Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

Old 31st Mar 2014, 06:53
  #361 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
I was told today that an AsA employee was actually bragging that they forced the China Southern Airbus to fly across Australia at FL280 with its 200+ unsuspecting passengers.

That is, they don't just stuff up business aviation operators - they will do the same to the Airlines!

I ask again- can someone confirm Phelans story in post 350- that is a non ADSB equipped G5 was allowed to fly in the mandatory airspace?

Is there any other info of ATC's and their managers acting responsibly on this issue ?

It's clearly just shear barstardry so AsA can get an award for being first in the world as previously stated on this thread.

Let's hope an accident is not caused by an aircraft running out of fuel on approach in Asia.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 07:21
  #362 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Can someone advise me of what military aircraft would require the dispensation to fly above FL290 ?

I presume the fact the dispensations are available ( or more to the point, there is no requirement ) means some military aircraft that fly above FL 290 require are not fitted.

Any ideas?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 08:36
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 577
Dick
For years I have put up with your self indulgent rants on here about things that don't suit you.
Put up or shut up. Who told you it was deliberate? Have YOU reported that to ASA, ATSB or CASA or to the minister for transport? If it was a deliberate action it requires reporting.
Put up or shut up
PS - I'm not even an ATC, nor do I have anything to do with ASA in fact I do battle with them all the time but your rants painting everyone with the same brush are just ridiculous IMHO.
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 09:53
  #364 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Ozbikkies, you are totally wrong.

There is no self interest in this particular case. If I was to be forced to fly lower and use more fuel ( hasn't happened yet) I would simple donate less that year to particular causes I support so my total outgoings would be the same.

Now I know this probably makes you mad - but it's the fact.

But this is not the case with a number of business jet charter operators. A couple I know are really hurting financially from this unique requirement .

Safety will then suffer.

Also I can make a personal decision on whether or not I wish to fly at the lower levels- the airline passenger is not even informed.

You ask. " who told you it is deliberate". What is "it" I don't know what you are actually referring to.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 10:36
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 577
I have to explain your own post to you? I know I don't, you know what you think you are doing
You said in your first paragraph you had been told an ASA employees was bragging they had forced the China Southern Flight to fly outside the ADSB levels thus inferring that he was happily endangering the unsuspecting passengers...that was the intent of your post...do you deny that was the case, if so please clarify that. Then you inferred that all the ASA employes are happy about it...in fact have a look back at your title for this topic, it has been your intent to wind people up.
Now if you believe that was the case you should report it, rather than post the old someone unnamed told me something, it could have been the kid who was shovelling Fries in McDonalds for all we know.
Would it make me mad to hear you got forced to fly lower? No, I wouldn't care.
You say business jet charter operators are suffering financially? Really, the ones who can afford to operate shiny business jets around for the rich and famous...must be rough after forking out a few million for your Biz Jet.
Now you may have a case regarding ADSB, you may not. But you discredit yourself the way you try to prosecute your argument.
It does take me back however when you start talking about affordable safety
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 12:14
  #366 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
I can't believe this. Do you think we can have " unaffordable safety"

Or don't you like people being told the truth?

I can see why you don't post under your real name.

Why do you reckon the plane had to fly across Australia at FL 280?

Why wasn't the crew offered a higher level compliant with the current ADSB regulation?

Oh. I know. They should have been familiar with our rules and applied!

Nothing to do with the ATC's who kept them at that level- they were just following orders from clearly incompetent managers
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2014, 12:26
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 556
Unfortunately 'Affordable Safety' seems to be just like 'Worlds Best Practice'.
In the hands of dictators who won't spend a cent more than they are forced to, it leads to the lowest possible standard.
Are we there yet?
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 04:36
  #368 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Most australian GA operators would say just the opposite. That the standards are the most expensive to comply with because there is a one way ratchet of putting "safety" in front of cost considerations.


Come on does anyone know what military aircraft fly above FL290 that are not ADSB equipped . Orion's ?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 04:57
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 156
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

Dick, E737s (Wedgetails), F/A-18s and BAe Hawks are not ADS-B equipped.
Any visiting foreign Military or Head-of-State carrying aircraft are also allowed in ADS-B airspace without the equipment.

