Resistence to Change and Reform -- Anywhere.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nice post Snakie 
100% agree………coming from a single pilot IFR piston river. Albeit my environment is not as hostile and under resourced as you describe, but even in my fortunate position, your big white jet is not all that easy to find as you rightly describe. Until it is in your face so to speak.
100% agree………coming from a single pilot IFR piston river. Albeit my environment is not as hostile and under resourced as you describe, but even in my fortunate position, your big white jet is not all that easy to find as you rightly describe. Until it is in your face so to speak.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety benefits of surveillance in airspace
Jabba,
Re your post #28. Been busy here in Singapore earning $$$ to service the Port Melbourne mortgage and missed your posts until this afternoon.
Great intell mate! Buy her a beer. The RFQ number might be incorrect so make it a lite beer or softie.
There certainly was a report commissioned by CASA to look into this. It was in mid 2010 but for some reason the report was not published.
The report was researched and drafted by an experienced international team of airspace managers, pilots, regulators and - shock, horror - ex FIS from Australia, UK, US and NZ. Critical sections and the full report were peer reviewed by an independent team from the UK, Australia and FAA. It runs to 102 pages with a comprehensive bibliography. It even includes that coverage chart of US airspace showing the redundant surveillance below 1000ft that one prominent aviation luminary calls a furphy.
Despite some of the team being - again, shock, horror - ex military senior officers, the recommendations were anything but, "no change". In fact one of the recommendations was "fundamental change".
The team devised a three dimensional risk model and applied it to the various surveillance technologies in all classes of airspace to come up with a relative numerical grading of the safety benefits of surveillance.
I led the team but the IP rests with CASA and the decision on publishing is theirs and theirs alone. After seeing some of the posts here, today I reminded the research and drafting team and peer review team where that IP lies.
Biased personal opinion but I think many serious posters here would benefit from reading the report in its entirety.
Do not bother sending a PM. Despite my desire as a past airspace regulator and leader of the drafting team to have the report available for all and sundry - and some of you are very sundry - I respect the contract conditions on the IP rights of CASA.
MJG
(decrepit old military type with some airspace and regulatory experience in Australia and elsewhere)
Re your post #28. Been busy here in Singapore earning $$$ to service the Port Melbourne mortgage and missed your posts until this afternoon.
Great intell mate! Buy her a beer. The RFQ number might be incorrect so make it a lite beer or softie.
There certainly was a report commissioned by CASA to look into this. It was in mid 2010 but for some reason the report was not published.
The report was researched and drafted by an experienced international team of airspace managers, pilots, regulators and - shock, horror - ex FIS from Australia, UK, US and NZ. Critical sections and the full report were peer reviewed by an independent team from the UK, Australia and FAA. It runs to 102 pages with a comprehensive bibliography. It even includes that coverage chart of US airspace showing the redundant surveillance below 1000ft that one prominent aviation luminary calls a furphy.
Despite some of the team being - again, shock, horror - ex military senior officers, the recommendations were anything but, "no change". In fact one of the recommendations was "fundamental change".
The team devised a three dimensional risk model and applied it to the various surveillance technologies in all classes of airspace to come up with a relative numerical grading of the safety benefits of surveillance.
I led the team but the IP rests with CASA and the decision on publishing is theirs and theirs alone. After seeing some of the posts here, today I reminded the research and drafting team and peer review team where that IP lies.
Biased personal opinion but I think many serious posters here would benefit from reading the report in its entirety.
Do not bother sending a PM. Despite my desire as a past airspace regulator and leader of the drafting team to have the report available for all and sundry - and some of you are very sundry - I respect the contract conditions on the IP rights of CASA.
MJG
(decrepit old military type with some airspace and regulatory experience in Australia and elsewhere)
Thread Starter
Jaba,
On airspace classes, have a look at India and Pakistan, that's give you pause for thought, given the traffic levels.
Mind you, Bloggsie would undoubtedly approve, none of that E stuff, just lots of G & F, with a bit of D & C for terminal control areas around major airports.
I would suggest you use NAA AIPs as references, rather than Wikipedia.
