MYSTERY RE. TASMANIAN MULTILATERATION
Just like reducing the speed limit to 60 will 'help prevent' accidents.
A it's impractical
B it wont totally eliminate them
You're argument has holes big enough to fly an aeroplane through
A it's impractical
B it wont totally eliminate them
You're argument has holes big enough to fly an aeroplane through
The entire aviation risk model is based on evidence.
The entire aviation risk model in Australia is based mostly on political responses to the cognitave bias of an ignorant public, as can be seen by the evidence of:
- CASA's treatment of pilots with CVD,
- an ARFFS at Ballina, and
- another government about to give Dick Smith something to play with as a distraction leading up to the next election.
- CASA's treatment of pilots with CVD,
- an ARFFS at Ballina, and
- another government about to give Dick Smith something to play with as a distraction leading up to the next election.
LB, I see your point but I wasn't referring to Australia. If anything Australia should be the shining example of how not to do aviation risk modelling. The least I can ask for is for someone who preaches that he takes the best from overseas and implements it here is to use international methodologies...not Australian ones.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It's late….been an 18-19 hour day again…..but here goes.
PLovett, How ya doing
mate
To be totally correct, longitudinal spacing in Hobart is all to do with runway occupancy times for Jets. RWY12 (normally with a downwind component above 1000ft AGL) greater than 90% of all landings and takeoffs require backtracks. From touchdown to vacated can be up to 5 mins due to there being only two midfield taxiways.
Were full length taxiways available, Tower Approach could run the spacing down to as tight as 5NM. Surveillance has nothing to do with it. Add to that the fact that 99% of all traffic in to and out of Hobart operates with 66degrees of lateral splay, well you get the picture.
It is what it is.
PLovett, How ya doing
mate To be totally correct, longitudinal spacing in Hobart is all to do with runway occupancy times for Jets. RWY12 (normally with a downwind component above 1000ft AGL) greater than 90% of all landings and takeoffs require backtracks. From touchdown to vacated can be up to 5 mins due to there being only two midfield taxiways.
Were full length taxiways available, Tower Approach could run the spacing down to as tight as 5NM. Surveillance has nothing to do with it. Add to that the fact that 99% of all traffic in to and out of Hobart operates with 66degrees of lateral splay, well you get the picture.
It is what it is.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba. 20 DME is 20 DME. Dick doesn't accept or understand 'procedure'.
Again, he's barking up the wrong tree. He has an opinion on how it 'should be done' with little to no understanding on how the regulations and standards say it 'has to be done'.
Dick. I say again. Visit ML centre. Talk to the ATC's. Get an understanding of what you are talking about instead of making assumptions. You think you know, but you really don't.
Again, he's barking up the wrong tree. He has an opinion on how it 'should be done' with little to no understanding on how the regulations and standards say it 'has to be done'.
Dick. I say again. Visit ML centre. Talk to the ATC's. Get an understanding of what you are talking about instead of making assumptions. You think you know, but you really don't.
Thread Starter
Hempy - re: your post #26
Any success I’ve got in life is by surrounding myself with capable people and taking their advice.
All lateral thinking air traffic controllers I have spoken to tell me that an approach radar service is better than a non-radar procedural approach service. It won’t matter how much time I spend in the Melbourne centre, I’m sure experienced air traffic controllers are going to verify that.
The fact that you’re trying to justify that procedural is as safe as a radar based approach service, shows me that there is something else you’re hiding. That’s of course the secret of this whole issue.
To have air traffic controllers trying to justify that radar is not necessary is almost unbelievable. Could it be that the tower controllers want to keep their airspace of the size that it is and that means the status quo i.e. not using a radar approach service from the Melbourne centre?
So is anyone going to suggest that if we turn off the approach radar in Canberra that the system will be as safe as when it was operating? Of course not.
Any success I’ve got in life is by surrounding myself with capable people and taking their advice.
All lateral thinking air traffic controllers I have spoken to tell me that an approach radar service is better than a non-radar procedural approach service. It won’t matter how much time I spend in the Melbourne centre, I’m sure experienced air traffic controllers are going to verify that.
