CASA Class G Discussion Paper
So you are saying he should have been in controlled airspace? That was the only other option in 1981.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My claims are only what are in the accident report and on the voice recording both of which I found with a Google search. I am nor protecting anyone. This thread has drifted far off the original subject and as in other threads, MDX has been thrown in as a distraction.
If the AMATS resisted changes had been in place there was a very good chance that the person the pilot was communicating to and would have been sitting in front of a radar screen
Thread Starter
Traffic. I am saying that if someone with a lateral mind had brought in the AMATS changes earlier the accident may not have happened.
Minds were so set that BASI didn’t even recommend that the existing radar be used in future to help prevent that type of accident.
I had to introduce that idea in the 1990s.
Same resistance to copying the best and change today.
And the pilot would have been in communication under AMATS to request the safer track overhead Williamtown.
Minds were so set that BASI didn’t even recommend that the existing radar be used in future to help prevent that type of accident.
I had to introduce that idea in the 1990s.
Same resistance to copying the best and change today.
And the pilot would have been in communication under AMATS to request the safer track overhead Williamtown.
But someone didn't and it did. So let it go. Fight this battle using logic and reason. You haven't been so far.
Thread Starter
Traffic. Ok I will
The only reason I bring this up is the it gives evidence of the resistance to change.
It was actually in the 1970s when I was learning to fly that I asked my instructor Lauri Mcivor why we were giving full position reports in good radar coverage at Marulen. He explained that the FS officers we were communicating to were not approved to use radar.
I queried why this was so and he told me I was the first student to ask the question- he did not really know the answer ! I decided then I would do something about it
And I did.
The only reason I bring this up is the it gives evidence of the resistance to change.
It was actually in the 1970s when I was learning to fly that I asked my instructor Lauri Mcivor why we were giving full position reports in good radar coverage at Marulen. He explained that the FS officers we were communicating to were not approved to use radar.
I queried why this was so and he told me I was the first student to ask the question- he did not really know the answer ! I decided then I would do something about it
And I did.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a deep divide between ATC and FS in the '60's and early '70's. The classification of ATC was third division in the PS and FS was forth division. As a result there were differences in employment conditions etc etc. That difference in fact was the line that FS could not cross and have access to radar - it was just not in the PS thinking back then. Safety was not a consideration it seemed.
There was even one senior DCA manager that had responsibility for FS and he liked to ensure that the new FSU's that were built around the country in the '60's had no view of the aerodrome, however he was not always successful. Derby had a good view from the 1st floor. Meeka faced away from the movement area as did Mildura. Hedland had a view till they built the tower in front. Most of the old buildings a very limited view without stepping out the door. In fact at Mildura, they had a speaker mounted in the lunch room which had a door that when opened had a good view of the aerodrome. One of the techs rigged up a mike on a long lead and on a good day the FSO could sit outside and do the job!! Dubbo was one of the better ones with that little tower and I recall Devonport was similar.
In Melb in the '70's, the only way a VFR could get to talk to ATC when OCTA was for FS to declare an uncertainty phase on the aircraft due lost or position doubtful etc and transfer to Approach etc for ident. That in fact was not uncommon. Some pilots even refused to transfer as they knew a 225 was around the corner!!
There was even one senior DCA manager that had responsibility for FS and he liked to ensure that the new FSU's that were built around the country in the '60's had no view of the aerodrome, however he was not always successful. Derby had a good view from the 1st floor. Meeka faced away from the movement area as did Mildura. Hedland had a view till they built the tower in front. Most of the old buildings a very limited view without stepping out the door. In fact at Mildura, they had a speaker mounted in the lunch room which had a door that when opened had a good view of the aerodrome. One of the techs rigged up a mike on a long lead and on a good day the FSO could sit outside and do the job!! Dubbo was one of the better ones with that little tower and I recall Devonport was similar.
In Melb in the '70's, the only way a VFR could get to talk to ATC when OCTA was for FS to declare an uncertainty phase on the aircraft due lost or position doubtful etc and transfer to Approach etc for ident. That in fact was not uncommon. Some pilots even refused to transfer as they knew a 225 was around the corner!!
