MYSTERY RE. TASMANIAN MULTILATERATION
up Dick, one came within a whisker of that last week, could have dwarfed Lockhart river.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That is, if safety shows that Class C link airspace is required a proper terminal radar service must be provided with both primary and secondary radar. Otherwise there is absolutely no way of knowing if a VFR non-transponder equipped aircraft flew across the airspace.
Yet you are suggesting that Non-surveiled class E (where IFR do NOT receive an ATC separation service from VFR) over Ballina is all good!? Is that REALLY what you are suggesting?
Thread Starter
No. I am not. I would use the proven North American airspace system in Tassie
After all it works with over 15 times the traffic and far worse weather conditions.
But I won't mention here what it is because the troglodytes will go berserk
But it doesn't include class C link airspace !
But keep our " Nomad " airspace system. What would the Americans know- they only built the 747 and we know Aussie ATC 's would not dare let their family fly in one of those.
After all it works with over 15 times the traffic and far worse weather conditions.
But I won't mention here what it is because the troglodytes will go berserk
But it doesn't include class C link airspace !
But keep our " Nomad " airspace system. What would the Americans know- they only built the 747 and we know Aussie ATC 's would not dare let their family fly in one of those.
From a post back in 2004-
This is the entire answer.Take note of-
This implies you thought it perfectly safe to mix VFR with fast jet IFR in non radar E...no clearance, no need to talk to ATC, just have the transponder on and blast through...incident pilot had it all under control, Virgin had the RA and had to avoid but no worries, you thought it was safe back then. Before NAS2B, the VFR needed a clearance to cross the airspace....suffered from diversions in CAVOK...post changes, he could blast through without a clearance and do his own thing....safe to mix VFR with fast jet IFR in non radar E!
Does AusNAS save money for our Aviation Industry?
Most certainly. Already aircraft are not having to divert many extra miles in Class C airspace above Class D. I’m getting reports all the time of the quite substantial savings being made by aircraft. For example, the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launceston incident says that before the 27 November 2003 changes, on up to 50% of occasions when he overflew Launceston he would be diverted up to 15 miles off track in CAVOK conditions if there was an IFR aircraft – even a Navajo – present in the controlled airspace. This was because there was no radar at Launceston and so procedural separation of 10 minutes had to be given quite often if aircraft passed through the same levels. 10 minutes at 180 knots is 30 miles. That is a lot of extra flying and a lot of extra cost.
Most certainly. Already aircraft are not having to divert many extra miles in Class C airspace above Class D. I’m getting reports all the time of the quite substantial savings being made by aircraft. For example, the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launceston incident says that before the 27 November 2003 changes, on up to 50% of occasions when he overflew Launceston he would be diverted up to 15 miles off track in CAVOK conditions if there was an IFR aircraft – even a Navajo – present in the controlled airspace. This was because there was no radar at Launceston and so procedural separation of 10 minutes had to be given quite often if aircraft passed through the same levels. 10 minutes at 180 knots is 30 miles. That is a lot of extra flying and a lot of extra cost.
the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launceston incident says that before the 27 November 2003 changes, on up to 50% of occasions when he overflew Launceston he would be diverted up to 15 miles off track in CAVOK conditions if there was an IFR aircraft – even a Navajo – present in the controlled airspace. This was because there was no radar at Launceston and so procedural separation of 10 minutes had to be given quite often if aircraft passed through the same levels. 10 minutes at 180 knots is 30 miles. That is a lot of extra flying and a lot of extra cost.
Thread Starter
You are like a child. I feel sorry for your partner if this is how you discuss things you don't agree with.
Nothing is " perfectly safe" and I have attempted to explain this to you.
We have lots of airports serviced by airline traffic where VFR mix ( or blast through) in the way you have described. Look at Ballina or Bundaberg.
There is not even a transponder requirement for VFR aircraft.
No not " perfectly safe" but most airline pilots claim it is acceptably safe.
If it is not safe ,under NAS , you would put in class B airspace.
Do you really drive a Bus? May explain why you are posting here without proper logic to your arguments?
Nothing is " perfectly safe" and I have attempted to explain this to you.
We have lots of airports serviced by airline traffic where VFR mix ( or blast through) in the way you have described. Look at Ballina or Bundaberg.
There is not even a transponder requirement for VFR aircraft.
No not " perfectly safe" but most airline pilots claim it is acceptably safe.
If it is not safe ,under NAS , you would put in class B airspace.
Do you really drive a Bus? May explain why you are posting here without proper logic to your arguments?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Does he drive a bus 
Ok back to serious for just a minute.
Yes they do know, remember your American NAS Airspace, that was foolishly trialled, where large tracts of your beloved Class E airspace were introduced, some replacing safer Class C. Your Airspace ideology WAS ROLLED BACK due to the number of incidents between IFR & VFR aircraft.
You call people Troglodytes, Dumbos and resistant to change. Who is resistant to change Dick?