As Dick has said, time and again, and correctly, E is not dependent on radar, and despite the mysteriously unpublished CASA airspace management analysis, nobody of consequence, of whom I am aware, has seriously challenged the basic principle of separation assurance as the basis for ICAO airspace management.
If this mysterious report says anything new, what is the motivation for not publishing it. Maybe it doesn't support current ASA/CASA/Union policies. ASTRA knows nothing about it -- unless??
If it demolished Dicks/NAS/Airspace Act Airspace Policy Statement, I would have expected its proponents to shouting it from the rooftops.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.
Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster.
If that had been released, it would have made Australia a laughing stock --- or even more than it already is in aviation circles.
It's a pity more of you didn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the development of airspace management techniques over the years since WWII --- most of which have appeared first in the US, because, simply, of the needs of the traffic. Go back before "alphabet soup" airspace, and what is now E in US was previously still controlled airspace, but was called " --- VFR Exempt", this predated the widespread radar coverage in the lower 48, which, by the way, is now shrinking.
How the FAA ADS-B mandate plays out in the next 4 years will be interesting, as major airlines are effectively boycotting it --- on the basis that it is a major expense for no measurable benefit. Last time I looked, several months ago, it was around 9% for airline aircraft.
In contrast, in Australia, post WWII the position was very different, it all belonged to the RAAF, and civil aviation was "tolerated". When I started flying aircraft that would go high enough, the ceiling over Sydney was 20-25,000 ft, above that, all mil. R, inbound to Sydney we would always have to descent 60-80 miles early, at great cost in fuel, to stay below mil. R, and clearances for civil aircraft through mil. R was not ever requested "please don't ask, as refusal may offend". The huge AU military zones with sod all military traffic is the remnant of that era. The then maximum flight level anywhere in Australia was (from memory) FL390, FL400 and up was all Mil P.
The "we won WWII, it all belongs to us" is still much in evidence -- sub-consciously, if nothing else.
Re. use of ADS-B in US, FAA does not regard ADS-B IN, (the mandate is only for ADS-B out) as an anti-collision aid, ADS-B OUT is just a supplement to or a substitute for radar.
Again, as been said, time and again, neither the FAA or Eurocontrol mandates for ADS-B impact un-pressurised GA aircraft to the degree that it does in Australia --- and now we have AVM() Skidmore advocating mandatory ADS-B for everything flying. Although expressed differently, the FAA and EEC mandates are very similar end results, with EEC mandate actually being less restrictive than US.
Chronic Snoozer,
Been snoozing too much, FAA have no such plans, and so far, none of the manufacturers of TCAS II have taken up the option of incorporating ADS-B (or C) IN in the TCAS processing --- the standard has now been available for years ---- probably because there is negligible ( probably zero, but I don't know that for a fact) demand from the HCPT market or major airframe manufacturers --- and it doesn't produce an enhanced output, so why bother.
Fujii,
50's through early '60s, generally the period when Don Anderson was D-G of DCA. In those days, a very large % of recruits to ATC/FS were already pilots.
Snakecharma,
More likely, too much Valium is the problem, but it still hasn't been enough to temper you anti-US prejudices. How come you didn't recommend getting rid of their aircraft and engines, and avionics, they couldn't possibly be any good, coming from such a crap country.
You better stop using that yankee GPS rubbish.
Indeed, look at our pristine financial institutions in Australia, never a word about customers being screwed, never a word about inquiries into banks??
Our wonderful insurance companies, with hoards of happy smiling claimants --- never a dispute about a payout.
Obviously the present call for a bank Royal Commission is just a bunch of mislead dills.
Tootle pip!!
On airspace classes, have a look at India and Pakistan, that's give you pause for thought, given the traffic levels.
Mind you, Bloggsie would undoubtedly approve, none of that E stuff, just lots of G & F, with a bit of D & C for terminal control areas around major airports.
I would suggest you use NAA AIPs as references, rather than Wikipedia.
As Dick has said, time and again, and correctly, E is not dependent on radar, and despite the mysteriously unpublished CASA airspace management analysis, nobody of consequence, of whom I am aware, has seriously challenged the basic principle of separation assurance as the basis for ICAO airspace management.
