Reporting point 2RN
Thread Starter
Reporting point 2RN
The other thread was closed, however it was important for me to answer some of the points.
Unhinged, you state:
For over 20 years I have been attempting to move our airspace so we copy the best in the world. This is to improve safety and reduce inefficiencies.
According to the advice of the FAA experts who were brought out to advise on NAS, to have two reporting points for a busy airport such as Bankstown is quite risky. At the time I was concerned about this advice. That is why as part of NAS we stated that we would change the unique GAAP procedures, with their reporting points, to FAA Class D procedures. The FAA has over 300 Class D towers – some with similar traffic densities to Bankstown – however I cannot find at one location a reporting point similar to 2RN or Prospect.
My position is hardly “controversial” – it is simply a position that follows the best advice from around the world.
I don’t believe it is “inappropriate and insensitive” to bring these important points out at a time when we may be able to make some changes that may save lives.
Avicon, you state:
I have made no such suggestion. I have only said we should follow proven procedures from overseas, where they have between 15 and 20 times the amount of traffic. Therefore, as the risk of a collision goes up by the square of the traffic density, they have more experience on preventing this type of accident.
The US NAS does not in fact have “more reporting points.” It specifically does not list reporting points to enter a Class D airport. Under the US NAS, a normal report would be, “Bankstown Tower, Kilo Tango Kilo, five miles north west inbound with Bravo.”
I have found in life there are always advantages in looking around the world to see if things can be done in a better way. Sometimes we do them in a better way in Australia and we should keep that. But if we can learn from the mistakes of others, we should also do this.
Unhinged, you state:
What I objected to, and still do, is that his first response to someone else's tragedy was to use it to promote his own controversial position. It was inappropriate and insensitive
According to the advice of the FAA experts who were brought out to advise on NAS, to have two reporting points for a busy airport such as Bankstown is quite risky. At the time I was concerned about this advice. That is why as part of NAS we stated that we would change the unique GAAP procedures, with their reporting points, to FAA Class D procedures. The FAA has over 300 Class D towers – some with similar traffic densities to Bankstown – however I cannot find at one location a reporting point similar to 2RN or Prospect.
My position is hardly “controversial” – it is simply a position that follows the best advice from around the world.
I don’t believe it is “inappropriate and insensitive” to bring these important points out at a time when we may be able to make some changes that may save lives.
Avicon, you state:
I do not agree with Dick's suggestion that more reporting points would ease the congestion and move traffic away from one single point.
The US NAS does not in fact have “more reporting points.” It specifically does not list reporting points to enter a Class D airport. Under the US NAS, a normal report would be, “Bankstown Tower, Kilo Tango Kilo, five miles north west inbound with Bravo.”
I have found in life there are always advantages in looking around the world to see if things can be done in a better way. Sometimes we do them in a better way in Australia and we should keep that. But if we can learn from the mistakes of others, we should also do this.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 18th Dec 2008 at 23:35.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you the same Dick Smith who instigated the "free in G" airspace? the horrendously dangerous "class G trial airspace" in the busiest airspace in Australia? the same Dick Smith who used to fly around monitoring radio calls in he BK lane, and having a go at anyone who dared use their radio in the interests of safety?
It sickens me to see you on the news after every tragic event in Oz Aviation pushing YOUR agenda. The way that you reject any proposal from people who fly in this airspce every day as "ill informed", but as soon as you find ONE person who agrees with you,with any type of aviation credential, they are touted as "experts", and their views is expounded at the cost of any other advice you may receive.
Part of being a pilot, Dick, is to assess, and reassess the situation, then make decisions based on ALL the information at hand.... not just the information that suits you!
It sickens me to see you on the news after every tragic event in Oz Aviation pushing YOUR agenda. The way that you reject any proposal from people who fly in this airspce every day as "ill informed", but as soon as you find ONE person who agrees with you,with any type of aviation credential, they are touted as "experts", and their views is expounded at the cost of any other advice you may receive.
Part of being a pilot, Dick, is to assess, and reassess the situation, then make decisions based on ALL the information at hand.... not just the information that suits you!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, Mr Smith, Mr Smith. So you are proposing that a busy training airport does away with entry points and just has aircraft going every which way? Dumbest idea I have heard in months.
We have the same problem over here at Parafield approaching OCTA. Only 2 inbound approach points Outer Harbour to the west and the Substation to the NE. OHB in particular can get quiet busy at times with the college and the other 3 or so flying schools all out at the training area west of Edinburgh as well as the LOE down the coast all feeding into it.
We have in the past year had 2 midairs approaching GAAP's I don't want a 3rd here at PF thanks.
So based on the current evidence I find myself agreeing with Dick.
We have in the past year had 2 midairs approaching GAAP's I don't want a 3rd here at PF thanks.
