Merged: The Ambidji Report CASA should get their money back!
Thread Starter
CHARLIE, If GAAP changes to FAA NAS Class D as per Government policy there will be no cost increase or measurable change.
That's because GAAP was copied of FAA NAS Class D.
The advantage will be that all non radar towers will have simple standardised procedures.
That's because GAAP was copied of FAA NAS Class D.
The advantage will be that all non radar towers will have simple standardised procedures.
Thread Starter
ARFOR, Why hasn't the FAA logged a difference with ICAO in relation to the way you think FAA Class D differs from ICAO class D?
The reason is simple- they believe they comply with ICAO in relation to the points you have brought up.
I do to!
It's obvious you are doing everything you can to stop change.
Perhaps you are in a position where you will be responsible for bringing in the improvements but this is behond your expertise.
So you hide your name and do everything you can to stop the change.
Why else would you not post under your own name= no PPRUNE rules against doing so!
And by the way -in FAA class D IFR are separated from IFR by ATC in VMC.
The reason is simple- they believe they comply with ICAO in relation to the points you have brought up.
I do to!
It's obvious you are doing everything you can to stop change.
Perhaps you are in a position where you will be responsible for bringing in the improvements but this is behond your expertise.
So you hide your name and do everything you can to stop the change.
Why else would you not post under your own name= no PPRUNE rules against doing so!
And by the way -in FAA class D IFR are separated from IFR by ATC in VMC.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 29th Aug 2009 at 03:52.
Thread Starter
Charlie, What is the reason Jandakot will drop in movement numbers if it changes to FAA NAS ClassD?
I think someone is telling a furphy.
Van Nuys can do it with up to 600,000 movements per year- why not Jandakot?
I think someone is telling a furphy.
Van Nuys can do it with up to 600,000 movements per year- why not Jandakot?
Thread Starter
Grip, You are correct about the crazy desire for more complexity.
The FAA CTAF prescibed words are less than 160 in the FAR's
Our latest proposal is over 1000 words long!
Their's is simple,standardised and results in high compliance rates.
Our's is the opposite.
The FAA CTAF prescibed words are less than 160 in the FAR's
Our latest proposal is over 1000 words long!
Their's is simple,standardised and results in high compliance rates.
Our's is the opposite.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grip I don't disagree on the regulatory front.
With respect, industry was hoodwink'd into lets do something before, without the checks and balances, a 'crash or crash through' mantra. I am fairly certain you would be in the minority if you thought that exercise was cost effective, safe, worthwhile!
Attacking? No, enquiring, Yes, with little tangeble reason to embark on another airspace odyssey!
When he comes up with something valid, which is an improvement to the cost and safety bottom line, then I'm sure people would!
In the meatime he is back to the old tricks such as posters names!
Win the day on the merit of the argument Mr Smith, and leave the juvenile games out of the debate!
Lets do something different, might be good for you
- so instead of attacking and villifying Dick Smith for reminding you of the problem,
how about you actually say, thanks Dick you know we believe your right, lets do something about it.
In the meatime he is back to the old tricks such as posters names!
Win the day on the merit of the argument Mr Smith, and leave the juvenile games out of the debate!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What buggered the industry, pure and simple, was 'user-pays' and the notion that GA wouldn't have to pay (much) because it would be 'free in G.' Remember G=Good
? I still puke over that one.
Everything else is arrant nonsense. Additional edit: why do you think US AOPA is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep their federally funded system? Because they've seen the horror story on this side of the world!
? I still puke over that one.Everything else is arrant nonsense. Additional edit: why do you think US AOPA is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep their federally funded system? Because they've seen the horror story on this side of the world!
Moderator
Dick, Class D requires us to have 1000 feet vertical separation from cloud, which will stop all flights if the cloud base is below 2500 feet, there is also doubt about being able to use parallel runways.
A circuit cap from 10 to 6 means that we have to allocate our fixed costs over 40% less trade. More than 40% on single runway ops. How can that save costs? See my shop trading space and hours analogy?
I applaud having controllers present for longer hours but WE will be paying for it. Less movements, more controllers. Sure as eggs the Govt isn't going to subsidise it, it will come from our location specific charges.
Will you put your money where your mouth is, and if Class D works out more expensive, you will personally reimburse us all for the difference in perpetuity?