I can tell you that the ATCs concerned, far from "bragging about forcing the aircraft to fly at FL280" were embarrassed and concerned about having to enforce this, and pleaded with the supervisor to make sure that this did absolutely have to be applied (and I believe he fully investigated any work-arounds).

The controllers have been issued directives to say they have no leniency or interpretive allowances in the application of these instructions. It is law, and they break the law at the peril of their continued employment.

The controllers involved wished they could have coached the crew in the declaration of a "Mercy Flight" to get the restriction waived
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 06:32
  #370 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Two fifty
Thanks. That's what I would have thought. By the way It was not an ATC who did the bragging It was a person from middle management at AsA who was trying to show that it wasn't just business aircraft that were being refused entry into the airspace. ie - AsA were being consistent in applying the ban.

However there is one mystery. The ADSB regulation clearly allows for up to three days of operation in the airspace if the equipment is faulty. Why wasn't China Southern allowed this dispensation? Surely your ATCs know this dispensation is approved by CASA - or am I mistaken!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 06:45
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 156
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

I believe that approval needs to be sought ( by the airline or the crew) and granted before operating the flight.
I'm wondering if the outbound crew even knew about the condition of the equipment (if it was brought to their attention), seeing as it was inconsequential to the inbound crew who continued operating above F280 when either the equipment failed, or it was realized that it wasn't working ... that is to say, perhaps it was only within range of Australian equipment it became apparent it was not working
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 20:30
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 577
I'm sorry Dick that you don't realise that this is an anonymous rumour internet site.
But you did get one thing right, the company involved should have known the rules and applied for the dispensation.
I really don't have time to find all the examples here of you blaming ATCs for this, not just the mangers as you now claim ( doesn't sort of suggest that in the title now does it ) but I guess I will find some time.
I think 250 puts it all in print nicely.
And I do like the truth, not wrongly directed half donkey campaigns.
And if you are so big into names...name your source...and have you reported this to anyone yet other than an anonymous internet web site?
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2014, 00:27
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,684
C'mon Dick, are you seriously expecting ATCs to apply for a legal dispensation on behalf of an airline? Why would we know anything about that? It's not just a verbal approval or something we can approve ourselves.

Haven't you got your head around the fact that it's all part of CAOs so is law? The politicians and CASA are the ones you need to be badgering not ATCs. I think the rigidity is stupid as well, but the law says that's the way it is so we have no leeway.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2014, 16:12
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 156
ADS-B Mandate – ATCs Responsible for Deaths?

Sorry, to my list of ADF aircraft negative-ADS-B add the C130J. And what levels do they like? F290-F310!
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2014, 23:31
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
How "Dangerous" is it flying at F280

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Is there that much "safety" difference between F280 and F350?
I've been on plenty of domestic and international flights that have chosen to fly at that level, presumably because of favourable winds.
Is it that more difficult to avoid CBs at that level?
The point about dodging other aircraft is a bit rich, as I thought you'd be in CTA at that level.

I understand it's economically nasty, but using extra fuel is only a safety issue if you haven't planned for it.

Where's the safety issue?
peuce is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 03:26
  #376 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,150
Quite often you can fly above an embedded line of thunderstorms when above FL 410 but right in them at FL280.

Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.

I don't blame the ATCs for this- they would like to be able to handle the small number of non ADSB compliant aircraft in the safest way but are not allowed to.

But wait and see who will be given part of the responsibility when an accident occurs. Suggest you look up the Navair mid air at Bankstown many decades ago.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 03:51
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,745
Quite often you can fly above an embedded line of thunderstorms when above FL 410
Good luck with that.

Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.
You know you're not allowed above 280; plan that way. If you do get above, it's a bonus.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 07:59
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
I've been trying hard to keep away from this, but I can't let this one go

Also extra fuel usage means less reserves- wait for a repeat of Norfolk Island accident where the aircraft was held low because it could not get a RVSM dispensation.

The flight departed Samoa at 0545, and initially climbed to flight level 350 (FL350) in airspace that was controlled from New Zealand. High frequency (HF) radio was used for long distance radio communication between the aircraft and air traffic control (ATC) and very high frequency (VHF) radio for line of sight radio communications with airport service providers.

