Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro, if you plough into a VFR below A050 in VMC you can thank Dick. It's called 'see and be seen', 'affordable safety' etc.
And don't let 'workload permitting' get you down. I expect every ATC knows that that would never hold up in a courtroom. It's called 'duty of care'. You will be provided with VFR traffic if it appears to be in conflict with you, albeit only if it looks 'close'. The IFR traffic rules, procedurally, are very similar to separation standards e.g 10 min in front or behind, within 1000", etc. The difference is that ATC can't pass a traffic statement on VFR's if they can't see them.
Squawk, requesting IFR traffic if you are IFR is a waste of air-time. If you make the (mandatory) calls at TOPD etc you'll get it anyway.
ADS-B isn't a perfect solution, but it is a step forward in safety. It reduces separation standards in CTA, and it improves situational awareness for everyone OCTA. VFRs not fitted with ADS-B obviously don't fit into the equation, but as I said, they never have anyway. If they're below A050, and not operating from a CTAF(R) or entering CTA, they don't even need a radio let alone a transponder. They're supposed to be looking out the window i.e airmanship.
And don't let 'workload permitting' get you down. I expect every ATC knows that that would never hold up in a courtroom. It's called 'duty of care'. You will be provided with VFR traffic if it appears to be in conflict with you, albeit only if it looks 'close'. The IFR traffic rules, procedurally, are very similar to separation standards e.g 10 min in front or behind, within 1000", etc. The difference is that ATC can't pass a traffic statement on VFR's if they can't see them.
Squawk, requesting IFR traffic if you are IFR is a waste of air-time. If you make the (mandatory) calls at TOPD etc you'll get it anyway.
ADS-B isn't a perfect solution, but it is a step forward in safety. It reduces separation standards in CTA, and it improves situational awareness for everyone OCTA. VFRs not fitted with ADS-B obviously don't fit into the equation, but as I said, they never have anyway. If they're below A050, and not operating from a CTAF(R) or entering CTA, they don't even need a radio let alone a transponder. They're supposed to be looking out the window i.e airmanship.
Thread Starter
ADSB certainly doesn't reduce the "separation standards in CTA " in places like Hobart as the ATCs are only procedurally rated.
What a huge waste of industry money . Why is this so?
What a huge waste of industry money . Why is this so?
Akro, if you plough into a VFR below A050 in VMC you can thank Dick. It's called 'see and be seen', 'affordable safety' etc.
I expect every ATC knows that that would never hold up in a courtroom. It's called 'duty of care'.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chieftain that crashed at Benalla had a CFIT. Yes it was observed off track and yes procedures changed following that accident. As in most things aviation, nothing changes until something bad happens.
I'm not sure how it fits into the ADS-B argument though.
I'm not sure how it fits into the ADS-B argument though.
I'm not sure how it fits into the ADS-B argument though.
One of my contentions is that ADS-B does precisely zero to improve my safety as an IFR pilot and specifically does nothing to address some of the scariest experiences that I have had flying.
You suggested hat a controllers duty of care would look after me in situations like IFR / VFR traffic conflict. But, I just don't believe it. AND I will hasten to add that this is a criticism of the environment and processes that controllers are forced to work within rather than a criticism of individual controllers.
If ADS-B was mandated for ALL aircraft, then it would be a giant step forward for mankind. But the halfway house that we are getting effectively amounts to just a tax on GA IFR flying.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As procedures at the time were written, no, the ATCs involved at the time did not have a 'duty of care' to inform TNP that he was observed off track on the GPS approach. As I've already stated, that accident brought about changes, and pilots would certainly be questioned today as to their intentions if a similar incident were to occur.
I'd also contend that, given a similar situation, ADS-B does enhance safety. TNP was inside SSR coverage. If it had been at, say, Oodnadatta, no one would have ever known. Equip with ADS-B and fly off track on a GNNS approach at YOOD today and you will certainly hear about it over the radio..
It's called progress.
p.s you might not 'believe' that ATC will look after you in an IFR/VFR conflict scenario, but the truth is that if they can actually see the VFR they will. Despite what you might think, ATCs are actually professional. Not only that, they need to sleep at night.
I'd also contend that, given a similar situation, ADS-B does enhance safety. TNP was inside SSR coverage. If it had been at, say, Oodnadatta, no one would have ever known. Equip with ADS-B and fly off track on a GNNS approach at YOOD today and you will certainly hear about it over the radio..
It's called progress.
p.s you might not 'believe' that ATC will look after you in an IFR/VFR conflict scenario, but the truth is that if they can actually see the VFR they will. Despite what you might think, ATCs are actually professional. Not only that, they need to sleep at night.
"p.s you might not 'believe' that ATC will look after you in an IFR/VFR conflict scenario, but the truth is that if they can actually see the VFR they will."
I've seen that work well before. An IFR Bonanza climbing to cruise is warned by Centre that there is an unidentified VFR in the vicinity at 7500'. We're monitoring Area freq flying in class G so dob ourselves in as perhaps being that VFR aircraft? Centre asks us to squawk 4321 and identifies it is us. So we communicate our intents with the IFR aircraft to stay away from him and it's all very stress free.
I've seen that work well before. An IFR Bonanza climbing to cruise is warned by Centre that there is an unidentified VFR in the vicinity at 7500'. We're monitoring Area freq flying in class G so dob ourselves in as perhaps being that VFR aircraft? Centre asks us to squawk 4321 and identifies it is us. So we communicate our intents with the IFR aircraft to stay away from him and it's all very stress free.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gerry111, don't let Dick hear you admitting to something like that, he'll berate you for potentially blocking an important ATC instruction and ask you what the hell you thought you were doing by monitoring the area frequency...
p.s nice situational awareness
p.s nice situational awareness
Hempy, The situational awareness plaudit has to go to Lead Balloon as he was PIC on that flight.
