Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
------ 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.
As Lawrence Welk would say:"Wunnerful, wunnerful".
Objective: When use as an adjective(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, non-partisan, disinterested, non-discriminatory, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical
Subjective: When used as an adjective:1Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: his views are highly subjective there is always the danger of making a subjective judgement Contrasted with objective.
1.1Dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.
In (objective) fact, your whole case, and that of your cohort who cannot accept ICAO airspace classification, and the ICAO separation assurance standards, is entirely subjective.
To suggest that it is an "objective fact" that the Tobago pilot in the Launceston incident. would have run smack into the airline aircraft, in the absence of communications, and it was only the TCAS activation that saved the day is too silly for words.
Are you seriously saying that, in conditions of severe clear, undisputed VMC, with the undisputed fact that the Tobago pilot (who was quite an experienced pilot, and objectively an entirely rational person) had the traffic, at all relevant time, clearly in sight, would have just sat there and collided with the airline aircraft.
Are you seriously saying that the Tobago pilot was so incompetent and irrational that his behavior amounted to suicidal. That his instinct for self-preservation had taken the day off. Where is your objective evidence.
Such a clearly subjective view on your part is so far from any known definition of "objective", that it should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Unfortunately for you, objectively, the clearly distinguished FACT that Class E airspace is widely used around our world, on a day to day basis, as part of the safe and efficient handling of IFR and VFR traffic ( "safe" here meaning to an acceptably low level of risk, at least equal to the ICAO separation assurance standard) is the most OBJECTIVE evidence that you and your cohorts views on unacceptable levels of risk represented by Class E as an airspace category are entirely SUBJECTIVE.
Similarly, your entirely subjective view that our current arrangements in G (which you subjectively claim is F) are some how lower risk (safer) than the same airspace being E to 1200ft. AMSL is objectively wrong, based on the results of rational analysis, including analysis using Airservices models, and, of course, ICAO SARPs. and Docs.
Clearly, I, and many others of wide experience regard your views as something more than merely subjective, we believe they have been clearly demonstrated to be irrational. See, among others, the various posts of "Voice of Reason".
Indeed, I am bound to (once again) remind readers of the then AFAP Technical Director's demand that "perceived risk", even when it could be objectively shown to be exactly that, perceived, and to not objectively exist, that nevertheless the ill-conceived perception had to be addressed with regulatory mitigation.
How do you regulate to mitigate totally subjective, indeed mythical, threats? That is beyond reason, or Reason.
Tootle pip!!
*** Bloggsie: Recent academic studies show that addressing you a Bloggsie, as opposed to Bloggs, will adduce in you greater feelings that my comments are friendly and more likely to be accepted. I wonder if, in your case, you conform to the academic profile??
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Mar 2016 at 05:07. Reason: formatting
However, having flown B777 test flights out of Everett on a weekend (i.e. 'G') and out of places like Glasgow Montana (not the 'international airport, the ex USAF base owned by Boeing) where there is Nothing in the way of airspace, ATC always provide a service.
That was because you were in Class E ( tower airspace reverts to E when an FAA Class C or D tower is closed) and elsewhere there is very little G in US, it's E down to 1200/700 agl.
Tootle pip!!
Sunfish, the problem is that no matter how good or bad the starting and enpoints are the transition has always been set out in stages. You end up having a mixture of the new and the old leading to confusion. Learning to operate in a new system primarily by using it where lives are at risk is a serious issue that education alone clearly can't handle properly. It's a bit late for a pilot to discover gaps in their knowledge or subtleties that they failed to grasp when they're failing to separate themself from a 737 near Launy.
The system might work well in the US because it's a mature system that they all grew up with and were trained to fly in from scratch. How is it possible to transplant that directly to another country? You can bring all the rules you want but that doesn't bring the generations of cultural knowledge that goes with it. The little tricks you pass on to new pilots on how to make it all work that aren't part of the rules.
Dick has admitted further up the thread that this goes on with controllers - they don't actually do what it says on the NAS tin, so even if we followed the NAS model we wouldn't be providing the same service.
