Airservices’ Western Australian ADS-B Mandate
How can aviation in this country thrive when it's costs almost $20 for a pint of beer in an average pub, close to $10 for a cup of coffee and the best part of $500 to get a sparky to put a new power point in a house.
Don't mention the best part of a mill to buy a ****ty old house within cooee of Sydney. Don't even get the calculator out for renovations. If the council will even let you, because it's probably heritage listed.
We're screwed.
Don't mention the best part of a mill to buy a ****ty old house within cooee of Sydney. Don't even get the calculator out for renovations. If the council will even let you, because it's probably heritage listed.
We're screwed.
Thread Starter
Notim. In the USA radar coverage is not required for terminal class E airspace and it is no more "one in and one out" than G is here.
In practice there are no more delays than we get in our class G terminal airspace .
Yes , they do have more sensible separation standards in the USA and Canada.
We should simply copy the best from around the world. As I have stated before. It worked for me!
In practice there are no more delays than we get in our class G terminal airspace .
Yes , they do have more sensible separation standards in the USA and Canada.
We should simply copy the best from around the world. As I have stated before. It worked for me!
So, you admit it wouldn't work in Australia then with the current rules. Thankyou. You "just" keep piling on more "justs" which clearly indicates you "just" have no idea what you're asking.
anyone can give traffic information!
Well guys, we're getting closer to the real issue here....as drawn out by Monsieur Le Pingouin and others.
Dick wants terminal separation for IFRS, in Class E, in some locations with surveillance and in some locations without surveillance coverage...and he does not believe that "one in and one out" would be required in the non-surveillance locations. I hope that's a fair summary.
Now...how is that done?
Let's, for the moment, put aside the obvious, to most, resources question and assume it will cost nothing extra to get this up and running....and resolve the only other outstanding issue....what are the separation standards used, obviously in the USA, that allow such a "one in and one out" situation to be avoided?
Dick wants terminal separation for IFRS, in Class E, in some locations with surveillance and in some locations without surveillance coverage...and he does not believe that "one in and one out" would be required in the non-surveillance locations. I hope that's a fair summary.
Now...how is that done?
Let's, for the moment, put aside the obvious, to most, resources question and assume it will cost nothing extra to get this up and running....and resolve the only other outstanding issue....what are the separation standards used, obviously in the USA, that allow such a "one in and one out" situation to be avoided?
Much as I don't agree with Dick's suggestions here, but with appropriate training, you will be able to use the same standards that Procedural Towers use, apart from visual separation by the controller - vertical, lat sep, clearance limits. This will be more restrictive than pilots arranging their own sep as in Class G.
Lat Sep will become more difficult as NDBs/VORs are turned off around the country, RNAV tolerances are so much bigger, apart from RNP.
Lat Sep will become more difficult as NDBs/VORs are turned off around the country, RNAV tolerances are so much bigger, apart from RNP.
Okay, this good. The sep standards already exist here, albeit with a reduced menu. However, there's the issue of it being a "more restrictive" environment than Class G.
That leaves the question.... Do the disadvantages of a more restrictive environment outweigh the increase in safety of a controlled environment ?
Aspects to consider in the non-surveillance controlled scenario.
Positives: IFRS will never hit each other.
Negatives: There will most likely be delays. There will still be "free to roam" VFRs.
To me, the only problem we are solving here is....stopping IFRs running into each other. That begs the question...is that an issue at the moment?
That leaves the question.... Do the disadvantages of a more restrictive environment outweigh the increase in safety of a controlled environment ?
Aspects to consider in the non-surveillance controlled scenario.
Positives: IFRS will never hit each other.
Negatives: There will most likely be delays. There will still be "free to roam" VFRs.
To me, the only problem we are solving here is....stopping IFRs running into each other. That begs the question...is that an issue at the moment?
And going to the question of cost - how much is it costing the industry for Mackay and Rocky Approach when the Towers are closed and have they ever had to separate two aircraft? Is Sunshine Coast App running yet?
So my questions to Dick are:
1. What is the problem we are trying to solve here?
2. No matter how this problem is solved overseas, is this the most cost efficient and cost effective way of achieving it here?
Regulatory change, and cost, needs to be confined to "fixing a problem" ...not for tying up philosophical loose ends.
If you can clearly articulate the problem and show me a substantiated cost-benefit friendly solution....then I'm happy to take on Nepal's system, if it provides that solution.
Till then, it just smells of a philosophical agenda.
1. What is the problem we are trying to solve here?
2. No matter how this problem is solved overseas, is this the most cost efficient and cost effective way of achieving it here?
