Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working!
And what I have repeatedly asked you Dick, is why are there are not more UNICOMS in Australia, when it is already perfectly legal to operate one?
Thread Starter
I understand it's not possible to give a US style Unicom service here .
For example Clive Wilson at Lord Howe can no longer provide a WX and traffic advisory service he has in the past.
His details were removed from the ERS a few years ago.
Someone from CASA has told him verbally that he can go ahead and give the service but he has asked for confirmation in writing and this is not forthcoming .
If CASA allowed FAA style Unicoms we would not need expensive CAGROs
For example Clive Wilson at Lord Howe can no longer provide a WX and traffic advisory service he has in the past.
His details were removed from the ERS a few years ago.
Someone from CASA has told him verbally that he can go ahead and give the service but he has asked for confirmation in writing and this is not forthcoming .
If CASA allowed FAA style Unicoms we would not need expensive CAGROs
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout. You describe the Australian NAS as a " cobbled - together piece of rubbish".
I put a tremendous amount of time together with experts from Qantas in putting this proposal together. I travelled around the world asking advice from airspace regulators in the UK , France , Canada , New Zealand and the USA.
I put a tremendous amount of time together with experts from Qantas in putting this proposal together. I travelled around the world asking advice from airspace regulators in the UK , France , Canada , New Zealand and the USA.
Would you be prepared to talk to me about this?
There was another incident close to Darwin, where two Metros almost created an aluminium shower because C was converted to E with zero justification. That one was never reported because it complied with E rules, and the company had them both go VFR in E to 'save costs.' A head-on narrowly avoided because a bunch of switched-on controllers in Darwin (the dreaded RAAF) picked up on what was going on. That one still haunts me.
As regards the second point - a total waste of time.
You are always on TX, never on RX.
Thread Starter
The C was converted to E at Launceston so the Tower Controllor could concentrate where the risk is highest. That is near and on the runway. That's no doubt why Broome has E over D as do all other modern aviation countries.
C over D is clearly " upside down " airspace because the risk is obviously higher where traffic gets closer together.
You want it that way because that's how it was in the past. Your mind is set in concrete and you have no understanding of risk management.
The so called " serious incident" was not an incident at all. The VFR pilot had the Virgin aircraft sighted at all relevant times and was always going to remain clear. That's how alerted see and avoid is supposed to work.
The Virgin pilot never sighted the VFR aircraft and if we did not have our safer mode C class E transponder mandate no incident would ever have been reported because the Vigin pilots would never have known the VFR aircraft was present.
One day we will kill people because a Controllor at a place like Albury is attempting to separate aircraft in Class C en route airspace above while two aircraft collide on the runway due to the fact that the high workload is moved to the low risk area. It's the only reason that other modern aviation countries place the higher classification airspace where the collision risk is greater- that is closer to the runway . Just commonsense while we resist any change.
In effect. If in 1949 we just had controlled airspace and un controlled airspace we must never ever change that by following the experience in countries where traffic densities are thirty times higher
C over D is clearly " upside down " airspace because the risk is obviously higher where traffic gets closer together.
You want it that way because that's how it was in the past. Your mind is set in concrete and you have no understanding of risk management.
The so called " serious incident" was not an incident at all. The VFR pilot had the Virgin aircraft sighted at all relevant times and was always going to remain clear. That's how alerted see and avoid is supposed to work.
The Virgin pilot never sighted the VFR aircraft and if we did not have our safer mode C class E transponder mandate no incident would ever have been reported because the Vigin pilots would never have known the VFR aircraft was present.
One day we will kill people because a Controllor at a place like Albury is attempting to separate aircraft in Class C en route airspace above while two aircraft collide on the runway due to the fact that the high workload is moved to the low risk area. It's the only reason that other modern aviation countries place the higher classification airspace where the collision risk is greater- that is closer to the runway . Just commonsense while we resist any change.
In effect. If in 1949 we just had controlled airspace and un controlled airspace we must never ever change that by following the experience in countries where traffic densities are thirty times higher
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Mar 2016 at 09:30.
Thread Starter
More importantly. The reason we are not using the existing radar rated controllers in the Melbourne Centre to provide a proper radar approach service into Launceston is because we can't change to the system used in leading aviation countries where the tower controllers just concentrate on the tower airspace where the risk is highest.
No doubt in the 1950s or whenever Launy tower went in the tower controllers had huge airspace to 30 miles or so.
So we must never change that. Leave the 1950s procedures set in concrete for ever even if it means keeping procedural control with its clear lower level of safety.
What a complete waste of $6 m of our industries money for the multilateration system. Yes. I have heard the AsA lie - that it was never intended to operate in terminal airspace.
No doubt in the 1950s or whenever Launy tower went in the tower controllers had huge airspace to 30 miles or so.
So we must never change that. Leave the 1950s procedures set in concrete for ever even if it means keeping procedural control with its clear lower level of safety.
