Australian Class E article – the full text
Thread Starter
NAS failed because Airservices without the approval of CASA undermined NAS and printed a special two sided chart showing ATC sector boundaries and then posted it to every pilot in Australia without any educational material on how the half wound back system was to work.
This was three months after the NAS educational package stated that the frequency boundaries had been specifically removed from the charts and VFR were not to make self announcements on ATC frequencies.
Bruce Buron told me that he had told Airservices not to send out any radio charts unless there was at least three months of pilot education beforehand . There was no education as the system clearly can't work with VFR aircraft giving self announcements on ATC frequencies.
And the latest CASA CTAF notam is to try and get a half wound back un workable system working!
This was three months after the NAS educational package stated that the frequency boundaries had been specifically removed from the charts and VFR were not to make self announcements on ATC frequencies.
Bruce Buron told me that he had told Airservices not to send out any radio charts unless there was at least three months of pilot education beforehand . There was no education as the system clearly can't work with VFR aircraft giving self announcements on ATC frequencies.
And the latest CASA CTAF notam is to try and get a half wound back un workable system working!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I've just got back from walking the dog and recharging the Chardy glass in my dotage.
Ostensibly a good point, Dick, but 'ostensibly.' You see, Dick, Anderson and Truss were total airspace morons. All they wanted was you off their backs. To paraphrase: 'For Christ's sake just give him something!' Nobody with half a brain wanted C converted to D & E, nor D, period; but two dummies thought giving you D would shut you up. That's the truth, because I was there and had to deal with their brain-dead 'advisers.'
We would not be having this argument had you not badgered them to death - I was there.
See above, Dick. Broome was a classic in 'giving you something.' No concrete justification - nothing than other than a political agenda to shut you up. I was there!
A pointless ask, I know, but can we please move on and look at change that can be justified for reasons other than 'I want' and putting pressure on total dumb-asses??
You have some really good points IMHO. But you consistently cruel any credible reform agenda by trying to shortcut cogent analyses.
You'll fail, and fail again, for as ever long as you want to take that path.
There's good stuff to be done, Dick. But, IMHO, you consistently pull out the shotgun and blow both feet off.
Howabout. C above D is clearly upside down. The collision risk is clearly higher closer to the runway. Why would you drop to a lower ICAO classification closer to the runway?
We would not be having this argument had you not badgered them to death - I was there.
Why does Broome have NAS E over D if it is unsafe? Why don't we standardise like other countries? I know.
A pointless ask, I know, but can we please move on and look at change that can be justified for reasons other than 'I want' and putting pressure on total dumb-asses??
You have some really good points IMHO. But you consistently cruel any credible reform agenda by trying to shortcut cogent analyses.
You'll fail, and fail again, for as ever long as you want to take that path.
There's good stuff to be done, Dick. But, IMHO, you consistently pull out the shotgun and blow both feet off.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
andrewr, easy - radio. I can't separate where I can't talk to both aircraft.
You do realise that if I give you a clearance on the ground then I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish separation? Same as if I clear you for an instrument approach I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish you've either landed or are clear of the area of conflict
Why is it unsafe for ATC to clear both aircraft, but safe for pilots to arrange their own separation by radio in IMC? Both are methods of separation by radio. The difference between ATC and pilot arranged separation is that ATC have planned procedures and standards, whereas pilots have to work something out on the spot.
Clearing the aircraft on the ground was specifically in relation to Dick getting his clearance though a phone or Unicom, so I'm very definitely not in radio contact with both aircraft. I don't have a clue where the one who got the clearance on the ground is are - somewhere between the phone box and enough altitude to be within comms. Whereas you can call the other pilot and establish where he is.
Thread Starter
Le Ping. It's obvious that the US system can't work.
One of you Aussie ATCs should go over to America and tell them this.
Tell them how it's one in and one out and therefore creates uneccessary delays.
Tell them they could reduce these delays by moving to the Australian system of class G groping around in the blind airspace. This is a superior system where there is no separation standard at all when in IMC.