The fact that you’re trying to justify that procedural is as safe as a radar based approach service, shows me that there is something else you’re hiding. That’s of course the secret of this whole issue.
To have air traffic controllers trying to justify that radar is not necessary is almost unbelievable. Could it be that the tower controllers want to keep their airspace of the size that it is and that means the status quo i.e. not using a radar approach service from the Melbourne centre?
So is anyone going to suggest that if we turn off the approach radar in Canberra that the system will be as safe as when it was operating? Of course not.
Dick, I am confused.
As I understand it, the reason for different classes of airspace (and hence the control service applied) is to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The higher the unmitigated risk the higher the level of control applied - from 'G' to 'A'.
Radar or other surveillance airspace is not safer than non-surveillance airspace, it just allows more traffic t be processed in the same volume of airspace. Separation is still 1NM + the positional uncertainty.
We could impose class A to the ground everywhere, with blanket Mode S coverage. Approach and tower at all airports! This would be expensive, and would massively over service most locations.
Yet you are arguing here and in the Ballina thread for higher service (and it will be higher cost), yet at the same time you are fighting against increased surveillance coverage, and against actions that would help to increase efficiency, safety and service.
Which do you want? Higher cost and higher service, or a level of service commensurate with the level of risk?
To compare Hobart and Canberra is not a valid comparison. The airport layout, traffic mix and traffic density and route structure are different, so of course the type of service required is different.
As I understand it, the reason for different classes of airspace (and hence the control service applied) is to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The higher the unmitigated risk the higher the level of control applied - from 'G' to 'A'.
Radar or other surveillance airspace is not safer than non-surveillance airspace, it just allows more traffic t be processed in the same volume of airspace. Separation is still 1NM + the positional uncertainty.
We could impose class A to the ground everywhere, with blanket Mode S coverage. Approach and tower at all airports! This would be expensive, and would massively over service most locations.
Yet you are arguing here and in the Ballina thread for higher service (and it will be higher cost), yet at the same time you are fighting against increased surveillance coverage, and against actions that would help to increase efficiency, safety and service.
Which do you want? Higher cost and higher service, or a level of service commensurate with the level of risk?
To compare Hobart and Canberra is not a valid comparison. The airport layout, traffic mix and traffic density and route structure are different, so of course the type of service required is different.
Thread Starter
Malroy - Thanks for your post (#28).
The facts are quite simple.
I’m looking at a little yellow booklet at the moment which is headed
and it’s has the date
On Stage 4 for June 1993 it says
Now this date seems to be 22 years ago. I was involved in the AMATS changes and the plan was to test some low level Class E controlled airspace at an airport like Ballina. The reason we were going to do this is we found that every airport in the United States which has IFR traffic is a minimum of Class E controlled airspace.
As you know in Australia all non-towered airports with instrument approaches are in G uncontrolled airspace. Now when you see such a staggering difference it’s normal to say “why should we be so different? Is it worth us testing what they do in other leading aviation countries to see if it has any benefits?”
As you know, due to resistance of change we haven’t even tested one airport with Class E like they have at every IFR non-tower airport in the USA. Yes, I am arguing that we should test the proven US system at Ballina. Yes, it will give a higher level of service but I don’t necessarily believe it will be at a higher cost.
To use the existing enroute controller (as they do in the USA) to provide a separation service rather than a traffic service at Ballina may be revenue-neutral, i.e. other than the small cost of training the controller.
In relation to Hobart and Canberra, the situation is quite different to what you explain. That is, we have spent $6 million of air passengers’ money in putting in the very latest multilateration radar service in Tasmania. The supplier of the equipment has unequivocally stated that the system was designed to provide a surveillance service across Tasmania and to the ground at both Hobart and Launceston airports. They maintain that the system does provide this service and they have never received any communication from Airservices Australia to say that it does not.
Now if you’ve paid the $6 million for the service, why would you use it? – i.e. radar instead of 1930’s radio operated procedural.