If this mysterious report says anything new, what is the motivation for not publishing it. Maybe it doesn't support current ASA/CASA/Union policies. ASTRA knows nothing about it -- unless??
If it demolished Dicks/NAS/Airspace Act Airspace Policy Statement, I would have expected its proponents to shouting it from the rooftops.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.
Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster.
If that had been released, it would have made Australia a laughing stock --- or even more than it already is in aviation circles.
It's a pity more of you didn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the development of airspace management techniques over the years since WWII --- most of which have appeared first in the US, because, simply, of the needs of the traffic. Go back before "alphabet soup" airspace, and what is now E in US was previously still controlled airspace, but was called " --- VFR Exempt", this predated the widespread radar coverage in the lower 48, which, by the way, is now shrinking.
How the FAA ADS-B mandate plays out in the next 4 years will be interesting, as major airlines are effectively boycotting it --- on the basis that it is a major expense for no measurable benefit. Last time I looked, several months ago, it was around 9% for airline aircraft.
In contrast, in Australia, post WWII the position was very different, it all belonged to the RAAF, and civil aviation was "tolerated". When I started flying aircraft that would go high enough, the ceiling over Sydney was 20-25,000 ft, above that, all mil. R, inbound to Sydney we would always have to descent 60-80 miles early, at great cost in fuel, to stay below mil. R, and clearances for civil aircraft through mil. R was not ever requested "please don't ask, as refusal may offend". The huge AU military zones with sod all military traffic is the remnant of that era. The then maximum flight level anywhere in Australia was (from memory) FL390, FL400 and up was all Mil P.
The "we won WWII, it all belongs to us" is still much in evidence -- sub-consciously, if nothing else.
Re. use of ADS-B in US, FAA does not regard ADS-B IN, (the mandate is only for ADS-B out) as an anti-collision aid, ADS-B OUT is just a supplement to or a substitute for radar.
Again, as been said, time and again, neither the FAA or Eurocontrol mandates for ADS-B impact un-pressurised GA aircraft to the degree that it does in Australia --- and now we have AVM() Skidmore advocating mandatory ADS-B for everything flying. Although expressed differently, the FAA and EEC mandates are very similar end results, with EEC mandate actually being less restrictive than US.
I'm sure thats how they'll do it in the USA.
Been snoozing too much, FAA have no such plans, and so far, none of the manufacturers of TCAS II have taken up the option of incorporating ADS-B (or C) IN in the TCAS processing --- the standard has now been available for years ---- probably because there is negligible ( probably zero, but I don't know that for a fact) demand from the HCPT market or major airframe manufacturers --- and it doesn't produce an enhanced output, so why bother.
Fujii,
50's through early '60s, generally the period when Don Anderson was D-G of DCA. In those days, a very large % of recruits to ATC/FS were already pilots.
Snakecharma,
More likely, too much Valium is the problem, but it still hasn't been enough to temper you anti-US prejudices. How come you didn't recommend getting rid of their aircraft and engines, and avionics, they couldn't possibly be any good, coming from such a crap country.
You better stop using that yankee GPS rubbish.
Indeed, look at our pristine financial institutions in Australia, never a word about customers being screwed, never a word about inquiries into banks??
Our wonderful insurance companies, with hoards of happy smiling claimants --- never a dispute about a payout.
Obviously the present call for a bank Royal Commission is just a bunch of mislead dills.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 14th Apr 2016 at 17:09.
LS,
Not snoozing, just cruzin....I'm talking VFR mate, not RPT.
A quick LMGTFY search revealed this report on the FAA website.
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...fitsReport.pdf
which I am inclined to believe is evidence of plans to use ADSB In in some fashion by the FAA which is all I alluded to.
Also found this
Garmin | ADS-B
which indicates that Garmin have an ADSB In/Out solution for 4K. Am I missing something?
Once ADSB In is truly affordable, why wouldn't you have it? Two guys out in the GAFA could safely operated at their unmarked strip, without radios (if thats your preference) and radio calls and still know each others whereabouts with higher accuracy than surveillance radar.