What a complete waste of $6 m of our industries money for the multilateration system. Yes. I have heard the AsA lie - that it was never intended to operate in terminal airspace.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards NAS, and in respect of Launy, Alice, Darwin, and other places, you attempted to fix a 'problem' where one did not exist, at no saving. Alice was a classic example of controllers doing their job in non-radar Class C. Would you like to quote an incident where those controllers were hampered in doing their job because it was Class C, where E would have been a 'safety improvement and a cost saving?' Just one! Just one, Dick?
And, oh, the 'Radar Direction' letter to the idiot minister. Wasn't that a beauty in respect of manipulation. As your beloved Yanks say, 'Anderson couldn't find his ass with both hands' when it came to gullibility in matters aviation.
I was there when that letter was written and gagged at what I considered to be lying, and gave my opinion that it was total BS.
You see, Dick, there was a good case to say that, in this day and age, Class C should have radar. I'd have agreed with that argument.
Instead, the argument was twisted to say that you can't have Class C without radar - because the baseline is the States, where C has radar. Consequently, the argument was put to the idiot that you can't have C without radar. That was duplicitous in the extreme.
And, oh, the 'Radar Direction' letter to the idiot minister. Wasn't that a beauty in respect of manipulation. As your beloved Yanks say, 'Anderson couldn't find his ass with both hands' when it came to gullibility in matters aviation.
I was there when that letter was written and gagged at what I considered to be lying, and gave my opinion that it was total BS.
You see, Dick, there was a good case to say that, in this day and age, Class C should have radar. I'd have agreed with that argument.
Instead, the argument was twisted to say that you can't have Class C without radar - because the baseline is the States, where C has radar. Consequently, the argument was put to the idiot that you can't have C without radar. That was duplicitous in the extreme.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missed this one and I was there Dick.
Nobody wanted Class D. It was stupidly introduced as a sop to try and shut you up. My recollection was that 'Give him something' was the Airservices' position. Influence!
We wouldn't have this argument about 'C over D' if it had all remained C, you weren't pandered do, and what worked was left alone.
C over D is clearly " upside down " airspace because the risk is obviously higher where traffic gets closer together.
We wouldn't have this argument about 'C over D' if it had all remained C, you weren't pandered do, and what worked was left alone.
Thread Starter
All non radar towers in the USA and Canada are class D. Are you suggesting there is a safety problem with this when we have jets going into places like Ballina in class G? That would never be allowed in the USA.
I know. It's all ok because that's what we did when you were trained - it must be ok!
Do you warn your friends not to fly in North America? I bet not!
And hold on. Gatwick in the UK is class D. Bet you don't have a problem flying there!
Set in concrete. Never keep an open mind to copy the worlds best. Just never ever change.
I know. It's all ok because that's what we did when you were trained - it must be ok!
Do you warn your friends not to fly in North America? I bet not!
And hold on. Gatwick in the UK is class D. Bet you don't have a problem flying there!
Set in concrete. Never keep an open mind to copy the worlds best. Just never ever change.
Thread Starter
The radar direction letter came because it's clearly not possible to operate C safely without primary and secondary radar.
How would the controller know where the VFR aircraft was located when above say 7500'?
You can't put a VFR aircraft on a procedural IFR route or position if the aircraft is not fitted with IFR aids.
I forgot. I know how you handle this non radar class C problem - "remain OCTA"
How would the controller know where the VFR aircraft was located when above say 7500'?
You can't put a VFR aircraft on a procedural IFR route or position if the aircraft is not fitted with IFR aids.
I forgot. I know how you handle this non radar class C problem - "remain OCTA"
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Danger Zone
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The delusion continues - the Launy incident was a bloody Airprox.And the Tobago pilot was a bloody idiot. You talk about dirt road services, well that event was about as appalling as it gets without there being a collision and was totally in accord with your beloved US procedures. Rather demonstrates how dirt track they are. The fact is it nearly killed a plane load of people.
Believe what you want Dick, but when you come out with pearlers like that you do yourself absolutely no favours.
Maybe you'd care to re-familiarise yourself with the actual report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24413/...305235_001.pdf
The Tobago pilot thought 2 degrees at 15 miles would be enough - the fact is he clearly had no understanding of nav tolerances and didn't consider what would happen if his estimate for the passing was out by even 30 seconds. You bang on about pilot arranged separation - well this wasn't even arranged. It was a guess from someone who clearly had not a clue - the lives of a plane load of paying passengers was put in the hands of the clueless.
Believe what you want Dick, but when you come out with pearlers like that you do yourself absolutely no favours.
Maybe you'd care to re-familiarise yourself with the actual report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24413/...305235_001.pdf
The Tobago pilot thought 2 degrees at 15 miles would be enough - the fact is he clearly had no understanding of nav tolerances and didn't consider what would happen if his estimate for the passing was out by even 30 seconds. You bang on about pilot arranged separation - well this wasn't even arranged. It was a guess from someone who clearly had not a clue - the lives of a plane load of paying passengers was put in the hands of the clueless.
Last edited by le Pingouin; 22nd Mar 2016 at 15:37.
One day we will kill people because a Controllor at a place like Albury is attempting to separate aircraft in Class C en route airspace above while two aircraft collide on the runway due to the fact that the high workload is moved to the low risk area.