Fortunately, no radio jammed heavy metal crashed and burned that day..
Fortunately, no radio jammed heavy metal crashed and burned that day..
Thread Starter
Make sure that Aussie ATC's keep calling random VFR aircraft in G and E when they may be close to another aircraft.
We are the only country in the world that I know of that provides this service. In other countries the service has to be requested and agreed to by the ATC. In many cases the ATC can't provide the service and very quickly states. " frequency change approved" for obvious reasons.
In Australia this will almost ensure they will be held accountable for the next mid air that takes place in airspace that is covered by surveillance and where ATC workload is not high.
Same as what happened at Bankstown where ATC were held responsible and a huge payout was made to the families of the crew involved in the mid air.
Looks as if the Airservices Board is putting VFR on a level where they can receive substantial compensation. I wonder if their insurance company knows?
We are the only country in the world that I know of that provides this service. In other countries the service has to be requested and agreed to by the ATC. In many cases the ATC can't provide the service and very quickly states. " frequency change approved" for obvious reasons.
In Australia this will almost ensure they will be held accountable for the next mid air that takes place in airspace that is covered by surveillance and where ATC workload is not high.
Same as what happened at Bankstown where ATC were held responsible and a huge payout was made to the families of the crew involved in the mid air.
Looks as if the Airservices Board is putting VFR on a level where they can receive substantial compensation. I wonder if their insurance company knows?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, save your rant. If you had read what gerry111 has written, you'll note that an IFR a/c was given traffic on an 'unidentified VFR'.
To which the VFR piped up, was positively identified, and the two self sorted.
What is your problem with this scenario? Would you have preferred that they had hit each other?
To which the VFR piped up, was positively identified, and the two self sorted.
What is your problem with this scenario? Would you have preferred that they had hit each other?
Thread Starter
The IFR was paying AsA for a service and got it.
I am referring to the system in Aus where VFR are called by ATC and informed about other VFR. Only in Aus .
I am referring to the system in Aus where VFR are called by ATC and informed about other VFR. Only in Aus .
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am referring to the system in Aus where VFR are called by ATC and informed about other VFR. Only in Aus .
As long as the VFR has his radio on
Why the continual inference that VFR pilots are generally law breakers.
If a VFR has a VHF fitted, they must use it ---- been the law for a long time now - CAR 166 was amended some years ago to make the intent more clear, and I believe the amendment did its job.
As to frequency, CAR 166 says something about the appropriate frequency, or words to that effect, does it not.
Of course, CASA has a controversy running about what is the right frequency, but the person responsible for that controversy has been awarded the DCM, so we now might get a sensible resolution, with which the RAPACs can agree --- ie: Back to "the law", where the frequency selection is a PIC decision, as per. CAR 166, with guidelines as per any proper advisory document.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE but to break the law, doesn't there have to be intent? QUOTE.
Strict liability removes the need to prove intent, as in murder, and reverses the burden of proof on the accused.
The current regulations which are undergoing a review of some 30 years and employing a plethora of public functionaries, are completely unintelligible and make the old legal adage of ignorance being no excuse in the eye of the law redundant.
Even if the regulations were miraculously made legible to a normal Australian Citizen or Judge, the paper jungle of "exemptions" put paid to any semblance of "fair" laws.
The best thing to do, is ignore all aviation regulations and throw yourself on the mercy of the Court when caught for doing "anything" because "anything" you do is illegal.
Also it's helpful for Lawyers.
Strict liability removes the need to prove intent, as in murder, and reverses the burden of proof on the accused.
The current regulations which are undergoing a review of some 30 years and employing a plethora of public functionaries, are completely unintelligible and make the old legal adage of ignorance being no excuse in the eye of the law redundant.
Even if the regulations were miraculously made legible to a normal Australian Citizen or Judge, the paper jungle of "exemptions" put paid to any semblance of "fair" laws.
The best thing to do, is ignore all aviation regulations and throw yourself on the mercy of the Court when caught for doing "anything" because "anything" you do is illegal.
Also it's helpful for Lawyers.
I feel its making some of them 'rather rich'......
'Some' have been employed for quite some time now, writing all of this unintelligible crap - with exemptions.
Just how do the wannabees deal with 'Air Legislation' these days??
Serious question.
To be fair, when I put this question of 'strict liability' etc to Mr Skidmore, he responded that it is a Govt. requirement.
I appreciate that he also has to do as he is 'told' but it seems that there is no leeway other than to support the current political initiative for the changes that are REQUIRED for this industry to survive more than another couple of years.....
No Cheers....Nope. None at all..!!
'Some' have been employed for quite some time now, writing all of this unintelligible crap - with exemptions.
Just how do the wannabees deal with 'Air Legislation' these days??
Serious question.
To be fair, when I put this question of 'strict liability' etc to Mr Skidmore, he responded that it is a Govt. requirement.
I appreciate that he also has to do as he is 'told' but it seems that there is no leeway other than to support the current political initiative for the changes that are REQUIRED for this industry to survive more than another couple of years.....
No Cheers....Nope. None at all..!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To be fair, when I put this question of 'strict liability' etc to Mr Skidmore, he responded that it is a Govt. requirement.