Merged: The Ambidji Report CASA should get their money back!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, with respect, you did not answer the question
As far as Scheduled Passenger Transport Operations are concerned, have you looked at the number and disposition of NMAC and MAC's that have occured in US D and E airspace?
How many MAC's have occured in Australian ICAO D tower airspaces?
Have you compared the two?
What problem is there with ICAO D? that urgently needs costly change to a less safe procedure set (US D/GAAP) at passenger transport operations locations in Australia?
perhaps you might explain what you feel the 20% of FAA D comprises of that was not adopted for Australian GAAP?
How many MAC's have occured in Australian ICAO D tower airspaces?
Have you compared the two?
What problem is there with ICAO D? that urgently needs costly change to a less safe procedure set (US D/GAAP) at passenger transport operations locations in Australia?
Thread Starter
Howabout, You don't seem to understand that the GAAP system was a copy of the FAA system with some unique Australian changes that were forced in by some troglodites.
What's wrong with following the full proven system?
It works very well in the USA with far greater traffic densities and standardised procedures right across the country.
And it is Government policy
What's wrong with following the full proven system?
It works very well in the USA with far greater traffic densities and standardised procedures right across the country.
And it is Government policy
Thread Starter
AIRFOR, the US NAS system is clearly safer for RPT because the IFR service is provided from the ATC centre 24 hours per day-not our pathetic system which provides no control service for many jet RPT operations.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Again !
As predicatable,your 2 cents worth has been spoken.I noticed your usual response Dick with comments such as 'I want 'my point' 'I will', basically me me and more me.Well, life,aviation,and generally the entire world doesnt revolve around 'what you want, wish for,desire or believe'. Certainly you are entitled to your opinions, no argument there, but somewhere in life somebody must have sold you the idea that 'you are the Yoda of aviation -all wise,all knowledgeable,all wisdom and always correct ? Wrong !
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etrust, I tend to agree
Mr Smith,
Pathetic system? I thought the Australian safety record was good, isn't it?
You are not referring to Australian tower and approach services then? OCTA problems are separate to this subject!
I honestly don't get what it is you are arguing for? FAA D by your own admission does not separate aircraft. Surely separation is an integral part of a control service to IFR and VFR aircraft?
The GAAP issue (ambidji and CASA) relates to MAC's, your agenda seems to be something else!
Mr Smith,
not our pathetic system
which provides no control service for many jet RPT operations.
I honestly don't get what it is you are arguing for? FAA D by your own admission does not separate aircraft. Surely separation is an integral part of a control service to IFR and VFR aircraft?
The GAAP issue (ambidji and CASA) relates to MAC's, your agenda seems to be something else!
Thread Starter
ARFOR I am referring to our non service after the tower goes home.
In other leading aviation countries the ATC centre provides the IFR approach service 24 hours per day.
Only in Australia do we remove the ATC at night when safety shows it is most wanted.
Why can't our en -route controllers in the centre be trained to do approach work?
Resistance to copying the best from around the world is the answer.
Stick with a NOMAD airspace system until we have an accident?
Probably.
By the way. In our existing Class D, following ICAO , ATC are not responsible for providing a separation service between IFR and VFR.
In other leading aviation countries the ATC centre provides the IFR approach service 24 hours per day.
Only in Australia do we remove the ATC at night when safety shows it is most wanted.
Why can't our en -route controllers in the centre be trained to do approach work?
Resistance to copying the best from around the world is the answer.
Stick with a NOMAD airspace system until we have an accident?
Probably.
By the way. In our existing Class D, following ICAO , ATC are not responsible for providing a separation service between IFR and VFR.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Aug 2009 at 13:00.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why can't our en -route controllers in the centre be trained to do approach work?
This is about GAAP and becoming D of some flavour, and our ICAO D becoming ...err..err..GAAP.
In my best souther accent....."Yaoll , It jurst donnnt make sheense!!"
Why can't our en -route controllers in the centre be trained to do approach work?
Resistance to copying the best from around the world is the answer.
Resistance to copying the best from around the world is the answer.
For the 53rd millionth time we don't have the controllers, the training resources, the sectors or equipment to do it
You are the one showing total & utter resistance. You've been told this again & again & again but still trot out the "resistance" line.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didk,
Just for the record, could you jot down some for and against notes on Aus Class D vs US Class D vs GAAP?
This thread as usual has turned into a girlie slanging match and for once....just this once I might add!.....I'm taking a professional interest in something posted on this website!!
Really just want to know where you're coming from.
Cheers
Just for the record, could you jot down some for and against notes on Aus Class D vs US Class D vs GAAP?
This thread as usual has turned into a girlie slanging match and for once....just this once I might add!.....I'm taking a professional interest in something posted on this website!!
