CASA Class G Discussion Paper
and people consistently tell you that without a x20+ increase in resources (human & equipment), the US system is not the most appropriate one for Oz.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked the question of US ATCOs regarding a departure and arrival.
In areas of non-surveillance they keep one on the ground until the inbound has landed or cancelled IFR before they give the departure a clearance on the ground (with void times). We have a lot less surveillance than they do.
Copy/paste doesn't work. Do people who are actually in the industry ( Like RPT and GA pilots who go regional) want E to the ground and get rid of G?
In areas of non-surveillance they keep one on the ground until the inbound has landed or cancelled IFR before they give the departure a clearance on the ground (with void times). We have a lot less surveillance than they do.
Copy/paste doesn't work. Do people who are actually in the industry ( Like RPT and GA pilots who go regional) want E to the ground and get rid of G?
Thread Starter
Kitty. Yes. They told me that after the MDX crash where the pilot in bad wx and good radar coverage was never ever allowed to communicate to the person with the the radar screen .
I won that one with lower staffing levels after years of resistance. Same happening now.
No. I have never suggested anything other than us taking the best ideas from
overseas and incorporating with our best ideas where possible.
It will work superbly but you would not know if you remain anonymous and won’t even give me a phone call to discuss. Some minds resist change!
I won that one with lower staffing levels after years of resistance. Same happening now.
No. I have never suggested anything other than us taking the best ideas from
overseas and incorporating with our best ideas where possible.
It will work superbly but you would not know if you remain anonymous and won’t even give me a phone call to discuss. Some minds resist change!
Thread Starter
Block. The information you received is simplified. And if it is so bad how does an airport like Coffs Harbour , which is procedural when IMC exists ,work without extensive delays? I know. You have never thought of that!
And are you suggesting that in Aus airline pilots blunder around in IMC at the same class G airport rather than wait a few minutes on the ground?
And are you suggesting that in Aus airline pilots blunder around in IMC at the same class G airport rather than wait a few minutes on the ground?
was never ever allowed to communicate to the person with the the radar screen .
Thread Starter
So how would have the pilot of MDX flying OCTA been able to find out the frequency of the Sydney ATC who was responsible for the controlled airspace above?
Why was it never suggested by FS that the pilot could change to the frequency of the controlled airspace above and given that frequency ?
Why was all moves to use the radar properly resisted until I became chairman of CAA and introduced AMATS?
Why was it never suggested by FS that the pilot could change to the frequency of the controlled airspace above and given that frequency ?
Why was all moves to use the radar properly resisted until I became chairman of CAA and introduced AMATS?
We've been over this a hundred times!
He could simply have asked for it. He didn't.
Because it was a different airspace system back then. Generally that only happened once an emergency was declared. Radar was used to identify him, but by then it was too late. Had he not disappeared, the normal course of events would have been to get him to contact ATC and they would have dealt with him until he could resume his own navigation. It happened all the time, although you refuse to believe it. In this case, he was gone before that could happen. Reading the transcripts etc, it wouldn't have helped much anyway.
Because ATC owned the radar, and ATC ran the Department, so there was no way FS was going to get it. That was not the system you wanted, so you got rid of FS, and now ATC still run aviation and still own the radar, and you still don't have a system you want. So a win-win all round. Not.
So how would have the pilot of MDX flying OCTA been able to find out the frequency of the Sydney ATC who was responsible for the controlled airspace above?
Why was it never suggested by FS that the pilot could change to the frequency of the controlled airspace above and given that frequency ?
Why was all moves to use the radar properly resisted until I became chairman of CAA and introduced AMATS?
Thread Starter
I am more than halfway there! Watch this space. How about assisting ?
And by the way. In all of my training not at any time was it even suggested that when flying OCTA I could ask FS for the radar frequency and get extra assistance. That’s no doubt why the pilot of MDX did not do this. May have lived if he did it early enough. And a year later BASI made no recommendation that this could improve safety in the future
No. I had to come along with that idea after seeing how well it worked overseas
As I said. Minds still set in concrete
And by the way. In all of my training not at any time was it even suggested that when flying OCTA I could ask FS for the radar frequency and get extra assistance. That’s no doubt why the pilot of MDX did not do this. May have lived if he did it early enough. And a year later BASI made no recommendation that this could improve safety in the future
No. I had to come along with that idea after seeing how well it worked overseas
As I said. Minds still set in concrete
Perhaps your training was poor? It was a different time after all. Didn't stop some others from doing it though. Just because you did or did not experience something did not make it the norm.
