rivalling the monsters that existed in the closing throes of Flight Service, as James Michael says (and it is true, whether he is secretly Adrian Dumsa, or El Cid or whoever is leading your paranoia parade today).
It seems likely this is a precursor to a spectacular winding back of services on economic grounds and not an opportunity for implementing new ones.
RHS said
So putting this into the ATC perspective: An aircraft is cleared to leave CTA or has notified on descent to no particular level, so the CFL shows ‘000’.
Well we can, when the pilot reports visual we change this to ‘VSA’, as is enabled now in the TMA. If the MSAW alert goes off we must “assess the integrity of the alert”.
CFL=’VSA’ - I don’t know if ‘VSA’ disables the MSAW or not, but if the CFL = ‘VSA’ it is not a valid alert, ignore it.
Obviously nowhere near destination – It’s probably valid, issue safety alert, "(callsign) LOW ALTITUDE ALERT, CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY... (followed by advice on the minimum altitude appropriate to the aircraft's position)".
CFL=’000’ – Is either visual and hasn’t told us, or in the middle of an instrument approach, and maybe near the minima. Either way it could be a valid alert unless the pilot is following the instrument approach. Your sector has hundreds of instrument approaches, and even the meanest checkie can’t expect you to memorise them all. Select ‘local data’ in the ARRRRDS, removing the picture of the Cozy that is burnt into the monitor, then ‘approaches east’, there are 4 RNAV approaches, a VOR and an NDB for that aerodrome. You look back to the radar track, and his position is near one of them so ignore it. If you haven’t got time for the above, or can’t bear to move the picture of the Cozy just issue the alert. 80 times a day.
Thrower of Left Handed Rocks
Why is that a sacred site? Plenty of aircraft CFIT within 5nm of airfields, judging by nasty photos in the crash comic. Why do you draw the line of ATC intervention there, rather than at 8,500ft where it is now?
If the System Estimate Time Over (SETO) and BRL are out by more than 2 minutes, or considered unreasonable, the controller is REQUIRED to check and confirm with the pilot as to the Pilot Estimate Time Over (PETO)
Am going to read up on the msaw alert before I respond to the guts of this issue. Certainly agree that if a simple procedure will save lives, and it is done elsewhere, and is practical to implement, then we should do it. I don’t know either way if this is the case. It is also true that recent structural changes have placed all such airspace under the control of Regional Services, causing spectacularly huge sectors, rivalling the monsters that existed in the closing throes of Flight Service, as James Michael says (and it is true, whether he is secretly Adrian Dumsa, or El Cid or whoever is leading your paranoia parade today).
The forthcoming spod: and mostly here alreadySDE environment will group lower level GA and regional RPT separate from CC pairs and high level heavies.
RHS said
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'… …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.
… nor can he reliably and quickly notate a 'Visual' on the track.
CFL=’VSA’ - I don’t know if ‘VSA’ disables the MSAW or not, but if the CFL = ‘VSA’ it is not a valid alert, ignore it.Obviously nowhere near destination – It’s probably valid, issue safety alert, "(callsign) LOW ALTITUDE ALERT, CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY... (followed by advice on the minimum altitude appropriate to the aircraft's position)".CFL=’000’ – Is either visual and hasn’t told us, or in the middle of an instrument approach, and maybe near the minima. Either way it could be a valid alert unless the pilot is following the instrument approach. Your sector has hundreds of instrument approaches, and even the meanest checkie can’t expect you to memorise them all. Select ‘local data’ in the ARRRRDS, removing the picture of the Cozy that is burnt into the monitor, then ‘approaches east’, there are 4 RNAV approaches, a VOR and an NDB for that aerodrome. You look back to the radar track, and his position is near one of them so ignore it. If you haven’t got time for the above, or can’t bear to move the picture of the Cozy just issue the alert. 80 times a day.Thrower of Left Handed Rocks
absolutley no input required from the controller unless the aircraft breaks the protected area outside say 5nm of the destination aerodrome and the alarm sounds.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman,
Not sacred at all, just trying to simplify the concept.
With the commision of the ADS at Newman and the other shortly (MEK and LEO) coming online, it would be a great thing in the West for ADS equipped aircraft be provided with MSAW protection, ATCO's can jump inside my cockpit anytime i'm making a disasterous mistake in IMC, my wife and children would be quite gratefull.
Why is that a sacred site
With the commision of the ADS at Newman and the other shortly (MEK and LEO) coming online, it would be a great thing in the West for ADS equipped aircraft be provided with MSAW protection, ATCO's can jump inside my cockpit anytime i'm making a disasterous mistake in IMC, my wife and children would be quite gratefull.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 1st Oct 2008 at 04:27.