Really?
Get off your high horse.
Despite what you imply, actual co-ordinated handovers occur between D and enroute which actually help the traffic, you know why, because they co ordinate! I don't expect them to be killing people by trying to control aircraft in other airspace, that really is just ******* stupid.
Please, stop the scare tactics.
when we have jets going into places like Ballina in class G. That would never be allowed in the USA
But that got changed.
I understand it's not possible to give a US style Unicom service here
If CASA allowed FAA style Unicoms we would not need expensive CAGROs
If Ballina put one in because they have to be seen to be doing something due to the scaremongering to the media about "how dangerous it is to fly there" and the costs are put straight onto industry, the industry will know who to thank when they get the bill.
Thread Starter
We don't have many CAGRO s because the cost is incredibly high. Last time I checked the Ayers Rock CAGRO was costing over $400k a year.
We don't have UNICOMs because they are next to useless as known traffic and weather can't be provided under the rules.
That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS and no longer can provide a safe Unicom service at zero cost.
We don't have UNICOMs because they are next to useless as known traffic and weather can't be provided under the rules.
That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS and no longer can provide a safe Unicom service at zero cost.
Thread Starter
Re the Launceston incident. Note how no recommendation is made to reverse the NAS airspace .
What is left out is the Tobago pilots continuing statements that he had the Virgin aircraft in sight at all relevant times and he believed there was never ever any chance of a mid air.
In the USA and Canada there is no transponder requirement in E above D so no incident would have been reported because the Virgin pilots did not sight the VFR aircraft at any time.
The Tobago pilot stated that the aircraft were at least a mile apart when they went through the same level and he was using alerted see and avoid to maintain separation.
That's actually how the system works all around the world. In fact ICAO class E and G has no radio requirement at all for VFR aircraft so un alerted see and avoid is the way it works in ICAO compliant countries
In Australia as well as having very low traffic densities we add mandatory radio and mandatory mode C transponders to make the class E " belts and braces" yet the concrete minded ones still say Class E can't work safely.
What is left out is the Tobago pilots continuing statements that he had the Virgin aircraft in sight at all relevant times and he believed there was never ever any chance of a mid air.
In the USA and Canada there is no transponder requirement in E above D so no incident would have been reported because the Virgin pilots did not sight the VFR aircraft at any time.
The Tobago pilot stated that the aircraft were at least a mile apart when they went through the same level and he was using alerted see and avoid to maintain separation.
That's actually how the system works all around the world. In fact ICAO class E and G has no radio requirement at all for VFR aircraft so un alerted see and avoid is the way it works in ICAO compliant countries
In Australia as well as having very low traffic densities we add mandatory radio and mandatory mode C transponders to make the class E " belts and braces" yet the concrete minded ones still say Class E can't work safely.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Mar 2016 at 00:26.
Thread Starter
You are correct. Thanks!
Car Ramrod. I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever spoken to an American or Canadian class D Controllor and asked how the system works there?
I remember once how I got the Juneau Tower head to come on this site and explain how D worked in the USA. Within hours there were posts claiming he could not possibly be an ATC because of his comments.
I am sure it must be in the archives!
Car Ramrod. I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever spoken to an American or Canadian class D Controllor and asked how the system works there?
I remember once how I got the Juneau Tower head to come on this site and explain how D worked in the USA. Within hours there were posts claiming he could not possibly be an ATC because of his comments.
I am sure it must be in the archives!
What is left out is the Tobago pilots continuing statements that he had the Virgin aircraft in site at all relevant times and he believed there was never ever any chance of a mid air.
If I've got this right, Dick, then a situation that resulted in a TCAS RA and a miss distance within 200'/1 nm is not even an incident - merely a good system working the way it was meant to. Yet the possibility of holding at Anna Bay is an intolerable risk that will inevitably kill young families. God help us.
Thread Starter
I can’t help myself but post again a couple of posts from 2004.
The first one from Voices of Reason headed “Class E Airspace is Safe” and the second one from “The Leyland Brothers”.
I’m told the Voices of Reason was a previous head of air traffic control at CAA but I have never been able to get this confirmed. I think both posts have some really good common sense information.
Voices of Reason 21st Apr 2004 16:19
________________________________________
Class E Airspace Is Safe
Class E Airspace and United States Practice
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
the leyland brothers 21st Apr 2004 17:02
________________________________________
Same in continental Europe - plenty of class E and it seems to work just fine.
You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.
Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?
The first one from Voices of Reason headed “Class E Airspace is Safe” and the second one from “The Leyland Brothers”.
I’m told the Voices of Reason was a previous head of air traffic control at CAA but I have never been able to get this confirmed. I think both posts have some really good common sense information.
Voices of Reason 21st Apr 2004 16:19
________________________________________
Class E Airspace Is Safe
Class E Airspace and United States Practice
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
the leyland brothers 21st Apr 2004 17:02
________________________________________
Same in continental Europe - plenty of class E and it seems to work just fine.
You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.
Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?