Violation of Controlled Airspace
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: YSCB
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish - please don't bring up road behaiour - standards have diminished faster than most would have believed. Rule breaking is the norm on Australian roads today for one reason - reduced enforcement and puny penalties. The consequence is that even getting basics like indicating, speeding, redlight running, crossing solid lines, roundabout rules, even parking on the wrong side of the road is just beyuond the competence of most. Most pilots drive!!!!! Can you see the synergy?
Statistic - I love the people who speak of statistics and cost benefit. Just wait till someone close to you dies or you look at the financial penalty of neglect. To focus on the numbers and not consider the intangibles is a fools-errand. You will never see the big one coming and you will have very little chance of doing anything about it. A few rules and practices may make that big difference - if applied, if complied with. The "free-for-all" concept has not worked - give it up, smart people don't want it.
The VCA problem is not only GA anyway. Lets not forget the MIL and RPT's. For whatever reason at the time - a VCA is a VCA that puts those on board, and others at immediate danger from live airborne ordnance and other airspace users (AVM). TCAS won't protect you from stuff it cannot see. Rant over also. Good subject C CHANGE. I hope it gets through to the few who need the wake up call.
Statistic - I love the people who speak of statistics and cost benefit. Just wait till someone close to you dies or you look at the financial penalty of neglect. To focus on the numbers and not consider the intangibles is a fools-errand. You will never see the big one coming and you will have very little chance of doing anything about it. A few rules and practices may make that big difference - if applied, if complied with. The "free-for-all" concept has not worked - give it up, smart people don't want it.
The VCA problem is not only GA anyway. Lets not forget the MIL and RPT's. For whatever reason at the time - a VCA is a VCA that puts those on board, and others at immediate danger from live airborne ordnance and other airspace users (AVM). TCAS won't protect you from stuff it cannot see. Rant over also. Good subject C CHANGE. I hope it gets through to the few who need the wake up call.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Statistics"
Traffic lights are never sited at intersections without a statistical history of accidents. There are some who would argue that they "believe" an accident "could" happen but can't produce the evidence to say what the "probability" of an accident is.
Statistics provide this data.
Because a six pack of enthusiasts believe something "could" happen, the majority are then expected to go along with their theory and spend heaps of money that simply is not justified.
The justification comes with gathering the data to prove there is a better than good "probability" not just a possibility.
A near miss (or hit) in a CTZ or class G, like a VCA, is a failure of proceedure.
One addresses the cause, not the complaint when looking for a remedy.
Traffic lights are never sited at intersections without a statistical history of accidents. There are some who would argue that they "believe" an accident "could" happen but can't produce the evidence to say what the "probability" of an accident is.
Statistics provide this data.
Because a six pack of enthusiasts believe something "could" happen, the majority are then expected to go along with their theory and spend heaps of money that simply is not justified.
The justification comes with gathering the data to prove there is a better than good "probability" not just a possibility.
A near miss (or hit) in a CTZ or class G, like a VCA, is a failure of proceedure.
One addresses the cause, not the complaint when looking for a remedy.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was common practice to issue a OCTA licence once. Mostly because the applicant had a bad time of it. There was the opportunity to do a CTR endorsement later if they wished. A lot just learnt to get on with life outside and fly in the other 6 million sq Kilometers of Australia. I suppose the RA-Aus CTR proposal will include this option.
As for radio proceedure, can someone confirm that one needs a licence of some type to operate an airborne radio. Used to be a Flight Radio Operators Licence and Certificate of proficiency. I wonder are mine still current?
The issue of these required one to be proficient in its use. The lack of proficiency would again point to a breakdown in proceedures in either training or regulation.
Joker 10;
I think you mean infamous. Couldn't be bothered looking.
As for radio proceedure, can someone confirm that one needs a licence of some type to operate an airborne radio. Used to be a Flight Radio Operators Licence and Certificate of proficiency. I wonder are mine still current?
The issue of these required one to be proficient in its use. The lack of proficiency would again point to a breakdown in proceedures in either training or regulation.
Joker 10;
I think you mean infamous. Couldn't be bothered looking.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two words spring to mind here, integrity and airmanship
Integrity comes from having the guts to put your hand up and admit that you made a mistake. Its only stays as a mistake if you fail to learn from it.
Airmanship starts back at the planning phase of the flight, ie study a map. Blue lines don't change but the red ones do, so go find some more info before you get airborne. "I didn't know it was active today" is a piss weak excuse for lack of planning.
In regards to letters from CASA etc, I couldn't care less what they do to the PIC of a VCA , if you srcew up, its up to them to decide what happens next. If its a really bad one and you've put people in danger, then maybe prosecution is fair and reasonable. If its minor infringement (error vs violation) then maybe a check flight is all that is warranted. I just have to sort out the crap fight at the time, what happens next is not my area.
But remember, that letter, the check ride or the phone call, may be all that it takes to prevent an accident down the track and make that person a better pilot.
Some advice to any newbies that find it hard to work out restricted areas.
