Dick Smith: Legal Action against CASA re. CTAFs
So at a non map marked strip can you use 126.7?
Originally Posted by Leddie
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.
Blogs. Does that mean you and CASA are at odds over this ?
I understood your RAPAC group in WA wanted to stick to the NAS system that I introduced( thanks for your support for NAS) and have non map marked airports use the multicom of 126.7.
I understood your RAPAC group in WA wanted to stick to the NAS system that I introduced( thanks for your support for NAS) and have non map marked airports use the multicom of 126.7.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, boys and girls; I honestly can't see the problem in respect of a Class E trial at one location and then doing a cost/benefit on the implications of rolling out the system further. See my previous - they have all been totally consistent in respect of cost/benefit and risk. Opinion does not suffice.
In addition, I fully agree le P's point on sector size in the contemporary environment. Where I disagree, is on the capacity of controllers, and resources available, to conduct a trial at just one location. No more than one provided by one sector. It'll either work or it won't.
If it works, in respect of 'safety enhancement,' then the numbers must be crunched as regards the additional cost of infrastructure/training versus the benefits of a wider roll-out.
This will come across to some as some sort of 'hero' comment from an 'old fart.' and I'll take the inevitable bagging. But when I did it for a living, and lost my oppo on a deployment to the middle-east without a replacement, I ran a one-man sector for six months.
That involved controlling with crap radar coverage because of the ranges west of BN on a 5rpm radar, so it was half procedural at lower levels out to 200 nm; over-water airspace to the east across four or five international air routes when the pigs were doing supersonic runs; Evans Head; plus APP control into AMB on Fridays when their radar was off for service. One bloke.
That was not a picnic and it was less than ideal, but I do not believe that any of the current crop couldn't stand up in the same situation - far from it.
I just believe that the talent and capacity are there to give this a run in one location and then assess the cost/benefit, risk management, and investment implications.
Just an entirely personal perspective. My 'opinion' counts for squat in this debate. It must come down to the fundamentals in respect of airspace change.
In addition, I fully agree le P's point on sector size in the contemporary environment. Where I disagree, is on the capacity of controllers, and resources available, to conduct a trial at just one location. No more than one provided by one sector. It'll either work or it won't.
If it works, in respect of 'safety enhancement,' then the numbers must be crunched as regards the additional cost of infrastructure/training versus the benefits of a wider roll-out.
This will come across to some as some sort of 'hero' comment from an 'old fart.' and I'll take the inevitable bagging. But when I did it for a living, and lost my oppo on a deployment to the middle-east without a replacement, I ran a one-man sector for six months.
That involved controlling with crap radar coverage because of the ranges west of BN on a 5rpm radar, so it was half procedural at lower levels out to 200 nm; over-water airspace to the east across four or five international air routes when the pigs were doing supersonic runs; Evans Head; plus APP control into AMB on Fridays when their radar was off for service. One bloke.
That was not a picnic and it was less than ideal, but I do not believe that any of the current crop couldn't stand up in the same situation - far from it.
I just believe that the talent and capacity are there to give this a run in one location and then assess the cost/benefit, risk management, and investment implications.
Just an entirely personal perspective. My 'opinion' counts for squat in this debate. It must come down to the fundamentals in respect of airspace change.
Blimey! Can you read AIP? No, you use the FIA freq as per Captain Midnight's post. Some of us give you references to answer your questions/educate you. Please read them, Dick.
So, here we have sensible pilots possibly breaking the law by not congesting an area frequency. It has been suggested by several of them that perhaps if the area frequency was in fact used as per the AIP, then something would have been done by now.
Someone really needs to sort this out.
Howabout, you never address the problem that as the regs currently stand the trial will require approach ratings for those involved. You might have been allowed to do it back in the day in the RAAF but times have changed and there is no way I'd be allowed to without an appropriate rating. En-route controllers receive no approach training.
give this a run in one location and then assess the cost/benefit, risk management, and investment implications.
All that and a lot more needs to be done before any trial anywhere.
For some light reading, have a look at the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2015 and the section "Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace".