What we need is proper, throrough consultation, implementation and review. How can CASA know more the the locals about what is "good" for Jandakot, they closed thier office and buggered off years ago! We had a survey, but no consulation. That's the real issue here. I'm sure Class D could work well, but CASA shouldn't just ignore the concerns of the operators who work here and dictate to us, nor should anyone else unless they ahve spent at least ten years running an aviation business here!
A circuit cap from 10 to 6 means that we have to allocate our fixed costs over 40% less trade. More than 40% on single runway ops. How can that save costs? See my shop trading space and hours analogy?
I applaud having controllers present for longer hours but WE will be paying for it. Less movements, more controllers. Sure as eggs the Govt isn't going to subsidise it, it will come from our location specific charges.
Will you put your money where your mouth is, and if Class D works out more expensive, you will personally reimburse us all for the difference in perpetuity?
What we need is proper, throrough consultation, implementation and review. How can CASA know more the the locals about what is "good" for Jandakot, they closed thier office and buggered off years ago! We had a survey, but no consulation. That's the real issue here. I'm sure Class D could work well, but CASA shouldn't just ignore the concerns of the operators who work here and dictate to us, nor should anyone else unless they ahve spent at least ten years running an aviation business here!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think everyone's missing the point of the thread.
Dick says that the Ambidji Report says that Bankstown is unsafe if you use the CASA risk model. Everyone seems to be saying that what's being done now at Bankstown is actually OK in real practice.
So, obviously the CASA risk model is faulty and should be fixed.
Until then, you can argue 'till the cows come home about NAS and Class D and US procedures and all that stuff, but it will never pass any risk test CASA currently has, because they're saying what we have now is unsafe, which makes no sense at all.
Wouldn't it be better to talk about how CASA could develop a risk model that everyone can accept and which actually recognises what's really happening in the real world. If Dick's experts have inputs, good. If you guys have inputs, also good. Maybe CASA should open up an NPRM process to get practical inputs into risk models.
Dick says that the Ambidji Report says that Bankstown is unsafe if you use the CASA risk model. Everyone seems to be saying that what's being done now at Bankstown is actually OK in real practice.
So, obviously the CASA risk model is faulty and should be fixed.
Until then, you can argue 'till the cows come home about NAS and Class D and US procedures and all that stuff, but it will never pass any risk test CASA currently has, because they're saying what we have now is unsafe, which makes no sense at all.
Wouldn't it be better to talk about how CASA could develop a risk model that everyone can accept and which actually recognises what's really happening in the real world. If Dick's experts have inputs, good. If you guys have inputs, also good. Maybe CASA should open up an NPRM process to get practical inputs into risk models.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARFOR, congratulations!
You have entered the pantheon of those accused of 'hiding behind a pseudonym.'
This is a gold medal achievement and a high honour. Few are selected to be singled out in this manner.
I only got a meritorious mention for the following:
Yours is a rarely awarded distinction (only a few dozen times a year) - it's something to be envied and respected.
You have entered the pantheon of those accused of 'hiding behind a pseudonym.'
This is a gold medal achievement and a high honour. Few are selected to be singled out in this manner.
I only got a meritorious mention for the following:
Howabout , debating with you is like debating with my daughter when she was 14.
... have you considered changing your name to Realistic and Honest Pilot?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And CP, where did all of this pressure for change come from?
I'll tell you where - from individuals with political pull. From individuals who can panic a minister. From individuals who can promise to make the heat go away if we just adopt the US system.
CASA, in my opinion, has been stampeded. They were/are under incredible pressure to deliver 'something.' They made a bad call, an extremely bad call, but it's the product of a system that can be manipulated by vested interests.
I'll tell you where - from individuals with political pull. From individuals who can panic a minister. From individuals who can promise to make the heat go away if we just adopt the US system.
CASA, in my opinion, has been stampeded. They were/are under incredible pressure to deliver 'something.' They made a bad call, an extremely bad call, but it's the product of a system that can be manipulated by vested interests.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: blackstump
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not an expert on a lot of these issues. A lot of what I read on here is about trying to become informed and see the diference in opinions and not just accept the way things are carte blanche.
I often am dismayed at the comments about when people get into cost benefiet type situations. This is because some of the variables are often are left out and not measured because sometimes people haven't thought about all the variables. Whilst a lot of people take shots at dick smith. I do not know him personally, however reading his stuff he is a passionate about what he says. Can't fault the guy on that. Just as other people are just as passionate. Both parties are more knowledgable than I on the aspects of airspace that such a large contention exists at.