So, Malroy, don’t be confused - it’s all incredibly simple. There is a cover up going on here and no doubt it will be exposed. Maybe next week in the Senate.
The facts are quite simple.
I’m looking at a little yellow booklet at the moment which is headed
Airways Transition Project -AMATS -The Dates
By 12 December 1991
• IFR/IFR Separation provided in low level airspace.
As you know in Australia all non-towered airports with instrument approaches are in G uncontrolled airspace. Now when you see such a staggering difference it’s normal to say “why should we be so different? Is it worth us testing what they do in other leading aviation countries to see if it has any benefits?”
As you know, due to resistance of change we haven’t even tested one airport with Class E like they have at every IFR non-tower airport in the USA. Yes, I am arguing that we should test the proven US system at Ballina. Yes, it will give a higher level of service but I don’t necessarily believe it will be at a higher cost.
To use the existing enroute controller (as they do in the USA) to provide a separation service rather than a traffic service at Ballina may be revenue-neutral, i.e. other than the small cost of training the controller.
In relation to Hobart and Canberra, the situation is quite different to what you explain. That is, we have spent $6 million of air passengers’ money in putting in the very latest multilateration radar service in Tasmania. The supplier of the equipment has unequivocally stated that the system was designed to provide a surveillance service across Tasmania and to the ground at both Hobart and Launceston airports. They maintain that the system does provide this service and they have never received any communication from Airservices Australia to say that it does not.
Now if you’ve paid the $6 million for the service, why would you use it? – i.e. radar instead of 1930’s radio operated procedural.
So, Malroy, don’t be confused - it’s all incredibly simple. There is a cover up going on here and no doubt it will be exposed. Maybe next week in the Senate.
Dick, if you turn off radar at CB I guarantee the only thing that will happen is the airspace will become less efficient. There will be no reduction in safety.
Stop scaremongering
There will be nothing 'uncovered' at the Senate next week because despite your insistence.....there is no cover up.
Happy to support a trial at Ballina, but you also must undertake the following to ensure the trial has an outcome;
1. You must establish the current level of risk at Ballina ( no you saying it is high is not good enough)
2. You must establish how acceptable that level of risk is ( no you saying it is unacceptable is not good enough)
3. If it is found that the risk is unacceptable, then you must establish what level of risk would be acceptable
4. The aim of the trial would be to see if your proposal would decrease the risk level in step 1 to the level in step 3....you must have a clear goal
5. If it does then proposal can be considered as a permanent fix.
6. If it doesn't, we would need to consider other options. (In this case you would need to be man enough to admit you were wrong)
If you are not prepared to follow these steps and establish a goal for your trial, then all you are doing is pushing a personal agenda. In which case why should we give you an opportunity to do so?
Stop scaremongering
There will be nothing 'uncovered' at the Senate next week because despite your insistence.....there is no cover up.
Happy to support a trial at Ballina, but you also must undertake the following to ensure the trial has an outcome;
1. You must establish the current level of risk at Ballina ( no you saying it is high is not good enough)
2. You must establish how acceptable that level of risk is ( no you saying it is unacceptable is not good enough)
3. If it is found that the risk is unacceptable, then you must establish what level of risk would be acceptable
4. The aim of the trial would be to see if your proposal would decrease the risk level in step 1 to the level in step 3....you must have a clear goal
5. If it does then proposal can be considered as a permanent fix.
6. If it doesn't, we would need to consider other options. (In this case you would need to be man enough to admit you were wrong)
If you are not prepared to follow these steps and establish a goal for your trial, then all you are doing is pushing a personal agenda. In which case why should we give you an opportunity to do so?
A bit of light reading if we are going to study history-
Senate Report Airspace 2000
Review of AMATS 1991-1993
You just have to love the internet
Senate Report Airspace 2000
Review of AMATS 1991-1993
You just have to love the internet
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 4th Sep 2015 at 12:28.
Dick, why are you wanting this in place? It wasn't that long ago you firmly believed that non radar E was.perfectly safe to mix VFR with fast jet IFR. Why the change? Surely, your jumping up and down about spoofing is the realisation of WAMLAT even being trialled...it works but Tas airspace is not set up with a dedicated approach control service for Launie and Hobart...do the airlines even want to pay for that level of service?