Thread Starter
James Michael, I should have said, “Nothing new is ever attempted that follows proven overseas practices.”
You and I know (and you support) Australia always doing something new that has never been proven anywhere else in the world – the microwave landing system is an example. 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.
You and I know (and you support) Australia always doing something new that has never been proven anywhere else in the world – the microwave landing system is an example. 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.
Thread Starter
Willoz269, you say:
In fact, going to a regional tower doesn’t help, as our regional towers do not have radar rated controllers. Once the aircraft is in the tower airspace, by law the pilot must be on the tower frequency – so if he or she makes an error, they all die.
Look at the system used in most other countries. An aircraft remains on the Centre frequency (with the radar controller) whilst in radar coverage, and this gives the desired protection. The other advantage is that when the tower controllers go home, the Class D reverts to Class E airspace, and is still controlled for IFR flights from the Centre, and a radar service is given to help prevent CFIT accidents.
As you know, we have the ridiculous system where once the tower controllers go home, the whole airspace becomes uncontrolled and no service is provided. That is what nearly killed 87 people in Canberra. (See here).
What's the centre controllers got to do with Jets flying low around the mountains unless they are on final approach, in which case they would go to a regional tower
Look at the system used in most other countries. An aircraft remains on the Centre frequency (with the radar controller) whilst in radar coverage, and this gives the desired protection. The other advantage is that when the tower controllers go home, the Class D reverts to Class E airspace, and is still controlled for IFR flights from the Centre, and a radar service is given to help prevent CFIT accidents.
As you know, we have the ridiculous system where once the tower controllers go home, the whole airspace becomes uncontrolled and no service is provided. That is what nearly killed 87 people in Canberra. (See here).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the commision of the ADS at Newman and the other shortly (MEK and LEO) coming online, it would be a great thing in the West for ADS equipped aircraft be provided with MSAW protection, ATCO's can jump inside my cockpit anytime i'm making a disasterous mistake in IMC, my wife and children would be quite gratefull.
So from an MSAW point of view, the precise time we might want to use the level information is when it's at it's most unreliable.
What is the datum for levels broadcasted by ADS?
Is it tied to the specific aircraft's altimeter setting? or a standard datum?
Edit: Thinking to myself later ... silly question, of course its encoding from the aircraft's altimeter. But isn't that just as accurate as asking the pilot what his altitude his ... as he reads it off his altimeter ?
Therefore, if you believe the pilot ... why can't you believe the ADS broadcast? ... or am I missing something here.
Is it tied to the specific aircraft's altimeter setting? or a standard datum?
Edit: Thinking to myself later ... silly question, of course its encoding from the aircraft's altimeter. But isn't that just as accurate as asking the pilot what his altitude his ... as he reads it off his altimeter ?
Therefore, if you believe the pilot ... why can't you believe the ADS broadcast? ... or am I missing something here.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
As long as you appreciated the humour - we may have differing views but occasionally we need to laugh together.
I feel you refer to ADS-B for Australia when you state
Now Dick, I feel you are making a play on words there. ADS-B 1090ES is working well on ATC screens around the world, something you and I know quite well.
What is different in Oztralia is:
1. A lower level rollout
2. A cross industry subsidy
3. Linked TSO 146 GPS for IFR
4. The potential to roll out your NAS Class E airspace
5. Cheap availability of ADS-B IN traffic advice, unlike the USA scheme
I still cannot fathom why you are so negative to Oz using its intellectual capital to lead the world into the new technology and airspace architecture. Deity knows, except for the holes in the ground we ain't got much else to flog except our intellectual capital.
Your demand to retain the radars for 5 years cruels the cross industry funding and denies GA the opportunity. But, as you have noted, you can afford to pay for it
So, you've never done something new that's never been proven elsewhere in the world? Dick, I think I'll put my collection of your books and articles up for auction on Ebay on the strength of that
Peuce
Good question - GPS provides its own altitude but RS232 encoders provide their txpdr altitude - all separate from the altimeter that you and I might have forgotten to reset for QNH - now, how can we make ATC provide an alarm to fix that
As long as you appreciated the humour - we may have differing views but occasionally we need to laugh together.
I feel you refer to ADS-B for Australia when you state
You and I know (and you support) Australia always doing something new that has never been proven anywhere else in the world
What is different in Oztralia is:
1. A lower level rollout
2. A cross industry subsidy
3. Linked TSO 146 GPS for IFR
4. The potential to roll out your NAS Class E airspace
5. Cheap availability of ADS-B IN traffic advice, unlike the USA scheme
I still cannot fathom why you are so negative to Oz using its intellectual capital to lead the world into the new technology and airspace architecture. Deity knows, except for the holes in the ground we ain't got much else to flog except our intellectual capital.