Regulatory change, and cost, needs to be confined to "fixing a problem" ...not for tying up philosophical loose ends.
If you can clearly articulate the problem and show me a substantiated cost-benefit friendly solution....then I'm happy to take on Nepal's system, if it provides that solution.
Till then, it just smells of a philosophical agenda.
Thread Starter
I suppose if you don't reckon Air Traffic Control is necessary for Airline aircraft at busy no tower airports when in IMC - then there is no problem.
But it makes you wonder why have ATC at other than busy city airports.
I would have thought that a proper " control " service with actual enforced separation standards would be safer than a " do it yourself " radio arranged - no standard required " service.
I know that if we followed the proven US system and trained existing en route controllors to do the terminal service at airports like Ballina that safety would be improved at very low or zero extra cost.
We have had serious incidents at Bundaberg and Orange - we have been lucky .
Let's try it at just one airport before we say it won't work or it will cost too much.
But it makes you wonder why have ATC at other than busy city airports.
I would have thought that a proper " control " service with actual enforced separation standards would be safer than a " do it yourself " radio arranged - no standard required " service.
I know that if we followed the proven US system and trained existing en route controllors to do the terminal service at airports like Ballina that safety would be improved at very low or zero extra cost.
We have had serious incidents at Bundaberg and Orange - we have been lucky .
Let's try it at just one airport before we say it won't work or it will cost too much.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
I guess I am hoping that.....a number of dynamic controllors would tell their bosses at AsA
If you really think that ATC's (dynamic or otherwise) can 'tell' their 'bosses at ASA' ANYTHING, and actually get heard, you are more out of touch than I thought!!
I had a now extremely high level manager tell me quite happily a few years ago that ATC's are equivalent to "bank tellers", and nothing more. They face the customer and make transactions.
To the 'bosses', controllers know nothing - the only smart men in the room are wearing suits and working at HQ in Canberra.
You are barking up the wrong tree Dick. If you want reform you'll get more by pushing your agenda with Senators Heffernan, Searle, Gallagher and Xenophon than you will by trying to get it pushed by line controllers from the bottom up. It doesn't work that way, not here.
Earth to Dick
trained existing en route controllors to do the terminal service at airports like Ballina that safety would be improved at very low or zero extra cost
For en route controllers to take on additional responsibilities (more airspace) isn't going to happen without significant safety work to validate airspace volumes and airways data, likely to mean smaller sectors = more sectors = more controllers = more consoles = more frequencies = more surveillance = more $$.
Training all the en route controllers, lets say four days training X 200 ATCs, assuming training ratio of 2:1, 2 ATCs/1 Instructor = 1200 work days = $$, that's without the cost of simulator time, blip drivers, purpose built exercises that need to be validated.
It ain't zero extra cost, and it ain't very low cost either.
And, FWIW,
I would have thought that a proper " control " service with actual enforced separation standards would be safer than a " do it yourself " radio arranged - no standard required " service.
I thought you were a strong advocate of see and be seen, no standard required, missed by a coat of paint..
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sunnySA
I thought you were a strong advocate of see and be seen, no standard required, missed by a coat of paint..
The Champion of it, if I remember correctly! 'Affordable Safety'!!!
Thread Starter
No. Not an "advocate". Just a person who accepts that in all airspace I pilot must remain vigilant at all times.
Not possible to see other planes in cloud that's why I support class E.
We could have had class E at Ballina at a lower cost than 17 fireman and a $12 m fire station.
Surely better to spend money on preventing accidents first rather than pulling bodies out of burning aircraft that collided in cloud like nearly happened at bundaberg .
We need a more dynamic ATC Union - or they need to get advice from the Firemans a Union!
Not possible to see other planes in cloud that's why I support class E.
We could have had class E at Ballina at a lower cost than 17 fireman and a $12 m fire station.
Surely better to spend money on preventing accidents first rather than pulling bodies out of burning aircraft that collided in cloud like nearly happened at bundaberg .
We need a more dynamic ATC Union - or they need to get advice from the Firemans a Union!
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Perth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A low-cost battery-backed (operator replaceable), low-current-draw ATSB-Out device + mandated tablet with OzRunways (or similar) with ADSB-In with mounting for all aircraft would crap all over all other safety measures.
Cost? Say $2000 per aircraft installed. Estimated 2 hour install time.
15304 aircraft on VH register. Total cost $30 million.
Smart country? Surely we can do it?
Cost? Say $2000 per aircraft installed. Estimated 2 hour install time.
15304 aircraft on VH register. Total cost $30 million.
Smart country? Surely we can do it?