Dick, from my personal point of view, the American way would be wonderful IF and only IF we had the primary radar, SSR and complete ADSB coverage (low level) backed by VHF coms (to us little guys not King Air/CJ's and -8s) on the ground at all aerodromes that are covered by E down to 700AGL. This is looking forward not back, and ADSB is coming like it or not.
Get the infrastructure in place and then lets have a look. We can't have it half baked.
Ok back to serious for just a minute.
But Aussie ATCs would never know because in 23 years there has never even been a one day trial. That's resistance to change for you.
You call people Troglodytes, Dumbos and resistant to change. Who is resistant to change Dick?
Dick, from my personal point of view, the American way would be wonderful IF and only IF we had the primary radar, SSR and complete ADSB coverage (low level) backed by VHF coms (to us little guys not King Air/CJ's and -8s) on the ground at all aerodromes that are covered by E down to 700AGL. This is looking forward not back, and ADSB is coming like it or not.
Get the infrastructure in place and then lets have a look. We can't have it half baked.
Thread Starter
Ok. I understand. Just like CASA people you will only accept a one way ratchet of making any change more restrictive and expensive - never fix a MIS allocation of resources.
Why then won't Civil Air loudly support changing G terminal airspace at Ballina to E ?
Then Air Traffic Controllors could actually give a control service to IFR aircraft- now that would be amazing!
Why then won't Civil Air loudly support changing G terminal airspace at Ballina to E ?
Then Air Traffic Controllors could actually give a control service to IFR aircraft- now that would be amazing!
Dick, stop surrounding yourself with yes-men.
This is what it means when if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. 1992...and you still keep trying?
Forget who I am, Dick. Jaba is so very correct. Infrastructure enables change!
I could murder paragraphs of electrons expounding aspects of airspace way above my pay grade that has already been explained by many pilots far better than me. However, it comes down to those three words.
This is what it means when if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. 1992...and you still keep trying?
Forget who I am, Dick. Jaba is so very correct. Infrastructure enables change!
I could murder paragraphs of electrons expounding aspects of airspace way above my pay grade that has already been explained by many pilots far better than me. However, it comes down to those three words.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In your Jet you may have coms below circuit height, Ballina has a ground com for some good reason, but I wonder what the SSR and ADSB is like there.
Take Hervey Bay Vs Bundy. I would be happy with E at Bundy but not YHBA. If I was at Hervey Bay with near take off minima, I can't get a clearance on the ground and at 700' I might be fine, but I can't be identified until 5000' yet the climb into E would be without a clearance. I can not win. Let alone leave the circling area in IMC and I can't get back on the ground because I can't do the RNAV without coms and a clearance. I circle till it clears up or I run out of fuel. I know its knit picking but thats the case.
Bundy on the other hand they can see me taxiing, have me all ready to go before I even call.
Infrastructure enables change. Whoever the busboy is he seems to work it out.
Take Hervey Bay Vs Bundy. I would be happy with E at Bundy but not YHBA. If I was at Hervey Bay with near take off minima, I can't get a clearance on the ground and at 700' I might be fine, but I can't be identified until 5000' yet the climb into E would be without a clearance. I can not win. Let alone leave the circling area in IMC and I can't get back on the ground because I can't do the RNAV without coms and a clearance. I circle till it clears up or I run out of fuel. I know its knit picking but thats the case.
Bundy on the other hand they can see me taxiing, have me all ready to go before I even call.
Infrastructure enables change. Whoever the busboy is he seems to work it out.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The class E trial, I rememmber it well.
I remember listening to a gaggle of Pa28's out of Bankstown chatting happily on the local CTR frequency that 'they didn't have to talk to the tower and the RPT aircraft they were preventing from descending could 'go around them'.
Brilliant airspace concept that one.
Brilliant airspace concept that one.
Thread Starter
Fieldmouse
Love your post and just think how much worse it is in the USA. There’s 15 times the amount of traffic. That must mean there would be 15 times the number of VFR aircraft “chatting happily” and jamming up the control frequency.
An important point is that E air space under ICAO and as used in North America and Europe has nothing to do with radar coverage. Somehow the controllers are skilled and provide a separation service without radar that has no measurable more delays than our Class G system.
Could it be that if an aircraft is doing an approach say into Ballina in IMC that a departing aircraft awaits until it becomes visual? – just common sense.
I think we should all move back to what we did in the 1950’s. I notice an AFIS has been put into the tower at Port Hedland. It’s good to see that the old flight service station is still there at Cooma. I just can’t wait to see it manned again so when we bring in the mandatory, full position flight planning for VFR traffic that fly’s more than 50 miles or above 5,000 feet can have a place to file the flight plan.
Yes, and we should put the fire engines back in at the secondary airports. They might have been expensive but it really felt good to have them there and what about “operational control” – we should take that away from the pilots and the airlines and give that back to the air traffic controllers. That will cost another $6 million per year and employ even more people, which will be great for aviation!
