Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
Hi Dick, as someone who flew in the USA and Europe prior to arriving in 1993 to the most illogical system I'd ever come across and that you were trying to change at the time into something that would match other ICAO countries, this is one area I am in full agreement with you.
I can understand the frustration; a few years back a certain new DAS sat around a table with a bunch of us whose combined experience of the airspace we were talking about would have gone into tens of thousands of hours while his would have been 9/10 of F. all... then proceeded to ignore us and present an fait accompli even more illogical than the current system. I'm sure you can join the dots
I can understand the frustration; a few years back a certain new DAS sat around a table with a bunch of us whose combined experience of the airspace we were talking about would have gone into tens of thousands of hours while his would have been 9/10 of F. all... then proceeded to ignore us and present an fait accompli even more illogical than the current system. I'm sure you can join the dots
Missy,
I'd always assumed that Dick (as a national icon and treasure) would be a really good listener?
The free drinks that he offers for his proposed 'do' at Bowylie are very attractive to me. I would turn up without a mask as I've previously "outed" myself to him.
Dick, Please PM me with my invitation.
I'd always assumed that Dick (as a national icon and treasure) would be a really good listener?
The free drinks that he offers for his proposed 'do' at Bowylie are very attractive to me. I would turn up without a mask as I've previously "outed" myself to him.
Dick, Please PM me with my invitation.
Thread Starter
Any success I have ever had has come from asking advice and then carefully listening to the answers. Sometimes the advice I receive is conflicting.
That's where common sense has to be used to decide which is most likely to be the correct advice.
My success in business has come from travelling around the world and copying the best.
This formulae has always worked.
Those who claim I don't listen actually mean I haven't taken their advice.
With airspace I spent three years travelling overseas and asking advice from the airspace people in the leading aviation countries.
If Angus Houston and others had not acted to ensure I was not a member of the NAS implementation group I then would have been able to communicate to pilots and ATCs the reasons we were planning to move to a better system.
I managed to get the first part in- that is a pilot would be able to communicate directly to the person with the radar screen when in an area covered by surveillance . Before this pilots in radar covered un controlled airspace were forced by law to only communicate to a person who had no radar screen. That's why the pilot of MDX , in good radar coverage, was never told he was heading at near a right angle to his planned route.
The second two parts have been stopped by shear ignorance. That is an actual separation service when in IMC in the terminal area at busy non tower airports and a zero extra cost Unicom service giving CTAF calling confirmation plus known traffic and weather as they do in North America.
But never fear. We now have a new generation of young pilots and ATCs coming along and already I find many are open to copying the best from anywhere around the world.
That's where common sense has to be used to decide which is most likely to be the correct advice.
My success in business has come from travelling around the world and copying the best.
This formulae has always worked.
Those who claim I don't listen actually mean I haven't taken their advice.
With airspace I spent three years travelling overseas and asking advice from the airspace people in the leading aviation countries.
If Angus Houston and others had not acted to ensure I was not a member of the NAS implementation group I then would have been able to communicate to pilots and ATCs the reasons we were planning to move to a better system.
I managed to get the first part in- that is a pilot would be able to communicate directly to the person with the radar screen when in an area covered by surveillance . Before this pilots in radar covered un controlled airspace were forced by law to only communicate to a person who had no radar screen. That's why the pilot of MDX , in good radar coverage, was never told he was heading at near a right angle to his planned route.
The second two parts have been stopped by shear ignorance. That is an actual separation service when in IMC in the terminal area at busy non tower airports and a zero extra cost Unicom service giving CTAF calling confirmation plus known traffic and weather as they do in North America.
But never fear. We now have a new generation of young pilots and ATCs coming along and already I find many are open to copying the best from anywhere around the world.
Thread Starter
Are you really suggesting that at a place like Ballina that E with its mandatory transponder requirement is not safer tha G with no transponder requirement ?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Angus Houston and others had not acted to ensure I was not a member of the NAS implementation group I then would have been able to communicate to pilots and ATCs the reasons we were planning to move to a better system.
You were never excluded - you had extraordinary access. More, in my opinion, than your exploits and influence warranted. You were at the head table!
See, the problem was that the penny finally dropped that we were being sold a bunny. Hence 'Rollback' in 2004 after that hellish incident at Launy.
As for Angus, you continue to slander him. He committed his troops - reread the original NAS Handbook - to total compliance. His only caveat (roughly worded) was that 'operational capability and safety' were not compromised.
