Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!

[mgahan]

All this talk about Class F airspace being "temporary" encouraged me to look at Annex 11 and PANS/ATM (Doc 4444). Interesting words.

The note to 2.6.1 in AN 11 says, " Note.— Where air traffic advisory service is implemented, this is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control. (See also PANS-ATM, Chapter 9.) " No mention of the airspace being temporary.

Can one of you more enlightened folk give me the reference about the airspace being temporary?

MJG (decrepit old aircraft separator, expect for the time I spent regulating civil and military airspace)

[Lead Balloon]

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?

That's less subjective, Le p.

But apparently that risk is 'objectively' acceptable for RPT in ForG in Australia, despite the clueless VFRs.

And apparently it's 'objectively' OK for Qantas et al jets to fly through E in e.g the USA, despite the traffic levels being a little higher than in Australia. Perhaps the USA has fewer clueless VFRs?

And AIRPROXs still occur in C.

This 'debate' reminds me of the lean of peak 'debate'. Those against LOP say every problem suffered by an engine operated LOP is caused by operating LOP and wouldn't have happened if the engine had been run ROP. But every problem suffered by an engine operated ROP is caused by .... well ... eerrrmmm ... very rare random failures unrelated to the mixture setting.

Go figure.

[LeadSled]

(an unlikely event)

Le Ping,
Why!!
Controllers screw up just like any normal human being, (aka human factors) even if the Airservices "policy" claims super-human performance for their employees, once claiming an error rate of less than 10 to the minus 6, super-human or an absurd proposition. When, in the same "study" the claimed error rate (in receiving and correctly executing a clearance) for pilots was variously 1:1 and 1:2.

That is, Airservices claimed pilots screw up variously every time to only half the time, 100% of the time to only 50% of the time.

Somewhat "subjective facts", I would say, and certainly not "objective" for either controllers or pilots.

I, personally, have been on the receiving end of some grand screwups in AU, usually the controller "losing" me.

Got left at 7000 on left base for 34L at YSSY one morning, where you would normally be cleared to 3000' ---- and no, it was not "other traffic", it was profound apologies. And that is just one of many, over the years. Wonderful, how well a B747-400 sideslips, once "found" and suitably cleared ( XX10, cleared visual approach) we were back on profile, stable at 1000'. All good fun!!

My subjective observation would be that ATC screwups seem to happen more often in Australia than where I spent the other 80%+ of my hours, ATSB stats. on loss of separation rates are instructive, but I am not claiming it as an objective fact.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

On and on we go, warries about LOP and Sled being left high and dry umpteen years ago! A error or mistake is one thing; an airspace system that allowed the lowest common denominator to determine the outcome of a conflict, with no requirement to announce their own position, is ludicrous, as was amply demonstrated at Launy.

But apparently that risk is 'objectively' acceptable for RPT in ForG in Australia, despite the clueless VFRs.

Err, yes, because the traffic levels are less (not to mention mandatory carriage and use of radio >5k, in a CTAF, mandatory use of Transponders if serviceable and in any case at all times above 10k, need I say more)! Traffic levels go up, a tower goes in. Guess what people, towers are for controlling. Ideally, you'd think aeroplanes would be talking to the tower. But no, no need to at Launy because it's Class E! See and Avoid rules, OK!

As for this nonsense...

Originally Posted by VRef+5

If my memory regarding the Launy is correct, the RPT jet was given the option to either turn left immediately for a RH downwind and base, or to overfly and join for LH downwind and base. The crew of the jet did not transmit precisely what there intentions were, and did their own thing (overfly for LH downwind). So they did not do themselves any favours, instead of being in an alerted see and avoid area, it became see and avoid only, based upon their actions

.
Surely you can't be serious, Shirley? How on earth can the Virgin 737 participate in Alerted See and Avoid if it didn't even know the Tobago was there? Alerted See and Avoid requires both parties to be involved. Clueless... Or we could just revert back to verbal diarrhoea as Dick had us doing around the circuit there for a while...

Originally Posted by Vref+5

So if the critics of the Launy incident do not want to see a repeat of that incident, then something has to be done with all of the aerodromes in Class G that are serviced by RPT. Mandating radio carriage in Class G isn't it, because a non radio aircraft is an aircraft which (1) doesn't have one fitted, or (2) is on the wrong frequency, or (3) volume is too low, or (4), or the PIC presses the map light instead of the transmit button, or (5) doesn't use it properly, or (6) the list goes on.