My reason for writing is this. I think part of this whole arguements seem to come down to what the system costs. What ever that system shall be is beyond my knowledge base. When I read ASA making 70 million of profit out of user pays system and the degradation of services even in my short term within the industry I certainly understand the frustration that the more experienced people have within the industry. It is similar to what governments have done in a lot of the provision of infrastructure. They seemingly have used a business model that doesn't reinvest into itself to provide growth and meet the future needs. I know that some officials use the arguement that the profit is a return on the investment that the public have made in setting up the infrastucture in the first place. Then why not keep the service as a consolidated revenue type of structure in the first place? This is that some parts of infrastrucure cross support each other. This is the idea behind the gst. It widens the tax base in such a way that spending in one area that is growing is able to provide finances to an area that requires input. The flow of mining industry that has flown to some health care provisions. In aviation is is such a high capital business with yields on investment quite low. It suffers markets constrictions due to monolopies of access. eg (Sydney Airport) Which adds to the cost of doing businesses as a lot of times if you want to do business in sydney as a consumer you virtually have no choice. Sydney Airport can almost charge whatever it likes. This is the same of what it appears to happens with enroute charging, tower access etc. From my limited understanding you used to have a levy on fuel supplies that paid for all that? So now if you want to do an ILS approach in sydney in a light twin for training purposes you can do it but it is going to cost you a couple hundred dollars(something that used to happen quite frequently at negligible cost), whilst richmond is also available you may also want exposure to class c airspace to meet that requirment the closest class c airspace is canberra. So you spend a couple hundred dollars in hours in flying to canberra. So that is a cost burden that is on aviation and it also has environmental concerns for all the extra fuel you burnt..yadda yadda.. Now the safety aspect. Which has the greater safety a function of time in the air or the air space that you are in? My understanding is and happy to be corrected on this that the bigger variable of influence is all measured in chances of occuring per flight hour. This is as airspace density changes we use different airspace systems to deal with the traffic flow. I know this is the point of this conversation about ensuring the design of the airspace is safe.
So higher class airspace requires more cost and yet we can't seemingly afford to pay for it. TO me it seems All because we have gone to a user pay system. Why can't we go back to a fuel levy system with the levy being used to fund the support of the system and provide support for the regional airports like taree thats surface is desperate needs of repair. Australia is a nation that has large distances that aviation can travel cost efficiently compared to all the other costs associated with the other modes which seemingly arn't modelled. I know this simplistic but I wonder if the true costs of maintaining 2kms of runway with the appropiate enroute and airspace charges is a fraction of the cost of maintaining any of the other modes of transport over the same distance.
Widen the "tax" base makes the system fairer on the whole. The gst has caught a lot of people out in the cash economy that used to fly under the raider or find the loop holes in the system. I don't know about you but I think it is fair if somebody is burning 13 tonnes of fuel an hour they pay more for the services rather than somebody that is burning 7kgs an hour. Yes I understand that in terms of airspace that an airplane is an airplane and requires similar space around it etc. SUch a system would encourage usage and the provision of infrastructure. Instead of the eroding of fuel availibility at other airports. I know of a lot of people that avoid some aerodromes cause of the inability to obtain fuel easily. People may drop in more. May even choose to stay and spend more $$$ in the area. It would also encourge competetion. Neighbouring airports may price the fuel in such a way to attract customets. LAnding fees and enroute charges seemingly seem as regressive type of structure.
Do trucks have to pay the rta every time they are pulled over in a weigh bridge and subject to an inspection? Or they charged for every road sign on the road that they use to see where they are going? My point is that yes they contribute to the costs of providing in the rego but I am sure if you did the numbers, some form of cross support would be happening.
If you widen the ways that inputs come in. You can afford to put on more staff, update technology and generate economies of scales that reduce the costs of doing business. To the benefiet of all in the system. Like putting more radar in.
I often am dismayed at the comments about when people get into cost benefiet type situations. This is because some of the variables are often are left out and not measured because sometimes people haven't thought about all the variables. Whilst a lot of people take shots at dick smith. I do not know him personally, however reading his stuff he is a passionate about what he says. Can't fault the guy on that. Just as other people are just as passionate. Both parties are more knowledgable than I on the aspects of airspace that such a large contention exists at.