Angus stood by his word and he also had nothing to do with 'Rollback.'
I just can't figure, Dick, why you seem to have a hate on for Angus.
Thread Starter
That is rubbish. Angus called me to a meeting in Canberra on the 8th April 2002 to specifically tell me that a decision had been made that I not be on the NAS Implementation Group. On the 22 May the minister John Anderson then wrote to me and confirmed that decision.
I quote from the ministers letter
" With regard to your role on the IG I have given due consideration... to your presence on the Group ..... - however I believe you will add greater value in providing strategic oversight.......-rather than simultaneously participating in the day to day activities of the IG.
He then sent me a copy of the revised Terms of Reference which deleted my involvement with the Implemenation Group.
At the meeting with Angus Houston mentioned above I said that I believed the reforms would not go ahead if I was not on the Implementation Group in a " hands on" way.
Angus said I was wrong because " defence was totally committed to the airspace changes, and that this time the changes would definitely go ahead"
In fact no measurable NAS changes were made to military airspace from that point on and the important change of removing the ATC frequency boundaries from charts was the reversed.
He was either the instigator or more likely the messenger to keep me off the Implementation Group so those with concrete minds could stop Australia moving to the best Airspace system in the world . And it worked.
I don't " hate " anyone. The present CTAF calling problems have been caused by the wind back of NAS when the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts. No such system exists anywhere in the world.
You should ask Sir Angus why he called me to the private meeting to tell me I was not to be on the implementation Group. I have asked him and not received a satisfactory answer.
I quote from the ministers letter
" With regard to your role on the IG I have given due consideration... to your presence on the Group ..... - however I believe you will add greater value in providing strategic oversight.......-rather than simultaneously participating in the day to day activities of the IG.
He then sent me a copy of the revised Terms of Reference which deleted my involvement with the Implemenation Group.
At the meeting with Angus Houston mentioned above I said that I believed the reforms would not go ahead if I was not on the Implementation Group in a " hands on" way.
Angus said I was wrong because " defence was totally committed to the airspace changes, and that this time the changes would definitely go ahead"
In fact no measurable NAS changes were made to military airspace from that point on and the important change of removing the ATC frequency boundaries from charts was the reversed.
He was either the instigator or more likely the messenger to keep me off the Implementation Group so those with concrete minds could stop Australia moving to the best Airspace system in the world . And it worked.
I don't " hate " anyone. The present CTAF calling problems have been caused by the wind back of NAS when the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts. No such system exists anywhere in the world.
You should ask Sir Angus why he called me to the private meeting to tell me I was not to be on the implementation Group. I have asked him and not received a satisfactory answer.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Mar 2016 at 22:30.
Thread Starter
And E above D is certainly safer at Launy as it allows the tower Controllor to concentrate on the airspace close to the runway where collision risk is far higher.
C would be safer again if it was covered by a terminal radar Controllor in the Melbourne centre but that would mis allocate safety dollars.
Broome is the only new class D in Australia and you will note it follows NAS and other leading aviation countries and has E in the link airspace above.
Le Ping Why aren't you campaigning against Broome?
C would be safer again if it was covered by a terminal radar Controllor in the Melbourne centre but that would mis allocate safety dollars.
Broome is the only new class D in Australia and you will note it follows NAS and other leading aviation countries and has E in the link airspace above.
Le Ping Why aren't you campaigning against Broome?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Mar 2016 at 22:54.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, as I have mentioned before. You can't have a terminal controller providing LT or HB services from Melbourne because there is no Terminal Area Radar installation at those airports. En-route radar does not provide the required refresh rate nor does it provide low coverage. If it were to be provided, where would the $millions be recovered from?
Thread Starter
Fuji. $6m has been spent on a terminal multilateration system that SaabSensis claims works to ground level at Launy and Hobart.
If it doesn't do this then get them to fix it so it does
And in the USA and Canada every en route low level Controllor is also approach rated.
Why can't our controllers be trained to actually "control". Not just give a 1930s traffic service at non tower airports. PATHETIC.
If it doesn't do this then get them to fix it so it does
And in the USA and Canada every en route low level Controllor is also approach rated.
Why can't our controllers be trained to actually "control". Not just give a 1930s traffic service at non tower airports. PATHETIC.
