Dick Smith: Legal Action against CASA re. CTAFs
Dick you didn't answer the question about the TAWS recommendation that you agitated for. This equipment would also have prevented the Benalla accident yet you continue to focus on the ATC component. Why do you not agitate for the introduction of TAWS for all turbine aircraft/helicopters of 6 seats or more just like they have in the US, which as we all know by know is the place of aviation worlds best practise?
Traffic. Remember that just about every recommendation from the ATSB after an accident looks at the situation from a concrete minded Australian viewpoint. Look again at the post from Leadslead quoting Billy Hughes.
That's why after the MDX fatal they never even suggested that in similar situations the pilot should be allowed to communicate directly with the radar operator. Took me years of constant resistance to change that one!
Or in the case of the Benalla fatal accident the ATSB never suggested that the AMATS proposals be looked at again and Class E be introduced at some airports with mountains on the approach path.
It's clear the ATSB rarely ask for advice from other leading aviation countries on how accidents can be avoided.
Look left. I probably gave up. Every change I agitate for is resisted. I thought we were harmonised with the US on that one. Can anyone advise?
That's why after the MDX fatal they never even suggested that in similar situations the pilot should be allowed to communicate directly with the radar operator. Took me years of constant resistance to change that one!
Or in the case of the Benalla fatal accident the ATSB never suggested that the AMATS proposals be looked at again and Class E be introduced at some airports with mountains on the approach path.
It's clear the ATSB rarely ask for advice from other leading aviation countries on how accidents can be avoided.
Look left. I probably gave up. Every change I agitate for is resisted. I thought we were harmonised with the US on that one. Can anyone advise?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Apr 2016 at 23:30.
Its not that hard to look it up yourself Dick its called the internet:
And the US requirement:
So my question again is why aren't you agitating for worlds best practice with equipment that can save lives (i.e Benalla) but instead focusing on ATC procedures?
You state that "you probably gave up", but from the way you have bombarded prune with your crusade against the "half wound back system" that doesn't seem to be your style.
9.1C A turbine-engined aeroplane that:
(a) has a maximum take-off weight of more than 15 000 kg or is carrying 10 or more passengers; and
(b) is engaged in RPT, or charter, operations;
must not be operated under the I.F.R. unless it is fitted with:
(c) an approved GPWS that has a predictive terrain hazard warning function; or
(d) if paragraph 9.1CA applies — a GPWS that meets the requirements of Civil Aviation Order 108.36 (a CAO 108.36 GPWS); or
(e) if the aeroplane has a maximum take-off weight of 5 700 kg or less, but is carrying 10 or more passengers — a TAWS-B+ system.
(a) has a maximum take-off weight of more than 15 000 kg or is carrying 10 or more passengers; and
(b) is engaged in RPT, or charter, operations;
must not be operated under the I.F.R. unless it is fitted with:
(c) an approved GPWS that has a predictive terrain hazard warning function; or
(d) if paragraph 9.1CA applies — a GPWS that meets the requirements of Civil Aviation Order 108.36 (a CAO 108.36 GPWS); or
(e) if the aeroplane has a maximum take-off weight of 5 700 kg or less, but is carrying 10 or more passengers — a TAWS-B+ system.
c. § 135.154 states that no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered
airplane configured with 6 to 9 passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that
airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that meets
the requirements of Class B equipment of TSO-C151a. It also states that no person may5/22/00 AC 25-23
Page 9
operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with 10 or more passenger
seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with a terrain awareness
and warning system that meets the provisions of Class A equipment of TSO-C151a.
airplane configured with 6 to 9 passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that
airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that meets
the requirements of Class B equipment of TSO-C151a. It also states that no person may5/22/00 AC 25-23
Page 9
operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with 10 or more passenger
seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with a terrain awareness
and warning system that meets the provisions of Class A equipment of TSO-C151a.
You state that "you probably gave up", but from the way you have bombarded prune with your crusade against the "half wound back system" that doesn't seem to be your style.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Or in the case of the Benalla fatal accident the ATSB never suggested that the AMATS proposals be looked at again and Class E be introduced at some airports with mountains on the approach path.
Because I feel a personal responsibility re airspace and not in relation to TAWS.
I have sleepless nights over the fact that the really sensible decision made by the ARG to move to the NAS has never been fully actioned.
It's now a half wound back stuff up because of resistance to change and sheer ignorance of those who are responsible for airspace regulation in Australia.