If your not sure, ask centre. If your still not sure and your approaching an airfield, listen to the ATIS (should anyway). If that fails, make a broadcast on the CTAF freq, ATC will tell you if the place is active. Not all of us will bite your head off!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VCA stats
Couldn't find info on the Air Services site for the capital city aerodromes but got some stats for the MIL airfields aroung the place.
These figures are just the last 12 months.
DAR 39
ESL 13
EDN 6
NWA 14
OAK 30
PEA 63
RIC 15
TDL 42
TVL 20
WLM 13
These figures are just the last 12 months.
DAR 39
ESL 13
EDN 6
NWA 14
OAK 30
PEA 63
RIC 15
TDL 42
TVL 20
WLM 13
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Used to be a Flight Radio Operators Licence and Certificate of proficiency. I wonder are mine still current?
blah blah
Flight Radio Operators Licence Issued 19xx
Assume I still have one although no mention of the sweat blood Morse Code stamp I used to have
.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stats C Change... but do they really give a good insight into the extent of the problem? Many of those will be the fairly innocent type of mistake of (for example) an inexperienced student on a solo nav poking a wing tip into Richmond when triying to naviagte the BK LOE having encountered a bit of a shower or unexpected low cloud. Others might be the guy who fllys right through the gideslope of 16R when a 747 is flying the ILS.
In risk terms, how bad is this problem? I would hope the vast majority of VCA's are of the first type and its probably not a major risk issue. If the second type is a real risk then our legislators and enforcers are letting society down badly by not completely eliminating that risk. Take the BK LOE or Victor 1 for example, it could take only a relatively minor mistake by an inexperienced or inattentive pilot to create real mayhem within a couple of minutes. Presumably the stats are showing that risk is not an issue. If it is, then the general public are not being served well and there is a major need for some serious systematic risk elimination by CASA and ASA (who I'm confident would not shy away from their responsibility) rather than a lot of form filing and bleating on the world's No 1 aviation whinge site.
In risk terms, how bad is this problem? I would hope the vast majority of VCA's are of the first type and its probably not a major risk issue. If the second type is a real risk then our legislators and enforcers are letting society down badly by not completely eliminating that risk. Take the BK LOE or Victor 1 for example, it could take only a relatively minor mistake by an inexperienced or inattentive pilot to create real mayhem within a couple of minutes. Presumably the stats are showing that risk is not an issue. If it is, then the general public are not being served well and there is a major need for some serious systematic risk elimination by CASA and ASA (who I'm confident would not shy away from their responsibility) rather than a lot of form filing and bleating on the world's No 1 aviation whinge site.
You need a FROL (Flight Radio Operators Licence) and your (in)competency of navigating in and around controlled airspace is tested in your biannual flight review.
I promise I will never, ever, turn up so badly prepared for a flight review ever again.
C-change is right about "integrity and airmanship" but that also implies that AsA and CASA must show "integrity and airmanship" in managing the system and enforcing the regulations. If the regulators do not demonstrate the behaviours they expect from pilots, then how can they expect pilots to model better behaviour than they themselves display?
By and large, from my own very limited experience, I think CASA and ATC do model "Integrity and Airmanship" as a student I made my fair share of stupidities and these were treated as "learning experiences' by the authorities. Were they not, then the Tower folk at YMMB would need a second building just to house the mountains of paperwork the endless infractions would generate.
There is a vast difference in my opinion between doing something that is in flagrant and deliberate violation of the rules and doing something that is a less than perfect attempt to comply, people understand that, and people have a sense of fairness and equity as well.
To put it another way, there needs to be a bit of give and take in the system, if that is replaced by a requirement for mindless obedience backed up by mandatory and draconian penalties, then expect the standards of "integrity and airmanship" to disappear, exactly as the automotive equivalents have disappeared from our roads.
I promise I will never, ever, turn up so badly prepared for a flight review ever again.
C-change is right about "integrity and airmanship" but that also implies that AsA and CASA must show "integrity and airmanship" in managing the system and enforcing the regulations. If the regulators do not demonstrate the behaviours they expect from pilots, then how can they expect pilots to model better behaviour than they themselves display?
By and large, from my own very limited experience, I think CASA and ATC do model "Integrity and Airmanship" as a student I made my fair share of stupidities and these were treated as "learning experiences' by the authorities. Were they not, then the Tower folk at YMMB would need a second building just to house the mountains of paperwork the endless infractions would generate.
There is a vast difference in my opinion between doing something that is in flagrant and deliberate violation of the rules and doing something that is a less than perfect attempt to comply, people understand that, and people have a sense of fairness and equity as well.
To put it another way, there needs to be a bit of give and take in the system, if that is replaced by a requirement for mindless obedience backed up by mandatory and draconian penalties, then expect the standards of "integrity and airmanship" to disappear, exactly as the automotive equivalents have disappeared from our roads.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: YSCB
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put Sunfish.
It is a problem, not insurmountable and a balanced and graduated response is approapriate and will result in optimised, albeit not perfect, results - dependant upon reason or intent from education to deterence (if a penalty is never exercised then it ceases to be a penalty or a deterence). We've discussed this before (although in more confusing and higher charged environment)!
