Merged: The Ambidji Report – CASA should get their money back!
Moderator
I think perhaps the title of this thread should be "CASA should get OUR money back!"
The mess we have at the moment is not what Ambidji recommended. It's been done, as far as I can tell, on a whim of someone who wants to look as if he is doing something, but having no understanding of operating in a GAAP, (thanks to not consulting with the GAAP operators on what the outcomes of this capping decision would be) has actually made the area around the GAAP much less safe.
If there is a MAC at an inbound reporting point he will have blood on his hands. Perhaps that is what it will take to stop this madness. The safety of everybody are being put at grave risk by this, never mind the loss of 40% of earning capacity.
Dick, I've operated in Class D in the USA and learned to fly in a Class A TMA. GAAP works best for the circumstances we have here, parallel runways etc, in my experience
The mess we have at the moment is not what Ambidji recommended. It's been done, as far as I can tell, on a whim of someone who wants to look as if he is doing something, but having no understanding of operating in a GAAP, (thanks to not consulting with the GAAP operators on what the outcomes of this capping decision would be) has actually made the area around the GAAP much less safe.
If there is a MAC at an inbound reporting point he will have blood on his hands. Perhaps that is what it will take to stop this madness. The safety of everybody are being put at grave risk by this, never mind the loss of 40% of earning capacity.
Dick, I've operated in Class D in the USA and learned to fly in a Class A TMA. GAAP works best for the circumstances we have here, parallel runways etc, in my experience
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Now we are getting somewhere!
What about
PSP - defined as between the nothern and southern banks of the reservoir
SWG - SouthWest Gate (vice 2RN) - defined as between the freeway and the 2RN mast
Lets drop all the rhetoric about D, retain GAAP where appropriate, and improve it (subject to analysis) where able!
Now we are getting somewhere!
What about
PSP - defined as between the nothern and southern banks of the reservoir
SWG - SouthWest Gate (vice 2RN) - defined as between the freeway and the 2RN mast
Lets drop all the rhetoric about D, retain GAAP where appropriate, and improve it (subject to analysis) where able!
Moderator
Another question for you Dick, if there are no set approach and departure points then will we have to deal with he inevitable noise complaints if we change airspace that has been carefully set up to address these and other issues by RAPAC?
Thread Starter
Charlie, If we change to FAA class D at our GAAP airports there will be no noticable difference for VFR pilots. IFR pilots will be able to get a safer service when VMC exists if they so desire.
AIRFOR, Why wouldn't we want to have the advantages of GAAP/FAA Class D at all of our non-radar towers?
AIRFOR, Why wouldn't we want to have the advantages of GAAP/FAA Class D at all of our non-radar towers?
Thread Starter
Say Again Slowly you say “Dick, where to now with the reports you commissioned?”.
Unfortunately, I don’t know. Do you have any suggestions?
When Airservices completed their E over D study – the one that showed E in Australia would be about 500 times less safe than the results of E in similar airspace in the USA – they simply stuck to their guns, ie. the “infallibility theory” that if you work for the government you are infallible.
They ignored Professor O’Neil’s report which made it clear that the Airservices report was flawed.
I imagine even now that people in the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA will be debunking and belittling the three Reviews.
Look for one “typo” or one minor error, and then claim that the whole Review is discredited, and they’ll probably follow what happens in the UK.
The Ambidji Report on page 60 discusses the British system where Air Traffic Controllers actually control aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. What unbelievable incompetence!
The Ambidji Report states in paragraph 7.2,
Don’t hold your breath – this will never happen. The British CAA has almost single-handedly destroyed general aviation in their country because of a complete lack of understanding of the advantages of copying the best and the realities of the marketplace.
We are probably half-way there now. I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better.
Unfortunately, I don’t know. Do you have any suggestions?
When Airservices completed their E over D study – the one that showed E in Australia would be about 500 times less safe than the results of E in similar airspace in the USA – they simply stuck to their guns, ie. the “infallibility theory” that if you work for the government you are infallible.
They ignored Professor O’Neil’s report which made it clear that the Airservices report was flawed.
I imagine even now that people in the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA will be debunking and belittling the three Reviews.
Look for one “typo” or one minor error, and then claim that the whole Review is discredited, and they’ll probably follow what happens in the UK.
The Ambidji Report on page 60 discusses the British system where Air Traffic Controllers actually control aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. What unbelievable incompetence!
The Ambidji Report states in paragraph 7.2,
“The review team could not establish what authority (if any) ATC had in this classification of airspace and it was surmised that a lot of reliance is placed on the natural tendency for pilots to follow ATC instructions”.
It all comes from a shocking lack of leadership in the British CAA. All they need to do is upgrade the airspace so it’s clear to any pilot coming from overseas that you are either controlled or you’re not.Don’t hold your breath – this will never happen. The British CAA has almost single-handedly destroyed general aviation in their country because of a complete lack of understanding of the advantages of copying the best and the realities of the marketplace.
We are probably half-way there now. I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Aug 2009 at 00:59.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
FAA D do not separate IFR and VFR, that is the same as GAAP!
