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 1st Oct 2008, 22:48
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Dick,

Ever heard of procedural control? Get it in your head that a tower or a centre does NOT have to have radar to be safe. Procedural towers have set rules with inbuilt safety margins that when followed by all (pilots and controllers) provide an immensely safe ableit a bit restrictive environment.

You seem to have the idea that because you are flying, you are the king of the air, you dont have to tell anyone where to fly, require a clearance, leave you alone, etc etc, but if you do something stupid then a controller is supposed to be watching your every move and tell you immediately.

Have you seen how many radar returns there are to the west of Sydney? how many VFR aeroplanes are out there on any given day? The day you stopped providing "solutions" that work from your standpoint alone, and exist only in your limited comfort zone, I might start to listen to you.
Willoz269 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 07:39
  #162 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,248
Scurvy, You are a fundamentalist- that is -the way you were taught must be correct and must never be doubted.

Lets look at our nations capital.

If a G5 arrives with say ten pob outside tower hours (it happens) no radar service is provided below 8500' despite there being big mountains in the area and despite the fact that there is 24 hour manning of the en route airspace surrounding from Melbourne centre.

The aircraft is in a large black hole with no radar monitoring, relying totally on the pilots not making an error and the EGPWS system working.

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

At our nations capital we have both available ( from the centre) and use neither and you maintain this should not change.

In other leading aviation countries when the D or C becomes unmanned the airspace becomes class E and the centre controllers take over the responsibility..

Yes it may cost a few extra dollars - but why is that your concern? Do you know what it costs to operate a corporate jet?

We have Airlines operating into Launceston in cloud in Radar airspace but the controllers who are "controlling" them are not even rated to use the radar and you maintain that is OK.

I don't agree with you.

I don't blame you for the situation- it is a hangover from the days before radar existed.

To others- please have an open mind about what I am saying- the information came from professional controllers who have totally different view to Scurvy.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 07:45
  #163 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,248
Wilo, the only reason we are forced to use procedural control in areas of good radar coverage is that the controllers are not radar rated. I support spending the extra money so we can come up to the safety standards of other countries before we have an unecessary accident
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 08:00
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 590
Dick

The aircraft is in a large black hole with no radar monitoring, relying totally on the pilots not making an error and the EGPWS system working.
I hope the public are not reading this fearful crisis.

My red for emphasis.

Why did the pilots throw out their approach plates and turn off their (multiple) coupled GPS.

What shall we do in the large area without radar coverage?

Are you going to provide the link to the FSI paper?
james michael is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 08:27
  #165 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,248
James, Don't be so fixed in your views. Airline pilots all around the world have been involved in CFIT accidents and in nearly every case it was from human error.

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

Or do you want to wait until 100+ people die before we make the safety upgrades.

HINT Key Flight Safety International and CFIT into GOOGLE and I bet you will find the info.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 08:35
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Mr Smith, your trumpet is starting to get out of tune. You keep mentioning that ATC and Radar are the biggest migators to prevent CFIT accidents, you forget to mention that non precision approaches, no GPWS/EGPWS/TAWS or no radio altimeters are equal migators. After following this thread, I get the feeling that you want ATC to make your inflight decisions for you.

FSI also have the slogan "The best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained crew"

Flight Safety Foundation Task Force issued many recommendations for the reduction of ALAs, based on the following conclusions:

Establishing and adhering to adequate standard operating procedures and flight-crew decision-making processes improves approach-and-landing safety;
Failure to recognize the need for and to execute a missed approach when appropriate is a major cause of ALAs;
Unstabilized and rushed approaches contribute to ALAs;
Improving communication and mutual understanding between air traffic control services and flight crews of each other’s operational environments will improve approach-and-landing safety;
The risk of ALAs is higher in operations conducted in low light and poor visibility, on wet or otherwise contaminated runways, and with the presence of optical illusions or physiological illusions;
Using the radio altimeter as an effective tool will help prevent ALAs;
Collection and analysis of in-flight parameters (for example, flight operational quality assurance programs) identify performance trends that can be used to improve approach-and-landing safety; and,
Global sharing of aviation information decreases the risk of ALAs.