My reason for writing is this. I think part of this whole arguements seem to come down to what the system costs. What ever that system shall be is beyond my knowledge base. When I read ASA making 70 million of profit out of user pays system and the degradation of services even in my short term within the industry I certainly understand the frustration that the more experienced people have within the industry. It is similar to what governments have done in a lot of the provision of infrastructure. They seemingly have used a business model that doesn't reinvest into itself to provide growth and meet the future needs. I know that some officials use the arguement that the profit is a return on the investment that the public have made in setting up the infrastucture in the first place. Then why not keep the service as a consolidated revenue type of structure in the first place? This is that some parts of infrastrucure cross support each other. This is the idea behind the gst. It widens the tax base in such a way that spending in one area that is growing is able to provide finances to an area that requires input. The flow of mining industry that has flown to some health care provisions. In aviation is is such a high capital business with yields on investment quite low. It suffers markets constrictions due to monolopies of access. eg (Sydney Airport) Which adds to the cost of doing businesses as a lot of times if you want to do business in sydney as a consumer you virtually have no choice. Sydney Airport can almost charge whatever it likes. This is the same of what it appears to happens with enroute charging, tower access etc. From my limited understanding you used to have a levy on fuel supplies that paid for all that? So now if you want to do an ILS approach in sydney in a light twin for training purposes you can do it but it is going to cost you a couple hundred dollars(something that used to happen quite frequently at negligible cost), whilst richmond is also available you may also want exposure to class c airspace to meet that requirment the closest class c airspace is canberra. So you spend a couple hundred dollars in hours in flying to canberra. So that is a cost burden that is on aviation and it also has environmental concerns for all the extra fuel you burnt..yadda yadda.. Now the safety aspect. Which has the greater safety a function of time in the air or the air space that you are in? My understanding is and happy to be corrected on this that the bigger variable of influence is all measured in chances of occuring per flight hour. This is as airspace density changes we use different airspace systems to deal with the traffic flow. I know this is the point of this conversation about ensuring the design of the airspace is safe.
So higher class airspace requires more cost and yet we can't seemingly afford to pay for it. TO me it seems All because we have gone to a user pay system. Why can't we go back to a fuel levy system with the levy being used to fund the support of the system and provide support for the regional airports like taree thats surface is desperate needs of repair. Australia is a nation that has large distances that aviation can travel cost efficiently compared to all the other costs associated with the other modes which seemingly arn't modelled. I know this simplistic but I wonder if the true costs of maintaining 2kms of runway with the appropiate enroute and airspace charges is a fraction of the cost of maintaining any of the other modes of transport over the same distance.
Widen the "tax" base makes the system fairer on the whole. The gst has caught a lot of people out in the cash economy that used to fly under the raider or find the loop holes in the system. I don't know about you but I think it is fair if somebody is burning 13 tonnes of fuel an hour they pay more for the services rather than somebody that is burning 7kgs an hour. Yes I understand that in terms of airspace that an airplane is an airplane and requires similar space around it etc. SUch a system would encourage usage and the provision of infrastructure. Instead of the eroding of fuel availibility at other airports. I know of a lot of people that avoid some aerodromes cause of the inability to obtain fuel easily. People may drop in more. May even choose to stay and spend more $$$ in the area. It would also encourge competetion. Neighbouring airports may price the fuel in such a way to attract customets. LAnding fees and enroute charges seemingly seem as regressive type of structure.
Do trucks have to pay the rta every time they are pulled over in a weigh bridge and subject to an inspection? Or they charged for every road sign on the road that they use to see where they are going? My point is that yes they contribute to the costs of providing in the rego but I am sure if you did the numbers, some form of cross support would be happening.
If you widen the ways that inputs come in. You can afford to put on more staff, update technology and generate economies of scales that reduce the costs of doing business. To the benefiet of all in the system. Like putting more radar in.
if it was my decision I would have recommended procedures at busy airports which would keep arriving and departing traffic apart where possible.
Be specific, how is it better? A simple example of how you would wish to operate into and out of BK....please?................pretty please?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cynical Pilot,
I agree when you say that what is happening now at BK is dangerous, in fact I strongly agree, but I disagree when you say that An Interested Party is
Doesnt the fact that the CASA risk model thinks that BK GAAP procedures ( as they were) are more dangerous than those that are now in place (i.e 6 in the circuit etc.) support both your arguments?
I agree when you say that what is happening now at BK is dangerous, in fact I strongly agree, but I disagree when you say that An Interested Party is
wrong!