LMGTFY = 'Let me Google that for you'
Not snoozing, just cruzin....I'm talking VFR mate, not RPT.
A quick LMGTFY search revealed this report on the FAA website.
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...fitsReport.pdf
which I am inclined to believe is evidence of plans to use ADSB In in some fashion by the FAA which is all I alluded to.
Also found this
Garmin | ADS-B
which indicates that Garmin have an ADSB In/Out solution for 4K. Am I missing something?
Once ADSB In is truly affordable, why wouldn't you have it? Two guys out in the GAFA could safely operated at their unmarked strip, without radios (if thats your preference) and radio calls and still know each others whereabouts with higher accuracy than surveillance radar.
LMGTFY = 'Let me Google that for you'
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 14th Apr 2016 at 18:30.
Having been a long time sparring participant in this NASdebate, my main concern is that an enormous responsibility is put on the VFR pilot to be pretty much the final arbiter in separation as the enormous cluster **** in launny showed. I understand the apprehension of the RPT drivers who keeping in mind were once that very guy. Some are good I am sure but when a lowest common denominator is an 18 year old gen Y hotshot or worse, I certainly support some intervention to protect the person who pays for it all namely the passenger.
Sure the US does it under certain conditions but maybe, just maybe the way Australia is the world's best practice.
It's in my opinion unacceptable to allow a system to assume everyone does the right thing when they give out licenses to individuals from a packet of fruit loops.
Sure the US does it under certain conditions but maybe, just maybe the way Australia is the world's best practice.
It's in my opinion unacceptable to allow a system to assume everyone does the right thing when they give out licenses to individuals from a packet of fruit loops.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If it demolished Dicks/NAS/Airspace Act Airspace Policy Statement, I would have expected its proponents to shouting it from the rooftops.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.
I reckon there are bound to be folk on the board or in senior positions who know it/have it. I understand half the OAR don't know about it, but it exists none the less. I have no idea why it never saw the light of day. I see the team lead actually posts here, and has confirmed it, well I will be buggered!!
There is a link for the original RFQ if you go searching….or there was. It may have vanished by now.
For some refresher reading perhaps, well worth a read are the Ambidji report appendices, in particular the stakeholder feedback and comparisons with US airspace and services which neatly align with the report providing advice to the government on ministerial direction and in particular on regional class C services.
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...rs-and-reports
Good luck hunting waskerly rabbits in the Capital Territory
Leadsled, despite what you may think, I don't have a raging anti US bias, or pro anything else bias, BUT I am getting a bit sick of the constant referencing to the US model as the be all and end all. Or at least I am perceiving that some proponents are saying that the US system is awesome and what we have here is crap.
The US has some terrific stuff, but as I pointed out in my post, it has some less than terrific stuff as well, and I get the sense that we in this country have an inbuilt inferiority complex that says anything we do here MUST be less worthy, less capable, less efficient, less whatever than something designed overseas.
It seems to me that we have developed a lot of innovative ideas in this country only to see them shift offshore and become successful.
Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make, clearly unsuccessfully, is that our system here may well be different to that that exists in the US, but is it wrong, or worse, or more dangerous? If we remove the alerted part of see and avoid we are dumping a lot of additional pressure/workload on those that are the least equipped to manage it (as a generalisation - i am not trying to denigrate GA pilots).
Whilst we are broadly similar to the US in many ways, we are also very different. Culturally, politically, socially we are different and things that seem to be acceptable there (gun control - or lack thereof, public health care - or lack thereof, religious zealotry, the US style of management - which quite frankly sucks the big weinie) aren't necessarily ok here. Having worked for some airline managers directly imported from the good old US of A I have to say that they are not the best thing since sliced bread - quite the opposite, and if you look at airline salaries, terms and conditions, the ability to furlough people, the ability to hide behind chapter 11 protection etc, the US airline industry is a much less pleasant and dare I say ethical place than that which exists here.
So back to my original statement, just because I disagree with Dick (and clearly you) it doesn't necessarily make me wrong and because people are advocating a shift to the US system, it doesn't necessarily make them right!