There are more factors to CFIT than what you mention. In your illustration of a night approach into CB. This would not be a problem to a well trained crew, who have current charts/notams, conduct a full briefing and maintain situational awareness, and plan for a MAP at the minima if not visual.
Dog One is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 08:58
  #167 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,248
Are you suggesting the Qantas crew were not properly trained and that is the reason the jet was below the legal minimum altitude as they all headed to their deaths?

See "Unsafe Skies" on the DICKSMITHFLYER website.

I have never suggested that ATC and radar are the only mitigators against CFIT.

Just that Flight Safety International say that they are two of the most important safety mitigators.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 09:11
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,496
Popcorn, anyone?

G'Day Scurv, love your work
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 10:02
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 590
Dick

Keyed in as you suggested - found the same as I've seen before on FSI.

Kindly provide the link to the CFIT specific you are quoting. I think we all need to see it in context.
james michael is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 10:13
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
In your post #173, you used these words

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

In your latest post, you used these words

"Just that Flight Safety International say that they are two of the most important safety mitigators."

My bolding and italics
Dog One is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 10:50
  #171 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,248
That they are the "most important" or "two of the most important" hardly makes a difference in the eyes of those with open minds who do not want to be involved in a CFIT accident.

We want everything available to help us when in IMC with mountains around - I do anyway.

Dog,do you work for CASA?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 11:07
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
No amount of ATC services will ever outweigh the benefits of a thorough and well structured approach brief. When all the boxes are ticked in a thorough, well structured approach brief there should be no reason for CFIT or other nasties. Surely the greatest cause of accidents such as benalla are rushed poorly planned approaches and poor crew attention (possibly training?).

Dick i understand it is always nice to have someone watching over everything you do, but surely someone with your business acumen can see that to deliver the service you are suggesting is not economically feasible. Does that mean it is wrong to suggest or pursue it..no. Climate change initiatives, global economic meltdown, interest rates, war in Iraq, budget suplus, rightly or wrongly these are the issues that are drawing attention and the big bucks.

It would be nice to fly in radar controlled airspace all the time and not have to worry about position reports or traffic separation, but that is never going to happen. Why? Because someone has done the risk analysis (i hope) and decided, you know what, the cost of implementing this outweighs the benefits derived. Sad but true that every potential aircraft accident has a price, and sadly, the governement cant pay to prevent each one.
Gundog01 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 11:09
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 590
Dick

My mind is still open - I just need you to provide the link to the FSI info you are now ducking and weaving about.

Let's forget CFIT while you dig out the link. By the way, I don't work for CASA - it's gone to the dogs

You seem to be adamant that we must use all tools to avoid accidents - why are you opposed to ADS-B - surely ADS-B IN is a safety mitigator that should receive your full support? Or is your open mind closed to that? After all, GA lighties cannot afford TCAS.
james michael is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 11:14
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
and what about the cross industry funding for TSO146 (W) nav systems
K-941 is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 12:24
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
You seem to be adamant that we must use all tools to avoid accidents - why are you opposed to ADS-B - surely ADS-B IN is a safety mitigator that should receive your full support? Or is your open mind closed to that? After all, GA lighties cannot afford TCAS.
Hello.... why do I smell a 'kickback' happening. Whats in it for me, eh
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 21:55
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 73
Posts: 590
Owen

For my info, it would seem traffic coming in to ML from BN would come close to over BLA.

How do you guys "see" or differentiate low level paints under high level paints, or is the high level tfc masked?

Reason for the Q is what happens when one blip is on top of another?

Bing (M)

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

Dick

Your green light was still on when I departed last night - but still no link to the FSI paper supporting your argument - let's have it please.

Thinking about this overnight it has finally dawned. You claim to be "open minded" - but the only parallel I can find is the pope. You relate everything back to the NAS religion, resist any change or views questioning the religion, and seem to be infallible.

I ask again - why are you not supporting the safety benefits of ADS-B and the cross industry funding to GA? Is it your religion's equivalent of the "Pill"?
james michael is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2008, 23:39
  #177 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,248
Gundog, why is it economically feasible for ATC to provide such a service in radar covered airspace in Europe, Canada and the US but not here?