Too right it works...like tracking aircraft in the circuit area at RAAF Sale from the installation in Tassie.
Too right it works...like tracking aircraft in the circuit area at RAAF Sale from the installation in Tassie.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of light reading if we are going to study history-
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/30791/sir199911_001.pdf
I wonder who this referred to:
The influence of the CASA Chairman’s involvement in airspace reform and management style
contributed to the project management deficiencies associated with the demonstration.
contributed to the project management deficiencies associated with the demonstration.
Thread Starter
OZBUSDRIVER - There has never been a time when I have said that “non-radar E was perfectly safe.” What I have always said is that non-radar E with Australia’s mandatory transponder requirement is clearly safer than non-radar G without a transponder requirement.
I have also said that C above D is ok as long as it is adequately staffed so the air traffic controller responsible for the circuit traffic is not having his or her attention taken away by low risk traffic flying over the top at higher levels. 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.
TOPDROP - I’m really shaking in my boots to be criticised by some unknown, dead loss, non-achiever from the ATSB. In fact, I took the statement as a compliment.
To the air traffic controllers on this thread who are all trying to keep the status quo - never fear! I’m in the process of selling my IFR aircraft – I’ll be donating the money to good causes and I won’t be flying IFR at all in Australia. But it’s strange. If I was an air traffic controller I would be proud to give an actual control service, not charge a pilot for service from, say, Bankstown to Ballina but where the service was really required in the terminal area on approach to Ballina then not give a control service at all but give a 1930’s traffic service. If I was an Aussie air traffic controller I would want to be trained to the skills of controllers in North America where this terminal air space is under control using a trained enroute controller who is no doubt multi-skilled compared to Australia. Especially after the terrible Benalla accident where five were killed, I would want to be trained to give an actual control service so I can help prevent avoidable accidents like that.
Also, as a controller when I’ve heard of an incident where two professional pilots were in cloud at Bundaberg trying to shoot the same approach at the same time, I would say “Hey, I’m an air traffic controller. Why can’t I provide an actual control service at Bundaberg like they do (as I’m told) in all other modern aviation countries?”
Now this criticism is not against the small number of controllers who have contacted me to say that I am 100% correct and we should provide a proper Class E upgraded control service at these busy, non-tower airports.
Yes, I realise Civil Air has actively worked against this. But talk about an unprofessional organisation! It should be running amateurs, not professionals, because it doesn’t support its members – who are actually called air traffic “controllers” - to actually control aircraft, rather than use a 1930’s flight service traffic information service. Every time I flew into Ballina in my CJ3 in cloud I cringed when on descent, where I really wanted a proper control service to be delivered by a professional controller who I was actually paying to actually give me a control service. However, I had to become the air traffic controller and separate myself from other planes in cloud – it’s quite pathetic.
But don’t worry, I have given up on this. I realise there will have to be more fatalities before the majority of you dumbos realise that control means just that, control, and that’s the way of saving lives.
For those who think terminal radar is just for efficiency purposes, please think again. Terminal radar, if properly equipped with an alarm system, can help prevent a controlled flight in terrain. It’s done so all around the world.
Yes, resist change and wait until a major accident occurs. I certainly hope it’s not your loved ones who are involved.
I have also said that C above D is ok as long as it is adequately staffed so the air traffic controller responsible for the circuit traffic is not having his or her attention taken away by low risk traffic flying over the top at higher levels. 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.
TOPDROP - I’m really shaking in my boots to be criticised by some unknown, dead loss, non-achiever from the ATSB. In fact, I took the statement as a compliment.