He could simply have asked for it. He didn't.
He “could simply” have done lots of things, but he didn’t. He didn’t because “it was a different system back then”.
Thread Starter
Lead. You are correct. It was a disaster of a system which many pilots did not want to change . Just like now on pprune
I am proud I was part of changing that system despite staggering resistance to change. Just like my opponents on this thread .
Many still harp on the fact that I removed the full position FS system but rarely mention that this was so all pilots in radar coverage could communicate directly to a radar controller.
So abuse me as much as you want to. I will keep pushing to finalise the reforms.
Not far away now I reckon. No giant CTAFs. No unique 1950 frequency boundaries on charts. Just a well proven system that is based on real risk metrics. Not perceived ones!
Look forward to assistance. Send me a message!
I am proud I was part of changing that system despite staggering resistance to change. Just like my opponents on this thread .
Many still harp on the fact that I removed the full position FS system but rarely mention that this was so all pilots in radar coverage could communicate directly to a radar controller.
So abuse me as much as you want to. I will keep pushing to finalise the reforms.
Not far away now I reckon. No giant CTAFs. No unique 1950 frequency boundaries on charts. Just a well proven system that is based on real risk metrics. Not perceived ones!
Look forward to assistance. Send me a message!
What Traffic_Is_Er_Was said is correct.
If a pilot reported unsure of position or experiencing VMC or other difficulties OCTA within radar coverage, Flight Service would, as a matter of routine, coordinate with the relevant overlying ATC sector - often transferring the aircraft to the ATC frequency - and ATC then providing assistance with position identification, heading to fly etc. etc.
From the many earlier threads on MDX, the pilot didn't report experiencing navigation or other difficulties, so FS and ATC were unaware.
New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found
If a pilot reported unsure of position or experiencing VMC or other difficulties OCTA within radar coverage, Flight Service would, as a matter of routine, coordinate with the relevant overlying ATC sector - often transferring the aircraft to the ATC frequency - and ATC then providing assistance with position identification, heading to fly etc. etc.
From the many earlier threads on MDX, the pilot didn't report experiencing navigation or other difficulties, so FS and ATC were unaware.
New MDX - Five Dead Williamtown Never Found
"Just a well proven system that is based on real risk metrics. Not perceived ones!"
Where are these published, how were they develop and what process was used to-arrive at the outcome?
Where are these published, how were they develop and what process was used to-arrive at the outcome?
It was a disaster of a system which many pilots did not want to change .
Many still harp on the fact that I removed the full position FS system but rarely mention that this was so all pilots in radar coverage could communicate directly to a radar controller.
Thread Starter
Captain. That’s the whole point about MDX. The pilot didn’t report he was flying for 20 minutes at right angles to the correct course because he did not know. That could be why he did not request a radar service . The FS operator did not tell the pilot because he did not know as well!
It was a ridiculous unsafe airspace design supported by those who resist change. And BASI didn’t even make a recommendation to use the radar more effectively.
That’s why we brought in the AMATS changes despite the resistance of the concrete minds.
Now need to do the next step to complete the NAS design!
It was a ridiculous unsafe airspace design supported by those who resist change. And BASI didn’t even make a recommendation to use the radar more effectively.
That’s why we brought in the AMATS changes despite the resistance of the concrete minds.
Now need to do the next step to complete the NAS design!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Dec 2017 at 09:47. Reason: Correct spelln of reediculous
He “could simply” have done lots of things, but he didn’t.
If a pilot reported unsure of position or experiencing VMC or other difficulties OCTA within radar coverage, Flight Service would, as a matter of routine, coordinate with the relevant overlying ATC sector - often transferring the aircraft to the ATC frequency - and ATC then providing assistance with position identification, heading to fly etc. etc.
