CASA Class G Discussion Paper
That's pretty much the rationale behind every Air traffic System in the world.
You said this at post #21 in this thread: How does CASA and Air Services decide whether an airport has a Control Tower?
Gove was also for a time the only place both mainlines of the day operated B737's into as RPT without a TWR. They also operated into Ayers Rock but they were classed as CHTR, so fell outside the regs. It was the potential for two 73's to be mixing it up with the local GA that drove the building of the TWR. While the apron could fit two at a pinch, the schedules had them separated, but often they were arriving and departing traffic for each other. It used to make me chuckle that while they would happily be spat out of the overlying CTA on descent, and left to work things out under "Directed Traffic", coordinating a pre departure clearance with DRW ATC involved much more to-ing and fro-ing so that they would be adequately separated prior to reaching CTA on climb (which I think was either at FL200 or FL250 from distant memory).
It was, indeed, chuckle-worthy nonsense that it was acceptably ‘safe’ for the aircraft to sort themselves out on approach OCTA, but ‘unsafe’ for them to do the same on departure.
It was, indeed, chuckle-worthy nonsense that it was acceptably ‘safe’ for 2 charter 73s to operate without a tower but ‘unsafe’ if one or both of them was RPT. Precisely the same objective risks to the 200+ precious passengers, but different air traffic system requirements. This nonsense infects the classification of operations mess to this day.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 6th Jan 2018 at 21:54.
Thread Starter
Traffic. I am stating the facts.
Most pilots who had been trained in the system where FS communicated to all traffic OCTA wanted to keep that system. Mostly for the reason some older pilots want to keep the frequency boundaries on the charts. It was the system they had been trained in.
Even with the huge publicity of the MDX crash at the time my research of the media does not show one mention that it would have been safer if the pilots were communicating to a person with a radar screen.
Many pilots at the time of the AMATS proposals told me I was wrong and it was better to keep the duplicated FS/ATC system. That it was not necessary to communicate to a radar operator when OCTA and in radar coverage.
When I mentioned the problem of CFIT I was as told competent pilots would not fly their aircraft into the ground.
I challenge you to show me even one newspaper cutting or article dated before 1991 where Aussie pilots are questioning the fact that in good radar coverage they are forced by regulation not to communicate with the person in front of a radar screen
So this resistance to change is not new to me!
Most pilots who had been trained in the system where FS communicated to all traffic OCTA wanted to keep that system. Mostly for the reason some older pilots want to keep the frequency boundaries on the charts. It was the system they had been trained in.
Even with the huge publicity of the MDX crash at the time my research of the media does not show one mention that it would have been safer if the pilots were communicating to a person with a radar screen.
Many pilots at the time of the AMATS proposals told me I was wrong and it was better to keep the duplicated FS/ATC system. That it was not necessary to communicate to a radar operator when OCTA and in radar coverage.
When I mentioned the problem of CFIT I was as told competent pilots would not fly their aircraft into the ground.
I challenge you to show me even one newspaper cutting or article dated before 1991 where Aussie pilots are questioning the fact that in good radar coverage they are forced by regulation not to communicate with the person in front of a radar screen
So this resistance to change is not new to me!
Dick, I think one of the (many) reasons that lots of pilots wanted to keep the old system was that it provided a SARWATCH for everyone who had to submit details or chose to submit details. It did provide a sense of security, knowing that ‘someone’ was waiting to hear your report at the next estimate, plus or minus 2 minutes. (It also provided a false sense of security that ‘everyone’ in the area was on the same frequency and known. But a sense of security is a sense of security, false or otherwise.) However, I think technological advances - SATPHONES, 406GPS ELT and PLBs and mobile phone location technologies - have long since rendered the old SARWATCH system redundant.
Thread Starter
Lead. You are correct however there was nothing to stop the old Sar watch system being given by ATC Not FS.
Most pilots believed that if you missed a full position report that within 2 minutes they would start a search.
During our AMATS research we found out that due to lots of position reports being missed due to radio and other problems that it was more likely a search would not start until planned fuel was exhausted. The extra safety was a delusion!
Most pilots believed that if you missed a full position report that within 2 minutes they would start a search.
During our AMATS research we found out that due to lots of position reports being missed due to radio and other problems that it was more likely a search would not start until planned fuel was exhausted. The extra safety was a delusion!
Thread Starter
I am amazed even today the number of pilots who put in a Sar watch with AsA rather than a family friend or business associate.
I know who is most likely to be concerned if given the responsibility. And it’s not the Airservices computer system!
I know who is most likely to be concerned if given the responsibility. And it’s not the Airservices computer system!