The system might work well in the US because it's a mature system that they all grew up with and were trained to fly in from scratch. How is it possible to transplant that directly to another country? You can bring all the rules you want but that doesn't bring the generations of cultural knowledge that goes with it. The little tricks you pass on to new pilots on how to make it all work that aren't part of the rules.
Dick has admitted further up the thread that this goes on with controllers - they don't actually do what it says on the NAS tin, so even if we followed the NAS model we wouldn't be providing the same service.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vref. You are correct. The alerted see and avoid was made more difficult because the airline crew did not communicate where they were heading . Same could happen in G. That's why it's important to remain alert at all times.
It was ideological change, Dick, that wasn't predicated on cost/benefit. I'll keep repeating that line. There was no cost saving in going to E, and negative benefit as regards that incident.
In conclusion, I have no issue with airspace re-classification if there are clear benefits that offset the cost of maintaining a previous regime. But, in the case of Launy, it was just blind ideology.
Thread Starter
The benefit was getting the GA organisations to agree with a mandatory transponder requirement for all E. The first such agreement I know of anywhere in the world.
I convinced the GA organisations including AOPA that to reduce the giant road blocks in the sky it would be worth agreeing to mandatory mode C even though there was no cost benefit study. In fact the FAA stated that they had no requirement for mandatory transponders in E over D because there was not a measurable safety problem.
Then AsA acted in a totally unethical way and removed the E but then insisted that CASA let the transponder mandate remain in all E and in non radar C- which previously did not have a transponder mandate.
Howabout most pilots I know including myself ,when flying VFR , take the extra distance and fly around non radar class C. Otherwise you get delayed and stuffed around as the poor procedural controller in a tower has to some how keep you separated . It is clearly a giant expensive road block in the sky.
I convinced the GA organisations including AOPA that to reduce the giant road blocks in the sky it would be worth agreeing to mandatory mode C even though there was no cost benefit study. In fact the FAA stated that they had no requirement for mandatory transponders in E over D because there was not a measurable safety problem.
Then AsA acted in a totally unethical way and removed the E but then insisted that CASA let the transponder mandate remain in all E and in non radar C- which previously did not have a transponder mandate.
Howabout most pilots I know including myself ,when flying VFR , take the extra distance and fly around non radar class C. Otherwise you get delayed and stuffed around as the poor procedural controller in a tower has to some how keep you separated . It is clearly a giant expensive road block in the sky.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, re your comment that US and Canadian enroute controllers provide an approach service. I posted this question on the ATC forum:
Do US low level en-route controllers also hold terminal ratings. If so, do they provide the services concurrently or do they rotate through positions?
The answer from the US was: no... Enroute controllers do not hold terminal ratings.
WAM is not approved for 3nm terminal separation.
Do US low level en-route controllers also hold terminal ratings. If so, do they provide the services concurrently or do they rotate through positions?
The answer from the US was: no... Enroute controllers do not hold terminal ratings.
WAM is not approved for 3nm terminal separation.
Thread Starter
Most importantly. Taking a tower controllers attention away from passenger traffic in the circuit area and on the runway while having to separate an en route VFR aircraft that is crossing the class C 20 miles out is crazy. It's an accident waiting to happen FAA controllers tell me.
Or are you telling me our controllers in Australia can do this without any reduction in safety?
Or are you telling me our controllers in Australia can do this without any reduction in safety?
Thread Starter
Fuji. That's of course the whole point. Fixed in your mind is that because some 1950s unique Australian rule ( probably industrially driven) requires a terminal rating to provide a control service at a non tower airport then we must never change and follow more modern procedures from other leading aviation countries.
Get with it. Get your Union to put the safety of air passengers in front of keeping 1950s practices!
WAM is supposed to be so accurate it can be used to accurately position aircraft on taxiways so why don't you move to get it to be used properly in the terminal area in Australia? Or is that an industrial issue as well?
Am I on to you?
Get with it. Get your Union to put the safety of air passengers in front of keeping 1950s practices!
WAM is supposed to be so accurate it can be used to accurately position aircraft on taxiways so why don't you move to get it to be used properly in the terminal area in Australia? Or is that an industrial issue as well?