Where is the data saying there is a safety problem between IFR and IFR operating in to and out of GAAP?
Why change something that is not broken!
Edited to add
Why wouldn't we want to have the advantages of GAAP/FAA Class D at all of our non-radar towers?
I put the question back to you
Why wouldn't we want to retain the additional safety advantages of ICAO D at all of our non-radar regional airports that, unlike GAAP, service a wide variety of mixed traffic including high speed, high-capacity RPT aircraft?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say Again Slowly you say “Dick, where to now with the reports you commissioned?”. Unfortunately, I don’t know. Do you have any suggestions?
There might be difference of opinion on a better option to GAAP, but you get a pat on the back from me for getting the ball rolling, no matter how large the boulder might be.
Thread Starter
ARFOR
I did not state that in FAA D that IFR and VFR are separated.
I did state that IFR could get a safer service when VMC exists. This is because in FAA Class D (and in ICAO D) if two aircraft remain IFR they must be separated by ATC. At the present time in our GAAP this does not happen. Of course, in the FAA Class D, one or the other pilot simply cancels IFR or changes to VFR and they then get the equivalent service to what we now offer in GAAP.
Just because we have not had an accident between two IFR aircraft operating in and out of GAAP does not mean we won’t have one. The US FAA with fifteen times the traffic density can offer an ICAO separation service between IFR in all of their 350 Class D non-radar towers. Why can’t we?
We have never had a fatality from a mid-air airline crash in Australia. Does that mean we don’t need air traffic control?
Of course not.
ARFOR, you also say “why change something that is not broken”. For good reason. Pilots from anywhere else in the world would have no idea what GAAP airspace is. If it’s marked as Class D, they know what the procedures are. That was the whole reason that ICAO changed all the many airspace descriptions to the ICAO alphabet classifications.
If I go to the USA, Canada, or indeed France – look on the chart and see an E or a D and I know what service I will get. If a French or American pilot came here, they would have to learn what GAAP was. If we can have an international road rule and sign system, why can’t we have something similar in aviation?
I did not state that in FAA D that IFR and VFR are separated.
I did state that IFR could get a safer service when VMC exists. This is because in FAA Class D (and in ICAO D) if two aircraft remain IFR they must be separated by ATC. At the present time in our GAAP this does not happen. Of course, in the FAA Class D, one or the other pilot simply cancels IFR or changes to VFR and they then get the equivalent service to what we now offer in GAAP.
Just because we have not had an accident between two IFR aircraft operating in and out of GAAP does not mean we won’t have one. The US FAA with fifteen times the traffic density can offer an ICAO separation service between IFR in all of their 350 Class D non-radar towers. Why can’t we?
We have never had a fatality from a mid-air airline crash in Australia. Does that mean we don’t need air traffic control?
Of course not.
ARFOR, you also say “why change something that is not broken”. For good reason. Pilots from anywhere else in the world would have no idea what GAAP airspace is. If it’s marked as Class D, they know what the procedures are. That was the whole reason that ICAO changed all the many airspace descriptions to the ICAO alphabet classifications.
If I go to the USA, Canada, or indeed France – look on the chart and see an E or a D and I know what service I will get. If a French or American pilot came here, they would have to learn what GAAP was. If we can have an international road rule and sign system, why can’t we have something similar in aviation?
Thread Starter
ARFOR
There are no “additional safety advantages” of ICAO Class D over FAA Class D. If there were, the United States with 350 Class D airports would change to this, and end up with a higher level of safety.
The real difference between our Class D and the FAA Class D is the simple clearance request for entering the zone and the removal of the useless VFR departure call.
Under ICAO and under FAA Class D, IFR are given traffic on VFR.
By having simple, standardised procedures for all of our non-radar towers, we will get higher compliance and therefore, I believe, higher safety levels.
Even if we don’t go to higher safety levels, surely making something simpler and standardised is better.
There are no “additional safety advantages” of ICAO Class D over FAA Class D. If there were, the United States with 350 Class D airports would change to this, and end up with a higher level of safety.
The real difference between our Class D and the FAA Class D is the simple clearance request for entering the zone and the removal of the useless VFR departure call.
Under ICAO and under FAA Class D, IFR are given traffic on VFR.
By having simple, standardised procedures for all of our non-radar towers, we will get higher compliance and therefore, I believe, higher safety levels.
Even if we don’t go to higher safety levels, surely making something simpler and standardised is better.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
You acknowledge the point being made!
How are they 'separating' IFR and IFR? 
, the same way GAAP controllers separate when Restricted VFR op's are in progress
The next point you raise is a good one
Pilots from anywhere else in the world, would read the local documents to know how to follow procedures, which after all shall be no different to that which they receive in the non-ICAO compliant US D airspaces. (note the US has lodged differences listed with ICAO for this reason)
This is where your argument falls down. The fact that the US call their airspace D is potentially misleading as they do not provide the services as described by ICAO for D, including the service application definitions. For overseas pilots operating into the US, this could be a protential problem. Obviously pilots would study the airspaces and system before they went
Correct, for two of those countries because those have ICAO D airspace! Which would be transparent to a pilot expecting less, but getting more, not the other way around!
