Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Seasprite abilities at the Office of Airspace Regulation

Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Seasprite abilities at the Office of Airspace Regulation

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 26th Feb 2009, 22:51
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,602
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
Seasprite abilities at the Office of Airspace Regulation

We all now know about the $1 billion fiasco in relation to the Seasprite helicopters. That is when a group of Canberra bureaucrats decided that we should uniquely experiment with the lives of military pilots, and in effect design our own software for a sophisticated marine helicopter project. Of course, after 10 years and the loss of $1 billion, the whole project was cancelled.

I wonder if some of those people have moved to the Office of Airspace Regulation. Have a glance at their Post Event Report on the Williamtown Arrangements During 2008/2009 Period of Operational Standby (See here). They have stated that as the radar did not work for a period of time – I think it was possibly one week – and there were no reported incidents, this shows that the Office of Airspace Regulation’s original plan (to go ahead without a radar display and with an Air/Ground Operator stationed at the civilian side of the airport) was satisfactorily safe.

The report states:

The fact that the Defence CA/GRS operated without a radar display for a quarter of the POS, without any increase in safety incidents or other impacts, indicate that a NAL CA/GRS would have been equally acceptable as a solution over the POS.
It is as if a child had written it. How could one week of data give any relevant information for this experimental airspace system?

Imagine if Qantas said they had a shortage of pilots and wanted to operate in and out of Williamtown with only one pilot in their airline aircraft. Imagine if after one week they said, “There have been no incidents so this is obviously proven safe.”

It appears that the people at the Office of Airspace Regulation don’t understand probability. You can go for many years without air traffic control in some places before you have a horrendous result.

Of course, without the radar operating – which is what they claim – they would not know if a serious incident did occur. Let’s say two aircraft (one without a transponder and with the radio on the incorrect frequency) got to within 100 metres of each other. If the pilots didn’t see each other – which can happen – no incident would be reported, but it could hardly be described as safe.

It would appear that the Office of Airspace Regulation has been captured by the bean counters in the airlines and at Airservices – i.e. save every dollar you can. Is there another explanation?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 01:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,559
Received 75 Likes on 43 Posts
Dick,

Keh? That's exactly what you wanted to do during the Class G airspace trial. Give it a go for a couple of months and then tick it off as being OK.

Regarding your radio and transponder comment, could you confirm that the TRA had a requirement for both of these, and that a CAG/RS was in operation? Why then are you going on about not having a transponder and being off frequency? If a pilot flies into a TRA on the wrong frequency AND without having the transponder on, what hope have we got? Why would a tower have made any difference?
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 03:54
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,602
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
Capn Bloggs, the Class G airspace trial was allowing us to use radar for the first time in what had previously been flight service airspace, where the flight service officers were not allowed access to a radar screen.

In relation to your question, “Why would a tower have made any difference?” are you really suggesting that by bringing in a mandatory radio and transponder requirement at low levels, we can get the same level of safety as a tower with approach radar? I hope not.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2009, 10:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 44
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

the Class G airspace trial was allowing us to use radar for the first time in what had previously been flight service airspace, where the flight service officers were not allowed access to a radar screen.
That sounds like a pretty good idea........just one question: What's a Flight Service Officer?
Cap'n Bunghole is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2009, 11:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,559
Received 75 Likes on 43 Posts
Dick,

the Class G airspace trial was allowing us to use radar for the first time in what had previously been flight service airspace, where the flight service officers were not allowed access to a radar screen.
That may have been the case but is irrelevant.The issue is "trialling" airspace for a short time and then, because there's no midairs, saying it's OK. You rekcon it was Ok for the G trial, but not for Willy over XMAS. You're being inconsistent.

are you really suggesting that by bringing in a mandatory radio and transponder requirement at low levels, we can get the same level of safety as a tower with approach radar?
No. Your psychic powers are still OK. But then again, your ace-of-the-base aviator, with his radio on the wrong freq and his transponder off (in contravention of the TRA rules) would probably still clobber the other aircraft despite the fact that a tower was operating. I'd be impressed to find an ATCO who could simultaneously visually scour the sky in all directions watching out for midairs involving your ace. The only saving grace would be a skin paint off the radar, which the CAGRO should be able to use anyway. Some things were never meant to fly, and I suggest that the clown you refer to falls into that category.