There is a cost but it is minimal compared to the huge cost of the AsA head office in Canberra.

Why don't you at least support upgrading the G airspace at Proserpine to class E ?

Then all IFR aircraft, mainly airline traffic, could get a full control service ,including terrain avoidance ,until they were visual.

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

I can understand the management in Canberra being against this safety upgrade because their bonuses may drop a little but I can't understand why ATC's would be opposed. Maybe just resistance to change?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 00:16
  #178 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,248
Owen Stanley, if a radar service is provided below 8,500 feet at Canberra when aircraft are in the “black hole” Class G, why wasn’t the Qantas crew in the serious incident (see here) told that they were 2,400 feet below the legal altitude and about to hit Tinderry Peak? The answer is simple. No effective radar service is provided in that airspace.

For example, the pilot could be transmitting on the CTAF(R) frequency and is highly unlikely to hear a call from the radar controller to climb immediately as everyone was about to die. That is why in other leading aviation countries the system is designed to use the radar effectively.

I will say it again. In North America, including the USA, Canada and in Europe, an aircraft will remain on the air traffic control radar frequency until cancelling IFR or declaring visual. Until that point, it is the responsibility of an air traffic controller to ensure that the aircraft does not go below the legal minimum altitude.

You say:

This is why a lot of ATCs have no respect for you Dick.
You are totally wrong. There are many ATCs who email me directly and say I am 100% correct, and they could provide a proper service as professional ATCs do all around the world. They tell me that it is only a small number of older ATCs, who are totally fixed in their mind, that will not allow modern international procedures to be introduced into Australia. They tell me to keep up with what I am saying because eventually there will be a strong group of young controllers coming along with open minds, who will be prepared to support the provision of such a basic safety service.

If you can get aircraft taxiing at Canberra on your radar, you should be providing an air traffic control service to lower levels. That is what we are prepared to pay for.

If the pilot in the Qantas incident had not turned at that point, and if the EGPWS had not been working correctly, 87 people would have died and I can assure you that today we would be providing the internationally proven radar control service at Canberra for 24 hours a day.

If other modern aviation countries can use their enroute controllers to provide an approach service when the Class D and C airspace is closed, why can’t we? If it is only a matter of cost, that is what air traffic controllers should be saying. They should be saying – as some do – we would like to provide the service, it is purely the bureaucrats in Canberra being irresponsible and stopping this.

James Michael, I have said constantly I support the safety benefits of ADS-B, however our present airspace and procedures would not give those safety benefits. For example, if you had an ADS-B outlet at Canberra (or at Benalla) there would be no difference to the service that is provided at the present time. That is, the aircraft would be in good radar/ADS-B coverage right to the ground level, but air traffic control would not provide a service to prevent a pilot from a CFIT accident.

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

I will take many years to get the fleet equipped with ADS-B – whether it is subsidised or not. Whereas to change to internationall proven procedures to provide a service which is given in every other modern aviation country in the world could be done in a far shorter time.

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

Own Stanley, by the way, I know of nowhere else in the world where airline aircraft are on two different frequencies at one time – supposedly getting some type of service from each. That is, the scenario you describe at Canberra after the tower is closed. You are saying that you are providing a service by radar, and also the pilot is providing a service on a completely different frequency.

Safe air traffic control systems are not designed this way. What we do in Australia is simply an accident waiting to happen. No doubt then, after all the people die, we will make the changes which are commonsense to most people.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 00:36
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
CB is an easy solution but not easily solved.More staff allows for 24/7 ops with App and TWR providing a TMA service. No need for the en-route guys to do APP on ridiculous scales.
C-change is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2008, 00:40
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
About 4 years ago I had a very heated telephone conversation with Dick and from that conversation I understood where he was coming from and why he wants USA / Europe radar coverage and control.

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

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

Your arguments carry no weight for 2 reasons:

1. You are never wrong and you have no understanding of the word Compromise. Its either your way or the highway!

2. You never listen to those who are experts in a field. You always say you prefer to suck the brains out of anyone from the USA, but you never listen to those here at the coal face
Niles Crane is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.