Who is going to pay for the extra controllers, the extra training, the extra consoles (which we can't fit in to TAAATS anyway) and assorted infrastructure?
Safe? Tell that to pax on that 737 that were nearly killed by the clueless Tobago driver.
Safe? Tell that to pax on that 737 that were nearly killed by the clueless Tobago driver.
---- with clueless VFR in non-surveillance E "best"?Safe?
Tell that to pax on that 737 that were nearly killed by the clueless Tobago driver.
Tell that to pax on that 737 that were nearly killed by the clueless Tobago driver.
Why the continual denigration/assumption that VFR are clueless??, a common assumption/attitude among self-confessed and self-described "professionals", whatever professional actually means in this context, as being a commercial pilot has never formally been recognised as a profession.
For example, of the long list of professions whose members can witness under the Statutory Declaration Act 1959, commercial/airline pilot is not one, but a cabin crew member who was a nurse can so do.
Does an owner/pilot like CASA CEO/DAS AVM (Rtd.) Skidmore, AM, automatically become "clueless" when he flies VFR, or is there some other particular defining characteristic to determine automatic VFR cluelessness.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
Angus ------- also had nothing to do with 'Rollback.'
Last edited by LeadSled; 26th Mar 2016 at 03:55.
Originally Posted by Sledled
Why the continual denigration/assumption that VFR are clueless??, a common assumption/attitude among self-confessed and self-described "professionals", whatever professional actually means in this context, as being a commercial pilot has never formally been recognised as a profession.
For example, of the long list of professions whose members can witness under the Statutory Declaration Act 1959, commercial/airline pilot is not one, but a cabin crew member who was a nurse can so do.
Does an owner/pilot like CASA CEO/DAS AVM (Rtd.) Skidmore, AM, automatically become "clueless" when he flies VFR, or is there some other particular defining characteristic to determine automatic VFR cluelessness.
For example, of the long list of professions whose members can witness under the Statutory Declaration Act 1959, commercial/airline pilot is not one, but a cabin crew member who was a nurse can so do.
Does an owner/pilot like CASA CEO/DAS AVM (Rtd.) Skidmore, AM, automatically become "clueless" when he flies VFR, or is there some other particular defining characteristic to determine automatic VFR cluelessness.
The "particular defining characteristic" is the inability (despite thinking one can) to safely separate oneselves from 100+ punters in a 50 tonnes aeroplane, almost killing them all in the process without telling the RPT crew you are there. You just don't get it, do you?? Skates wouldn't fall into that situation because he's been trained properly, and would quite happily pipe up when confronted with a conflict. What you and Dick don't get is that it doesn't matter what type of airspace it is, the only way aeroplanes will be kept apart is if they know about each other (that's not "lookout", either). Class E places all the onus and decision-making on the weakest link, as clearly demonstrated at Launy. The fact that you deny it just goes to show your either/ ignorance or blinding bias.
Why aren't you campaigning against Broome?
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
The present CTAF calling problems have been caused by the wind back of NAS when the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts.
was introduced, The rule was Multicom all all airports without a published CTAF. It had nothing to do with charted Area freqs. The fact that someone n CASA decided to go back to operating on the Area freq is completely irrelevant to freqs on charts. Your arguments are getting more irrational by the day.Oh, and by the way Dick, you still haven't answered the question about how much extra it will cost to put in and run terminal E airspace in the regions. Obviously your either don't know, can't be bothered to find out, or do know that the answer involves even more cost to industry...
Unbelievable but expected, another good old rant sledging professional pilots. The SD reference to commercial pilots and ex-nurses borders on lunacy and complete and utter irrelevance.
I think LeadSled was merely pointing out an objective fact: There is a list of occupations whose members are recognised, by law, to be adequate witnesses of the swearing or affirmation or declaration of important legal documents. "Pilot" isn't on the list anywhere, but "nurse" is, in some places.
The "particular defining characteristic" is the inability (despite thinking one can) to safely separate oneselves from 100+ punters in a 50 tonnes aeroplane, almost killing them all in the process without telling the RPT crew you are there. You just don't get it, do you?? Skates wouldn't fall into that situation because he's been trained properly ...
Skates was "trained properly", but any other pleb engaged in private operations who hasn't been equivalently trained is going to put those 100+ punters in a 50 tonne aeroplane at risk of death.
But you'll fly in G (sorry F)?