So based on the current evidence I find myself agreeing with Dick.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I dont agree that the two inbound points is dangerous. I am saying that The way Dick uses the media after every fatal accident is so sickeningly wrong it is not funny. and the way he already knows the cause of the crassh before anyone else is just plain wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on, Chief Wiggum.
Dick has lost ALL my respect with his continuous complaining. In case you missed it, he is always right on matters of aviation safety, everyone else is always wrong, and he abuses his public profile and terrible accidents to push his agenda.
disgraceful, Dick.
Dick has lost ALL my respect with his continuous complaining. In case you missed it, he is always right on matters of aviation safety, everyone else is always wrong, and he abuses his public profile and terrible accidents to push his agenda.
disgraceful, Dick.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the same group of problems as Moorabbin with everyone funneling in via Carrum and GMH approach points when coming in from anywhere including the training area.
It's not uncommon to see half a dozen aircraft over Carrum all reporting their position as Carrum with anything up to 2 miles or more between them. If the radio is busy you may not get a call in until the 3 mile mark if you aren't quick on the PTT.
The problems then continue as the tower often tries to work out who is actually number one.
Tower: XXX, you are number one.
VH-ZZZ: But tower, we are ahead of XXX
XXX: We just paseed ZZZ
Tower: Ok XXX you are now number one
and it goes on from there... half the time you might never even see the aircraft.
If it's proven experience in the US that this problem can be solved by eliminating approach points, then it is worth considering and CASA is obliged to do this.
It's not uncommon to see half a dozen aircraft over Carrum all reporting their position as Carrum with anything up to 2 miles or more between them. If the radio is busy you may not get a call in until the 3 mile mark if you aren't quick on the PTT.
The problems then continue as the tower often tries to work out who is actually number one.
Tower: XXX, you are number one.
VH-ZZZ: But tower, we are ahead of XXX
XXX: We just paseed ZZZ
Tower: Ok XXX you are now number one
and it goes on from there... half the time you might never even see the aircraft.
If it's proven experience in the US that this problem can be solved by eliminating approach points, then it is worth considering and CASA is obliged to do this.
Thread Starter
Delta, amazing post, could it be that I am trying to save needless loss of life and you are resisting change?
I was supporting Ray Clamback- a very experienced pilot wha has given me a lot of advice and knowledge.
I was supporting Ray Clamback- a very experienced pilot wha has given me a lot of advice and knowledge.
Moderator
Problem at Jandakot, particularly ADWD, is people saying they are at reporting points when they are actually a couple of miles away, overtaking on the left and even orbiting overhead inbound points! 
This often occurs inbound in G outside the CTR so although I agree with Dick that Class D could be preferable to GAAP, these problems are not IMHO ATC or airspace related.
This often occurs inbound in G outside the CTR so although I agree with Dick that Class D could be preferable to GAAP, these problems are not IMHO ATC or airspace related.
Thread Starter
Chief Wiggum, the “free in G” airspace never happened – we still have to pay. The Class G trial airspace was instigated to use radar for the first time between Canberra and Ballina. Remember, a flight service officer standing behind the radar controller reported an incident, and that was used to reverse the trial and give back the airspace to the flight service officers with their paper strips and quill pens. I kid you not, this is what happened.
Amazingly, about 2 years later, Airservices arranged for the airspace to go to the radar controllers – as I had proposed – and that is how the system exists today.
Of course, Airservices has never written proper procedures for air traffic controllers to use radar in “flight service airspace” so we ended up with the horrendous 6 fatalities at Benalla.
Yes, I was against random radio calls in the light aircraft lane, as this had pilots concentrating their attention on those giving the calls and not being vigilant for everyone. I made it very clear that I would support radio calls as long as an education program took place so that everyone had an equal chance of operating in an alerted see and avoid environment. Personally I couldn’t see how this system could work, but it would surely be better than random calls from 2% or 3% of the aircraft, which didn’t comply with any rules or even recommended practices.
Amazingly, about 2 years later, Airservices arranged for the airspace to go to the radar controllers – as I had proposed – and that is how the system exists today.
Of course, Airservices has never written proper procedures for air traffic controllers to use radar in “flight service airspace” so we ended up with the horrendous 6 fatalities at Benalla.
Yes, I was against random radio calls in the light aircraft lane, as this had pilots concentrating their attention on those giving the calls and not being vigilant for everyone. I made it very clear that I would support radio calls as long as an education program took place so that everyone had an equal chance of operating in an alerted see and avoid environment. Personally I couldn’t see how this system could work, but it would surely be better than random calls from 2% or 3% of the aircraft, which didn’t comply with any rules or even recommended practices.
Whats dumb about keeping aircraft apart in non controlled airspace. I still remember the Moorabbin collision between a Beech 50 and a Bell-47 due to the same sort of airspace design. Peter Stone and Brian Cruckshank would be alive today with a better designed system. Instead we are still killing people. Today we have better Nav equipment and can handle multiple entry points. I have had two close misses in light aircraft 'lanes', we need to change the system. Dick Smith is right.
