CASA Dispensation Decision Reversed by Airservices
Dick, (and others)
I think you guys misunderstand how an exemption works. Just because you have one, does not guarantee that you are going to be allowed to exercise it.
Let's use your example Dick. You got told by your mate at CASA that you could have an exemption. Do you actually have one? Did you do any safety work as to why you should be issued with one? I ask because CASA pretty much don't accept an exemption requests without some kind of safety work attached.....I am suspicious...
Lets say you actually have one and you rock up to FL290, PTT and request higher climb. EVERYBODY ELSE IN THAT SECTOR is ADSB equipped, They are all 5nm apart. Here comes you without ADSB and require 10min separation. The controller has a look and decides that without making it inefficient for EVERYBODY ELSE he can't accommodate you.What then?? Why do you think you have a god given right for access to airspace when you are non compliant? Why do you call conspiracy?
This is the role AsA play in the exemption. The exemption means that have to at least think about accommodating you before they refuse you.
According to you, he should move EVERYBODY ELSE out of the way to accommodate you. I wonder what QANTAS, Virgin and Rex would think about that...considering they are paying far more to be there than you.
If I was an Airline I would be telling you what you could do with the exemption.....
Exemption to airspace compliance does not guarantee access. An exemption is a tool to deal with a less than ideal situation....a toleration if you will. It does not mean equivalence.
My 2 cents worth
Alpha
I think you guys misunderstand how an exemption works. Just because you have one, does not guarantee that you are going to be allowed to exercise it.
Let's use your example Dick. You got told by your mate at CASA that you could have an exemption. Do you actually have one? Did you do any safety work as to why you should be issued with one? I ask because CASA pretty much don't accept an exemption requests without some kind of safety work attached.....I am suspicious...
Lets say you actually have one and you rock up to FL290, PTT and request higher climb. EVERYBODY ELSE IN THAT SECTOR is ADSB equipped, They are all 5nm apart. Here comes you without ADSB and require 10min separation. The controller has a look and decides that without making it inefficient for EVERYBODY ELSE he can't accommodate you.What then?? Why do you think you have a god given right for access to airspace when you are non compliant? Why do you call conspiracy?
This is the role AsA play in the exemption. The exemption means that have to at least think about accommodating you before they refuse you.
According to you, he should move EVERYBODY ELSE out of the way to accommodate you. I wonder what QANTAS, Virgin and Rex would think about that...considering they are paying far more to be there than you.
If I was an Airline I would be telling you what you could do with the exemption.....
Exemption to airspace compliance does not guarantee access. An exemption is a tool to deal with a less than ideal situation....a toleration if you will. It does not mean equivalence.
My 2 cents worth
Alpha
Last edited by alphacentauri; 9th Jul 2015 at 09:22.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which managers are getting performance bonuses for introducing ADS-B?
Thinking logically, perhaps the Air Services manager(s) likely to have got a performance bonus for delivering an ADS-B facility on time & in budget would be those directly involved in just that - technical facility installation and commissioning? Also logically, someone may have got a bonus for (e.g.) developing and delivering atc training in the use of ADS-B. Would these situations be unreasonable?
ADS-B was introduced some years ago of course, now it is only the introduction of the odd new site.
I dont understand why Airservices has a say at all in a CASA exemption. CASA is the regulator for the airports, airspace, pilots, controllers, operators, and ASA.
alpha
So why doesn't the same argument apply to the airlines? Why do they get a permanent exemption to fly aircraft with U/S ADS for up to 3 days?
Or to the military?
I betcha they get "accommodated".
So why doesn't the same argument apply to the airlines? Why do they get a permanent exemption to fly aircraft with U/S ADS for up to 3 days?
Or to the military?
I betcha they get "accommodated".
Lead Balloon,
You are asking me to compare a guy, who knows the rules, and know he doesn't comply, and expects he has a right to access the airspace and then bitch about it when he doesn't
to
An airliner that is equipped and fully compliant, who now has to deal with a non normal mode of operation? I would think all airlines know that if they go non ADSB then they are rolling their dice and taking their chances.