And that's just one aspect. There are many hoops to go through before CASA will consider an airspace classification change.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
le P, I do not dispute your argument in respect of providing an 'approach service.' It's a valid point in the contemporary world. I suppose part of my beef goes to wasted talent and, therefore, loss of flexibility on the part of the ANSP. The controllers are not to blame.
Years ago I had a bit of a barney with the then HATC after 'streamed training' had been introduced. Fair enough, I was sticking my nose in where it wasn't wanted, but I just saw long-term negatives. After a lot of f-words, he admitted that 'streaming' was just a cost-saver in respect of training and that 'it was the worst decision we've ever made.'
Rightly or wrongly, I happen to believe that the talent is there for a half-decent enroute guy to provide what would amount to a modest APP service to one location after a bit of sim time for a trial.
Captain M, I hear what you are saying and I had a little to do with a previous iteration. I'd offer that a 'trial' would not be at odds with the fundamental thrust of the document in respect of airspace change. The document is framed in respect of long-term change. For mine, a 'trial' is not counter to the fundamentals mapped out in the AAPS.
No aggro and just personal opinion.
Years ago I had a bit of a barney with the then HATC after 'streamed training' had been introduced. Fair enough, I was sticking my nose in where it wasn't wanted, but I just saw long-term negatives. After a lot of f-words, he admitted that 'streaming' was just a cost-saver in respect of training and that 'it was the worst decision we've ever made.'
Rightly or wrongly, I happen to believe that the talent is there for a half-decent enroute guy to provide what would amount to a modest APP service to one location after a bit of sim time for a trial.
Captain M, I hear what you are saying and I had a little to do with a previous iteration. I'd offer that a 'trial' would not be at odds with the fundamental thrust of the document in respect of airspace change. The document is framed in respect of long-term change. For mine, a 'trial' is not counter to the fundamentals mapped out in the AAPS.
No aggro and just personal opinion.
Trial or otherwise, it's still an approach service so proper training and rating will be required - talented or not "a bit of sim time" won't cut it. And nor should it. Cutting corners solely for the sake of expediency is hardly a great way to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of something.
Howabout, a bloke who drove sector 4 lecturing Air Traffic Controllers on workload is like a person whose life's work is recording famous Samoan gymnasts claiming a high workload.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plazbot,
I did work a few other places, but I don't want to get into a p155ing contest. You remind me of a bloke who was an arrogant ass, spent time in uniform, worked in Darwin, and thought himself God's gift to ATC. I wonder what happened to that monkey?
I am not interested in comparing appendage sizes.
My observations have been dispassionate and made from reflection in retirement. I happen to believe the talent is there, if properly managed, to test whether this is a goer or not.
It's sad that your abuse substitutes for rational debate.
I did work a few other places, but I don't want to get into a p155ing contest. You remind me of a bloke who was an arrogant ass, spent time in uniform, worked in Darwin, and thought himself God's gift to ATC. I wonder what happened to that monkey?
I am not interested in comparing appendage sizes.
My observations have been dispassionate and made from reflection in retirement. I happen to believe the talent is there, if properly managed, to test whether this is a goer or not.
It's sad that your abuse substitutes for rational debate.
Tough crowd, eh Howabout.
FWIW, I agree that a trial of LL E at Ballina would be a good idea. But I'm just an amateur, too.
Sometimes the ATC spokespeople remind me of CASA AVMED. They sometimes express their opinions as objective truths. A challenge to those opinions is usually met with the Armageddon mid air 100s of deaths scenario.
FWIW, I agree that a trial of LL E at Ballina would be a good idea. But I'm just an amateur, too.
Sometimes the ATC spokespeople remind me of CASA AVMED. They sometimes express their opinions as objective truths. A challenge to those opinions is usually met with the Armageddon mid air 100s of deaths scenario.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, Plazbot,
We are just 'enthusiastic amateurs.' I'm an 'enthusiastic amateur' because I am willing to listen to cogent argument in respect of where improvements might be made.
But, despite my time, I suppose that I'm just an irrelevancy when it comes to rational debate.
We are just 'enthusiastic amateurs.' I'm an 'enthusiastic amateur' because I am willing to listen to cogent argument in respect of where improvements might be made.