It is a problem, not insurmountable and a balanced and graduated response is approapriate and will result in optimised, albeit not perfect, results - dependant upon reason or intent from education to deterence (if a penalty is never exercised then it ceases to be a penalty or a deterence). We've discussed this before (although in more confusing and higher charged environment)!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: crime rate no1
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
You put it well, I can assure you that if every simple mistake (pilot and atc) was reported at GAAP there would not be a building big enough to house the paper, I'm here to tell you only 5-8% of "reportable matters" are actually reported in the GAAP enviroment. In "C" airspace its about 50%.
Cheers
You put it well, I can assure you that if every simple mistake (pilot and atc) was reported at GAAP there would not be a building big enough to house the paper, I'm here to tell you only 5-8% of "reportable matters" are actually reported in the GAAP enviroment. In "C" airspace its about 50%.
Cheers
I agree with most posters here.
50% reporting is probably the norm.
Accidental stuff ups happen on both sides of the mikes.
It is very frustrating though when the pilot of the aircraft involved in a VCA does not reply to on air queries.
Ok, they might be unsure of their position or worried about being "reported" but regularly there is a safety concern.
If you no talkee we don't know if you will descend octa, turn away or turn towards traffic. We don't even know if you are listening on the right frequency.
Please, if you are not sure of where you are, just ask.
A simple squawk ident and away you go.
I love the guys and gals who offer their positions if they are in the area and are not sure if it is them even though they are clear. Responsible aviators.
The ESIR reports are used mainly to decide when it is necessary to run a series of pilot 'education' courses with the training schools. If the stats aren't there there is no need to spend the money.
One of my bug bears is the pilots who find it necessary to use their GPS to run 10 metres outside of the CTA step.
Aren't you supposed to apply VFR nav tolerences to your track and therefore fly well clear of the steps?
Theoretically I can run a 747 right up to the CTA step and Joe Blogs is 10 metres away in their single.
Brisbane was a classic case of this.
The zone is 7nm from either end of the runway. Lots of folk put 7 nm from the ARP into their GPS which means they enter by 1-2 nm.
My most amusing VCA was the aircraft that went through CG, AF and BN CTR then landed at RED.
The Redcliff areoclub CFI wasa gobsmacked when he rang us back to inform us that the aircraft couldnt have responded to our radio transmissions as all four people on board were profoundly DEAF.
Rant over.
AA
50% reporting is probably the norm.
Accidental stuff ups happen on both sides of the mikes.
It is very frustrating though when the pilot of the aircraft involved in a VCA does not reply to on air queries.
Ok, they might be unsure of their position or worried about being "reported" but regularly there is a safety concern.
If you no talkee we don't know if you will descend octa, turn away or turn towards traffic. We don't even know if you are listening on the right frequency.
Please, if you are not sure of where you are, just ask.
A simple squawk ident and away you go.
I love the guys and gals who offer their positions if they are in the area and are not sure if it is them even though they are clear. Responsible aviators.
The ESIR reports are used mainly to decide when it is necessary to run a series of pilot 'education' courses with the training schools. If the stats aren't there there is no need to spend the money.
One of my bug bears is the pilots who find it necessary to use their GPS to run 10 metres outside of the CTA step.
Aren't you supposed to apply VFR nav tolerences to your track and therefore fly well clear of the steps?
Theoretically I can run a 747 right up to the CTA step and Joe Blogs is 10 metres away in their single.
Brisbane was a classic case of this.
The zone is 7nm from either end of the runway. Lots of folk put 7 nm from the ARP into their GPS which means they enter by 1-2 nm.
My most amusing VCA was the aircraft that went through CG, AF and BN CTR then landed at RED.
The Redcliff areoclub CFI wasa gobsmacked when he rang us back to inform us that the aircraft couldnt have responded to our radio transmissions as all four people on board were profoundly DEAF.
Rant over.
AA
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
amberale
Is that the story in the last crash comic?
And I agree on cruising close to CTA boundaries. I always advise ATC of my intentions as a matter of courtisy, espcially around the Brisbane and Archerfield CTA boundaries. The over water under class C bit which is under the 01 path especially! Was vectored out there once by ATC in class C, now its quite nice to do below C. Floaties on!
Is that the story in the last crash comic?
And I agree on cruising close to CTA boundaries. I always advise ATC of my intentions as a matter of courtisy, espcially around the Brisbane and Archerfield CTA boundaries. The over water under class C bit which is under the 01 path especially! Was vectored out there once by ATC in class C, now its quite nice to do below C. Floaties on!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The Redcliff areoclub CFI wasa gobsmacked when he rang us back to inform us that the aircraft couldnt have responded to our radio transmissions as all four people on board were profoundly DEAF.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering C-change, on the converse, do you ever, as a controller, think sometimes that CTA boundaries are set way too large? Like YSRI or say, YSNW or even YPDN? Then, when they become active, all the R space around them gets activated as well? Just wondering.
It is very frustrating though when the pilot of the aircraft involved in a VCA does not reply to on air queries.
CTA boundaries are set way too large
In short, if you fly on the edge of a CTR or its associated CTA steps - or at the LL of a step - you may not be very far away from something within, so be very careful with your nav and altitude