But in true democratic form I respect your right and ability to tell me I am wrong
The US has some terrific stuff, but as I pointed out in my post, it has some less than terrific stuff as well, and I get the sense that we in this country have an inbuilt inferiority complex that says anything we do here MUST be less worthy, less capable, less efficient, less whatever than something designed overseas.
It seems to me that we have developed a lot of innovative ideas in this country only to see them shift offshore and become successful.
Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make, clearly unsuccessfully, is that our system here may well be different to that that exists in the US, but is it wrong, or worse, or more dangerous? If we remove the alerted part of see and avoid we are dumping a lot of additional pressure/workload on those that are the least equipped to manage it (as a generalisation - i am not trying to denigrate GA pilots).
Whilst we are broadly similar to the US in many ways, we are also very different. Culturally, politically, socially we are different and things that seem to be acceptable there (gun control - or lack thereof, public health care - or lack thereof, religious zealotry, the US style of management - which quite frankly sucks the big weinie) aren't necessarily ok here. Having worked for some airline managers directly imported from the good old US of A I have to say that they are not the best thing since sliced bread - quite the opposite, and if you look at airline salaries, terms and conditions, the ability to furlough people, the ability to hide behind chapter 11 protection etc, the US airline industry is a much less pleasant and dare I say ethical place than that which exists here.
So back to my original statement, just because I disagree with Dick (and clearly you) it doesn't necessarily make me wrong and because people are advocating a shift to the US system, it doesn't necessarily make them right!
But in true democratic form I respect your right and ability to tell me I am wrong
The low cost Garmin "in" unit won't work in Aus. We don't have that frequency available nor the ground stations
The GTX 345 ADS-B Out and In transponder has a list price of $5,795
Thread Starter
Chronic Snoozer,
You are missing the required C-145/146 GPS feed.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Despite the very slow takeup of ADS-B by US airlines , the shortcomings of a 1090ES based system are becoming very evident re. channel saturation. This was forecast in the mid-90's, but the lobby for the "el-cheapo" 1090ES system, as opposed to a broadband datalink envisaged by ICAO, buried the forecasts.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
PS2:
Snakecharma,
What I want to see is a properly ICAO risk managed and efficient airspace management. where resources are not squandered on perceived risks, but on real and quantified risks. As the current ICAO system was based on the US arrangements, the US NAS represents the most mature iteration of said ICAO recommended system. My experience of the US NAS, over some (now) 50 years, in aircraft from very small to very large, informs my view of how well it works.
As for culture, if that is really a problem, how do so many Australian pilots (approximately 100% -1) , flying in US airspace, instantly adapt to the "foreign culture".
This "cultural difference" argument was run for years by AFAP, along the lines that "Australian pilots" ( and LAMEs) are used to a narrow and highly prescriptive regulatory command and control system, and would be unable to cope with a system where they were required ( for example) to vary radio calls, depending on the circumstances, that is MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS AND DECISIONS, as opposed to chanting the prescribed mantra, as laid down in the AU AIP.
To this day, CASA make the same claim, as to why we have to have such prescriptive and detailed micro-management regulation, all backed up by a draconian criminal penalty system, because quote:Neither CASA nor the Australian aviation industry is sufficiently mature to be able to handle outcome (performance) based plain language regulation.
This despite the fact that Australian industry, on the whole, exists in a performance based regulatory environment --- AU aviation is the odd one out in Australia.
NAS 2b was NOT wound back because of "safety" problems, it was entirely industrial. Indeed, the circumstances were not entirely unrelated to the failure of Ansett some time later --- same personalities.
You are missing the required C-145/146 GPS feed.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Despite the very slow takeup of ADS-B by US airlines , the shortcomings of a 1090ES based system are becoming very evident re. channel saturation. This was forecast in the mid-90's, but the lobby for the "el-cheapo" 1090ES system, as opposed to a broadband datalink envisaged by ICAO, buried the forecasts.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
PS2:
Snakecharma,
What I want to see is a properly ICAO risk managed and efficient airspace management. where resources are not squandered on perceived risks, but on real and quantified risks. As the current ICAO system was based on the US arrangements, the US NAS represents the most mature iteration of said ICAO recommended system. My experience of the US NAS, over some (now) 50 years, in aircraft from very small to very large, informs my view of how well it works.