I betcha they don't always get 'accomodated'. Same with Mil
I think you'll find it does...
You are asking me to compare a guy, who knows the rules, and know he doesn't comply, and expects he has a right to access the airspace and then bitch about it when he doesn't
to
An airliner that is equipped and fully compliant, who now has to deal with a non normal mode of operation? I would think all airlines know that if they go non ADSB then they are rolling their dice and taking their chances.
I betcha they don't always get 'accomodated'. Same with Mil
So why doesn't the same argument apply to the airlines?
Then the exemption for the airlines should be punted.
Short memory!
ICAO requirement to have airspace outcomes by a specific date.
I no longer have the time to dig up this stuff. It is all there on the net.
Dick, what you ask is not equivalent to RVSM. You are asking to revert 100nm square blocks of airspace around unequipped aircraft back to ...
.....wait for it.....dirt road...talk on the radio...airspace.
Regretfully, owners of aircraft with airline standard avionics are stuck with paying airline standard upgrade costs.
ICAO requirement to have airspace outcomes by a specific date.
I no longer have the time to dig up this stuff. It is all there on the net.
Dick, what you ask is not equivalent to RVSM. You are asking to revert 100nm square blocks of airspace around unequipped aircraft back to ...
.....wait for it.....dirt road...talk on the radio...airspace.
Regretfully, owners of aircraft with airline standard avionics are stuck with paying airline standard upgrade costs.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect to those arguing from both sides, I can appreciate the opposite points of view. But I do, horror of horrors, agree with the most fundamental of points being made here by Dick.
And I post these comments as a retired observer.
Yes, positive surveillance is essential if the controller no longer has recourse to fixed routes to figure out lat-sep, etc, when aircraft are now flying flex-tracks/UPRs (I'll admit that I don't actually understand the difference).
It would clearly be a buggers muddle injecting non-ADS-B aircraft into a scenario where the old references no longer exist in respect of procedural certainty on fixed routes. And that argument is fine and beaut.
But I just do not understand why we had to jump the gun and impose exorbitant fitment penalties before US 'economies of scale' kicked in post-2020. I think that is Dick's basic point.
As regards the military 'exemption,' I had a little bit to do with that. The military never wanted to 'do their own thing.' It was timing with old airframes due for replacement and the original (2014) mandate would have cost the taxpayer a mozza - taxpayer dollars - to retrofit aircraft due to be retired by 2017. The military was always happy to get on board, but within a time-frame that was not financially crippling with new, appropriately equipped, aircraft due to come on line.
And there is a parallel there in respect of GA. The military would not accept the 2014 mandate due cost. Why the hell should GA be subjected to the the same sort of mandate to make us 'world leaders' before the technology is affordable after the US mandate.
Just cannot understand that one.
And I post these comments as a retired observer.
Yes, positive surveillance is essential if the controller no longer has recourse to fixed routes to figure out lat-sep, etc, when aircraft are now flying flex-tracks/UPRs (I'll admit that I don't actually understand the difference).
It would clearly be a buggers muddle injecting non-ADS-B aircraft into a scenario where the old references no longer exist in respect of procedural certainty on fixed routes. And that argument is fine and beaut.
But I just do not understand why we had to jump the gun and impose exorbitant fitment penalties before US 'economies of scale' kicked in post-2020. I think that is Dick's basic point.
As regards the military 'exemption,' I had a little bit to do with that. The military never wanted to 'do their own thing.' It was timing with old airframes due for replacement and the original (2014) mandate would have cost the taxpayer a mozza - taxpayer dollars - to retrofit aircraft due to be retired by 2017. The military was always happy to get on board, but within a time-frame that was not financially crippling with new, appropriately equipped, aircraft due to come on line.
And there is a parallel there in respect of GA. The military would not accept the 2014 mandate due cost. Why the hell should GA be subjected to the the same sort of mandate to make us 'world leaders' before the technology is affordable after the US mandate.
Just cannot understand that one.
I assume by "original (2014) mandate" you mean the upper airspace mandate of December 2013.