Moderator
I have just had the most scary experience in 10 000 hours of flying.
Coming in from Boatyard, tracking to Adventureworld. Two people at Six South then get clearance denial. I am at Adventureworld and the frequency congestion from the clearance denials is such that I cannot get my ADWD call in. There are three other aircraft in the vicinity. I can't proceed without a clearance. If I turn, I come into conflict with other aircraft coming from behind. Had to do some slick manoevering and a wide sweep back to Powerhouse. Then got a clearance denial myself. Aircraft coming up behind me etc etc. Thank god it was me and not a student solo. It is the stuff that nightmares are made of.
Coming in from Boatyard, tracking to Adventureworld. Two people at Six South then get clearance denial. I am at Adventureworld and the frequency congestion from the clearance denials is such that I cannot get my ADWD call in. There are three other aircraft in the vicinity. I can't proceed without a clearance. If I turn, I come into conflict with other aircraft coming from behind. Had to do some slick manoevering and a wide sweep back to Powerhouse. Then got a clearance denial myself. Aircraft coming up behind me etc etc. Thank god it was me and not a student solo. It is the stuff that nightmares are made of.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Interested PARTY you are wrong! What is being done now at Bankstown is the most f***ing dangerous thing possibly ever. We have inexperienced pilots (some mayb on first area solo!) who are being MADE to HOLD at an INBOUND REPORTING POINT. That is not safe, it is the most dangerous thing I can imagine...
next time when departing the zone, when clear of the western zone border, the safest option might now be to descent to 500ft till well clear of the holding area. safe! i have never felt so fearful when flying aircraft as i have been entering and departing YSBK now.
This is getting scary. CFI, you need to call the ATSB on 1800 011 034
and then make an online report here
In fact ANYONE who even witnesses a conflict caused by procedure changes at the GAAP entry points needs to make a report.....this is far more important than arguing with Smith over the price of eggs. The more reports the more chance of restoring sanity.
and then make an online report here
In fact ANYONE who even witnesses a conflict caused by procedure changes at the GAAP entry points needs to make a report.....this is far more important than arguing with Smith over the price of eggs. The more reports the more chance of restoring sanity.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 30th Aug 2009 at 02:08. Reason: fixed link
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CFI........ pick a suitable day, and offer him a free ADVENTURE FLIGHT 
It may well be as exciting as a P51D ride for him!
As for the risk models.... just a basic point....of course its safer now, any idiot can see that. 6 A/C max is better than 8 or 10......
The problem is the congestion has been moved outside the "study zone" so its not a problem, of course until some bright spark realises the problems are now far outside the range of the eyes that may be able to help protect them!
It may well be as exciting as a P51D ride for him!
As for the risk models.... just a basic point....of course its safer now, any idiot can see that. 6 A/C max is better than 8 or 10......
The problem is the congestion has been moved outside the "study zone" so its not a problem, of course until some bright spark realises the problems are now far outside the range of the eyes that may be able to help protect them!
Moderator
Thanks Oz, I was doing that very thing as you posted! ATSB guy just told me to do the online report which I was going to do anyway. I hope that someone out there cares enough.
I told the tower guys when I landed it was the most dangerous situation I had ever been in in an aeroplane so they could have that on the tapes. Their reply "tell CASA!"
One of my dstaff was at SIXS at the time and reported two aircraft orbiting there.
as Oz says, everybody out there needs to tell ATSB, CASA. My phone is going to run hot on Monday to every CASA person I know. Meanwhile I hope they are enjoying thier nice weekends fishing or whatever they do.
But for god's sake keep the press out of it!
I told the tower guys when I landed it was the most dangerous situation I had ever been in in an aeroplane so they could have that on the tapes. Their reply "tell CASA!"
One of my dstaff was at SIXS at the time and reported two aircraft orbiting there.
as Oz says, everybody out there needs to tell ATSB, CASA. My phone is going to run hot on Monday to every CASA person I know. Meanwhile I hope they are enjoying thier nice weekends fishing or whatever they do.
But for god's sake keep the press out of it!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Class D requires us to have 1000 feet vertical separation from cloud, which will stop all flights if the cloud base is below 2500 feet.
.Special VFR clearances are available in D due both cloud and visibility. Aircraft operating on a Special VFR clearance due distance from cloud are only required to be separated from IFR aircraft and not from VFR or other Special VFR aircraft.