Really just want to know where you're coming from.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
On this point we are in partial agreement, but rather than the centre, why are the towers not operating to cover scheduled PTO services, especially high-cap RPT? In most locations that is the case, in some it is not, which might relate to the point others have made about available resources.
Surely you are not advocating o/night surveillance approach services in many many locations for the odd freighter here or there?
That is interesting, could you share your data on this. The last 3 CFIT accidents in this country were OCTA during the day!
That appears to be completely incorrect based on 'quoted' information regarding the requirements of an 'Air Traffic Control Service' & 'preventing collisions' posted on another site regarding this subject.
I am referring to our non service after the tower goes home.
Surely you are not advocating o/night surveillance approach services in many many locations for the odd freighter here or there?
Only in Australia do we remove the ATC at night when safety shows it is most wanted.
By the way. In our existing Class D, following ICAO , ATC are not responsible for providing a separation service between IFR and VFR.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problems have occurred because crazy differences like two mandatory reporting points were introduced.
At places like CN they have the luxury of being surrounded by Class G and can accommodate 5 IRP's, but BK is constrained by Class C to the east and military restricted to the south. I might be missing something but without considerable airspace change around some terminal areas, I dont see how Class D will solve the above mentiond problems. Surely you still need segregated inbound and outbound tracks for VFR aircraft?
That appears to be completely incorrect based on 'quoted' information regarding the requirements of an 'Air Traffic Control Service' & 'preventing collisions' posted on another site regarding this subject
Im sure that site has it's merits, but I think AIP might trump it when it comes to ATS provided in airpace classes
In Class D airspace, IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all
flights are provided with an air traffic control service. IFR flights are
separated from other IFR and Special VFR flights, and receive
traffic information in respect of VFR flights.
flights are provided with an air traffic control service. IFR flights are
separated from other IFR and Special VFR flights, and receive
traffic information in respect of VFR flights.
AIP ENR 17.1.1
The problems have occurred because crazy differences like two mandatory reporting points were introduced.
) threads to no avail - and it is a genuine question - The report looks at a couple of busy airports in the US and Canada and they seem to have inbound VFR points/lanes and dedicated outbound tracks.
Can someone show a non-radar Class D tower anywhere (FAA, ICAO, whatever) with more than 300,000 movements a year that does not have VFR approach points/VFR routes?
Thread Starter
CB, Routes are quite different to points. With a route the most likely collision point is spread out along the route- with a point the collision will most likely take place at that point-especially if it is as exact as a radio mast.
I am a PPL. I've missed the hoo haa over this since for the last Two months I've been otherwise occupied (building a boat). I would normally fly about one hour of circuits or suchlike a week at YMMB just to keep my hand in, with longer trips once or twice a year.
I have yet to experience the new changes, but I was noticing for at leats the last Eighteen months that circuit conditions were becoming marginal at YMMB on occasions. This usually occurred when there were 6+ students in the YMMB circuit, of whom perhaps Two or Three were "wandering all over the sky" like we all did when we started. Add to that inbound aircraft from GMH and Academy (for the eastern strip), perhaps requesting circuits on arrival, and things became busy enough to hear a little stress in a controllers voice ("Waggle your wings, which one are you?", etc.).
At that point I usually ended my own practice and got out of the way.
I will try the new system shortly. I fail to understand the clearance requirement for inactive strips, and I think instructions to land for a full stop in the event of incoming aircraft (if these are actually given) are bizarre.
If they interfere with my flying, I will go somewhere else, or out of the activity altogether. I think others will too. Melbourne has/had what would be almost perfect GA facilities if YPCK, YMEN and YMMB were used as they should be, but that is never going to happen thanks to a brain dead tstate Government, property developers and of course our dear friends in Canberra.
I have yet to experience the new changes, but I was noticing for at leats the last Eighteen months that circuit conditions were becoming marginal at YMMB on occasions. This usually occurred when there were 6+ students in the YMMB circuit, of whom perhaps Two or Three were "wandering all over the sky" like we all did when we started. Add to that inbound aircraft from GMH and Academy (for the eastern strip), perhaps requesting circuits on arrival, and things became busy enough to hear a little stress in a controllers voice ("Waggle your wings, which one are you?", etc.).
At that point I usually ended my own practice and got out of the way.
I will try the new system shortly. I fail to understand the clearance requirement for inactive strips, and I think instructions to land for a full stop in the event of incoming aircraft (if these are actually given) are bizarre.
If they interfere with my flying, I will go somewhere else, or out of the activity altogether. I think others will too. Melbourne has/had what would be almost perfect GA facilities if YPCK, YMEN and YMMB were used as they should be, but that is never going to happen thanks to a brain dead tstate Government, property developers and of course our dear friends in Canberra.