All that said, with 44 RPT movements a day (assuming not many in the wee hours), why the $%^& wasn't the tower running??
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 28th Feb 2009, 20:35
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,602
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
The tower wasn't running because CASA did a deal with AsA and the Military to allow no tower over Christmas - see the previous thread on this. It's called the "mates" network.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2009, 22:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If my memory serves me correctly, and I believe it does, the Class G Airspace Trial had nothing to do with the use of radar...zip. It was all about no, zero, none, level of service in Class G airspace. Remember the National Advisory Frequency, the famed NAF? One was supposed to broadcast one's position on the NAF without reference to any third party in Class G. Now the claim is being made that it was all about more efficient use of radar. I'd dispute that claim and, instead, say it was more to do with the then flavour of the monthe - "free in G."

In fact, I believe people were chastised for calling controllers in the airspace above G (the radar controllers) for asking what the hell they should do inbound to SY/BK from the north because the procedures were a dog's breakfast. The only time radar came into the equation was when there was a near mid-air at Newcastle between an airforce aircraft and (stretching memory a bit) a DASH 8. The airforce was asked to extend radar hours to assist with the "trial" in the terminal airspace so that there wasn't a recurrence, and to prevent further embarrassment over a distinctly dodgy concept.

That's my recollection. Anyone else, barring Dick (who's given his version), have a similar view of the vaunted trial.
Howabout is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2009, 22:40
  #8 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 7,426
Received 204 Likes on 115 Posts
I'm struggling to find a relationship between "Free in G" and "Seasprite abilities at the Office of Airspace Regulation".

You wish to re-hash ancient history, please start a new, dedicated thread.

Can we all stick to the topic please?
tail wheel is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2009, 23:59
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's called the "mates" network.
Professionals (yes, people that actually work in the industry) working together to manage limited resources to achieve the maximum outcomes.

44 moves a day. Less than 4 an hour with a CAGRO service. I think the resources were managed appropriately. (Affordable safety...) And so does the OAR.
Pera is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 02:20
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tail wheel, I accept your verdict and I was guilty of thread-drift.
Howabout is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 03:47
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,561
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
I am struggling to see any relationship between the Seasprite issue and the OAR.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 04:53
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,602
Likes: 0
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
The link is that both groups don't ask advice or copy proven systems.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 06:15
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
can we make a link to other groups who don't LISTEN when given advice?

Last edited by apache; 2nd Mar 2009 at 02:39. Reason: typo
apache is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 11:19
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OZ, are you thick?

OZBUSDRIVER, get with the game. Even I can see the relationship now. Think about the Seasprites, dirt-road airspace, manual telephone exchanges, the OAR and the Wheat Board. Good grief man, get a hold of yourself; they're all linked!

Fade to Twighlight Zone music.

Sorry Tail Wheel. I suppose I'll get spanked for that one.
Howabout is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 21:09
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
apache ....
peuce is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2009, 01:36
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,561
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Howabout

Just the same, if I look out the arch window today...
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2009, 08:11
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah OZ, I posted a reply and then deleted it. It didn't really add to the debate, despite some of the frustrations.

Regards
Howabout is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2009, 09:55
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney (sometimes)
Age: 42
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
seasprite over penrith

around sat 21st feb, (could hav been week before) i saw a seasprite over penrith, moving quite quick, east to west. Couldn't see any roundels, and unlikely a kiwi one out that way.

Any ideas who's it was??? is the ADF secretly trying to restore the billion dollar bungle?? I thought all the aussie ones were shipped back to the states.

Any ideas???
likes2fly is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.