But, despite my time, I suppose that I'm just an irrelevancy when it comes to rational debate.
Howsabout said
Its not about "talent", its about proper project management that considers all aspects, procedures, airspace, documentation, facilities, ATC training, pilot education, to name just a few.
I'd be concerned about the timelines, timelines to develop a trial, timelines for the trial, and then what? Continue with an orphan? Withdraw at the end of the trial? Park the idea until a full roll-out?
My observations have been dispassionate and made from reflection in retirement. I happen to believe the talent is there, if properly managed, to test whether this is a goer or not.
I'd be concerned about the timelines, timelines to develop a trial, timelines for the trial, and then what? Continue with an orphan? Withdraw at the end of the trial? Park the idea until a full roll-out?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missy, post #97,
Your comments have always been pretty free of emotion and the points you make are accepted. No argument whatsoever; the same way I have no issues with what le P has posted.
Yes, there are a a number of undoubted hurdles that can't be ignored and just swept under the carpet for the sake of convenience. That has never been my position.
Someone, previously, suggested that I was putting 'the cart before the horse.' Far from it. I'd be horrified if any trial was conducted without those issues you raise being addressed and rigorous cost/benefit and risk being applied in the first instance.
Maybe I did not make my position clear enough. Captain M may have assumed that I was in support of 'just doing it' and weighing up the cost/benefit later. Sorry, Captain M, in respect of clarity.
The proposal stands or falls on cost/benefit and risk analysis alone.
That said, I just happen to think the that it has legs. If it does not stand up, then you won't get any bleats out of me if it's tested, and found to be wanting, prior to any attempt to implement a trial of the concept.
I hope that clarifies where I stand.
Your comments have always been pretty free of emotion and the points you make are accepted. No argument whatsoever; the same way I have no issues with what le P has posted.
Yes, there are a a number of undoubted hurdles that can't be ignored and just swept under the carpet for the sake of convenience. That has never been my position.
Someone, previously, suggested that I was putting 'the cart before the horse.' Far from it. I'd be horrified if any trial was conducted without those issues you raise being addressed and rigorous cost/benefit and risk being applied in the first instance.
Maybe I did not make my position clear enough. Captain M may have assumed that I was in support of 'just doing it' and weighing up the cost/benefit later. Sorry, Captain M, in respect of clarity.
The proposal stands or falls on cost/benefit and risk analysis alone.
That said, I just happen to think the that it has legs. If it does not stand up, then you won't get any bleats out of me if it's tested, and found to be wanting, prior to any attempt to implement a trial of the concept.
I hope that clarifies where I stand.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer for Lead Balloon: For ten (10) years prior to and including Wednesday, 29 May, 2013, the AIP specified that the frequency to be used at all aerodromes, marked on charts or otherwise, that did not have a designated CTAF was the MULTICOM, 126.7.
On Thursday 30 May, 2013 AIP amendment #75 became effective and a new paragraph was added to ENR 1.1 para. 44.1.1. This paragraph changed the frequency to be used at non-charted aerodromes from the MULTICOM to the area VHF frequency.
There was no stakeholder consultation or education process at all.
The fact is that the new requirement is being widely ignored.
On Thursday 30 May, 2013 AIP amendment #75 became effective and a new paragraph was added to ENR 1.1 para. 44.1.1. This paragraph changed the frequency to be used at non-charted aerodromes from the MULTICOM to the area VHF frequency.
There was no stakeholder consultation or education process at all.
The fact is that the new requirement is being widely ignored.
Last edited by Dick Gower; 17th Apr 2016 at 08:47. Reason: additional reference
I'm very confused, but I suspect I'm not the only one.
What is the 'Direction' and decision referred to in Dick's lawyer's letter? If all this happened in 2013, what's 2014 to do with it?
My theory is that everyone's arguing over the definition of "aerodrome" at various points over the last couple of decades. Good luck sorting out that bugger's muddle.
What is the 'Direction' and decision referred to in Dick's lawyer's letter? If all this happened in 2013, what's 2014 to do with it?
My theory is that everyone's arguing over the definition of "aerodrome" at various points over the last couple of decades. Good luck sorting out that bugger's muddle.