Am I on to you?
[T]he point is Dick replaced "C" with "E" in non-surveillance which directly lead to that AIRPROX near Launy. Our "G" is closer to "F" than anything else.
You seem to be confusing correlation and causation. (Exquisite use of language though: "directly lead to" the AIRPOX.)
I've checked. Captain Midnight said there is no F airspace in Australia. You can't both be right.
However, I tend to believe you, Le P, because G being F would be the more absurd outcome that is so often implemented in Australia.
There are many points, obviously, for all sides of this discussion.
However, having flown B777 test flights out of Everett on a weekend (i.e. 'G') and out of places like Glasgow Montana (not the 'international airport, the ex USAF base owned by Boeing) where there is Nothing in the way of airspace, ATC always provide a service.
This intrigued me so when I questioned an ATC supervisor about what service ATC gave to IFR aircraft in 'G', he was a little confused.
His answer, 'we give IFR a full service as best we can regardless of the airspace classification the aircraft is in. Most controllers do not even worry or care what the airspace classification is', or words to that effect.
Isn't that what we want as an 'end game' here in OZ regardless of how we get there or what we call the airspace?
However, having flown B777 test flights out of Everett on a weekend (i.e. 'G') and out of places like Glasgow Montana (not the 'international airport, the ex USAF base owned by Boeing) where there is Nothing in the way of airspace, ATC always provide a service.
This intrigued me so when I questioned an ATC supervisor about what service ATC gave to IFR aircraft in 'G', he was a little confused.
His answer, 'we give IFR a full service as best we can regardless of the airspace classification the aircraft is in. Most controllers do not even worry or care what the airspace classification is', or words to that effect.
Isn't that what we want as an 'end game' here in OZ regardless of how we get there or what we call the airspace?
Industrial issue? FFS Dick, go ask CASA - they're the ones who say how surveillance can or can't be used. They're the ones who say what ratings you need to perform what task.
Yes there have been AIRPOXs in C because someone screwed up, not because the system was working as intended.
If the airspace had been C as it had been before and after the misadventure into E then the AIRPROX would not have happened. The change to E was the major contributing factor. I'm being a little fast & lose with language because Dick does it all the time.
Looking at the definition of F the service we provide is far closer to that than G.
If the airspace had been C as it had been before and after the misadventure into E then the AIRPROX would not have happened. The change to E was the major contributing factor. I'm being a little fast & lose with language because Dick does it all the time.
Looking at the definition of F the service we provide is far closer to that than G.
You are, indeed, being a little fast and "lose" with language.
You're certain the AIRPROX wouldn't have happened if the airspace had been C, and that collisions can happen in E without anyone screwing up?
I think the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" that LeadSled posted earlier are worth frequent reiteration.
You're certain the AIRPROX wouldn't have happened if the airspace had been C, and that collisions can happen in E without anyone screwing up?
I think the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" that LeadSled posted earlier are worth frequent reiteration.
Thread Starter
ICAO says class F is for temporary use. 50 years temporary ?
And as I have said before ICAO class F is non radio for VFR. And all of our class F proponents are totally obsessed with mandatory radio requirements for VFR otherwise we are all going to die!
So our mandatory radio class G areas are clearly not F. !
In fact ICAO did not allocate an airspace classification for our pre 1991 class G.
That's why I why I got involved in the change. And it's more likely going to happen as the old troglodytes die out.
And as I have said before ICAO class F is non radio for VFR. And all of our class F proponents are totally obsessed with mandatory radio requirements for VFR otherwise we are all going to die!
So our mandatory radio class G areas are clearly not F. !
In fact ICAO did not allocate an airspace classification for our pre 1991 class G.
That's why I why I got involved in the change. And it's more likely going to happen as the old troglodytes die out.
Thread Starter
Le Ping. Re your post 201. I believe I can show you how it can be done ( that is some class E at non tower airports) without increasing AsA costs..
May mean a few less in head office and I have experience in that field!
But we need to talk. Is that possible to arrange?
May mean a few less in head office and I have experience in that field!