At 0628, when the aircraft was approaching the intended cruising level of FL350, ATC instructed the flight crew to descend to FL270 by time 0650 in order to maintain separation with crossing traffic. The flight crew later reported to ATC that a descent to that altitude would have increased the aircraft’s fuel consumption and requested a climb to a higher flight level. At 0633, ATC issued an amended clearance for the flight crew to climb to FL390 and the aircraft was established at this level at 0644.The flight continued at FL390 until the descent into Norfolk Island.
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 12:40
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
From the horses mouth.

Hansard from AAI inquiry 22/10/12 (my bold):


Senator FAWCETT: In your opinion, given that the aircraft was not RVSM equipped, was the pressure to get above the 41,000 feet a significant factor in your thinking for the fuel load that you took out of the origin that day?

Mr James : It was a factor and had been an issue that I had had difficulties with in the past, and I was mindful of it.

Senator FAWCETT: Just for the committee, RVSM is airspace where air traffic control can apply reduced separation minima vertically between aircraft, but the aircraft has to be calibrated, if you like, with appropriate equipment to be able to fly there. If you have to go below that you have to use a lot more fuel, which is why it is a consideration operationally. So if you were flying below the RVSM airspace, what flight level would that be—280 or 290, or something around there?

Mr James : I believe it is 280.

Senator FAWCETT: Given the all-up weight considerations of the aircraft with a medical kit on board, can you uplift sufficient fuel to fly below RVSM airspace and hold fuel for your abnormal operations or, if required, an alternative for Norfolk Island?

Mr James : I do not believe you can. I believe you can nearly do so, but, from my understanding, I do not think it can be done.

Senator FAWCETT: Did you ever reflect that back to the company—that, essentially, what you were being asked to do was not actually technically possible?

Mr James : I had two opportunities with the company where they sought my feedback. The first time they simply wanted an account of what took place, and, on the second occasion, it was apparent to me that they had formed a very strong opinion as to who was responsible for the accident, and I did not think that an involved discussion about detail was going to achieve anything.

Senator NASH: On that, what made you think that? That second meeting, you were just saying, led you to form that view—that they had formed the view, obviously, that it was your responsibility. What led you to believe that?

Mr James : They said that. They said as much. Mick was present at that meeting. I was told that—

Senator EDWARDS: In what role were you present at that meeting, Mr Quinn?

CHAIR: And is there anything you would like to add about the capacity in which you appear today?

Mr Quinn : I appear in a private capacity and also as representative of Captain James. My role was: as Dominic was not a member of the union at that stage, he had contacted me and asked me if I would advise him, and Pel-Air allowed me to represent Captain James as an advocate, from a technical point of view, in the Pel-Air committee.

Senator NASH: When they said they had formed that view, what evidence did they give you that led them to form that view?

CHAIR: Could I also raise a procedural matter: at some stage soon, we will go in camera with you as the witness; if you feel you want to give us answers in camera that you do not want to give in public, you may take that—

Senator XENOPHON: Can I ask one question before we go in camera?
Sorry, Senator Nash; were you still—

Senator NASH: It was just that one that I had.

Mr James : I am happy to proceed with these questions. The comment was made to me, 'Are you not aware that, at all times, Pel-Air aircraft carry full fuel?' I replied, 'No, I'm not.' And then I asked, 'Where exactly is that set down in a document?' They were not able to point me in the direction of any such reference. They also said that, had I carried this additional fuel, I would have been able to arrive above Norfolk Island and divert to Noumea. In an email exchange that followed—I thought about what had been said and I wanted to add something on my behalf—they said the fuel would have got me there. I then said, 'What you are considering is the flight fuel, and if you add the reserve fuel and other required contingency fuels to that it can't be done.' My email was not responded to by the company.

That should clear it up for you Dick...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2014, 18:47
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 36
ADSB in the US.

Just got back from a conference on ADSB implementation in the US. There is still quite a bit of work to be done, especially with all of the additional features such as Wx.

The bad part.

There is NO funding set for 2015 and 2016 for ADSB implementation in the latest FAA budget.

This will likely have an impact on the projected 2020 timeframe (remember when it was 2015 in 2010?)
underfire is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.