All this paranoia about SARwatches reads very much like the current paranoia about getting the frequency right for that Mayday call (Closest ATC? Charted ATC freq? 121.5?). Why the angst? Nobody's going to get to you for hours. And did you put in a flight plan so the searchers would at least have the lateral search part sorted out?
Oh, hang on, LB could use "mobile phone location technologies" to send a Whatsapp location. That'll help the searchers.
Oh, hang on, LB could use "mobile phone location technologies" to send a Whatsapp location. That'll help the searchers.
Most pilots believed that if you missed a full position report that within 2 minutes they would start a search.
I am amazed even today the number of pilots who put in a Sar watch with AsA rather than a family friend or business associate.
I know who is most likely to be concerned if given the responsibility. And it’s not the Airservices computer system!
I know who is most likely to be concerned if given the responsibility. And it’s not the Airservices computer system!
Thread Starter
Fujji. I am sure you are correct. What an incredible duplicated “ make jobs” system.
Do pilots communicate directly with Ausar to open and close Sar watch or is that normally through Airservices?
And is that the same ausSar that supported CASA in this class G issue and were opposed to all RAPACs?
Do pilots communicate directly with Ausar to open and close Sar watch or is that normally through Airservices?
And is that the same ausSar that supported CASA in this class G issue and were opposed to all RAPACs?
There is a presumption that a passenger who undertakes a charter flight is accepting of a greater degree of risk than one who simply buys an airline ticket. This is reflected in the difference between how charter vs RPT is reflected in the various rules & regs around the world. Whether the punter on board is actually aware, who knows, but that's how the systems work. A private VFR flight will always be at the bottom of the list. Basic economics dictate that.
In regards to my old comments, the to-ing and fro-ing prior to departure was mainly to prevent delays with their respective clearances, and to ensure adequate separation at the time they entered CTA. Of course they were adequately separated in CTA during that part of their descent. It wasn't considered more or less acceptably safe for either their OCTA descent or climb. It was considered acceptable on a dispensation against the prevailing rules basis, which was that RPT turbojets operated in Controlled Airspace.
A tower was built, but never opened, because ultimately it was deemed non-cost effective for between 2 and 4 RPT jets a day.
In regards to my old comments, the to-ing and fro-ing prior to departure was mainly to prevent delays with their respective clearances, and to ensure adequate separation at the time they entered CTA. Of course they were adequately separated in CTA during that part of their descent. It wasn't considered more or less acceptably safe for either their OCTA descent or climb. It was considered acceptable on a dispensation against the prevailing rules basis, which was that RPT turbojets operated in Controlled Airspace.
A tower was built, but never opened, because ultimately it was deemed non-cost effective for between 2 and 4 RPT jets a day.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Dick, it is not a make jobs system and is more efficient than twenty odd years ago.
AUSsar is part of the AMSA. AUSsar is responsible for all land, sea and air searches. These often cross over. E.g., an aircraft crashing into the sea. In the past, each FIR had its own Operations Control Center with a Searchmaster trainee SOC who was responsible for all searches within that FIR. At any one time, most towers and FS stations would have had at least one SARTIME aircraft strip on the board. In the event of a missed position report or SARTIME cancellation, the TWR/FSS would initiate action. If communications checks were not successful, a SAR phase would be declared and the SOC advised who would take over the SAR process. This was very cumbersome.
Now, instead of numerous TWRs/FSS having to monitor SARTIMEs and half a dozen individual search centres, it is all done by AUSsar.
As for leaving a note with a friend/relative or other, that has its problems. Try getting someone unfamiliar with aviation to explain the planned flight to AUSsar.
AUSsar is part of the AMSA. AUSsar is responsible for all land, sea and air searches. These often cross over. E.g., an aircraft crashing into the sea. In the past, each FIR had its own Operations Control Center with a Searchmaster trainee SOC who was responsible for all searches within that FIR. At any one time, most towers and FS stations would have had at least one SARTIME aircraft strip on the board. In the event of a missed position report or SARTIME cancellation, the TWR/FSS would initiate action. If communications checks were not successful, a SAR phase would be declared and the SOC advised who would take over the SAR process. This was very cumbersome.
Now, instead of numerous TWRs/FSS having to monitor SARTIMEs and half a dozen individual search centres, it is all done by AUSsar.
As for leaving a note with a friend/relative or other, that has its problems. Try getting someone unfamiliar with aviation to explain the planned flight to AUSsar.
During our AMATS research we found out that due to lots of position reports being missed due to radio and other problems that it was more likely a search would not start until planned fuel was exhausted.