But we need to talk. Is that possible to arrange?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you aren't on to me, neither does it have anything to do with the union. I retired 18 months ago after 42 years. During that time I never told pilots how to operate their aircraft as some pilots try to tell air traffic controllers to do their job.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
You are, indeed, being a little fast and "lose" with language.
You're certain the AIRPROX wouldn't have happened if the airspace had been C, and that collisions can happen in E without anyone screwing up?
You're certain the AIRPROX wouldn't have happened if the airspace had been C, and that collisions can happen in E without anyone screwing up?
Many ATCs I talk to would like to give a proper service
Many of the ATC I talk to could not give a rats about providing any additional services. They are flat out providing the service they give now, with the numbers and resources they have. Mostly, they don't care what you think. They do their job to the best of their ability, and if the rules change, they'll do that job to the best of their ability. They don't make the rules, and they certainly are not going to work outside them. You bang on about "no cost", but there is always a cost. You, however, are happy as long as someone else is paying it.
Dick, I'm just a controller with zero organisational influence. You could convince me we could send a wombat to the moon without raising AsA costs and I could wax lyrical at work, but it wouldn't help get the wombat launched.
By current resources I don't mean money. Controllers don't grow on tress - we need training which takes time and additional training resources. Sectors need redesigning, which again takes resources. You can throw all the money you want at it but you won't find the resources necessary to achieve the changes off the street.
As mentioned elsewhere even if you convince CASA we no longer need an approach endorsement to provide an approach service we still need the training to allow us to do it. More resources.
By current resources I don't mean money. Controllers don't grow on tress - we need training which takes time and additional training resources. Sectors need redesigning, which again takes resources. You can throw all the money you want at it but you won't find the resources necessary to achieve the changes off the street.
As mentioned elsewhere even if you convince CASA we no longer need an approach endorsement to provide an approach service we still need the training to allow us to do it. More resources.
Dick and Fuji - WAM in Australia is approved for 5 NM separation in Tasmania and 3NM separation in the air in the Sydney basin where it also provides Precision Runway Monitoring (PRM). On the ground at four airports it is used for surveillance and provides situation awareness, not separation. The accuracy of multilateration is not in doubt but the number of ground units has to rise to meet the accuracy requirement. For example Sydney airport has approx 14 ground stations for surface movement; Tasmania has approximately the same number to cover the whole island.
Incidentally each multilateration receiver is also an ADS-B receiver and only needs one station to pick up a position. Multilateration requires between 3-4 stations to be receiving a transponder to establish and maintain an accurate track.
Mutilat which requires a transponder (preferably Mode S) is a great surveillance tool midway between SSR, which also requires a transponder, and ADS-B, which requires a new piece of equipment. ADS-B is the way of the future until someone invents something better.
Incidentally each multilateration receiver is also an ADS-B receiver and only needs one station to pick up a position. Multilateration requires between 3-4 stations to be receiving a transponder to establish and maintain an accurate track.
Mutilat which requires a transponder (preferably Mode S) is a great surveillance tool midway between SSR, which also requires a transponder, and ADS-B, which requires a new piece of equipment. ADS-B is the way of the future until someone invents something better.
Balloon, I fully confess to the sin of omission of the letter "o". I'll sacrifice another rubber chicken as penance.
Let's put it this way, for that AIRPROX to have occurred in C the controller would have had to screw up (an unlikely event) as well as the rest of the events occurring. i.e. it can't be anything else than a considerably less likely event, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.
E relies on pilots listening, hearing and then interpreting correctly. If any of these fail then all you're left with is unalerted see and avoid, something that is acknowledged as being a very poor means of avoiding collisions. Is that objective enough for you?
Let's put it this way, for that AIRPROX to have occurred in C the controller would have had to screw up (an unlikely event) as well as the rest of the events occurring. i.e. it can't be anything else than a considerably less likely event, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.
E relies on pilots listening, hearing and then interpreting correctly. If any of these fail then all you're left with is unalerted see and avoid, something that is acknowledged as being a very poor means of avoiding collisions. Is that objective enough for you?