As for culture, if that is really a problem, how do so many Australian pilots (approximately 100% -1) , flying in US airspace, instantly adapt to the "foreign culture".
This "cultural difference" argument was run for years by AFAP, along the lines that "Australian pilots" ( and LAMEs) are used to a narrow and highly prescriptive regulatory command and control system, and would be unable to cope with a system where they were required ( for example) to vary radio calls, depending on the circumstances, that is MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS AND DECISIONS, as opposed to chanting the prescribed mantra, as laid down in the AU AIP.
To this day, CASA make the same claim, as to why we have to have such prescriptive and detailed micro-management regulation, all backed up by a draconian criminal penalty system, because quote:Neither CASA nor the Australian aviation industry is sufficiently mature to be able to handle outcome (performance) based plain language regulation.
This despite the fact that Australian industry, on the whole, exists in a performance based regulatory environment --- AU aviation is the odd one out in Australia.
NAS 2b was NOT wound back because of "safety" problems, it was entirely industrial. Indeed, the circumstances were not entirely unrelated to the failure of Ansett some time later --- same personalities.
Last edited by LeadSled; 15th Apr 2016 at 09:36.
Yep. I thought that was obvious. I'm guessing most VFR guys have that equipment or at least plan to install it.
LS you did once say that
LS you did once say that
Sadly, with the collapse of GA flying in Australia, channel saturation will never be a problem here.
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 15th Apr 2016 at 10:08.
and would be unable to cope with a system where they were required ( for example) to vary radio calls, depending on the circumstances, that is MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS AND DECISIONS, as opposed to chanting the prescribed mantra, as laid down in the AU AIP.
Taps on one's head: "Bloggs, make sure you don't use judgement calls and decisions when going flying tomorrow. Only activity permitted is chanting!".
Leadie, I disagree entirely with the premise that the winding back of NAS was entirely industrial. I genuinely believe it was safety driven.
I, and clearly a large number of fellow pilots were really concerned that we were going to get ourselves into a position where our lives, and the lives of those that we were transporting, were going to be placed in danger.
The personalities involved at the big end of town were indeed big personalities prone to theatrics however that didn't apply to the chief pilot of impulse, who I had and continue to have an enormous amount of respect for. I really can't see him caving on some flimsy industrial argument. Without putting words into his mouth or indeed knowing what he was thinking, but using what I know of the man, I just can't see NAS being the fight he would have in order to satisfy some form of industrial agenda.
At the end of the day what is ICAO? How can a one size fits all approach to anything the world over possibly mean anything other than a compromise for most if not all of the parties? Not just aviation, but anything? Do we have standard electrical safety standards the world over? Do we have common traffic laws the worldwide over? Do we have common medical standards world over? These are areas where the risk to lives is real and as we know from the statistics medical and road safety standards or lack thereof kill 1000's of times more people than aviation.
Let's fight the fights that matter, the fights that genuinely improve safety and reduce the number of lives lost and families decimated by their loss. The number of mid air collisions between aeroplanes, particularly lighties and airliners is larger in the US than it is here, and whilst a reasonable argument can be made that says the rates of traffic are greater in the US and as a result the real risk of a mid air here, given our traffic levels, is correspondingly low and therefore considered negligible and can be disregarded, the fact remains that we, the people who will be directly impacted - literally and figuratively - by a midair, have concerns. Why should our concerns be disregarded as industrial crap simply to satisfy the need some people have to align with a theoretical model that cannot possibly be all things to all people.
We of course have been guilty of industrial sabotage of safety improvements or changes - CVR's/FDR's, weather radar, two man crews (yes, yes I know but you get my point), so it is not unreasonable to suspect it as an underlying motivation, BUT in this instance it is my genuine belief that the fear of being splattered across the landscape (however remote and unlikely that may be) is the true motivation of most pilots at the coal face.
