Merged: The Ambidji Report CASA should get their money back!
Thread Starter
How, A hint,it's about the extra safety from having one standard system for non radar towers throughout Australia.
Or are you suggesting we change all the non GAAP airports to GAAP?
And what will the extra cost be? Separating IFR from IFR in VMC when both pilots want the extra safety?
Compared to the whole catastrophe the cost is small.
Or are you suggesting we change all the non GAAP airports to GAAP?
And what will the extra cost be? Separating IFR from IFR in VMC when both pilots want the extra safety?
Compared to the whole catastrophe the cost is small.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wide Brown Land
Age: 39
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, Dick specifically wrote about incidents 'inside the Bankstown control zone'. But I think the argument to include the 2RN collision last year in the data is a valid one. OK, it's technically not in the 'GAAP' airspace itself - but inbound reporting points are an integral part of the way the GAAP system works. A complete review of GAAP safety needs to take the whole set of procedures into account, which I think includes the bits about how you get into that particular type of airspace.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
reduce the ridiculous frequency clogging of a VFR departure call at non-GAAP Class D towers and make other improvements.
Would have saved the embarassment of having made one on departing YBMC one evening that the tower did not hear it.....I did make one as Chimbu Chuck will recall......perhaps the FTDK's failing electrics were to blame!
Departure calls at CTAF/GAAP/D into any G is really a waste of radio waves!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick:
Your "1 MAC in 40 years" comment still doesn't stack up. Apart from the 2RN accident, all the other listed MACs occurred in the Bankstown control zone (circuit area).
Frank Arouet:
You're correct in that it was technically outside the control zone however it could be argued that, as both aircraft were conforming to a recognised IRP and one of the 2RN aircraft was in contact with the tower, they were operating under GAAP.
And to others, I was clearly referring to mid airs "in the bankstown control zone"
Frank Arouet:
This didn't happen in the GAAP did it?
People people please....
Can we keep the Class D vs GAAP arguments elsewhere.
What is of issue here is the issue of one consulting company that has been around for a long while creating a document that has been swallowed hook line and sinker by CASA.
A report of such magnitude should be peer reviewed and more than one group involved. Dick has done this. Yes he may have a vested interest in a different outcome but please ignore this.
It is a process that is at fault.
And as a parting thought for you - who audits the auditors? Methodologies aside, they are not always right.
Can we keep the Class D vs GAAP arguments elsewhere.
What is of issue here is the issue of one consulting company that has been around for a long while creating a document that has been swallowed hook line and sinker by CASA.
A report of such magnitude should be peer reviewed and more than one group involved. Dick has done this. Yes he may have a vested interest in a different outcome but please ignore this.
It is a process that is at fault.
And as a parting thought for you - who audits the auditors? Methodologies aside, they are not always right.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, we have fenced on this before.
Leave it like it is (was) and there's no extra cost to industry. Any change will involve cost! Sorry, I cannot agree that changing from a 'proven system' to something else is justified because the 'cost is small.' Define 'small.'
To quote you:
If those procedures are, truly, that safe, then where is the logic of changing to US D? 'Standardisation' just doesn't cut it if the procedures at GAAP are 'safe.'
Your words, not mine.
Leave it like it is (was) and there's no extra cost to industry. Any change will involve cost! Sorry, I cannot agree that changing from a 'proven system' to something else is justified because the 'cost is small.' Define 'small.'
To quote you:
Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
Your words, not mine.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that some are missing the elephant in the room?
Ambidji indicated that the 'risk was intolerable when compared to the CASA risk criteria' (paraphrased).
If the actual experience of operating Bankstown and the other GAAP airports for the last 30 years shows that in practice, accidents and serious incidents are not occuring as forecast by the risk model, then mabe, just maybe, CASA's risk model is wrong.
Dick - maybe rather than getting a bunch of non-aviation, but still academic and Australian, types to look at the Ambidji report, it might be better to get the FAA to do an analysis of Bankstown against the US criteria and settle the matter once and for all.
They could model Bankstown as a GAAP airport - and then as a US style Class D airport.
I don't propose you fund it, but surely CASA could seek FAA's assistance. At the very least it would expose some of CASA's risk gurus to world's best practice.
It might also be useful to get CASA to send their risk model to the FAA for evaluation and attenuation.