You bag it and slag it, but have so little knowledge about it I actually doubt anything you say about the safe and proven system you profess to admire. Perhaps everything you say about that will turn out to be B/S too?
Thread Starter
Sounds like a far more costly system. It appears they have to continually chase Sar times that are not cancelled but keep the problem secret as it employs lots of people .
And unlike New Zealand there is no fine for failing to cancel and then incur cost.
And unlike New Zealand there is no fine for failing to cancel and then incur cost.
All this paranoia about SARwatches reads very much like the current paranoia about getting the frequency right for that Mayday call (Closest ATC? Charted ATC freq? 121.5?). Why the angst? Nobody's going to get to you for hours. And did you put in a flight plan so the searchers would at least have the lateral search part sorted out?
Oh, hang on, LB could use "mobile phone location technologies" to send a Whatsapp location. That'll help the searchers.
Oh, hang on, LB could use "mobile phone location technologies" to send a Whatsapp location. That'll help the searchers.
And the SAR authorities do now use mobile phone cell handshake data as a means to locate lost aircraft.
SARTIMEs are not held by Airservices, they are held by AusSAR.
If a SARTIME isn’t canceled, CENSAR (in Airservices) contacts AusSAR.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank LB, You’re right. I have been out too long. As for Dick’s comment, someone pays somewhere. Doesn’t it come out of taxes so everyone pays?
But again, the current system is more efficient than having individual units holding the SARWATCH. Nominate a SARTIME on the plan, CENSAR keeps the watch.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with airspace reform and frequency boundaries.
But again, the current system is more efficient than having individual units holding the SARWATCH. Nominate a SARTIME on the plan, CENSAR keeps the watch.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with airspace reform and frequency boundaries.
There is a presumption that a passenger who undertakes a charter flight is accepting of a greater degree of risk than one who simply buys an airline ticket. This is reflected in the difference between how charter vs RPT is reflected in the various rules & regs around the world. Whether the punter on board is actually aware, who knows, but that's how the systems work. A private VFR flight will always be at the bottom of the list. Basic economics dictate that.
Indeed, I recall a gentleman by the name of Richard Harold Smith trying to introduce a ‘star’ rating system for the various classifications of operation in Australia and the different sized aircraft and their certification basis. His concept was that the punters should be informed of the facts. Commercial operators at the time gathered tar and feathers for Dick, and he was forced to back down.
“Basic economics” dictate the differences? You are absolutely correct. Another phrase that captures the same concept is: “affordable safety”.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 7th Jan 2018 at 03:00.
Thank LB, You’re right. I have been out too long. As for Dick’s comment, someone pays somewhere. Doesn’t it come out of taxes so everyone pays?
But again, the current system is more efficient than having individual units holding the SARWATCH. Nominate a SARTIME on the plan, CENSAR keeps the watch.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with airspace reform and frequency boundaries.
But again, the current system is more efficient than having individual units holding the SARWATCH. Nominate a SARTIME on the plan, CENSAR keeps the watch.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with airspace reform and frequency boundaries.
Let’s see if you think this is “efficient”: I submit a flight plan to fly VH-ABC from Oogabadooga to Canberra, VFR. I nominate a SARTIME in that plan. I fly the plan and land safely in Canberra.
So overwhelmed am I at the joy of being in Canberra, I forget to call CENSAR and cancel my SARTIME. CENSAR sees my SARTIME lapse.
Does CENSAR (in Airservices) call Canberra Tower or Canberra Ground (in Airservices) to ask whether VH-ABC has landed safely in Canberra? Nooooo. That would be crazy.
CENSAR calls AusSAR. Does AusSAR call Canberra Tower or Canberra Ground to ask whether VH-ABC has landed safely in Canberra. Noooo. That would be crazy.
ATC doesn’t ‘do’ this stuff. They might be distracted for 30 seconds to have to say “yes”, “no” or “I don’t know, I just came on shift”.
Would it be possible to build a system that automatically cancels a SARTIME for a VFR aircraft that is issued a landing clearance at a destination in controlled airspace? Piece of piss. Has the system been built? Nooooo. That would be crazy.
To an objective outsider, this is complete nuts.
To someone who’s seen the ‘evolution’ of the system, it makes complete “sense”. “Sense” in the sense that the design of the system is, as I have observed earlier, as much about politics and industrial relations and bureacratic self-interest as it has to do with safety and efficiency. The relationship between CENSAR and ATC - or, more accurately, the complete operational disconnection between CENSAR and ATC - notwithstanding that they are part of the same organisation, is a hangover of the FIS/ATC status divide.
Airspace “reform” is similarly affected by factors other than safety and efficiency.