See my comments above. No-radio not permitted above 5k, ask the controller for a check call in Class G if you want, Beepback in CTAF to confirm. It's not that hard...

The mitigator has to be a third party, that's the whole premise of the ICAO airspace model. Risks becomes intolerable due to mix/volume, introduce another mitigator.

At Launy/Karratha, Broome, Alice, it's called a... Control Tower. At Ayers Rock, Port Hedland, soon to be Ballina, it's called a AFIS/CAGRO.

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

So our mandatory radio class G areas are clearly not F. !

That's what's so ridiculous about alphabet soup airspace. Trying to put labels on a setup that already exists and, given the chaos that has ensued since Dick embarked on his crusade in the 1990s, and the current state, largely unsuccessful (quite apart from probably driving pilots in their droves away from the pastime). We have, actually, achieved nothing. Nothing. Even though "everything" has changed, Nothing has changed. We still have a great airspace system. Simple, CTA and Non-CTA, mandatory radio when required, taking advantage of new technology eg transponders, ADS-B, beepbacks, auto-weather stations. Dick and Leadsled are really miffed can't fly their C150 through the arrival paths of the A380s going into Sydney using See and Avoid as the only method of separation, but then again, you can't ride a horse and cart on a freeway. Get real...

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Got left at 7000 on left base for 34L at YSSY one morning, where you would normally be cleared to 3000' ---- and no, it was not "other traffic", it was profound apologies. And that is just one of many, over the years. Wonderful, how well a B747-400 sideslips, once "found" and suitably cleared ( XX10, cleared visual approach) we were back on profile, stable at 1000'. All good fun!!

Awesome stuff, and there's nothing the pax enjoy better than a massive sideslip . Of course, a quick "request further descent" on mid-downwind might also have done the trick, although without the same opportunity for heroics.

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. Achieved nothing? You appear to like the beep back... I personally built the first one and moved it to the Jabiru factory in Bundaberg after the horrific incident on the 16 TH May 1997 where a professional air crew were on the wrong CTAF frequency in IMC on approach after using an out of date chart.

See ATSB report 199701646

For the next month professional pilots flying into Bundaberg complained about the beep blocking the frequency. Leroy Keith contacted me and asked me to remove the unit. I explained the beep was only 300 ms long and decided I would delay the removal until I could fly to Queensland again.. Yes. After a couple of months many airline pilots with lateral thinking minds said it should stay and the rest is history.

And the AMATS changes I brought in in 1992 saved our industry over $70 million per year and not one life has been lost because VFR are no longer forced to go full position reporting on flights of over 50nm.

That's $1.75 billion saved by our industry since then.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

You appear to like the beep back... I personally built the first one and moved it to the Jabiru factory in Bundaberg after the horrific incident on the 16 TH May 1997 where a professional air crew were on the wrong CTAF frequency in IMC on approach after using an out of date chart.

Yes I do. I'd rather listen to a Beepback than any old "person on the airport" trying to be an air traffic controller. And let's not forget that the shambles in Bundy was a direct result of you demolishing a system that worked (AFIZ/Remote AFIZ) and replaced it with nothing.

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

And the AMATS changes I brought in in 1992 saved our industry over $70 million per year and not one life has been lost because VFR are no longer forced to go full position reporting on flights of over 50nm.

So don't continue whining about VFR not being able to contact ATC because of those stupid lines on charts and how dangerous the situation has become "how can I contact if in an emergency bla bla bla" if you're not prepared to put in a flight plan.

[le Pingouin]

Sled, yes unlikely. I'm not claiming perfection, just I don't see myself surrounded by controllers who have been stood down every second week due to a breakdown of separation.

[le Pingouin]

Balloon, I'm talking about replacing C with E as occurred around Launy. I have no problem with E replacing G but have no faith in being given the resources to achieve this - it will just be tacked on as an extra duty for an already busy controller.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

As I recall those days Dick, wasn't it a 'Flight Notification' was required for flights over 50nm from the departure point?

i.e. A VFR flight could file a Plan nominating a ROUTE and a SARTIME, with no intermediate 'reporting points'?

If I remember correctly, this was 'in' in the early days - early 60's perhaps - then 'out' for a time (Progress...?), then 'in' again with the unfortunate demise of a VFR '310' ex Griffith for Bankstown, (mid to late 60's..?) and despite a huge search around the Blue Mountains area where the weather was 'bad', the wreckage was eventually located on the 'lee side' of a hill just 50 or so nm from Griffith, where it was also 'bad'.