Who needs ATC and written separation standards when IMC exists- certainly not our airline pilots.
I said it before. Those Americans are so stupid. No wonder they only built the Space Shuttle and the 747 while we built the Nomad.
One of you Aussie ATCs should go over to America and tell them this.
Tell them how it's one in and one out and therefore creates uneccessary delays.
Tell them they could reduce these delays by moving to the Australian system of class G groping around in the blind airspace. This is a superior system where there is no separation standard at all when in IMC.
Who needs ATC and written separation standards when IMC exists- certainly not our airline pilots.
I said it before. Those Americans are so stupid. No wonder they only built the Space Shuttle and the 747 while we built the Nomad.
What precisely has designing and building aircraft have to do with this discussion? They're so smart they have Donald Trump, an obsessive gun culture and some of the least scientifically literate people on Earth.
You'd never consider that it works there because of the whole system and not just a set of rules?
You'd never consider that it works there because of the whole system and not just a set of rules?
Thread Starter
Yes I have. However I find that by going around the world and pinching the best ideas you can get great success .
Of course you incorporate those best ideas with the things you are already doing better in the first place.
Le ping. To put it simply I find single pilot self separating with two or three other aircraft in the same terminal area in IMC quite difficult.
And often there is an Air Traffic Controller sitting there twiddling his or her thumbs because on some nights in some airspace there is not much going on.
That's where I would like a proper separation service provided by the person I am already paying to be there!
Of course you incorporate those best ideas with the things you are already doing better in the first place.
Le ping. To put it simply I find single pilot self separating with two or three other aircraft in the same terminal area in IMC quite difficult.
And often there is an Air Traffic Controller sitting there twiddling his or her thumbs because on some nights in some airspace there is not much going on.
That's where I would like a proper separation service provided by the person I am already paying to be there!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I like the quirky. One of my favorite authors is a guy called Kinky Freedman - a Jew. He had a band called the Texas Jew Boys. They did a couple of songs - 'They Don't Make Jews Like Jesus Anymore' and 'Get Your Biscuits In The Oven And Your Buns In The Bed.' Amusing, but he also wrote some very good detective stories.
What's the relevance you may ask? Well, he had an expression that sums up your last two posts where I just could not see the point...'Out there where the buses don't run.'
What's the relevance you may ask? Well, he had an expression that sums up your last two posts where I just could not see the point...'Out there where the buses don't run.'
your last two posts where I just could not see the point.
Why can't everyone just get it?
It is a remarkable consequence of how long the frogs in the Australian aviation industry have been swimming in the warming water that it's taken as an immutable principle that aviation infrastructure can't be funded as a common good.
I throw my coffee mug at the radio every time I hear that intelligence-insulting advertisement - paid for by the taxpayer of course - about all the government investment in getting people and goods around the place quicker. The investment turns out to be in a first century AD technology - road - and a 19th century AD technology - rail. But no mention of aviation.
Apparently government investment in aviation isn't justified because aviation is not effective at getting people and goods around the place quicker. Or apparently aviation only works if it's privatised and its participants rogered for every cent possible, while road and rail infrastructure are objective truths to be funded as a common good.
Innovation nation? Pass me a bucket.
I throw my coffee mug at the radio every time I hear that intelligence-insulting advertisement - paid for by the taxpayer of course - about all the government investment in getting people and goods around the place quicker. The investment turns out to be in a first century AD technology - road - and a 19th century AD technology - rail. But no mention of aviation.
Apparently government investment in aviation isn't justified because aviation is not effective at getting people and goods around the place quicker. Or apparently aviation only works if it's privatised and its participants rogered for every cent possible, while road and rail infrastructure are objective truths to be funded as a common good.
Innovation nation? Pass me a bucket.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I have. However I find that by going around the world and pinching the best ideas you can get great success .
Just my personal take, but if you would attack 'reform' incrementally, as opposed to the 'scatter-gun' approach that was NAS, then you'd have a better chance of success - IMHO.
I am only going to say this once more. NAS failed as a package because there were inherent flaws within some of the individual 'characteristics.' Do you remember that term 'characteristics?' Consequently, the whole 'house-of-cards' imploded.
