CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Thread Starter
Why wouldn’t we follow the simpler non prescriptive North American system as used in Canada and the USA with 30 times the traffic ?
I know. Never ever ask advice and never copy the success of others.
We built the Nomad - they built the twin otter and 747. What would they know
Happy Christmas everyone!
I know. Never ever ask advice and never copy the success of others.
We built the Nomad - they built the twin otter and 747. What would they know
Happy Christmas everyone!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic. Who is going to held responsible at CASA for this huge waste of money?
Or is no one identified because there names are blacked out?
Or is no one identified because there names are blacked out?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those with their names blacked out are part of the Iron Ring, which is obviously alive and well with this 20 mile CTAF idea. They just don't care so long as they keep their overpaid job and the attached ego, so as to maintain the power and control that keeps them there. I don't know if the DAS is across this mob as yet, but he should be, and he should be considering using his boot to good effect.
Enlarging to 20 NM negates that issue. So they fix it for the RPT and bugger the rest of us. Back to the future...MBZ's?
Kaz
triadic... the current "DAS"/ceo is not across it ffs He's is again part of the Mob now and has been before.
I have some of his delightful BS paperwork and slimy answers to prove it.!!
He is not now part of any solution, he is part of the problems that we have now and was then in 2009.
All the names blacked out !...., all the usual gutless crew, no doubt.
You have to ask...why havent they got the balls to put their names to it ???
I have some of his delightful BS paperwork and slimy answers to prove it.!!
He is not now part of any solution, he is part of the problems that we have now and was then in 2009.
All the names blacked out !...., all the usual gutless crew, no doubt.
You have to ask...why havent they got the balls to put their names to it ???
This proposal seems to be primarily aimed at requiring mandatory carriage of at least one radio by any aircraft that goes within 20 nm of a CTAF. A stealthy plot for more control.
Yes, it does look like the Bloggs Brigade has saddled up for yet another MBZ crusade. Should be the usual entertainment.
Thread Starter
If the Regional Airline pilots believe that safety requires a traffic information service on VFR there should be no problem. It’s called ICAO class D. Airservices can provide this service wherever required.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
A lot of the time it does, but not always. If clear and diverging it is impossible to collide - 3nm and 5nm only gives people a warm fuzzy feeling.
Thread Starter
If I remember correctly in the USA they will clear IFR aircraft in E to depart in non radar airspace where the first aircraft turns 30 degrees left from runway heading and the next aircraft 30 degrees right . Not initially an ICAO IFR standard but they clearly can’t hit. That is the type of standard we have to copy if we are going to get the NAS to work efficiently without all the delays that are quoted by the ignorant on this site.
That's the problem Dick, you want to introduce a "wonderful" system without mentioning any of the extra changes that need to go with it to make it work. You know nothing about most of the extras that are required. This is the first mention you've made of that "standard" and it's been how many years that you've been flogging this horse? And then you complain when the people who have to use the system say what you're giving us isn't workable.
You have the temerity to blame us, when it's you who doesn't understand your system. As you've been repeatedly told, give us the tools and resources. But you don't even know what tools are required.
You have the temerity to blame us, when it's you who doesn't understand your system. As you've been repeatedly told, give us the tools and resources. But you don't even know what tools are required.
Thread Starter
Le Ping I have not blamed you or any ATC for the lack of leadership re new rules that would have to be introduced for low E to work correctly. I have consistently said that the FAA procedures would have to be introduced. I reckon in most cases you already have the tools.
Le Ping. On a number of occasions I have offered to brief the relevant people at CASA re changes that would have to be made. So far they won’t let me near the place! I little bit of insecurity there!
Fuji , They only allow this procedure where it is safe . Derr
Le Ping. On a number of occasions I have offered to brief the relevant people at CASA re changes that would have to be made. So far they won’t let me near the place! I little bit of insecurity there!
Fuji , They only allow this procedure where it is safe . Derr
But you have accused us of being set in concrete.
Extra consoles, extra staff, extra training, extra ratings, extra separation standards - all these things need to be supplied. They need to be determined in detail before we even start down your road and they haven't been in any way or form. "I reckon" is not sufficient, not even close. So no, we don't already have the tools nor in the quantity required. We've been here before.
Simply bringing "procedures" without everything else is inadequate. "Procedures" need to be adapted to suit local conditions - I'm not saying we're unique, but unless you duplicate a system in it's entirety it needs to be tailored to fit the local conditions.
How can you brief people when you yourself don't know in detail what's required?