At the time, we were told it was decided to re-introduce the 50nm 'limit', so as to reduce the search area and possibly still be able to provide assistance....

As I recall, the only 'mandatory' Full Reporting for VFR, was to transit CTA, and the 'Designated Remote Areas' published at the time, for those aircraft sans EPIRB (Called VSB at the time...)

A VFR with EPIRB could go on a SARTIME thru these 'Remote Areas' so designated.

(Areas around the Snowy Mts, The Kimberley North of Derby, and the track Darwin to Alice, except 'via the h'way.) ?

A VFR sans EPIRB had to go Full SAR, which usually meant the carriage of HF.
No 'Continuous VHF', or, No HF,..... NO GO! (Called pi55 poor planning at the time...)

Cheers

[Howabout]

mgahan, in reply to your post #241, it's always the selective use of language.

It takes a while to navigate around, but off the north-east coast those Canadians that are held up as paragons of virtue, in respect of NAS, have permanent Class F over water and it's been there for yonks. And guess what? You need a clearance beyond 'territorial airspace' to enter!

I researched this years ago when I was involved in the dreaded NAS with all the associated BS. The airspace is on the charts and the requirements are in their AIP and associated docs. F has been there forever!

Additional to the argument is NZ. They originally introduced MOAs with a requirement inside 12nm for a clearance. Check out the current 'Aeronautical Handbook.' They've amended the requirement for all NZ registered aircraft to gain a clearance, no matter how far outside 'territorial waters.' Despite all the bumf, we are not 'unique,' but it takes a while to discover that the wool has been well and truly pulled in respect of 'airspace reform!'

[LeadSled]

Of course, a quick "request further descent" on mid-downwind might also have done the trick,

Its,
Of course, being the average dumb airline Captain, that would never have occurred to me, would it??
Quite apart from the fact that we were not ever downwind, and believe me, neither the customers of the cabin crew knew a thing about it, and nothing heroic, just knowing your aeroplane.
Which reminds me, one afternoon, a gentle reminder that we were still at 10,000, mid downwind for YSSY 16R, again brought the rapid "cleared for visual approach". All in a days work.

The airspace is on the charts and the requirements are in their AIP and associated docs. F has been there forever!

Howabout,
A wonderful example that a little knowledge is dangerous.
Any country can legislate to their hearts content for their own aircraft, just as Australia does.That does not make it enforceable outside the 12 mile limit for non-national aircraft.
Canada or anybody else can call a piece of airspace in their ICAO area of jurisdiction whatever they like, but if it is outside the 12 mile limit??
Australia purports to have military R areas outside the 12 mile limit, they have no enforceable meaning, as the US make the point when the US Navy comes to Australia --- just as the Americans have been doing a little north.
You might have noticed, the whole matter is just a little contentious right now in the North and South China Sea.
Exactly the same legal arguments apply around Australia, under the relevant international law.
As for F in general, plenty of it in India, and it looks pretty permanent to me --- indeed the story of airspace designation yo-yoing over India in recent years (the last 50) is a "ripping good yarn".

Tootle pip

[Mr Approach]

We seem to forget that airspace reform and/or change is not a one-off it is a necessary part of a dynamic aviation system.

Prior to alphabet airspace reform had already started in Australia where, in alphabet terms, we had large amounts of Class B and enormous amounts of Class F. Equivalent Class B was being whittled back to equivalent C by stopping the requirement to separate VFR aircraft from each other in CTA and as far as I am aware no-one wanted to pay for the Class F services, otherwise called FIS/AFIS.

Then ICAO airspace arrived and like everyone else in the world we named all the airspace we then had and changed a few rules to comply with the ICAO classification requirements. Two areas where we did not are Class G and was the GAAP airports, now changed by CASA decree to Class D.

So at the moment for en-route we have settled on Class A (no-one seems to object) with some Class E underneath it (an experiment?). This leads to Class C down towards a controlled airport followed by more Class C or Class D to the ground depending on the amount and type of traffic.

This is what most of the world has other than countries that have been subject to US influence and have Class E overlying Class B, C, and D. We have not gone there yet - but we might. (I haven't mentioned the enormous tracts of airspace fenced off by our military - that is probably a subject for a different thread)

Under all of this we have Class G but with mandatory ATC provided IFR traffic to IFR aircraft - almost Class F. We also insist that all aircraft within 10 NM of a certified airport call on a frequency, often a CTAF. (There are rules for non-radio aircraft however that is out of scope) Strangely enough I don't think a certified airport is required for RPT operations which you might think was why there are mandatory radio procedures.....