And as I have shown CASA didn't even support the wind back at the time.
I feel satisfaction for making the change so that all pilots can now communicate directly with a person who has a radar screen- not be forced by 1950s rules to remain on a frequency where the operator was prevented from accessing radar.
How many lives that has saved we will never know.
This change was resisted in every way at the time- even the class G radar trial was reversed and the radar covered airspace between Canberra and the Gold Coast was given back to Flight Service. Madness!
I have sleepless nights over the fact that the really sensible decision made by the ARG to move to the NAS has never been fully actioned.
It's now a half wound back stuff up because of resistance to change and sheer ignorance of those who are responsible for airspace regulation in Australia.
And as I have shown CASA didn't even support the wind back at the time.
I feel satisfaction for making the change so that all pilots can now communicate directly with a person who has a radar screen- not be forced by 1950s rules to remain on a frequency where the operator was prevented from accessing radar.
How many lives that has saved we will never know.
This change was resisted in every way at the time- even the class G radar trial was reversed and the radar covered airspace between Canberra and the Gold Coast was given back to Flight Service. Madness!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Apr 2016 at 00:39.
I understood we had harmonised with the USA on TAWS.
If you truly want to make aviation in Australia a safer place why don't you use your considerable energy and influence to align the Australian regulations with that of the US? You felt that it was urgent enough to pressure the ATSB to make a recommendation to CASA about aligning the regs, yet now you state that it is not infallible while in the same breath you consider your crusade against the current airspace rules to be the answer to any future Benalla style accidents.
As far as I am aware there has not been a single CFIT of an aircraft fitted with TAWS or EGPWS since its introduction so your assertion that:
TAWS is not infallible.
Traffic. Are you really suggesting that if the VFR pilot had made the same number of calls but without the prefix that the breakdown of separation would not have happened?
Surely any calls must be listened to and therefore can be distracting.
As for ATSB recommendations, do you seriously think that following an isolated incident clearly due to pilot error (that has never happened again), that the ATSB are going to recommend that the entire airspace system be redesigned? As for Benalla, there were safeguards built into the existing system that were not acted upon, and these were addressed by the recommendations (and acted upon - and it hasn't happened again). Case closed. The pilot didn't need E airspace every other time he went there. Neither did the guy who landed before him, or the guy after him. I thought E airspace was needed because of the amount of traffic, not because there were hills nearby. Gonna be a lot of extra E if that's the criteria.
This shows how dis functional CASA are.
They were pushed by Airservices commercial interest to bring in unique $30 m plus GA ADSB requirements that will have no measurable effect on safety but they haven't gone ahead with the most basic TAWS requirement .
I am clearly at fault here. I thought that we had harmonised with the USA on this one.
I will try and do better next time.
Traffic You claim VFR calls on ATC frequencies are not distracting.
Doesn't sound logical to me. Sounds as if you will do anything to keep the status quo and stop change. Suggest you look at the accurate Billy Hughes quote on the other thread!
They were pushed by Airservices commercial interest to bring in unique $30 m plus GA ADSB requirements that will have no measurable effect on safety but they haven't gone ahead with the most basic TAWS requirement .
I am clearly at fault here. I thought that we had harmonised with the USA on this one.
I will try and do better next time.
Traffic You claim VFR calls on ATC frequencies are not distracting.
Doesn't sound logical to me. Sounds as if you will do anything to keep the status quo and stop change. Suggest you look at the accurate Billy Hughes quote on the other thread!
If the call is not directed to you, or its a call to / from an aircraft, to / from another aircraft, or a call in which you may have 'no interest', for whatever reason - then it is treated as 'white noise' and is mentally disregarded....
'Filtered out', if you like.... A bit like being in a crowded room and focussing on the one conversation with the person to whom you are talking....
But, as FSOs, we had a form, a 'scratch pad' called a 'CA71', on which many of these transmissions were recorded (In our own shorthand sometimes/mostly) subject to workload, 'just in case'. Was part of the job, and at times, was very 'handy' in the event of an enquiry.....saved lots of time listening to tapes.
Even whilst aviating, if you hear a callsign 'near you' which may be 'of interest', do you not scribble down the callsign, just in case?
Happens all the time.
Do you go into 'crash mode' when the radio sounds like a Sydney Radio Taxi network on a Sat. night?