Perhaps CASA thought that by giving the industry advance notice of the mandates in 2009 and engaging in consultation then and along the way, that would be sufficient for the industry groups and their members to react and identify any issues.
Upper Airspace mandate 2013 | Airservices
Perhaps CASA thought that by giving the industry advance notice of the mandates in 2009 and engaging in consultation then and along the way, that would be sufficient for the industry groups and their members to react and identify any issues.
Upper Airspace mandate 2013 | Airservices
Thread Starter
Yes. It did give time for the high cost issues to be identified but then AsA would not budge.
The Boffins wanted to lead the world and bring in mandatory ADSB airspace before anyone else. I personally spoke to Greg Dunstan many times about this to no avail. Even John McCormack could get no change from AsA who claimed it would not be safe to even give one dispensation to a business aircraft .
The damage to our industry is substantial and ongoing. I am sure Greg had no intention of doing any damage- he no doubt thought that the huge extra costs of fitment with no measurable cost reductions would be found somewhere. But small private businesses are quite different to funding in a large government owned monopoly.
I am sure Greg and his group wanted to be known for leading the world with this technology - unfortunately I fear they will be well known for something quite different- substantial un intentional economic damage to a once viable Australian GA industry.
How about - re the military. They were listened to because they are powerful. GA was ignored because it was not. That's how bullies always work!
The Boffins wanted to lead the world and bring in mandatory ADSB airspace before anyone else. I personally spoke to Greg Dunstan many times about this to no avail. Even John McCormack could get no change from AsA who claimed it would not be safe to even give one dispensation to a business aircraft .
The damage to our industry is substantial and ongoing. I am sure Greg had no intention of doing any damage- he no doubt thought that the huge extra costs of fitment with no measurable cost reductions would be found somewhere. But small private businesses are quite different to funding in a large government owned monopoly.
I am sure Greg and his group wanted to be known for leading the world with this technology - unfortunately I fear they will be well known for something quite different- substantial un intentional economic damage to a once viable Australian GA industry.
How about - re the military. They were listened to because they are powerful. GA was ignored because it was not. That's how bullies always work!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My recollection is vague on this point, but someone will know.
At a RAPAC some years back when the introduction of ADSB was announced I recall mention that there was to be a government subsidy for the fitment of "squitters" to GA aircraft.
What happened to that?
At a RAPAC some years back when the introduction of ADSB was announced I recall mention that there was to be a government subsidy for the fitment of "squitters" to GA aircraft.
What happened to that?
Thread Starter
ALPHACENTAURI - in your post (#22) you state,
Alphacentauri, I have never expected that. In fact, quite the opposite.
I have said that if a dispensation is given it should mean that the aircraft with the dispensation is the one that incurs the delay.
For example, if I planned a trip from Bankstown to Longreach I would naturally be able to fly up to flight level, say, 430 in the radar covered airspace and then my only problem would be a descent into Longreach. If that meant my descent had to be undertaken earlier so the ADS-B equipped aircraft were not affected in any way, I would accept that.
In fact, on the two flights I had planned to go to Longreach I noticed at the time that there were no aircraft that would have affected a climb or descent in the airspace.
When Airservices forces non-ADS-B equipped aircraft to fly at 290 or below they still have to be procedurally separated from other traffic so that means the controller must still be procedurally rated and the climb and descent below 290 must be done to procedural separation standards anyway.
I have spoken to controllers who have said that “any controller worth his salt” would be able to handle an occasional non-ADS-B equipped aircraft above flight level 290 in the non-radar airspace. After all, there could be military aircraft there and also an airline aircraft that has had a failed unit for three days.
According to you, he should move EVERYBODY ELSE out of the way to accommodate you. I wonder what QANTAS, Virgin and Rex would think about that...considering they are paying far more to be there than you.
I have said that if a dispensation is given it should mean that the aircraft with the dispensation is the one that incurs the delay.
For example, if I planned a trip from Bankstown to Longreach I would naturally be able to fly up to flight level, say, 430 in the radar covered airspace and then my only problem would be a descent into Longreach. If that meant my descent had to be undertaken earlier so the ADS-B equipped aircraft were not affected in any way, I would accept that.