Your demand to retain the radars for 5 years cruels the cross industry funding and denies GA the opportunity. But, as you have noted, you can afford to pay for it
So, you've never done something new that's never been proven elsewhere in the world? Dick, I think I'll put my collection of your books and articles up for auction on Ebay on the strength of that
Peuce
Good question - GPS provides its own altitude but RS232 encoders provide their txpdr altitude - all separate from the altimeter that you and I might have forgotten to reset for QNH - now, how can we make ATC provide an alarm to fix that
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centre visit
Dick,
Sorry, I didn't consider that they would have tried to block a visit. I should have known better, when I was a trainee at their college, I wasn't allowed into the ops room without prior arrangement.
I guess I was hoping that they might let you in for a day but they would be frightened of you going public on any issues and dropping management in "the you know what".
I'd love to hear your thoughts on TIBA. My personal view is that this is the biggest threat to safety at the moment especially in TMA regions where CFIT and traffic both come into play.
Regarding visiting the Centre, I would love to do it but I don’t think you quite understand how paranoid the Airservices management is about me. It looks as if they are really insecure in their positions.
I guess I was hoping that they might let you in for a day but they would be frightened of you going public on any issues and dropping management in "the you know what".
I'd love to hear your thoughts on TIBA. My personal view is that this is the biggest threat to safety at the moment especially in TMA regions where CFIT and traffic both come into play.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite my better judgement, and under some pressure from others, I revisit this so called ‘place’ 
to ‘accurately clarify’ the realities of regional D TMA Op’s
… I offer the following for the readers who otherwise might be inclined to take on board the Smif spin as being some sort of warped reality!
Reader/s need to know that Smif has had this accurate/factual technical detail explained to him here and face to face (by me and others) time and time again. It relates to the real and practical differences in system safe guards in play between OCTA G, Enroute E, and Regional D!
Sh1ting me (and many others) orf to the max is that under the guise of the sceptic’s banner, he chooses to ignore reality in favour of emotive, inaccurate and frankly mischievous two second headlines like “they all die”!
Lets look at the garbage!
bulldust!!
In fact!!!! Regional Approach/Tower controllers provide CTA/R clearances in accordance with Route LSALT, 25 and 10nm MSA’s, IAF assignments for IAP's, all of which are monitored in line with those clearances!
His attempt to compare Regional D TMA with en-route G (OCTA) services is scurrilous!!!!
The ‘reality’ here is that Regional APP/TWR have the ability/and specific knowledge to ensure that IFR are descending to ASSIGNED LSALT/Minimum’s, with (where provided) or without the addition of surveillance to monitor. This is in reality at least 2 additional layers of safeguard beyond OCTA G i.e no specific descent altitude clearances! .. how is that even remotely comparable? ... it is not!!
… Pilot determined OCTA IFR minimum safe descent altitudes V's ATC confirmed minimums in CTA TMA's are like chalk and cheese!
Perhaps the doomsayer Smif can cite OZ Regional APP/TWR CFIT accident data!? … NOT!
.. and so on we go:-
… hmmm are you understanding the differences yet?
… OK, we all get the concept that Smif wants a system that provides for when there is no tower, or it ‘goes home’!
.. so, flying in the face of the available IFR onboard EGPWS, TAWS, etc he would rather you all pay for remote ATC TMA’s to provide terrain alert areas i.e. ATC manned CTA services over BLA, LHR, YSDU, YSWG, UOLD, YBRM, YPKA, and any other AD with like type op’s! ….. as well as the likes of, YBTL, YBRK, YBHM, YBAF, YBAS, YBMK, YBMC, YSTW, YSCH, YSBK, YSCB, YMAY, YMMB, YMES, YMLT, YMHB, YMPF, YPJT …. and at any other location he wants ATC protection (including the de-established tower at Proserpine under his watch)!! etc outside tower hours!
Oh my, all those CTA/R’s including all that CTA TMA service outside tower hours!!! ... how much cost to you, the paying industry compared with onboard funded systems that can provide TAWS etc??
But then again, the hypocricy in all this spinned garbage is this, do specific locations not count if no accident has occurred?
OR, does HE not want to operate IFR at ANY OCTA locations .. full stop? ... and no rubbish about nasty mountains as terrain clearance buffers are the same no matter the elevation
Ah … the old “try to scare the sh1t out of the punters line”!
… why misrepresent the real danger when clearly most high and medium capacity RPT aircraft have E/GPWS??? .. which is designed specifically to protect against mis-programing of holding patterns etc, not to mention MSA/LSALT etc in the FMS?
Answer! …. No real headline in this except for a media tart looking for a tag!! …particularly when (in this case) it is/was made perfectly clear that the aircraft could not have hit terrain given the onboard protection systems!!!