Extra consoles, extra staff, extra training, extra ratings, extra separation standards - all these things need to be supplied. They need to be determined in detail before we even start down your road and they haven't been in any way or form. "I reckon" is not sufficient, not even close. So no, we don't already have the tools nor in the quantity required. We've been here before.
Simply bringing "procedures" without everything else is inadequate. "Procedures" need to be adapted to suit local conditions - I'm not saying we're unique, but unless you duplicate a system in it's entirety it needs to be tailored to fit the local conditions.
How can you brief people when you yourself don't know in detail what's required?
Thread Starter
How could I create a magazine and sell it for $41m when I clearly can’t write and have no training in publishing?
I ask advice , surround myself with the best people and enthuse them to perform.
And I am not as sure as you about the extra staff and consoles - quite often I fly in very low workload airspace compared to other countries!
I ask advice , surround myself with the best people and enthuse them to perform.
And I am not as sure as you about the extra staff and consoles - quite often I fly in very low workload airspace compared to other countries!
Noise does not equal workload.
Am I to understand that you want to add procedural approach functions to multiple airports on the one sector as well as the old FIS functions as well as the old CTA functions? Wasn't your issue with C steps into procedural towers that the attention would be taken away from the airspace close to the airport by things happening 9000ft away? Are you seriously suggesting that one person doing multiple versions of this with things to distract 40000ft+ away is OK?
Like I said previously above, I have no doubt E down to 1200 or 700 is a great plan for safety. How to resource it is the problem. 1000 controllers vs 20000 controllers over near identical airspace volume probably shows problem number 1 I'm sure you will agree.
Am I to understand that you want to add procedural approach functions to multiple airports on the one sector as well as the old FIS functions as well as the old CTA functions? Wasn't your issue with C steps into procedural towers that the attention would be taken away from the airspace close to the airport by things happening 9000ft away? Are you seriously suggesting that one person doing multiple versions of this with things to distract 40000ft+ away is OK?
Like I said previously above, I have no doubt E down to 1200 or 700 is a great plan for safety. How to resource it is the problem. 1000 controllers vs 20000 controllers over near identical airspace volume probably shows problem number 1 I'm sure you will agree.
Sigh. We've been here before as well.
Sure, some sectors, but not all. Until the question gets asked and researched we don't know. ATC doesn't work very well on "the make it up as we go along approach" - it results in huge amounts of money being needlessly spent. Been there, seen that.
The problem is you get in the ear of whatever politician before any of that has been answered and they set things in motion. Still without having answered those questions.
We don't have any spare console capacity in TAAATS so what happens when it's discovered half way through that we need more consoles? Where's your plan for that contingency? There is none. Not to mention the extra controllers to man the extra consoles.
Building something up from scratch that doesn't have to take a very particular form is an utterly different matter to trying to change a large, mature and very integrated system. Have you successfully managed such a transformation?
Sure, some sectors, but not all. Until the question gets asked and researched we don't know. ATC doesn't work very well on "the make it up as we go along approach" - it results in huge amounts of money being needlessly spent. Been there, seen that.
The problem is you get in the ear of whatever politician before any of that has been answered and they set things in motion. Still without having answered those questions.
We don't have any spare console capacity in TAAATS so what happens when it's discovered half way through that we need more consoles? Where's your plan for that contingency? There is none. Not to mention the extra controllers to man the extra consoles.
Building something up from scratch that doesn't have to take a very particular form is an utterly different matter to trying to change a large, mature and very integrated system. Have you successfully managed such a transformation?
Thread Starter
Le ping. Love to talk to you some time.
I have always believed we should test just two locations with low level E. One with surveillance to a low level and one without. Considering every airport in the USA with an IFR approach has a minimum of class E you reckon we could do just two.
Find lower workload sectors and low traffic airports and use the existing en route controllers to provide the service.
See what the delays are and then make a decision. Re cost , safety advantages ect
And send a group of willing ATCs to the US and Canada to see how the existing non approach rated controllers provide such a fantastic service there. Modify our procedures where necessary.
I would put you in charge of the trial- or someone you recommended if you did not think you had the abilities- see you have shown here that you have an interest . Many could not care less!
I have always believed we should test just two locations with low level E. One with surveillance to a low level and one without. Considering every airport in the USA with an IFR approach has a minimum of class E you reckon we could do just two.
Find lower workload sectors and low traffic airports and use the existing en route controllers to provide the service.
