Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx
Thread Starter
Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx
From The Australian, 3Feb17:
So Dick, to help us understand the issue, what was the weather? What did you want to have done/provided and what were you actually given/made to do?
Edit: What's wrong with a DME arrival between friends?? The profile's even on the chart!
Hobart approach stuck in manual, says Smith
By Paul Cleary
A hair-raising descent into Hobart airport last week has prompted veteran aviator Dick Smith to renew his calls for an overhaul of air traffic control at the popular destination.
At a time when air safety regulators say satellite-based technology is making Australia’s skies safer, Mr Smith says controllers at Hobart are still using a 1930s-style air traffic control system.
Mr Smith said Hobart controllers had the digital system known as automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B ) but were not using it. Instead, pilots are directed to manually descend using charts.
The ADS-B system is meant to replace “ambiguous radio instructions with data-linked screen messages in cockpits” for all aircraft operating in Australia from today, according to acting CASA chief Shane Carmody.
In letters to CASA, Air Services Australia, the ATSB, and Transport Minister Darren Chester, Mr Smith explains how he flew into Cambridge Airport at Hobart in a Cessna Caravan with six passengers on board and was told by traffic control to step down using a chart, rather than using ADS-B .
“At that time I was in cloud, in icing conditions and in quite severe turbulence,” Mr Smith writes.
“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’
Mr Smith said that when he contacted the tower, he was told that “controllers are not rated for the ADS-B , and for them to try to step down a plane every 1000 feet or so would be far too great a workload” .
But Airservices Australia (ASA) said radio instructions were standard at all 29 control towers, including Hobart “and all aircraft are required to follow published instrument approach procedures” .
“An instrument approach is an International Civil Aviation Organisation safety procedure,” a spokesman said.
He said ADS-B was being used at Hobart for “increased situational awareness and enhanced decision making in relation to separation of aircraft” .
But Mr Smith likened air traffic control at Hobart to the circumstances that led to a crash at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005, which killed 15 people.
Mr Smith told the minister that if nothing changed, there would be a serious accident and it would take a royal commission to bring about better safety.
After Mr Smith raised the issues last year, ASA introduced rules to tighten control of air traffic into Hobart following concerns about the state’s radar system, known as TASWAM.
A CASA spokeswoman said a “full airspace review” conducted last year did not identify any “significant” concerns about safety in the vicinity of Hobart.
The report on this review is being finalised. The spokeswoman said the report found “existing airspace classification and architecture is appropriate and should remain unchanged” .
Major airlines flying into Hobart seem relaxed about safety and efficiency. A Qantas spokesman said: “We’re very comfortable with the air traffic control systems in place at Hobart, both from a safety and an efficiency point of view.”
By Paul Cleary
A hair-raising descent into Hobart airport last week has prompted veteran aviator Dick Smith to renew his calls for an overhaul of air traffic control at the popular destination.
At a time when air safety regulators say satellite-based technology is making Australia’s skies safer, Mr Smith says controllers at Hobart are still using a 1930s-style air traffic control system.
Mr Smith said Hobart controllers had the digital system known as automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B ) but were not using it. Instead, pilots are directed to manually descend using charts.
The ADS-B system is meant to replace “ambiguous radio instructions with data-linked screen messages in cockpits” for all aircraft operating in Australia from today, according to acting CASA chief Shane Carmody.
In letters to CASA, Air Services Australia, the ATSB, and Transport Minister Darren Chester, Mr Smith explains how he flew into Cambridge Airport at Hobart in a Cessna Caravan with six passengers on board and was told by traffic control to step down using a chart, rather than using ADS-B .
“At that time I was in cloud, in icing conditions and in quite severe turbulence,” Mr Smith writes.
“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’
Mr Smith said that when he contacted the tower, he was told that “controllers are not rated for the ADS-B , and for them to try to step down a plane every 1000 feet or so would be far too great a workload” .
But Airservices Australia (ASA) said radio instructions were standard at all 29 control towers, including Hobart “and all aircraft are required to follow published instrument approach procedures” .
“An instrument approach is an International Civil Aviation Organisation safety procedure,” a spokesman said.
He said ADS-B was being used at Hobart for “increased situational awareness and enhanced decision making in relation to separation of aircraft” .
But Mr Smith likened air traffic control at Hobart to the circumstances that led to a crash at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005, which killed 15 people.
Mr Smith told the minister that if nothing changed, there would be a serious accident and it would take a royal commission to bring about better safety.
After Mr Smith raised the issues last year, ASA introduced rules to tighten control of air traffic into Hobart following concerns about the state’s radar system, known as TASWAM.
