Dick Smith: Legal Action against CASA re. CTAFs
Howabout, do you seriously think it's a good idea to have to zoom in on a tiny piece of airspace to appropriately monitor an approach for however long that approach takes when we also have to monitor the whole rest of our airspace? You forget US sectors small Aus sectors big.
Le Ping. Seems logical re what you are saying re big sectors in Aus in the vast hinterland.
But what about the airspace between Melbourne and Brissy? I thought it was supposed to be some of the busiest in the world.
Couldn't we have smaller , non stratified sectors in that area and try some low level non tower E?
But what about the airspace between Melbourne and Brissy? I thought it was supposed to be some of the busiest in the world.
Couldn't we have smaller , non stratified sectors in that area and try some low level non tower E?
Which probably makes it the worst choice for a trial. You need to understand that the existing airspace and sector structure forms an integrated system and trying to carve out a chunk and have it work differently isn't straightforward as you need to modify the entire system to accommodate the differences.
Think of the sector structure as two overlapping and unaligned jigsaw puzzles with oddly shaped pieces that are shaped to fit the current system. You're trying to cut a piece all the way through based on a third aerodrome layer that previously had no connection to the other two layers - it's not going to be neat and tidy.
Think of the sector structure as two overlapping and unaligned jigsaw puzzles with oddly shaped pieces that are shaped to fit the current system. You're trying to cut a piece all the way through based on a third aerodrome layer that previously had no connection to the other two layers - it's not going to be neat and tidy.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Dick, you appear to be designing the ATC set up that was contributory to "Uberlingen", and resulted in recommendations that the ANSP NOT do this?
and
BFU report, Conclusions.
BFU report, Recommendations.
http://http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publ...ublicationFile
Isn't there someone on 'prune always banging on about controllers being distracted from where the risk is?
The controller was solely responsible for the entire ATC within ACC Zurich. For this he had to fill two adjacent workstations with different frequencies and worked with two radar moni-tors. In order to control flights in the upper airspace and the approach in the lower airspace to Friedrichshafen. Radar charts with different ranges were displayed on the monitors.
During the last five minutes prior to the collision, the controller paid more attention to the Airbus A320 in approach to Friedrichshafen.
When ACC is required to manage the approach services for Friedrichshafen and Al-tenrhein/St. Gallen, one additional controller shall be assigned to this task. Alternatively, this task should be taken over by APP Zurich.
http://http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publ...ublicationFile
Isn't there someone on 'prune always banging on about controllers being distracted from where the risk is?
So does that mean we can never in Australia have our en route ATCs providing a higher level of service with terminal class E like they do in the US and Canada?
Seems a real pity if so. What's the use of having Control in the lower risk en route airspace and then " do it yourself" class G where the risk is higher. Very strange way of allocating resources.
Seems a real pity if so. What's the use of having Control in the lower risk en route airspace and then " do it yourself" class G where the risk is higher. Very strange way of allocating resources.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will check on what happens in Canada, but the US does not do what you propose be done in Australia.
The US has much smaller sector sizes, so can do the thing you are looking for. They do not have enroute controllers with large display ranges working traffic in the weeds. It cannot be done in Australia without either adding a lot more controllers (like they have in the US) or spreading the resources thinner and establishing the sort of multi-task distraction which was one of the causes of Uberlingen, which would be a
as the identified HAZARD does not demand the mitigation TREATMENT. There are not a lot of IFRs banging into each other in the Australian F airspace, which you want upgraded to E. From your posts, there have been two light aircraft accidents in the history of Australian aviation that involved CFIT, which may have been prevented were there E to 700'. Maybe.
Further, you want to trial it at places where you believe the resources may be available right now for no extra cost (radar coverage and ATC workload), thereby creating yet another unique hodge-podge of Australia only system- because as sure as anything, the trial at a handful of aerodromes might well prove successful but will not rolled-out system-wide due to.........resources.
Perhaps a better use of the resources you want to throw at this non-problem would be equipment upgrades (ADS-B anyone?) and pilot education.
The US has much smaller sector sizes, so can do the thing you are looking for. They do not have enroute controllers with large display ranges working traffic in the weeds. It cannot be done in Australia without either adding a lot more controllers (like they have in the US) or spreading the resources thinner and establishing the sort of multi-task distraction which was one of the causes of Uberlingen, which would be a
Very strange way of allocating resources
Further, you want to trial it at places where you believe the resources may be available right now for no extra cost (radar coverage and ATC workload), thereby creating yet another unique hodge-podge of Australia only system- because as sure as anything, the trial at a handful of aerodromes might well prove successful but will not rolled-out system-wide due to.........resources.
Perhaps a better use of the resources you want to throw at this non-problem would be equipment upgrades (ADS-B anyone?) and pilot education.
I received an answer from CASA today, to the letter sent by my solicitor Mark O’Brien.
After reading the answer 5 times, I can’t fathom out what it means.
Possibly some of the readers of this thread can assist me.
Does it mean you give calls on non-mapped marked aerodromes on the multicom of 126.7 or does it mean you call on the area frequency?
Look forward to everyone’s guess.
Perhaps RAPAC could make a comment.