Those foreign pilots are alerted to the fact that the rules may be different because it is called GAAP, not called D that isn't!
We do, + calling GAAP GAAP highlights the difference from ICAO D, and is a sensible approach to highlighting a service difference. What you propose takes us away from that worldwide standard system!
Just because we have not had an accident between two IFR aircraft operating in and out of GAAP
The US FAA with fifteen times the traffic density can offer an ICAO separation service between IFR in all of their 350 Class D non-radar towers. Why can’t we?
, the same way GAAP controllers separate when Restricted VFR op's are in progress The next point you raise is a good one
Pilots from anywhere else in the world would have no idea what GAAP airspace is.
If it’s marked as Class D, they know what the procedures are. That was the whole reason that ICAO changed all the many airspace descriptions to the ICAO alphabet classifications.
If I go to the USA, Canada, or indeed France – look on the chart and see an E or a D and I know what service I will get.
If a French or American pilot came here, they would have to learn what GAAP was.
If we can have an international road rule and sign system, why can’t we have something similar in aviation?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ambidji claim that there was “intolerable” risk now seems to have been discredited.
Under the circumstances shouldn't CASA immediately remove the restrictions and changes that were placed because that claim was made?
Under the circumstances shouldn't CASA immediately remove the restrictions and changes that were placed because that claim was made?
Thread Starter
ARFOR
You state,
ARFOR, other than the different terminology for a clearance request for VFR aircraft, I do not know what other differences there are.
What services are not provided by FAA Controllers in Class D that are provided by Controllers in other ICAO Class D?
I look forward to your answer to this difficult question.
You state,
The fact that the US call their airspace D is potentially misleading as they do not provide the services as described by ICAO for D, including the service application definitions
What services are not provided by FAA Controllers in Class D that are provided by Controllers in other ICAO Class D?
I look forward to your answer to this difficult question.
Dick,
Total red herring. Who said anything about full reporting VFR when OCTA? Let it go, Dick.
I'm also glad to see Dick would like to set up our airspace system to accomodate visiting pilots.
and leap back to the 1950's with mandatory full position reporting for VFR!
But who's going to pay for the extra FSO's ?
But who's going to pay for the extra FSO's ?
I'm also glad to see Dick would like to set up our airspace system to accomodate visiting pilots.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, old bean. Regarding your comment on the UK that states:
I seem to remember some of the most enthusiastic NAS proponents extolling the US system because it does precisely the same thing. Something along the lines of 'In the super-friendly US system, the controllers don't worry about whether it's E or G, they just get on and offer a service. Why can't we have the same here?'
Which then led to a protracted debate on liability issues if our controllers attempted to do the same, ie provide a control service in G - what would happen if they induced an aluminium rain-shower in airspace that was designated as providing traffic info only?
Bloggs, do you have a similar recollection? I will willingly retract, but I think my memory is not that addled in regard to purported US practices during the NAS nightmare.
ARFOR, spot on, you beat me to the punch. A difference is a difference; you can't be a little bit pregnant. You're either compliant with an internationally harmonised rule-set or you choose to adopt a 'unique system' that's not used anywhere else in the world.
Finally, with respect to:
Ergo, there are no additional safety advantages of FAA Class D over ICAO Class D. Once again Dick, you are asking us to agree to increased costs for industry, in converting to a 'unique system,' for no additional safety improvement.
I question whether such an outcome would pass the cost/benefit test.
The Ambidji Report on page 60 discusses the British system where Air Traffic Controllers actually control aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. What unbelievable incompetence!
Which then led to a protracted debate on liability issues if our controllers attempted to do the same, ie provide a control service in G - what would happen if they induced an aluminium rain-shower in airspace that was designated as providing traffic info only?
Bloggs, do you have a similar recollection? I will willingly retract, but I think my memory is not that addled in regard to purported US practices during the NAS nightmare.
ARFOR, spot on, you beat me to the punch. A difference is a difference; you can't be a little bit pregnant. You're either compliant with an internationally harmonised rule-set or you choose to adopt a 'unique system' that's not used anywhere else in the world.
Finally, with respect to:
There are no “additional safety advantages” of ICAO Class D over FAA Class D. If there were, the United States with 350 Class D airports would change to this, and end up with a higher level of safety.
I question whether such an outcome would pass the cost/benefit test.
Howdabout,
Certainly do. The AsA delegation that went to the US to study the US NAS was told by the head FAA honcho that IFR in G are given clearances. RBA put it in his visit report. So much for Dick's Class G dirt road airspace...
Bloggs, do you have a similar recollection? I will willingly retract, but I think my memory is not that addled in regard to purported US practices during the NAS nightmare.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The technique, now, is to allow a plethora of responses that bury the points that I and others have questioned - so they're forgotten by page 7.
Any chance that we back off till we get a response?
Any chance that we back off till we get a response?
Mr Smith, Short of reducing the size of RIC airspace, accessing the Holswothy live firing range and gaining a lane of entry from Picnic Point to the east of Lucas heights, your suggestion for FAA D is a losing bet. It would be no different to GAAP.