In fact, on the two flights I had planned to go to Longreach I noticed at the time that there were no aircraft that would have affected a climb or descent in the airspace.
When Airservices forces non-ADS-B equipped aircraft to fly at 290 or below they still have to be procedurally separated from other traffic so that means the controller must still be procedurally rated and the climb and descent below 290 must be done to procedural separation standards anyway.
I have spoken to controllers who have said that “any controller worth his salt” would be able to handle an occasional non-ADS-B equipped aircraft above flight level 290 in the non-radar airspace. After all, there could be military aircraft there and also an airline aircraft that has had a failed unit for three days.
Thread Starter
Check the weekend Australian this morning for many articles ( including one on the front page) about the airspace issue .
Also a good interview with the new CASA Chairman.
And an article by Jeff Griffiths , ex FAA deputy chief.of ATC
Also a good interview with the new CASA Chairman.
And an article by Jeff Griffiths , ex FAA deputy chief.of ATC
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
This one?
After two decades of false starts, Australia will embrace the safer US model of managing the nation’s skies that will see greater control of airspace in regional areas and allow ground staff to provide pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and aircraft traffic information.
The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.
The moves follow a sustained campaign by The Weekend Australian and several aviation figures, including businessman Dick Smith, to address longstanding air safety concerns following fatal air crashes in Victoria and Queensland a decade ago.
The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”
The new moves offer a promise to fix an air traffic control system judged by many in the aviation industry to be not as safe as it could be outside the major cities — and by some, including Mr Smith, to be dangerous.
In 2004 six people died when the plane they were flying in from Sydney’s Bankstown Airport to Benalla in Victoria crashed into a mountain, with air traffic controllers being alerted by an alarm that radar had detected the aircraft was off course but not intervening in part because it was flying in airspace not designated as under their control.
In 2005 another accident, which killed 15 people in an aircraft which crashed into a mountain while approaching a small airport at Lockhart River in Cape York, might have been prevented if, as occurs at similar airports in the US, ground staff who were not air traffic controllers had had radio contact with approaching aircraft and warned of bad weather in that direction.
As reported in The Weekend Australian in recent weeks, there are also concerns about uncontrolled airspace at Ballina, in northern NSW, where rapid growth in commercial passenger traffic has led to congestion, and where at least one near miss has occurred.
Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approaches in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.
Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground.
The federal government had planned to move to the North American model in the early 2000s but the policy wasn’t followed through. Instead, a patchwork of protocols applies, with some areas and some airports designated as being under controlled airspace, but others not.
At many airports, some with substantial traffic, pilots are left to their own devices once under 8500 feet to sort out separation among themselves through radio contact, even though they may still be under radar coverage to much lower levels. Mr Smith had branded this situation as ridiculous and unsafe.
In addition to airspace reform, Mr Boyd will encourage CASA management, on a case-by-case basis, to allow exemptions and extensions for aircraft owners to fit a costly new air navigation system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B, if they can make a compelling practical and commercial case and safety is not compromised.
CASA will adopt a more flexible approach to a compulsory and expensive program of inspections of older Cessna light aircraft known as Supplementary Inspection Documents, or SIDS. It will consider making extensions because the size of the program has caused a bottleneck in the aircraft maintenance sector.
Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.
The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.
“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.
“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”
Mr Boyd, a practising licensed aircraft mechanical engineer, former creator and owner of Brindabella Airlines, and a light aircraft pilot, is highly regarded.
The federal government appointed him CASA chairman after the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by veteran David Forsyth, called last year for wide reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.
Late last year John McCormick, CASA’s director of air safety — essentially the authority’s chief executive — was succeeded by former senior RAAF officer Mark Skidmore, who is understood to share Mr Boyd’s view of the need for a new approach.
Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as category E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said.
Mr Boyd would not discuss specifics, but The Weekend Australian can reveal CASA will recommend such a move for Ballina.
It is expected to recommend that the controlled airspace around Ballina be lowered from 8500 feet to 5000 feet, and that the airport install a radio operator to help pilots with local weather and air traffic information, something the airport’s management is keen to do.