I, and clearly a large number of fellow pilots were really concerned that we were going to get ourselves into a position where our lives, and the lives of those that we were transporting, were going to be placed in danger.
The personalities involved at the big end of town were indeed big personalities prone to theatrics however that didn't apply to the chief pilot of impulse, who I had and continue to have an enormous amount of respect for. I really can't see him caving on some flimsy industrial argument. Without putting words into his mouth or indeed knowing what he was thinking, but using what I know of the man, I just can't see NAS being the fight he would have in order to satisfy some form of industrial agenda.
At the end of the day what is ICAO? How can a one size fits all approach to anything the world over possibly mean anything other than a compromise for most if not all of the parties? Not just aviation, but anything? Do we have standard electrical safety standards the world over? Do we have common traffic laws the worldwide over? Do we have common medical standards world over? These are areas where the risk to lives is real and as we know from the statistics medical and road safety standards or lack thereof kill 1000's of times more people than aviation.
Let's fight the fights that matter, the fights that genuinely improve safety and reduce the number of lives lost and families decimated by their loss. The number of mid air collisions between aeroplanes, particularly lighties and airliners is larger in the US than it is here, and whilst a reasonable argument can be made that says the rates of traffic are greater in the US and as a result the real risk of a mid air here, given our traffic levels, is correspondingly low and therefore considered negligible and can be disregarded, the fact remains that we, the people who will be directly impacted - literally and figuratively - by a midair, have concerns. Why should our concerns be disregarded as industrial crap simply to satisfy the need some people have to align with a theoretical model that cannot possibly be all things to all people.
We of course have been guilty of industrial sabotage of safety improvements or changes - CVR's/FDR's, weather radar, two man crews (yes, yes I know but you get my point), so it is not unreasonable to suspect it as an underlying motivation, BUT in this instance it is my genuine belief that the fear of being splattered across the landscape (however remote and unlikely that may be) is the true motivation of most pilots at the coal face.
Last edited by Snakecharma; 15th Apr 2016 at 20:35.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety benefits of surveillance in airspace
LS,
Bit distracted here in Singapore on fee paying work (oh, and watching the Rebels get a rugby lesson from the Canes - pity I picked the wrong team in the tipping comp).
I can assure you that the report we submitted to OAR in 2010 was not the one to which you referred in your post #45:
"Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster."
I can also assure you that as recently as October 2015 someone in OAR went looking for and found the report.
I can also tell you that when I advised the peer review team of the CASA decision not to publish, one of the reviewers, who was a very senior ATM person in an international industry representative organisation, offered to pay for the research to be redone so that organisation could publish. On legal advice, I declined the offer.
Next rugby game on TV here is 0100 and I have tickets for the Sevens tomorrow so I might retire to my monastic couch.
MJG
Idiot who has worked on airspace issues in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Iraq.
Bit distracted here in Singapore on fee paying work (oh, and watching the Rebels get a rugby lesson from the Canes - pity I picked the wrong team in the tipping comp).
I can assure you that the report we submitted to OAR in 2010 was not the one to which you referred in your post #45:
"Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster."
I can also assure you that as recently as October 2015 someone in OAR went looking for and found the report.
I can also tell you that when I advised the peer review team of the CASA decision not to publish, one of the reviewers, who was a very senior ATM person in an international industry representative organisation, offered to pay for the research to be redone so that organisation could publish. On legal advice, I declined the offer.
Next rugby game on TV here is 0100 and I have tickets for the Sevens tomorrow so I might retire to my monastic couch.
MJG
Idiot who has worked on airspace issues in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Iraq.
I have been told that the Garmin transponder only has ADSB "in"using uat 900 MHz band
This means no ADSB "in" in Australia with this unit.. Can anyone confirm this?
Aeromil have come back and advised that if the Garmin is fitted the two Collins transponders have be turned off or disabled.
This results in a permanent amber warning showing. It appears CASA have allowed one Sovereign to fly this way but claim they will not allow any other installations to go this way
This is what happens when people decide to lead the world with ADSB mandates
This means no ADSB "in" in Australia with this unit.. Can anyone confirm this?