To the air traffic controllers on this thread who are all trying to keep the status quo - never fear! I’m in the process of selling my IFR aircraft – I’ll be donating the money to good causes and I won’t be flying IFR at all in Australia. But it’s strange. If I was an air traffic controller I would be proud to give an actual control service, not charge a pilot for service from, say, Bankstown to Ballina but where the service was really required in the terminal area on approach to Ballina then not give a control service at all but give a 1930’s traffic service. If I was an Aussie air traffic controller I would want to be trained to the skills of controllers in North America where this terminal air space is under control using a trained enroute controller who is no doubt multi-skilled compared to Australia. Especially after the terrible Benalla accident where five were killed, I would want to be trained to give an actual control service so I can help prevent avoidable accidents like that.
Also, as a controller when I’ve heard of an incident where two professional pilots were in cloud at Bundaberg trying to shoot the same approach at the same time, I would say “Hey, I’m an air traffic controller. Why can’t I provide an actual control service at Bundaberg like they do (as I’m told) in all other modern aviation countries?”
Now this criticism is not against the small number of controllers who have contacted me to say that I am 100% correct and we should provide a proper Class E upgraded control service at these busy, non-tower airports.
Yes, I realise Civil Air has actively worked against this. But talk about an unprofessional organisation! It should be running amateurs, not professionals, because it doesn’t support its members – who are actually called air traffic “controllers” - to actually control aircraft, rather than use a 1930’s flight service traffic information service. Every time I flew into Ballina in my CJ3 in cloud I cringed when on descent, where I really wanted a proper control service to be delivered by a professional controller who I was actually paying to actually give me a control service. However, I had to become the air traffic controller and separate myself from other planes in cloud – it’s quite pathetic.
But don’t worry, I have given up on this. I realise there will have to be more fatalities before the majority of you dumbos realise that control means just that, control, and that’s the way of saving lives.
For those who think terminal radar is just for efficiency purposes, please think again. Terminal radar, if properly equipped with an alarm system, can help prevent a controlled flight in terrain. It’s done so all around the world.
Yes, resist change and wait until a major accident occurs. I certainly hope it’s not your loved ones who are involved.
I’m really shaking in my boots to be criticised by some unknown, dead loss, non-achiever from the ATSB. In fact, I took the statement as a compliment.
Says the person who continually displays a total and fundamental lack of understanding of everything we say and thinks we're just being dinosaurs for the sake of being dinosaurs.
As you've been told countless times before and have chosen to ignore every time: it's about the resources. You can't just magic the extra controllers, extra consoles, extra training, extra surveillance coverage out of thin air. It all costs money and lots of it.
Is the reason you've been going hammer and tongs at Airservices recently so you can convince the government to eject the board and management and then have them install one more to your liking who will do things the way you want?
As you've been told countless times before and have chosen to ignore every time: it's about the resources. You can't just magic the extra controllers, extra consoles, extra training, extra surveillance coverage out of thin air. It all costs money and lots of it.
Is the reason you've been going hammer and tongs at Airservices recently so you can convince the government to eject the board and management and then have them install one more to your liking who will do things the way you want?
Thread Starter
Lookleft. I have no idea who wrote the ATSB report or who made that statement.
Le Pingouin. I have no idea who you are or whether you know what you are talking about. For all I know you could be a Philby doing as much damage to Australia as you can.
And it's not just about resources. It's about leadership. US ATCs reckon they can procedurally separate IFR aircraft in non radar E with less workload than giving a pathetic Australian 1930s Marconi amateur service. 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.
I have no doubt that if the president of Civil Air made a public announcement that actually controlling traffic at non tower airports- like they do in leading aviation countries - was safer , that a trial would take place.
How many more deaths like Benalla? Blame the pilot and the system- never take any individual responsibility .
Le Pingouin. I have no idea who you are or whether you know what you are talking about. For all I know you could be a Philby doing as much damage to Australia as you can.
And it's not just about resources. It's about leadership. US ATCs reckon they can procedurally separate IFR aircraft in non radar E with less workload than giving a pathetic Australian 1930s Marconi amateur service. 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.
I have no doubt that if the president of Civil Air made a public announcement that actually controlling traffic at non tower airports- like they do in leading aviation countries - was safer , that a trial would take place.
How many more deaths like Benalla? Blame the pilot and the system- never take any individual responsibility .