See what the delays are and then make a decision. Re cost , safety advantages ect
And send a group of willing ATCs to the US and Canada to see how the existing non approach rated controllers provide such a fantastic service there. Modify our procedures where necessary.
I would put you in charge of the trial- or someone you recommended if you did not think you had the abilities- see you have shown here that you have an interest . Many could not care less!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th Dec 2017 at 11:11.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GET THE TRUE REQUIREMENT DEFINED FIRST - then offer solutions
Firstly a very Merry Christmas to all from my mid Pacific location.
Now, to the real issue:
There are myriad examples in the the aviation environment and particularly in Australia, of situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation. To put it another way for those whose background may not have covered "appreciations" - work out the problem and the real requirement before rushing into a solution based specification. The Australian airspace mess is a classic example.
In his excellent work "Most Secret War' R.V. Jones cites (on page 78) an excellent example of an overly complex specification which entirely missed the point resulting in a delay in introduction of bullet proof aircraft fuel tanks well into WW II when the technology had been proven late in WWI.
ICAO states the issue very well in C/CAR WG/7 - WP/04 dated 27/03/09 dealing with a performance based approach to requirements definition which avoids the problems of “Technology Driven Approach” and “Solutions searching for a problem to solve” .
In my System Requirements and Operational Requirement roles and later in the days of the AERU I stressed the need to start with an agreed Concept of Operations (CONOPS) before rushing headlong into defining solutions.
Now.... how about we all enjoy a great Christmas Day, relax tomorrow for Boxing Day and then take a few deep breathing exercises before having a serious think about what is the actual problem we are trying to "fix" or if there really is a problem, other than some bent egos and perceived bureaucratic needs to "do something".
MJG
23 years in ATC, 3 years is ATS System Requirements, and then 23 years around the world working on ATM systems and airspace taught a few lessons.
Now, to the real issue:
There are myriad examples in the the aviation environment and particularly in Australia, of situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation. To put it another way for those whose background may not have covered "appreciations" - work out the problem and the real requirement before rushing into a solution based specification. The Australian airspace mess is a classic example.
In his excellent work "Most Secret War' R.V. Jones cites (on page 78) an excellent example of an overly complex specification which entirely missed the point resulting in a delay in introduction of bullet proof aircraft fuel tanks well into WW II when the technology had been proven late in WWI.
ICAO states the issue very well in C/CAR WG/7 - WP/04 dated 27/03/09 dealing with a performance based approach to requirements definition which avoids the problems of “Technology Driven Approach” and “Solutions searching for a problem to solve” .
In my System Requirements and Operational Requirement roles and later in the days of the AERU I stressed the need to start with an agreed Concept of Operations (CONOPS) before rushing headlong into defining solutions.
Now.... how about we all enjoy a great Christmas Day, relax tomorrow for Boxing Day and then take a few deep breathing exercises before having a serious think about what is the actual problem we are trying to "fix" or if there really is a problem, other than some bent egos and perceived bureaucratic needs to "do something".
MJG
23 years in ATC, 3 years is ATS System Requirements, and then 23 years around the world working on ATM systems and airspace taught a few lessons.
Thread Starter
Of course Hitch , if he thought there was a collision risk should have requested a flight following service as they do in the US and Canada and he would have received , workload permitting, a full traffic information service.
As it is now he received a uniquely Australian intermittent service that is sometimes provided but mostly is not. And never where it is really required, such as the Bankstown training area or at places like Hornsby where collision risk is high. And as he points out it will not be able to be provided at all with the new CASA 126.7 below 5000’ system.
He brings up an excellent point. By CASA designing a system that does not operate anywhere else in the world other serious safety problems are created. That’s why they black out names and have no one responsible. Mr Carmondy would normally have overall responsibility but he can claim he knows nothing about aviation!
That’s why I consistently state that we should copy the best proven systems from countries where the traffic density is up to 30 times higher. Just commonsense.
As it is now he received a uniquely Australian intermittent service that is sometimes provided but mostly is not. And never where it is really required, such as the Bankstown training area or at places like Hornsby where collision risk is high. And as he points out it will not be able to be provided at all with the new CASA 126.7 below 5000’ system.
He brings up an excellent point. By CASA designing a system that does not operate anywhere else in the world other serious safety problems are created. That’s why they black out names and have no one responsible. Mr Carmondy would normally have overall responsibility but he can claim he knows nothing about aviation!
That’s why I consistently state that we should copy the best proven systems from countries where the traffic density is up to 30 times higher. Just commonsense.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Dec 2017 at 10:20.