Cheers
'Filtered out', if you like.... A bit like being in a crowded room and focussing on the one conversation with the person to whom you are talking....
But, as FSOs, we had a form, a 'scratch pad' called a 'CA71', on which many of these transmissions were recorded (In our own shorthand sometimes/mostly) subject to workload, 'just in case'. Was part of the job, and at times, was very 'handy' in the event of an enquiry.....saved lots of time listening to tapes.
Even whilst aviating, if you hear a callsign 'near you' which may be 'of interest', do you not scribble down the callsign, just in case?
Happens all the time.
Do you go into 'crash mode' when the radio sounds like a Sydney Radio Taxi network on a Sat. night?
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite some fundamental disagreements on the wider issues, I'd like to see E down to 700 AGL tested somewhere; to either prove, or disprove, its efficacy. Nothing more than a trial at one location.
However, the cost must be tested against the benefit and 'opinion' ignored.
Intuitively, and given my past, I feel that an 'E Trial' would come down on the side of 'benefit,' but that is just MY OPINION. The cost/benefit test must apply.
I regard myself as having a neutral stance these days, despite the fact that I have crossed swords with Dick on many occasions.
I now look in from the outside in retirement and think 'so much wasted energy on both sides of the house!'
However, the cost must be tested against the benefit and 'opinion' ignored.
Intuitively, and given my past, I feel that an 'E Trial' would come down on the side of 'benefit,' but that is just MY OPINION. The cost/benefit test must apply.
I regard myself as having a neutral stance these days, despite the fact that I have crossed swords with Dick on many occasions.
I now look in from the outside in retirement and think 'so much wasted energy on both sides of the house!'
Doesn't sound logical to me
Vested interest. No. Just happy to throw logical rebuttals up against illogical arguments.
From the same article the Hughes quote came from (and to requote a section Howabout used previously:
(Change) cannot be achieved by floating an idea and hoping it will be accepted. Hughes was right; such an idea simply will be treated with contempt.
In a democracy, it is necessary to convince the public that what you are doing has to be done.
To achieve real change, the public has to be convinced the course of action taken by the government is necessary and that there is no other way.
In a democracy, it is necessary to convince the public that what you are doing has to be done.
To achieve real change, the public has to be convinced the course of action taken by the government is necessary and that there is no other way.
Howabout,
We already have control to 700' outside tower hours as YBRK and YBMK.
Can't remember whether it is E or C.
Cost a bit to implement (extra frequency, extra consoles, extra staff, new airspace and procedures, plus extensive training to give enroute an approach rating, plus recurrent training, as traffic is too light to remain recent)
Or were you wanting something else trialled?
We already have control to 700' outside tower hours as YBRK and YBMK.
Can't remember whether it is E or C.
Cost a bit to implement (extra frequency, extra consoles, extra staff, new airspace and procedures, plus extensive training to give enroute an approach rating, plus recurrent training, as traffic is too light to remain recent)
Or were you wanting something else trialled?
Malroy, interesting about the "extensive training to give en route an approach rating"
Did anyone bother to find out how they do it in the USA without approach ratings?
Does ASA have a culture of asking advice and copying the best from around the world?
Does an approach rating pay more money?
My threads get thousands of clicks from the industry that is nearly broke - that's why it's important to uncover these things.
Did anyone bother to find out how they do it in the USA without approach ratings?
Does ASA have a culture of asking advice and copying the best from around the world?
Does an approach rating pay more money?
My threads get thousands of clicks from the industry that is nearly broke - that's why it's important to uncover these things.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God, can we please stop this infantile sniping on both sides?? Sorry, Malroy, the reference to 'sniping' does not apply to you.
Malroy and no disrespect, because I appreciate you believe that your points are valid. But I would offer the following based on 36 years in the game:
Why would an extra frequency be needed, when controlling enroute is hardly a brain-busting task? The high-flyers are 'straight and level' and subject to a bit of management - speed control, holding etc, to get them in a line prior to TODC. I can't believe that an enroute controller could honestly tell me that the capacity is not there to do more on his/her freq.
If the capacity is there, then why the call for extra consoles? We are talking about minimal extra traffic being given an E service out of existing resources that, IMHO, could cope with standing on their heads.
New airspace yes, but that's a few lines on the charts. New procedures? No, nothing needs to change in respect of current standards and procedures.