After reading the answer 5 times, I can’t fathom out what it means.
Possibly some of the readers of this thread can assist me.
Does it mean you give calls on non-mapped marked aerodromes on the multicom of 126.7 or does it mean you call on the area frequency?
Look forward to everyone’s guess.
Perhaps RAPAC could make a comment.
I would have thought you were paying your legal team to tell you what it meant, rather than asking random strangers on an internet forum to guess it's intent.
Thread Starter
Folks,
I am, to say the least, mystified.
I hope Lead Balloon will comment, because it seem to me that the CASA reply implies that the default radio call in G are nil, but I think the LB view that the radio calls required is nil is a bit contentious.
In my view, taken as a whole, various regulations that require a radio equipped to keep a listening watch, CAR 166 (and others??) can be interpreted as requiring "some" radio calls, is the "legal" minimum nil if you have a serviceable VHF.
It doesn't address the core issue of the legal action mounted by Dick, that VFR aircraft in G should not be using ATC frequencies, but 126.7, at uncharted airfields.
Tootle pip!!
I am, to say the least, mystified.
I hope Lead Balloon will comment, because it seem to me that the CASA reply implies that the default radio call in G are nil, but I think the LB view that the radio calls required is nil is a bit contentious.
In my view, taken as a whole, various regulations that require a radio equipped to keep a listening watch, CAR 166 (and others??) can be interpreted as requiring "some" radio calls, is the "legal" minimum nil if you have a serviceable VHF.
It doesn't address the core issue of the legal action mounted by Dick, that VFR aircraft in G should not be using ATC frequencies, but 126.7, at uncharted airfields.
Tootle pip!!
I agree Dick. The content of that letter is meandering twaddle.
The first sentence doesn't make sense. I can't figure out the subject of the clause "as expressed in". For those who appear to understand it, if the first sentence instead finished with a full stop after "126.7", what would the words after that be changed to turn it into a second sentence?
Second paragraph? Wiser minds than mind will have to work that one out.
CASA "sought to give meaning" to a phrase within the CARs? Doesn't matter a toss what CASA "sought" to do. A phrase in the CARs means whatever it means, no matter what CASA says, does, seeks or hopes.
Grade: F.
The first sentence doesn't make sense. I can't figure out the subject of the clause "as expressed in". For those who appear to understand it, if the first sentence instead finished with a full stop after "126.7", what would the words after that be changed to turn it into a second sentence?
Second paragraph? Wiser minds than mind will have to work that one out.
CASA "sought to give meaning" to a phrase within the CARs? Doesn't matter a toss what CASA "sought" to do. A phrase in the CARs means whatever it means, no matter what CASA says, does, seeks or hopes.
Grade: F.
Traffic. Nah, can't afford any more xpensive legal advice when I may be able to get it on prune for nothing.Remember I'm saving up for ADSB for the CJ.
What does this mean. "- unless they are in fact the frequencies in use for a particular aerodrome" ?
Clear as the Yarra.
What does this mean. "- unless they are in fact the frequencies in use for a particular aerodrome" ?
Clear as the Yarra.
The question as to when a pilot of a radio equipped aircraft at or in the vicinity of an unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strip is obliged to broadcast is a related but different question as to the frequency on which that broadcast has to be made.
Dick's gripe is about the latter question, not the former.
I'm guessing - and this is only a wild guess - that the letter is trying to say that so far as CASA is concerned, the word "aerodrome" in CAR 166C(1) always meant, and continues to mean, something that includes an unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed airstrip, and in 2014 CASA merely "sought" to make clear what was already true.
However, as I said before, it doesn't really matter a toss what CASA "sought" to do. A phrase in the CARs means whatever it means, no matter what CASA says, does, seeks or hopes. CASA could be right. And CASA could be wrong.
But this at least gets us back - finally - to the issue at the heart of the matter. Some people consider the treatment of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips as "aerodromes" for the purposes of CAR 166 to be a change that happened in 2014. Other people (including CASA, apparently) consider it not to be a change.
Dick's gripe is about the latter question, not the former.
I'm guessing - and this is only a wild guess - that the letter is trying to say that so far as CASA is concerned, the word "aerodrome" in CAR 166C(1) always meant, and continues to mean, something that includes an unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed airstrip, and in 2014 CASA merely "sought" to make clear what was already true.
However, as I said before, it doesn't really matter a toss what CASA "sought" to do. A phrase in the CARs means whatever it means, no matter what CASA says, does, seeks or hopes. CASA could be right. And CASA could be wrong.
But this at least gets us back - finally - to the issue at the heart of the matter. Some people consider the treatment of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips as "aerodromes" for the purposes of CAR 166 to be a change that happened in 2014. Other people (including CASA, apparently) consider it not to be a change.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 14th Apr 2016 at 10:40.
Remember I'm saving up for ADSB for the CJ.
Some people consider the treatment of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips as "aerodromes" for the purposes of CAR 166 to be a change that happened in 2014. Other people (including CASA, apparently) consider it not to be a change.
Or was it 2009? Doesn't make much difference to the underlying issue.
And what was the date of each of those days?