Aeromil have come back and advised that if the Garmin is fitted the two Collins transponders have be turned off or disabled.
This results in a permanent amber warning showing. It appears CASA have allowed one Sovereign to fly this way but claim they will not allow any other installations to go this way
This is what happens when people decide to lead the world with ADSB mandates
Last edited by Dick Smith; 15th Apr 2016 at 14:04.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Leadsled,
How is the hunting going? Surely you would have something by now?
Did you get stone walled in CBR perhaps?
Wabbits…yeah to keep the rabbits out son.
How is the hunting going? Surely you would have something by now?
Did you get stone walled in CBR perhaps?
Wabbits…yeah to keep the rabbits out son.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
I have been told that the Garmin transponder only has ADSB "in"using uat 900 MHz band
This means no ADSB "in" in Australia with this unit.. Can anyone confirm this?
This means no ADSB "in" in Australia with this unit.. Can anyone confirm this?
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod140949.html
Dual-link Completes the Picture
The GTX 345 ADS-B receiver is a dual-link system. So, it can receive on both frequencies (978 MHz and 1090 MHz) authorized for ADS-B operations in the U.S. Not only does this provide the most complete traffic picture from aircraft transmitting on either frequency, but it also enhances your aircraft’s ability to access ADS-B transmissions and services from virtually anywhere. When integrating an active traffic system with the GTX 345, ADS-B traffic and active traffic targets are merged on the display to give pilots a truly comprehensive traffic picture.
The GTX 345 ADS-B receiver is a dual-link system. So, it can receive on both frequencies (978 MHz and 1090 MHz) authorized for ADS-B operations in the U.S. Not only does this provide the most complete traffic picture from aircraft transmitting on either frequency, but it also enhances your aircraft’s ability to access ADS-B transmissions and services from virtually anywhere. When integrating an active traffic system with the GTX 345, ADS-B traffic and active traffic targets are merged on the display to give pilots a truly comprehensive traffic picture.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
LS might not be looking but it seems others are. I've had several PMs asking for a copy.
Folks who have PM'd: A reminder about my stance on the IP. Under the contract IP restrictions I am unable to distribute copies. I appreciate the assurances some of you have given on confidentiality; however, as those who know me have come to realise over the years, although I'm quite a personal risk taker - hell, I spent 12 months in Kabul and 6 weeks in Iraq on ICAO work, I've been to Mogadishu a couple of times and the staff in BATS know me by name - my professional standards (and legal advice) dictate no spare copies of that report will get into the wild direct from my laptop.
Names have been changed to protect the guilty who have asked for copies:
X - I'd be on shaky ground even with your suggestion of paraphrasing;
Y - I can confirm that paragraph you quoted was in the final draft provided to OAR, so it seems you have a copy;
Z - You obviously do not know me as the name you addressed me by is not mine. Perhaps my PPRuNe handle is effectively hiding my true identity;
AA - I'm in Singapore/KL for the rest of the year but if they summon me and pay the travel and accom costs I'd be happy to attend and give them the benefit of my experience.
MJG
LS might not be looking but it seems others are. I've had several PMs asking for a copy.
Folks who have PM'd: A reminder about my stance on the IP. Under the contract IP restrictions I am unable to distribute copies. I appreciate the assurances some of you have given on confidentiality; however, as those who know me have come to realise over the years, although I'm quite a personal risk taker - hell, I spent 12 months in Kabul and 6 weeks in Iraq on ICAO work, I've been to Mogadishu a couple of times and the staff in BATS know me by name - my professional standards (and legal advice) dictate no spare copies of that report will get into the wild direct from my laptop.
Names have been changed to protect the guilty who have asked for copies:
X - I'd be on shaky ground even with your suggestion of paraphrasing;
Y - I can confirm that paragraph you quoted was in the final draft provided to OAR, so it seems you have a copy;
Z - You obviously do not know me as the name you addressed me by is not mine. Perhaps my PPRuNe handle is effectively hiding my true identity;
AA - I'm in Singapore/KL for the rest of the year but if they summon me and pay the travel and accom costs I'd be happy to attend and give them the benefit of my experience.
MJG