Dick this, Dick that blah ,blah. Look for safety's sake we should all stick with the issues and not play the man. What amazes me soon as he says anything people jump in with nothing about the topic to say just to tell him he's a ********. I reckon he has the message by now ( I would) but I will give him this he takes it day in day out. Who else would not me?
Could I just say this, some of what he says is crap, some is spot on, but most is swiped from overseas and is seen as worlds best practice by countries with far greater population and traffic than little OL OZ.
So long as it is best practice I have no problem with it.
Now before I'm called a Dick apolagist I remember and was a member of AOPA when he became President along with his mate Boyd Munroe. The pair of them wrecked that in my opinion and I have never been a member since but that is not to say if the points (like this one about GAAP's) he may raise is right in my opinion I won't agree with it.
Could I just say this, some of what he says is crap, some is spot on, but most is swiped from overseas and is seen as worlds best practice by countries with far greater population and traffic than little OL OZ.
So long as it is best practice I have no problem with it.
Now before I'm called a Dick apolagist I remember and was a member of AOPA when he became President along with his mate Boyd Munroe. The pair of them wrecked that in my opinion and I have never been a member since but that is not to say if the points (like this one about GAAP's) he may raise is right in my opinion I won't agree with it.
Problem at Jandakot, particularly ADWD, is people saying they are at reporting points when they are actually a couple of miles away, overtaking on the left and even orbiting overhead inbound points!
This often occurs inbound in G outside the CTR so although I agree with Dick that Class D could be preferable to GAAP, these problems are not IMHO ATC or airspace related.
This often occurs inbound in G outside the CTR so although I agree with Dick that Class D could be preferable to GAAP, these problems are not IMHO ATC or airspace related.
But yes, ADWD is actually a massive place apparently. My advice for anyone unable to report at ADWD is to make a left turn and depart out to Fremantle and try again. I like to make the point, do you really want to enter the CTR when its so busy you can't fit a radio call in? I am not hugely familar with BK but I think 2RN is the equivilant of SIXS or SHIP/POWR.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Class G trial airspace was instigated to use radar for the first time between Canberra and Ballina
The problem with the radar was that MOST of the traffic using the class G airspace couldn't effectively cruise at or above 8500' to be in the radar area.
I am all for using/copying the best airspace model we can get however we also need the same tools as they have their. ie radar over more than 25% of the country, radar coverage to the ground, access to affordable avionic upgrades, and sensible regulation and taxation.
Thread Starter
Clinton, surely you don't believe it is sensible to force aircraft coming down the light aircraft lane to track an extra 5 miles west and mix with all the traffic coming from the west at Prospect? For that's what they have to do.
Or do you?
Or do you?
Thread Starter
chief wiggum,
Not the radar furphy again. The radar coverage between Canberra and Ballina is as good as any radar coverage in the world – surely you know that. There is no such thing as “radar coverage to the ground”, it doesn’t exist in all en route airspace in any country in the world.
The reason everyone was on the same frequency – it was called the National Advisory Frequency is that Airservices refused to allow pilots to be on the ATC frequency as happens in the USA the UK and just about every other country I know.
It was completely undermined by people who were so stubborn and fundamentalist in their views that nothing should change i.e. “we had used flight service with paper strips and no radar and full position reporting for 50 years and that is the way it must remain forever.”
We can make up every excuse you can for not using the radar properly, one day presumably after an airline goes in killing 100 people, we will move to the proven NAS procedures, I guarantee it.
Not the radar furphy again. The radar coverage between Canberra and Ballina is as good as any radar coverage in the world – surely you know that. There is no such thing as “radar coverage to the ground”, it doesn’t exist in all en route airspace in any country in the world.
The reason everyone was on the same frequency – it was called the National Advisory Frequency is that Airservices refused to allow pilots to be on the ATC frequency as happens in the USA the UK and just about every other country I know.
It was completely undermined by people who were so stubborn and fundamentalist in their views that nothing should change i.e. “we had used flight service with paper strips and no radar and full position reporting for 50 years and that is the way it must remain forever.”
We can make up every excuse you can for not using the radar properly, one day presumably after an airline goes in killing 100 people, we will move to the proven NAS procedures, I guarantee it.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(In another thread, an ostensibly experienced pilot whinged about the fact that he'd reported at 2RN, and someone else reported at the same time at 2RN and was nowhere to be seen. The second aircraft was eventually spotted south of the radio mast, well behind the first aircraft. The second aircraft had, in fact, reported at the correct reporting point. The first pilot was not at the reporting point, but thought he was. Why on earth the radio mast can't be the actual reporting point, so as to remove any confusion, is one of the many mysteries of GA.)
How is an itinerant pilot expected to figure this out given the ERSA just says "STH of TWRN" or whatever?