Mr Boyd said he would sponsor a board directive to management to see if it could free up what the industry describes as absurdly tight rules, restricting what ground staff who are not serving or former air traffic controllers can provide pilots over the Unicom radio in the way of weather and traffic information. “If it’s used as supplementary flight safety information, we have no argument against it,” he said.
Some of the moves, such as liberating ground staff to man the Unicom, have been strongly resisted by the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, and the union is also disinclined to expand controlled airspace unless more controllers are employed.
The chairman of Airservices Australia, Angus Houston, has rejected calls from Mr Smith and others for the firefighters his organisation employs at airports without control towers to perform the radio operator function as they do at many regional US airports.
As revealed by The Australian this week, Airservices, the government-owned body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, insisted two years ago that CASA not grant exemptions or extensions for ADSB, pulling out of an understanding with CASA, which as safety authority makes and enforces air regulations.
But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.
“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.
The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.
The moves follow a sustained campaign by The Weekend Australian and several aviation figures, including businessman Dick Smith, to address longstanding air safety concerns following fatal air crashes in Victoria and Queensland a decade ago.
The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”
The new moves offer a promise to fix an air traffic control system judged by many in the aviation industry to be not as safe as it could be outside the major cities — and by some, including Mr Smith, to be dangerous.
In 2004 six people died when the plane they were flying in from Sydney’s Bankstown Airport to Benalla in Victoria crashed into a mountain, with air traffic controllers being alerted by an alarm that radar had detected the aircraft was off course but not intervening in part because it was flying in airspace not designated as under their control.
In 2005 another accident, which killed 15 people in an aircraft which crashed into a mountain while approaching a small airport at Lockhart River in Cape York, might have been prevented if, as occurs at similar airports in the US, ground staff who were not air traffic controllers had had radio contact with approaching aircraft and warned of bad weather in that direction.
As reported in The Weekend Australian in recent weeks, there are also concerns about uncontrolled airspace at Ballina, in northern NSW, where rapid growth in commercial passenger traffic has led to congestion, and where at least one near miss has occurred.
Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approaches in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.
Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground.
The federal government had planned to move to the North American model in the early 2000s but the policy wasn’t followed through. Instead, a patchwork of protocols applies, with some areas and some airports designated as being under controlled airspace, but others not.
At many airports, some with substantial traffic, pilots are left to their own devices once under 8500 feet to sort out separation among themselves through radio contact, even though they may still be under radar coverage to much lower levels. Mr Smith had branded this situation as ridiculous and unsafe.
In addition to airspace reform, Mr Boyd will encourage CASA management, on a case-by-case basis, to allow exemptions and extensions for aircraft owners to fit a costly new air navigation system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B, if they can make a compelling practical and commercial case and safety is not compromised.
CASA will adopt a more flexible approach to a compulsory and expensive program of inspections of older Cessna light aircraft known as Supplementary Inspection Documents, or SIDS. It will consider making extensions because the size of the program has caused a bottleneck in the aircraft maintenance sector.
Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.
The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.
“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.
“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”
Mr Boyd, a practising licensed aircraft mechanical engineer, former creator and owner of Brindabella Airlines, and a light aircraft pilot, is highly regarded.
The federal government appointed him CASA chairman after the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by veteran David Forsyth, called last year for wide reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.
Late last year John McCormick, CASA’s director of air safety — essentially the authority’s chief executive — was succeeded by former senior RAAF officer Mark Skidmore, who is understood to share Mr Boyd’s view of the need for a new approach.
Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as category E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said.
Mr Boyd would not discuss specifics, but The Weekend Australian can reveal CASA will recommend such a move for Ballina.
It is expected to recommend that the controlled airspace around Ballina be lowered from 8500 feet to 5000 feet, and that the airport install a radio operator to help pilots with local weather and air traffic information, something the airport’s management is keen to do.
Mr Boyd said he would sponsor a board directive to management to see if it could free up what the industry describes as absurdly tight rules, restricting what ground staff who are not serving or former air traffic controllers can provide pilots over the Unicom radio in the way of weather and traffic information. “If it’s used as supplementary flight safety information, we have no argument against it,” he said.