An issue has arisen where some airports are felt to need something more but do not warrant a Tower. For some reason very few so-called UNICOMs (another US word) have been created by the airport owners. (The AIP states that such a service can pass weather information if approved by CASA, but not traffic information). I suggest that once again it is because no-one wants to pay for the service. Two airports, soon to become three, have what mgahan calls an air traffic advisory service, what we call an AFIS or CA/GRS, they can both give directed traffic information and there is little difference between the two.

We are still in the transformation stage, mainly because we cannot agree on an airspace "model" and from observation most discussions on the subject end up being a horse trading exercise much like enterprise bargaining.

I'm sure that there is more change ahead and threads like this add to the spread of ideas and opinions. We do not have to follow the US model or any other model but what we do have to do is create an airspace model the country can afford. Hopefully it will also provide an equivalent level of protection to fare paying passengers across the continent.

[Dick Smith]

Ex FSO. Before 1991 VFR and IFR flew at the same levels because of the quadrantal rule.

This meant all VFR above 5000 had to operate full position reporting. In fact in those days when your friendly FSO gave traffic it wasn't even mentioned if it was VFR or IFR .

[Dick Smith]

Mr Approach. The prime reason we don't have lots of zero extra cost Unicoms like the USA and Canada is that most pilots including those at CASA don't believe they are necessary for safety. They believe calling in the blind is OK.

I was directly involved in AMATS and the original document promoted Unicoms and said lots would soon appear! Almost immediately there was a campaign to make sure a Unicom could not operate in the North American way That is non prescriptive giving traffic , weather and anything that may add to safety.

Our AFIS at Port Headland is a return to high cost traffic info that I removed. Same with the CAGRO. All adding to the cost problems that are effecting our industry.

Re Airspace. I have been fortunate fly as a GA pilot in every modern aviation country in the world. I have particularly studied airspace classifications and procedures over many years with an open mind. My plan was to pinch the best ideas for Australia. It's what I did in business allowing me to make a few dollars.

However I have found that many in the industry here have no interest at all in copying the best - or indeed copying anything! There minds are pretty well closed.

Love to talk in person to you some time about what I learnt !

[Howabout]

Howabout,
A wonderful example that a little knowledge is dangerous.

Wrong, Leady. I am well aware, and have been for years, of the strict interpretation of access over the high-seas. Unfortunately for me, in that pig of a job, I had to spend hours researching overseas systems to rebut some of the tripe put forward by those that claim we have a 'unique system.' Sound familiar??

The biggest threat, in respect of military operations over water, is one's own nationally registered aircraft, and the ability is there to exclude them to avoid an aluminium shower.

Why do the Canadians have Class F off the coast with a clearance requirement, and the Kiwis have the same as regards their MOAs??

I'll tell you why. Similar to Australia, they both have adopted rules to mitigate, to the maximum extent possible, the risk of some dork bumbling through and collecting a military aircraft.

In the case of NZ, it's rather instructive, Leady old fruit. When they released their Airspace Handbook (circa 2004), there was no requirement to seek a clearance outside the 12-mile limit for entry to an MOA. Four years later, they re-published the Handbook (circa 2008) requiring clearance, whether in or outside the '12-mile' limit.

Why? Because they came to the conclusion that unfettered access, and mixing it with military traffic, was just plain dumb!

I didn't come down in the last shower when it comes to airspace and BS. But thanks for your condescension!

[Awol57]

What does the AFIS in Hedland actually cost industry?

[Howabout]

Further to the last Leady (and the rest of the zealots), cut and paste, then follow the link through Google. You'll be at the top of the search page.

Once you get to the Handbook, go to the bottom of page 10.

Oh those naughty, naughty Kiwis for proving we are not 'unique!'

Yeah, I am just a dumb neophyte, Leady!

Howabout,
A wonderful example that a little knowledge is dangerous.

https://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/GAPs/NZ_Airspace.pdf

[Dick Smith]

Awo. Surely at least $600 k a year but more likely $1 million. 80% paid by Qantas and Virgin and the Internationals thank heavens.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

in those days when your friendly FSO gave traffic it wasn't even mentioned if it was VFR or IFR

It was a long time ago now, but I'm pretty sure we did.

Surely at least $600 k a year but more likely $1 million. 80% paid by Qantas and Virgin and the Internationals

So only a guess then. GA gets a service for only 20% of the cost. Not a bad bargain.