Ambidji indicated that the 'risk was intolerable when compared to the CASA risk criteria' (paraphrased).
If the actual experience of operating Bankstown and the other GAAP airports for the last 30 years shows that in practice, accidents and serious incidents are not occuring as forecast by the risk model, then mabe, just maybe, CASA's risk model is wrong.
Dick - maybe rather than getting a bunch of non-aviation, but still academic and Australian, types to look at the Ambidji report, it might be better to get the FAA to do an analysis of Bankstown against the US criteria and settle the matter once and for all.
They could model Bankstown as a GAAP airport - and then as a US style Class D airport.
I don't propose you fund it, but surely CASA could seek FAA's assistance. At the very least it would expose some of CASA's risk gurus to world's best practice.
It might also be useful to get CASA to send their risk model to the FAA for evaluation and attenuation.
Thread Starter
Howabout, with GAAP they only 80% copied the FAA class D system. I would prefer a like model that gives the advantages to all non radar towers in Australia.
Why won't you answer my point re the safety advantages of standardisation?
Why won't you answer my point re the safety advantages of standardisation?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhterrke Atnyeneteke, nice handle.
No; the validity of the 'report' is now a secondary issue. Regardless of the validity, or otherwise, of the Ambidji report, Dick has stated categorically that:
He instigated this debate.
Do I doubt the validity of the findings? - hell yes.
But Dick has not come back with an explanation as to the divergence between his (laudable) sentiment of no extra, unnecessary costs to industry and his comment that:
By the way Rhterrke Atnyeneteke, you come across as a bit of a school marm.
No; the validity of the 'report' is now a secondary issue. Regardless of the validity, or otherwise, of the Ambidji report, Dick has stated categorically that:
Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
Do I doubt the validity of the findings? - hell yes.
But Dick has not come back with an explanation as to the divergence between his (laudable) sentiment of no extra, unnecessary costs to industry and his comment that:
Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, God bless you; because you never answered my questions regarding your comments on GAAP and reconciled them with 'unnecessary costs on industry' for questionable safety gains.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hyperspace
Age: 51
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambidiji Report
I guess there is little disagreement about the reliability of the report itself. Recent changes which have been introduced, are in my view not justifiable give that the methodology used is flawed.
Nevertheless, I find it surprising that very little information about traffic movement or factual data on frequency congestions has been mentioned. It was briefly mentioned only in the survey and had a high response rate, but not discussed or any detailed recommendations where made. I would argue that while air traffic congestions is not the primary risk of MAC's, however the attempt to deal with such risks by CASA and Airservices is problematic.
The subsequent changes which have been introduced (limitations of aircraft in the cts) among others are unlikely to have significantly implications for safety risks as they currently stand. Yet holding outside a GAAP ZONE with no where to go, is asking for trouble.
Firstly, it would also be prudent to keep in mind that most pilots operating at BK are some of the most vunerable of pilot populations - those that are learning to fly. Therefore any restrictions on A/C allowed into the GAAP zones increases the likelihood of congestion among reporting point. This is hardly sensible. Moreover, considering also the closure of Hoxton Park and the occasional film shooting of Top Gear at Camden, one wonders where aircrafts are supposed to go, when things go wrong.
A few weeks back, 3 events in 3 days causing delays and runway closure made me think twice about sending my students to the T/A.
my 2 cents worth
j
Nevertheless, I find it surprising that very little information about traffic movement or factual data on frequency congestions has been mentioned. It was briefly mentioned only in the survey and had a high response rate, but not discussed or any detailed recommendations where made. I would argue that while air traffic congestions is not the primary risk of MAC's, however the attempt to deal with such risks by CASA and Airservices is problematic.
The subsequent changes which have been introduced (limitations of aircraft in the cts) among others are unlikely to have significantly implications for safety risks as they currently stand. Yet holding outside a GAAP ZONE with no where to go, is asking for trouble.
Firstly, it would also be prudent to keep in mind that most pilots operating at BK are some of the most vunerable of pilot populations - those that are learning to fly. Therefore any restrictions on A/C allowed into the GAAP zones increases the likelihood of congestion among reporting point. This is hardly sensible. Moreover, considering also the closure of Hoxton Park and the occasional film shooting of Top Gear at Camden, one wonders where aircrafts are supposed to go, when things go wrong.