… he (Smif) also fails to mention that the particular TMA closure in question was a rare occasion indeed?
The reasons for attempting the misrepresentative spin are clear, he knows it, and so do we!!!!
RHS ... I wish I could be polite to you as C-Change quite rightly suggests! .... but I'm afraid I'm beyond that with you and your self-serving agenda's over many years
.. so I guess this means ... Piss orf tool!!! … in the nicest possible way! 
P.S. TW, ... as above to you too
to ‘accurately clarify’ the realities of regional D TMA Op’s… I offer the following for the readers who otherwise might be inclined to take on board the Smif spin as being some sort of warped reality!
Reader/s need to know that Smif has had this accurate/factual technical detail explained to him here and face to face (by me and others) time and time again. It relates to the real and practical differences in system safe guards in play between OCTA G, Enroute E, and Regional D!
Sh1ting me (and many others) orf to the max is that under the guise of the sceptic’s banner, he chooses to ignore reality in favour of emotive, inaccurate and frankly mischievous two second headlines like “they all die”!
Lets look at the garbage!
In fact, going to a regional tower doesn’t help, as our regional towers do not have radar rated controllers. Once the aircraft is in the tower airspace, by law the pilot must be on the tower frequency – so if he or she makes an error, they all die.
In fact!!!! Regional Approach/Tower controllers provide CTA/R clearances in accordance with Route LSALT, 25 and 10nm MSA’s, IAF assignments for IAP's, all of which are monitored in line with those clearances!
His attempt to compare Regional D TMA with en-route G (OCTA) services is scurrilous!!!!
The ‘reality’ here is that Regional APP/TWR have the ability/and specific knowledge to ensure that IFR are descending to ASSIGNED LSALT/Minimum’s, with (where provided) or without the addition of surveillance to monitor. This is in reality at least 2 additional layers of safeguard beyond OCTA G i.e no specific descent altitude clearances! .. how is that even remotely comparable? ... it is not!!
… Pilot determined OCTA IFR minimum safe descent altitudes V's ATC confirmed minimums in CTA TMA's are like chalk and cheese!
Perhaps the doomsayer Smif can cite OZ Regional APP/TWR CFIT accident data!? … NOT!
.. and so on we go:-
Look at the system used in most other countries. An aircraft remains on the Centre frequency (with the radar controller) whilst in radar coverage, and this gives the desired protection.
The other advantage is that when the tower controllers go home, the Class D reverts to Class E airspace, and is still controlled for IFR flights from the Centre, and a radar service is given to help prevent CFIT accidents.
.. so, flying in the face of the available IFR onboard EGPWS, TAWS, etc he would rather you all pay for remote ATC TMA’s to provide terrain alert areas i.e. ATC manned CTA services over BLA, LHR, YSDU, YSWG, UOLD, YBRM, YPKA, and any other AD with like type op’s! ….. as well as the likes of, YBTL, YBRK, YBHM, YBAF, YBAS, YBMK, YBMC, YSTW, YSCH, YSBK, YSCB, YMAY, YMMB, YMES, YMLT, YMHB, YMPF, YPJT …. and at any other location he wants ATC protection (including the de-established tower at Proserpine under his watch)!! etc outside tower hours!
Oh my, all those CTA/R’s including all that CTA TMA service outside tower hours!!! ... how much cost to you, the paying industry compared with onboard funded systems that can provide TAWS etc??
But then again, the hypocricy in all this spinned garbage is this, do specific locations not count if no accident has occurred?
OR, does HE not want to operate IFR at ANY OCTA locations .. full stop? ... and no rubbish about nasty mountains as terrain clearance buffers are the same no matter the elevation
As you know, we have the ridiculous system where once the tower controllers go home, the whole airspace becomes uncontrolled and no service is provided. That is what nearly killed 87 people in Canberra. (See here).
… why misrepresent the real danger when clearly most high and medium capacity RPT aircraft have E/GPWS??? .. which is designed specifically to protect against mis-programing of holding patterns etc, not to mention MSA/LSALT etc in the FMS?
Answer! …. No real headline in this except for a media tart looking for a tag!! …particularly when (in this case) it is/was made perfectly clear that the aircraft could not have hit terrain given the onboard protection systems!!!
… he (Smif) also fails to mention that the particular TMA closure in question was a rare occasion indeed?
The reasons for attempting the misrepresentative spin are clear, he knows it, and so do we!!!!
RHS ... I wish I could be polite to you as C-Change quite rightly suggests! .... but I'm afraid I'm beyond that with you and your self-serving agenda's over many years
.. so I guess this means ... Piss orf tool!!! … in the nicest possible way! P.S. TW, ... as above to you too