A CASA spokeswoman said a “full airspace review” conducted last year did not identify any “significant” concerns about safety in the vicinity of Hobart.
The report on this review is being finalised. The spokeswoman said the report found “existing airspace classification and architecture is appropriate and should remain unchanged” .
Major airlines flying into Hobart seem relaxed about safety and efficiency. A Qantas spokesman said: “We’re very comfortable with the air traffic control systems in place at Hobart, both from a safety and an efficiency point of view.”
Edit: What's wrong with a DME arrival between friends?? The profile's even on the chart!
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 3rd Feb 2017 at 11:30.
"A hair-raising descent into Hobart last week.."
Perhaps Dick, with six pax aboard your Caravan, you should have been thinking about landing elsewhere?
Or if the workload is all getting a bit too hard, that you find a 'safety pilot' to accompany you?
(Hopefully that wasn't that young family aboard, that constantly orbit dangerously at 500' near Anna Bay?)
Perhaps Dick, with six pax aboard your Caravan, you should have been thinking about landing elsewhere?
Or if the workload is all getting a bit too hard, that you find a 'safety pilot' to accompany you?
(Hopefully that wasn't that young family aboard, that constantly orbit dangerously at 500' near Anna Bay?)
“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’
I'm with Gerry, delay / divert and use a safety pilot
A DME Arrival is a very practical approach and you make it sound as though you were struggling
Maybe your risk management needs some extra thought
A DME Arrival is a very practical approach and you make it sound as though you were struggling
Maybe your risk management needs some extra thought
I see the LPOD (Let's Pick On Dick) team are alive and well.
I'd be pretty sure Dick had no problems dealing with the approach.
No doubt that wonderfully quaint Aussie procedure, the DME Arrival, may have been a good choice as well.
Dick was making the point that there is now technology available (ADSB) that can enhance flight safety and reduce cockpit workload yet it isn't being used in a manner that utilises all of it's benefits.
He's making a bloody good point. 21st century technology, but last centuries procedures.
Instead of making fun of the way Dick has chosen to highlight the situation perhaps some support for him might help improve things for everyone.
I'd be pretty sure Dick had no problems dealing with the approach.
No doubt that wonderfully quaint Aussie procedure, the DME Arrival, may have been a good choice as well.
Dick was making the point that there is now technology available (ADSB) that can enhance flight safety and reduce cockpit workload yet it isn't being used in a manner that utilises all of it's benefits.
He's making a bloody good point. 21st century technology, but last centuries procedures.
Instead of making fun of the way Dick has chosen to highlight the situation perhaps some support for him might help improve things for everyone.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a time when air safety regulators say satellite-based technology is making Australia’s skies safer, Mr Smith says controllers at Hobart are still using a 1930s-style air traffic control system.
The ADS-B system is meant to replace “ambiguous radio instructions with data-linked screen messages in cockpits” for all aircraft operating in Australia from today, according to acting CASA chief Shane Carmody.
He said ADS-B was being used at Hobart for “increased situational awareness and enhanced decision making in relation to separation of aircraft”
Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for installing garbage that cannot be used for what it was installed to be used for.
After Mr Smith raised the issues last year, ASA introduced rules to tighten control of air traffic into Hobart following concerns about the state’s radar system, known as TASWAM.
Major airlines flying into Hobart seem relaxed about safety and efficiency. A Qantas spokesman said: “We’re very comfortable with the air traffic control systems in place at Hobart, both from a safety and an efficiency point of view.”
Maybe the
data-linked screen messages in cockpits
Safety benefit of surveillance in airspace
It is a pity this discussion will likely continue for several days with uninformed input from most posters. And it is also a pity the reporter was also not properly informed.
Both deficiencies would be remedied if someone (perhaps the regulatory agency) commissioned a report from a multi disciplinary group of experts on the safety benefit of surveillance in airspace. Such report should include a tutorial on the various surveillance technologies and be peer reviewed.
The report could then be published so that important discussions such as this could continue on an informed basis. Perhaps then we would see a mutually beneficial result and not nitpicking and personal attacks.
Oh... I understand CASA commissioned such a report some years ago. Perhaps it could be updated and the updated version made available. In the meantime does anyone have a link to the original report?
Gne
Both deficiencies would be remedied if someone (perhaps the regulatory agency) commissioned a report from a multi disciplinary group of experts on the safety benefit of surveillance in airspace. Such report should include a tutorial on the various surveillance technologies and be peer reviewed.
The report could then be published so that important discussions such as this could continue on an informed basis. Perhaps then we would see a mutually beneficial result and not nitpicking and personal attacks.