Make time to visit the TWR at EN....they have a monitor that was FISAD. It gets a feed from radar! The guys and gals cannot use it for separation purposes but it help heaps in SA...that, and to let you know you havent switched from stby to transmit on the xpdr
Using the the principal of FISAD and the feed from TAAATS virtual track facility, remoting all the FSUs back to BN/ML keep the two airspace model, as in CTA and OCTA, plan activated by departure call, monitor area frequency without need to call FS unless you are running late on your plan or have need to divert. Quadrantal levels so absolutely no possibilty of opposing tracks at same level. DTI for both VFR & IFR enabled by FS monitoring virtual tracks. Pilots responsible for separation. When tracks show conflict FS asks for actual FPR when within five minutes of closure (TAAATS alarm)....radio use is lineup, departure, inbound, joining circuit (triggers cancelling SAR) and base...FPR as requested...ETA change and diverting from plan altitude or direction....how bloody hard would that have been!
Clearance only required to operate CTA and entry to TWRd ADs. No need for MBZ, CTAF, AFIZ or Class E. The NORAD argument remains...but how bloody hard is it to own a portable for those situations where the Kickatinalong crowd need to go to the local big smoke.
To the present day, add ADS-B, remote twr cab images, ADS-B receivers covering every aerodrome with a NPA or higher. FSO changing to enroute qualified ATC allowing positive separation within coverage....and we have a system that cooks!
It doesnt matter if the aircraft is RPT or PVT VFR. Maintain SA by monitoring area frequency. Poke holes, but kindly say why that would not have worked.
OT. As for MDX....that was a matter of trust and a certain amount of resistance to admit the need to ask for help that resulted in a terrible outcome. How do we engender trust that everyone is there to help with no incrimination by asking.
Using the the principal of FISAD and the feed from TAAATS virtual track facility, remoting all the FSUs back to BN/ML keep the two airspace model, as in CTA and OCTA, plan activated by departure call, monitor area frequency without need to call FS unless you are running late on your plan or have need to divert. Quadrantal levels so absolutely no possibilty of opposing tracks at same level. DTI for both VFR & IFR enabled by FS monitoring virtual tracks. Pilots responsible for separation. When tracks show conflict FS asks for actual FPR when within five minutes of closure (TAAATS alarm)....radio use is lineup, departure, inbound, joining circuit (triggers cancelling SAR) and base...FPR as requested...ETA change and diverting from plan altitude or direction....how bloody hard would that have been!
Clearance only required to operate CTA and entry to TWRd ADs. No need for MBZ, CTAF, AFIZ or Class E. The NORAD argument remains...but how bloody hard is it to own a portable for those situations where the Kickatinalong crowd need to go to the local big smoke.
To the present day, add ADS-B, remote twr cab images, ADS-B receivers covering every aerodrome with a NPA or higher. FSO changing to enroute qualified ATC allowing positive separation within coverage....and we have a system that cooks!
It doesnt matter if the aircraft is RPT or PVT VFR. Maintain SA by monitoring area frequency. Poke holes, but kindly say why that would not have worked.
OT. As for MDX....that was a matter of trust and a certain amount of resistance to admit the need to ask for help that resulted in a terrible outcome. How do we engender trust that everyone is there to help with no incrimination by asking.
Thread Starter
How did the pilot of MDX know he should have asked for help when he clearly did not know he was heading for 20 minutes in the wrong direction.
Looks as if you will make up every reason other than say we should have had a system which allowed maximum use of the existing radar !
Looks as if you will make up every reason other than say we should have had a system which allowed maximum use of the existing radar !
it gives evidence of the resistance to change
It could be argued that the MDX scenario is much less likely to happen these days, as the only person a pilot can talk to nowadays is the guy with the radar. Whether the ATC is actively following that flight, well, that's another question for how much VFRs interact with NAS.
Thread Starter
Yes. And the resistance to change that was clear then is still happening today and shown on this thread.
Don’t you see the message in this? Most pilots now accept the present system where they can call a radar controller directly. I am glad I was able to bring in that change.
It’s exactly the same re frequency boundaries on charts and huge ginormous CTAFs!
Don’t you see the message in this? Most pilots now accept the present system where they can call a radar controller directly. I am glad I was able to bring in that change.
It’s exactly the same re frequency boundaries on charts and huge ginormous CTAFs!
Most pilots now accept the present system
The frequency boundaries on charts issue is a complete and utter furphy. Pity you can't see that.