A few weeks back, 3 events in 3 days causing delays and runway closure made me think twice about sending my students to the T/A.
my 2 cents worth
j
Last edited by joesch; 27th Aug 2009 at 09:04.
Thread Starter
Howabout , debating with you is like debating with my daughter when she was 14.
I will try again, I believe that Bankstown has some of the safest procedures I have seen in the world. One of the reasons for this is that the procedures were copied- but not exactly- from class D airports in the USA.
I want all non radar tower airports in Australia to follow- but more closely- that used in class D airports in the USA.
Then I believe we will receive the benefits all across Australia.
You seem to think that just because I believe that our GAAP procedures give a high level of safety that this cannot be improved upon .
I believe that going "the full monty" the system will even be better.
That's why I support the CASA decision to go to FAA style class D at all our non radar towers.
I will try again, I believe that Bankstown has some of the safest procedures I have seen in the world. One of the reasons for this is that the procedures were copied- but not exactly- from class D airports in the USA.
I want all non radar tower airports in Australia to follow- but more closely- that used in class D airports in the USA.
Then I believe we will receive the benefits all across Australia.
You seem to think that just because I believe that our GAAP procedures give a high level of safety that this cannot be improved upon .
I believe that going "the full monty" the system will even be better.
That's why I support the CASA decision to go to FAA style class D at all our non radar towers.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It seems to me Dick wants all the towers to become the same, so you can make them all ICAO D, FAA D or all GAAP.
All GAAP wont be acceptable = NO GOOD
ICAO D = Great for the existing D, but unworkable for the current GAAPs so NO GOOD
FAA D = Less service for the RPT/IFR in the current D environs and not so much different from GAAP anyway, so no real gains and some real losses....So NO GOOD
What is there to be gained here then????
Who comes up with these studies? And why do they get whisked into reality without a really good industry wide consultation.
I think someone sold the new CASA head a good sugar coated study in the aftermath of a serious accident and without taking time to digest it all acted on it. ooops!
How about we ditch the departure calls from D into G, and go back to ICAO D and GAAPs.....But employ some more ATC's for
sake! Stop wasting money on studies and BS and put it at the coal face!
J
Feel free to correct me where I am confused coz i am bound to be!
All GAAP wont be acceptable = NO GOOD
ICAO D = Great for the existing D, but unworkable for the current GAAPs so NO GOOD
FAA D = Less service for the RPT/IFR in the current D environs and not so much different from GAAP anyway, so no real gains and some real losses....So NO GOOD
What is there to be gained here then????
Who comes up with these studies? And why do they get whisked into reality without a really good industry wide consultation.
I think someone sold the new CASA head a good sugar coated study in the aftermath of a serious accident and without taking time to digest it all acted on it. ooops!
How about we ditch the departure calls from D into G, and go back to ICAO D and GAAPs.....But employ some more ATC's for
sake! Stop wasting money on studies and BS and put it at the coal face!J
Feel free to correct me where I am confused coz i am bound to be!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Dick, let me see if I'm correct.
The official Government position is still that NAS, based on US practice, is policy.
CASA stated at the most recent Senate hearings that they are following Government policy.
The head of the OAR at CASA said that he is committed to implementing NAS which is based on US practice and is Government policy.
And you are saying that CASA will NOT engage US experts to help NAS implementation, or to do a risk assessment or to compare procedures?
I REALLY think that you should be canvassing the powers that be to get them to DIRECT CASA's OAR to seek FAA assistance and sort this out.
I'm with you, Dick - let's get some experts in here to tell us what the US would do at places like Bankstown.
The official Government position is still that NAS, based on US practice, is policy.
CASA stated at the most recent Senate hearings that they are following Government policy.
The head of the OAR at CASA said that he is committed to implementing NAS which is based on US practice and is Government policy.
And you are saying that CASA will NOT engage US experts to help NAS implementation, or to do a risk assessment or to compare procedures?
I REALLY think that you should be canvassing the powers that be to get them to DIRECT CASA's OAR to seek FAA assistance and sort this out.
I'm with you, Dick - let's get some experts in here to tell us what the US would do at places like Bankstown.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
If what you say is correct, perhaps you might explain what you feel the 20% of FAA D comprises of that was not adopted for Australian GAAP?