Oh... I understand CASA commissioned such a report some years ago. Perhaps it could be updated and the updated version made available. In the meantime does anyone have a link to the original report?
Gne
Hmmm... aged in his mid 70's ...how many working airline pilots are there flying into Hobart at that age?
Considering the many and varied interests of our Mr Smith, I wonder how he finds time to stay current in the demanding IFR game. As has been suggested, rather then this attempt to blame the 'tools' for the bad job it looks like it is time to have another full time pilot on board.
.
Considering the many and varied interests of our Mr Smith, I wonder how he finds time to stay current in the demanding IFR game. As has been suggested, rather then this attempt to blame the 'tools' for the bad job it looks like it is time to have another full time pilot on board.
.
Hang on a sec, what does ADS-B have to do with flying a DME/GNSS arrival? I have nothing against ADS-B and yes we should stop being a backwater country irt its implementation...but....whether Dick and ATC had access to a full ADS-B service is irrelevant to the 'woe is me' line Dick has chosen to report.
With or without ADS-B the following occurred and has no relevance to the use of ADS-B;
1. Dick chose to fly a DGA
2. If you consider this a higher workload approach, then Dick also chose to increase his workload.
3. Dick also (if reported correctly) chose to fly the 'dive and drive' method, rather than try to fly a stabilised approach as published on the chart.
How would any of this change if ADS-B had been in use? And what would he have preferred to have done in leui?
Why did he choose to decrease the level of safety for his passengers?
Alpha
With or without ADS-B the following occurred and has no relevance to the use of ADS-B;
1. Dick chose to fly a DGA
2. If you consider this a higher workload approach, then Dick also chose to increase his workload.
3. Dick also (if reported correctly) chose to fly the 'dive and drive' method, rather than try to fly a stabilised approach as published on the chart.
How would any of this change if ADS-B had been in use? And what would he have preferred to have done in leui?
Why did he choose to decrease the level of safety for his passengers?
Alpha
Last edited by alphacentauri; 4th Feb 2017 at 01:16.
Educate me please
In this case as described by Dick, how?
Dick was making the point that there is now technology available (ADSB) that can enhance flight safety and reduce cockpit workload yet it isn't being used in a manner that utilises all of it's benefits.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment."
Whenever I see this and similar, it reminds me of the other opener, "I'm not racist but...."
Whenever I see this and similar, it reminds me of the other opener, "I'm not racist but...."
read into it however you want.It certainly doesn't phase me that you are reminded as such
I understand that our last airline accident killing 15 people could have been caused by a simple mistake in relation to letting down to early.
Now I am not a professional pilot so I am even more likely to make an error .
That's why at every other capital city airport the descent is under surveillance control by a properly rated controller .
Sounds sensible to me
At Hobart I was given a descent to 2000 not below the DME steps. That's because the airspace was operated by a 1950s procedural procedure with a controller who is not rated to use the ADSB to do the approach.
In the USA all low level en route controllers are also approach rated to use the ADSB where it is available.
We need to do the same before more lives are lost like Lockhart River.
That is give the airspace under ADSB coverage to the qualified person in the Melbourne centre. Or do we have to wait for more deaths first?
Now I am not a professional pilot so I am even more likely to make an error .
That's why at every other capital city airport the descent is under surveillance control by a properly rated controller .
Sounds sensible to me
At Hobart I was given a descent to 2000 not below the DME steps. That's because the airspace was operated by a 1950s procedural procedure with a controller who is not rated to use the ADSB to do the approach.
In the USA all low level en route controllers are also approach rated to use the ADSB where it is available.
We need to do the same before more lives are lost like Lockhart River.
That is give the airspace under ADSB coverage to the qualified person in the Melbourne centre. Or do we have to wait for more deaths first?
Is this the document you were referring to ?
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...2rn3rNfj0Key9Q
Airspace capacity is determined by the combined capabilities of the communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management systems (CNS/ATM) in place. These include ground and aircraft-based systems and requirements vary according to the airspace being considered. (CASA)
Ore perhaps this little gem
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...Xrty1-msJxJoPw
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...2rn3rNfj0Key9Q
Airspace capacity is determined by the combined capabilities of the communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management systems (CNS/ATM) in place. These include ground and aircraft-based systems and requirements vary according to the airspace being considered. (CASA)
Ore perhaps this little gem
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...Xrty1-msJxJoPw
Last edited by sunnySA; 4th Feb 2017 at 08:12.
So Dick, what approach would you expect from an ATC who could use the ADS-B?
Was Dick really expecting to be given 500' descents all the way to the ground, by his own personal controller?
Sounds like a slightly confused attempt to revive his upset at the cost of adding equipment to his private jet