Just for the record, Bloggs, I find your attitude offensive, and I hope that one day you'll get some experience operating in an environment with first world traffic levels so that you will be able to reconsider your overblown rhetoric.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should ask Sir Angus why he called me to the private meeting to tell me I was not to be on the implementation team. I have asked him and not received a satisfactory answer.
He may have been the 'messenger,' but maybe he was the 'messenger' because no one else had the courage and honesty to stare you in the eye!
In fact no measurable NAS changes were made to military airspace from that point on and the important change of removing the ATC frequency boundaries from charts was the reversed.
NAS failed because, as a package, it was ill-thought out, relied on opinion, there was no system safety case, no cost/benefit, and no thorough risk analysis that justified introduction. The whole disaster split industry and was painful to be a part of.
That said, and despite the foregoing, I (intuitively) never had any real issues with the pure US CTAF model, and to this day cannot see what all the fuss is about.
No problems either with a basic service, such as a Unicom. The resistance quite baffles me on that one. No cost, and an understanding that basic info would only be provided on an 'opportunity basis.'
Lowering E to A085 was a 'no brainer.' Why was climbing in G with no traffic safer that climbing in E while awaiting clearance into C? Still scratch my head on that one.
But, having said all that, the 'package' was flawed from the outset. It just never had the required 'confidence-checkers,' Dick, that wider industry could support. And that's why it failed. Opinion and 'I want' just didn't make it over the line.
Thread Starter
And there is no doubt in my mind that if I was on the implementation team the system would have come in as the AMATS changes did when I was hands on.
You will now never know because of the successful campaign to make sure I was not on the implementation team.
In my business career I have introduced new systems by following the success of others.
You support my Unicom idea whereas lots are totally opposed. Other things you are against others support. I just want to copy the best.
And the ATSB made no recommendation that NAS should be reversed because of the Launy incident.
You will now never know because of the successful campaign to make sure I was not on the implementation team.
In my business career I have introduced new systems by following the success of others.
You support my Unicom idea whereas lots are totally opposed. Other things you are against others support. I just want to copy the best.
And the ATSB made no recommendation that NAS should be reversed because of the Launy incident.
Thread Starter
Le Ping. How come existing En route controllers can do approach work in the USA without extra consoles but this does not seem possible here?
Could it be that fixed in your mind is the unique Australian way and you are not willing to copy the superior US system?
Could it be that fixed in your mind is the unique Australian way and you are not willing to copy the superior US system?
And, Lead Balloon, I find your nitpicking-nonsense rather annoying too. That comment by LS and your followup is completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to the "objective" (are there subjective facts??) fact that the Tobago pilot thought he could keep Mum (because E allowed him to) and keep clear.
Your continued sniping adds nothing to the real debate. It's almost as if you and LS are one in the same....
I have said it umpteen times before and will say it again; in the regions, where Unicoms may "help", there is just nobody to do it. There's nobody there apart from the staff checking in pax for the flight out. The current situation, with auto VHF weather, allows us to check and recheck the QNH and wind during the arrival; removing untrained (ie no-cost) humans from the chain improves safety. While it would be nice to have an FBO and a follow-me girl, this just isn't going to happen. Technology has moved on. I remember one occasion where the person on the radio said the QNH was 1009. The TAF said it should have been around 999 (cyclone approaching). When we quizzed her, she said "it's never below 1000!". How to fix that? Training! Cost! She leaves after 6 months... more training. More records. More red tape for the operator or airport. And Dick talks about the Unicom giving traffic? Is he serious??
So, we have ATC unable to give us a clearance because another aeroplane is so close, forcing the IFR jet to go VFR until we reach C... That is "badder" than having a Directed Traffic Information Service that allows the crews to sort out the upcoming confliction before it happens. You were right about the "no cost/benefit", Howabout. Still, after all these years, Dick has been unable to produce a CBA on Terminal Class E in the regions. Where I operate, we don't even have VHF comms on the ground, let alone surveillance to the ground, and the controllers are flat-out anyway. Without lots of dollars for ground infrastructure and extra controllers, Class E would just be an embuggerance.
Your continued sniping adds nothing to the real debate. It's almost as if you and LS are one in the same....
Originally Posted by Howabout
No problems either with a basic service, such as a Unicom. The resistance quite baffles me on that one.
Originally Posted by Howabout
Why was climbing in G with no traffic safer that climbing in E while awaiting clearance into C?