Take it one step at a time in respect of the achievable. Focus your energy, and undoubted knowledge, on one thing at a time. Don't disperse that energy over a myriad of 'reforms' that may be dear to your heart. Pursue one goal at a time.
As I've said before, I might be retired for four years, but I still know how the system works. One specific initiative will have more chance than the 'scatter-gun' approach.
And I give you the E, 700 AGL, trial as an example.
Despite some protestations, the capacity is there to do this one. I know, because I was an active controller for long enough, and E down to 700 AGL, at a place like Ballina, should be a doddle for the competent.
Personally, I'd ask the 'powers' why it can't be done, given there's pretty reasonable radar coverage. All you'd be asking for is s a 'trial;' such a trial would not represent a degradation of current 'safety standards,' and it wouldn't over-stretch the current resources, despite arguments to the contrary.
700 AGL should be the first cab off the rank.
Push that one and I'll make you a deal. I'll fire in a personal letter with my 'real name' to Infrastructure and CASA and copy you in!
Thread Starter
Howabout. Good on you. Yes E at Ballina has potential and possible after 25 years of resistance .
One problem is that AsA stratified the ATC airspace into high and low levels which has resulted in huge sectors. The original plan was just to have vertical sectors like Alaska and parts of Canada. Then they could be smaller. And the controller would have less complex en route work at Flight Levels and exciting challenging approach work.
In the USA they do this and I understand the controllers don't have an approach rating in the Australian way.
The reason I organised last years campaign in The Australian on Ballina was to get this moving. And it's started to happen. Howabout I look forward to reading about your support- also for the simpler US CTAF and Unicom procedures!
One problem is that AsA stratified the ATC airspace into high and low levels which has resulted in huge sectors. The original plan was just to have vertical sectors like Alaska and parts of Canada. Then they could be smaller. And the controller would have less complex en route work at Flight Levels and exciting challenging approach work.
In the USA they do this and I understand the controllers don't have an approach rating in the Australian way.
The reason I organised last years campaign in The Australian on Ballina was to get this moving. And it's started to happen. Howabout I look forward to reading about your support- also for the simpler US CTAF and Unicom procedures!
So now we'll have RPT jet crews being told what to do by ATC so they don't crash into each other on one frequency/Comm 1 and on the other frequency/Comm 2 trying to coordinate their arrival so they don't crash into VFR traffic in the allegedly busy CTAF on the other. Great. 
Howabout, exactly where am I pulling anyone's pud here?
"You call it a simple trial but simple it ain't! Even a trial at a single location would require a serious allocation of resources - as the regs currently stand to provide an approach service I need an approach rating and the training to go with it. You'd be looking at training maybe ten controllers minimum from a single group which is a big ask - you can't just take ten people out of a roster when there are only 25 on it in the first place. Not without some serious lead time."
"You call it a simple trial but simple it ain't! Even a trial at a single location would require a serious allocation of resources - as the regs currently stand to provide an approach service I need an approach rating and the training to go with it. You'd be looking at training maybe ten controllers minimum from a single group which is a big ask - you can't just take ten people out of a roster when there are only 25 on it in the first place. Not without some serious lead time."
The original plan was just to have vertical sectors like Alaska and parts of Canada.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 5th Apr 2016 at 12:35.
Originally Posted by Dick
The original plan was just to have vertical sectors like Alaska and parts of Canada. Then they could be smaller. And the controller would have less complex en route work at Flight Levels and exciting challenging approach work.
Where is the CBA you have been asked for repeatedly? I bet you won't produce it because it won't be pretty...
Hold the phone girlfriend. Dick, did you really just say that your plan was to have sectors where the controller has to control traffic waaaay up high and away from where the risk is obviously greater down and around the instrument approach? Haha. Hang on. Haha.
I just made up a new word. 'Dickonsistent- using two completely conflicting arguments to attempt to prove a point'
I just made up a new word. 'Dickonsistent- using two completely conflicting arguments to attempt to prove a point'