Where have CASA stated that? When did they consult the industry? All we have seen formally from CASA is the Instrument which states Class D, not FAA D or DS D, and an AIC stating clearly ICAO D. Australia is an ICAO signatory, are you asking the DoAS, CASA and the minister to sign off on a non-ICAO, non-compliant, less safe form of D?
Why not retain GAAP (where Scheduled Passenger Transport Operations do not occur), and ICAO D (where Scheculed Passenger Transport Operations do occur)!
Nil cost, no reduction in safety, gives GA the traffic throughput they need at GAAP's, and retains International Standards protection for RPT at towered airports elsewhere!
If what you say is correct, perhaps you might explain what you feel the 20% of FAA D comprises of that was not adopted for Australian GAAP?
That's why i support the CASA decision to go to FAA style class D at all our non radar towers
Why not retain GAAP (where Scheduled Passenger Transport Operations do not occur), and ICAO D (where Scheculed Passenger Transport Operations do occur)!
Nil cost, no reduction in safety, gives GA the traffic throughput they need at GAAP's, and retains International Standards protection for RPT at towered airports elsewhere!
What I will be interested to see, as a current GAAP controller is the following.
Will we all get procedural approach ratings, as is the case at the other "D" towers?
Will the GAAP's as they are now get normal class D airspace, rather than the differring airspaces we currently have (for example JT 3nm rad, 1500'AMSL, BK Weird due to YSSY airspace, MB 3nm 2500'AMSL etc etc)?
What will be our requirements with parrallel runways as they are too close together for simops in class D?
There are a few other things but those ones have my interest at the moment.
Will we all get procedural approach ratings, as is the case at the other "D" towers?
Will the GAAP's as they are now get normal class D airspace, rather than the differring airspaces we currently have (for example JT 3nm rad, 1500'AMSL, BK Weird due to YSSY airspace, MB 3nm 2500'AMSL etc etc)?
What will be our requirements with parrallel runways as they are too close together for simops in class D?
There are a few other things but those ones have my interest at the moment.
Thread Starter
Clinton, I do not know of any class D airport in the USA which has two required entry points as we have at BK.
That's why my initial post referred to the control zone.
Remove the two compulsory reporting points and follow the proven safe FAA system and you have my support- especially if all non radar tower procedures are standardised.
AIRFOR, current government policy is clearly for the FAA nas system.
It will bring substantial advantages to Australian aviation. That's why it was selected.
FAA style D gives exceptionally safe outcomes for thousands of RPT passengers in the USA. Why would'nt it be the same here?
Keeping a system straight forward, standardised and simple for VFR pilots is the best way to go in my experience.
That's why my initial post referred to the control zone.
Remove the two compulsory reporting points and follow the proven safe FAA system and you have my support- especially if all non radar tower procedures are standardised.
AIRFOR, current government policy is clearly for the FAA nas system.
It will bring substantial advantages to Australian aviation. That's why it was selected.
FAA style D gives exceptionally safe outcomes for thousands of RPT passengers in the USA. Why would'nt it be the same here?
Keeping a system straight forward, standardised and simple for VFR pilots is the best way to go in my experience.
Thread Starter
AWOL, under the FAA system the class D tower controllers do not have procedural ratings- the IFR separation comes from the Centre- a far superior and safer system as the service is provided 24 hours per day.
That's why we need this safer NAS system here.
It will mean that RPT jets actually get a proper service at places like Launy or Hamilton Island even when the tower is not operating.
Let's hope the Government NAS policy comes in before the inevitable CFIT.
That's why we need this safer NAS system here.
It will mean that RPT jets actually get a proper service at places like Launy or Hamilton Island even when the tower is not operating.
Let's hope the Government NAS policy comes in before the inevitable CFIT.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
One of my points, several posts ago, was that CASA was stampeded into a bad decision by the inordinate pressure that is applied from without.
Secondly, I agree your contention that things could be improved - they always can be. But, if the following holds true:
;
then maybe the solution is to seek a decent fix that involves fine-tuning (with no appreciable costs to industry) rather than wholesale change (with associated costs to industry).
One of my points, several posts ago, was that CASA was stampeded into a bad decision by the inordinate pressure that is applied from without.
Secondly, I agree your contention that things could be improved - they always can be. But, if the following holds true:
Personally, I believe airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
then maybe the solution is to seek a decent fix that involves fine-tuning (with no appreciable costs to industry) rather than wholesale change (with associated costs to industry).