Some of the moves, such as liberating ground staff to man the Unicom, have been strongly resisted by the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, and the union is also disinclined to expand controlled airspace unless more controllers are employed.
The chairman of Airservices Australia, Angus Houston, has rejected calls from Mr Smith and others for the firefighters his organisation employs at airports without control towers to perform the radio operator function as they do at many regional US airports.
As revealed by The Australian this week, Airservices, the government-owned body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, insisted two years ago that CASA not grant exemptions or extensions for ADSB, pulling out of an understanding with CASA, which as safety authority makes and enforces air regulations.
But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.
“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 11th Jul 2015 at 00:23. Reason: My day just got better.
Alphacentauri, I have never expected that. In fact, quite the opposite.
In fact, on the two flights I had planned to go to Longreach I noticed at the time that there were no aircraft that would have affected a climb or descent in the airspace.
Have you considered that the guy/gal at the console may not know that you have an exemption? I'll ask again...do you actually have an exemption? Because if you don't, or the atc people are not aware of it...then the current rules forbid you to be in that airspace.
I politely suggest that you take up le Pingouin's advice...go to BN CEN...sit at the console that operates that area. If after seeing it from the ATC perspective, you find that your operations can be accommodated, then we can continue the discussion...
Alpha
Thread Starter
Apha. You will not find one post on this site that even implies I want ADSB equipped aircraft to be delayed by non ADSB equipped aircraft.
However if ATC can cope with non equipped military aircraft in the airspace why can't they cope with a small number of GA aircraft?
My Cessna 208 has a $100,000 worth of upgrades including ADSB equipment and so far it has been a total waste of money with nil fuel savings from direct tracking changes.
If an Airline aircraft can fly for three days without ADSB why can't a GA plane fly for one flight?
It's all a con so AsA management can get $750,000 in performance bonuses I reckon.
However if ATC can cope with non equipped military aircraft in the airspace why can't they cope with a small number of GA aircraft?
My Cessna 208 has a $100,000 worth of upgrades including ADSB equipment and so far it has been a total waste of money with nil fuel savings from direct tracking changes.
If an Airline aircraft can fly for three days without ADSB why can't a GA plane fly for one flight?
It's all a con so AsA management can get $750,000 in performance bonuses I reckon.
Alpha. You will not find one post on this site that even implies I want ADSB equipped aircraft to be delayed by non ADSB equipped aircraft.
If an Airline aircraft can fly for three days without ADSB why can't a GA plane fly for one flight?
I will ask again, do you have an exemption?
We know an airline aircraft "can" fly in this airspace for up to 3 days with unserviceable ADS, because of the exemption. But if that's acceptably "safe" and can be "accommodated", how can it be unacceptably unsafe or too disruptive for an aircraft without ADS to fly in that airspace at all?
Whether the equipment is fitted but not working, or not fitted at all, the objective level of risk and disruption created by each aircraft is the same.
The requirements and exemptions are, therefore, arbitrary. Unless one follows the money...
Whether the equipment is fitted but not working, or not fitted at all, the objective level of risk and disruption created by each aircraft is the same.
The requirements and exemptions are, therefore, arbitrary. Unless one follows the money...
Thread Starter
Alpha. I have not attempted to fly in the non radar airspace and I do not have an exemption for that airspace .
No way am I going to pay Airservices the full en route charge while being forced to use double the fuel
No way am I going to pay Airservices the full en route charge while being forced to use double the fuel
Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Jul 2015 at 05:36.
Lead Balloon, as I explained to you previously...its not the same argument
Dick, have you submitted a request for an exemption? If you did the required safety work, you might just get one...
I notice in the newspaper article Jeff Boyd says
Nothing has changed in that respect. That has always been the requirements when asking for an exemption.
Unless you have done none of the above, in which case I am not surprised you don't have one.
Dick, have you submitted a request for an exemption? If you did the required safety work, you might just get one...
I notice in the newspaper article Jeff Boyd says
But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.
Unless you have done none of the above, in which case I am not surprised you don't have one.