'Extensive training?' 'Extensive' is a pretty broad, and potentially open-ended description of what may actually be required. I could run a competent enroute controller through the sim in a couple of afternoon rides to get him/her up to speed with the traffic volumes we are talking about. You seem to suggest that a competent enroute controller is not capable of adapting to a relatively minor increase in work-load.
I will qualify, again, that change needs to be predicated on cost/benefit. But let's not close our minds to benefits that might accrue over costs incurred.
Cost a bit to implement (extra frequency, extra consoles, extra staff, new airspace and procedures, plus extensive training to give enroute an approach rating, plus recurrent training, as traffic is too light to remain recent)
Why would an extra frequency be needed, when controlling enroute is hardly a brain-busting task? The high-flyers are 'straight and level' and subject to a bit of management - speed control, holding etc, to get them in a line prior to TODC. I can't believe that an enroute controller could honestly tell me that the capacity is not there to do more on his/her freq.
If the capacity is there, then why the call for extra consoles? We are talking about minimal extra traffic being given an E service out of existing resources that, IMHO, could cope with standing on their heads.
New airspace yes, but that's a few lines on the charts. New procedures? No, nothing needs to change in respect of current standards and procedures.
'Extensive training?' 'Extensive' is a pretty broad, and potentially open-ended description of what may actually be required. I could run a competent enroute controller through the sim in a couple of afternoon rides to get him/her up to speed with the traffic volumes we are talking about. You seem to suggest that a competent enroute controller is not capable of adapting to a relatively minor increase in work-load.
I will qualify, again, that change needs to be predicated on cost/benefit. But let's not close our minds to benefits that might accrue over costs incurred.
Comparing US ATC to Oz ATC is not one for one. The last time I talked to an (ex)ATC from US, they still operate with one controller working traffic, and a separate controller for coordination (or planner). Airservices moved away from this model a generation ago. In Oz, their is only one ATC, with responsibilities for traffic and coordination.
When commenting on the required resource and timeframes, I am reporting my observation of what occurred, rather than what might be possible.
There is no pay difference between approach and enroute, or for holding both endorsements, so the requirement to achieve the approach endorsement is more a recognition of a different ruleset being applied.
When controlling E to 700' there are new considerations that are not dealt with by enroute control, including the different rules once a pilot reports visual, Minimum Safe Altitudes and Radar lowest safes, protection of an aircraft once cleared for an approach, protection of missed approach path (including from VFR, intentions unknown and not responding on frequency), different phraseologies (only small differences, but still a difference). I am sure there are other risks/considerations, but this isn't really my area of expertise.
As to the number of controllers, one controller is responsible for both YBRK and YBMK. This requires two separate windows to view both airports. To try to display both airports at a resolution suitable for approach work, and display all airspace between Brisbane and Hamilton Island at the same time is a difficult task. Not saying it is impossible, but we really don't want one person working two separate consoles. While the enroute controller may have the capacity in a normal shift to provide both services, they do need the training, and they need the capacity to deal with the unexpected.
It is worth considering, the risks are the number of airports an ATC would need to provide the service for, and VFR with unknown intentions.
To implement this a YBNA, why not also Grafton, Inverell, Lismore and Armidale, which are all within the same sector.
When commenting on the required resource and timeframes, I am reporting my observation of what occurred, rather than what might be possible.
There is no pay difference between approach and enroute, or for holding both endorsements, so the requirement to achieve the approach endorsement is more a recognition of a different ruleset being applied.
When controlling E to 700' there are new considerations that are not dealt with by enroute control, including the different rules once a pilot reports visual, Minimum Safe Altitudes and Radar lowest safes, protection of an aircraft once cleared for an approach, protection of missed approach path (including from VFR, intentions unknown and not responding on frequency), different phraseologies (only small differences, but still a difference). I am sure there are other risks/considerations, but this isn't really my area of expertise.
As to the number of controllers, one controller is responsible for both YBRK and YBMK. This requires two separate windows to view both airports. To try to display both airports at a resolution suitable for approach work, and display all airspace between Brisbane and Hamilton Island at the same time is a difficult task. Not saying it is impossible, but we really don't want one person working two separate consoles. While the enroute controller may have the capacity in a normal shift to provide both services, they do need the training, and they need the capacity to deal with the unexpected.
It is worth considering, the risks are the number of airports an ATC would need to provide the service for, and VFR with unknown intentions.
To implement this a YBNA, why not also Grafton, Inverell, Lismore and Armidale, which are all within the same sector.