And what about the first of type changes I bought in as Chairman of CAA in 1990. We should reverse those so in future any new aircraft type requires a CASA trip to the country (a technical wine tasting) so we can use our wisdom in advising these countries how to modify the aircraft to our higher Australian standard.
There’s probably 20 or 30 more things I can think of to reverse us back to the 1950’s. Then again, there probably will be hardly anyone flying in GA aircraft and that’s the way we’re going.
Love your post and just think how much worse it is in the USA. There’s 15 times the amount of traffic. That must mean there would be 15 times the number of VFR aircraft “chatting happily” and jamming up the control frequency.
An important point is that E air space under ICAO and as used in North America and Europe has nothing to do with radar coverage. Somehow the controllers are skilled and provide a separation service without radar that has no measurable more delays than our Class G system.
Could it be that if an aircraft is doing an approach say into Ballina in IMC that a departing aircraft awaits until it becomes visual? – just common sense.
I think we should all move back to what we did in the 1950’s. I notice an AFIS has been put into the tower at Port Hedland. It’s good to see that the old flight service station is still there at Cooma. I just can’t wait to see it manned again so when we bring in the mandatory, full position flight planning for VFR traffic that fly’s more than 50 miles or above 5,000 feet can have a place to file the flight plan.
Yes, and we should put the fire engines back in at the secondary airports. They might have been expensive but it really felt good to have them there and what about “operational control” – we should take that away from the pilots and the airlines and give that back to the air traffic controllers. That will cost another $6 million per year and employ even more people, which will be great for aviation!
And what about the first of type changes I bought in as Chairman of CAA in 1990. We should reverse those so in future any new aircraft type requires a CASA trip to the country (a technical wine tasting) so we can use our wisdom in advising these countries how to modify the aircraft to our higher Australian standard.
There’s probably 20 or 30 more things I can think of to reverse us back to the 1950’s. Then again, there probably will be hardly anyone flying in GA aircraft and that’s the way we’re going.
I feel sorry for your partner if this is how you discuss things you don't agree with.
Seriously, I don't know how Pip does it.
You are becoming more and more irrational every post. Have you ever thought it is perhaps YOU and YOUR tactics that so many posters are objecting to.
You want to bash everyone who objects to, points to holes in your diatribe from the cockpit.
Shall I list the names and organisations that you have bashed this year, long and distinguished...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, your post No. 53 above points to a number of times you have reduced services, thus saving the industry a lot of money. Clearly, you believe those services were unnecessary.
In this thread, however, you appear to be arguing for imposition of additional cost on the industry, without any cost benefit analysis being put forward. Despite others requesting one, you have studiously ignored them. Has one been done?
You do understand that additional costs will arise due to your proposal, do you not? Should you not also be aware of the amount of those costs? Surely you must agree that increases in safety should be affordable?
As somebody has mentioned, the U.S. has 15 times the amount of traffic. 15 times the amount of traffic to pay for these services. 15 times the traffic in order to require more services. 16 times the number of controllers working on much smaller screens with much smaller sector sizes enabling a different array of services to be offered. Surely you knew this? After all, you do accept the advice of experts, right?
Looking forward to the CBA. Or, we could just have more of your change-resistant, recalcitrant, lazy unskilled Australian ATC line of flip-flopping argument.
In this thread, however, you appear to be arguing for imposition of additional cost on the industry, without any cost benefit analysis being put forward. Despite others requesting one, you have studiously ignored them. Has one been done?
You do understand that additional costs will arise due to your proposal, do you not? Should you not also be aware of the amount of those costs? Surely you must agree that increases in safety should be affordable?
As somebody has mentioned, the U.S. has 15 times the amount of traffic. 15 times the amount of traffic to pay for these services. 15 times the traffic in order to require more services. 16 times the number of controllers working on much smaller screens with much smaller sector sizes enabling a different array of services to be offered. Surely you knew this? After all, you do accept the advice of experts, right?
Looking forward to the CBA. Or, we could just have more of your change-resistant, recalcitrant, lazy unskilled Australian ATC line of flip-flopping argument.
Ferris,
The issue of sector volumes, appropriate resources (human and facilities including frequencies, Eurocrat data and if appropriate, surveillance) has been pointed out to Dick on a couple of different threads.
My personal experience is that Richard Harold Smith, AC doesn't communicate effectively, he simply preaches and doesn't listen, his sermon is out-dated, and belongs in the last millennia. Crash or crash through comes to mind but perhaps isn't appropriate given that we are talking about aviation safety.
The issue of sector volumes, appropriate resources (human and facilities including frequencies, Eurocrat data and if appropriate, surveillance) has been pointed out to Dick on a couple of different threads.
My personal experience is that Richard Harold Smith, AC doesn't communicate effectively, he simply preaches and doesn't listen, his sermon is out-dated, and belongs in the last millennia. Crash or crash through comes to mind but perhaps isn't appropriate given that we are talking about aviation safety.
