Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?
Why does a VFR aircraft flying en route at a VFR 500’ level above 5000’ need to monitor ATC?
Umm - for useful things e.g. to get a SIS, hear Hazard Alerts and other broadcasts relating to operational information and activation of Restricted Areas, hear position reports from IFR climbing/descending who may conflict, hear themselves being given by ATC as possible traffic to IFR, high likelihood of getting an immediate response from an ATC responsible for the area in the event of an emergency etc.
Captain. No other country has such a system. Why do you believe we need to be different?
Dick,
The person that signed off on that map should be public knowledge, even at that time.
But in Government and in Business, lines are blurred to take beneficial positions that have zero relationship to the truth - very much like tax!
The person that signed off on that map should be public knowledge, even at that time.
But in Government and in Business, lines are blurred to take beneficial positions that have zero relationship to the truth - very much like tax!
The vision:
Call taxiing on CTAF. Follow your GPS to your destination, with the radio off for all anyone cares. If you want some info from ATC find the nearest biscuit on the chart, ask them for whatever, then turn the radio off if you want until destination. Give an inbound call on CTAF. Land.
Rely on the Big Sky for separation in climb and descent, and hemishperical separation with an unalerted visual scan for separation in cruise.
The problem:
This drags the professional pilot down to the same safety level for climb & descent and you have to be comfortable that you share the sky with other aircraft wandering along off frequency (albeit at a separated level). This is accepted in Europe because radar exists 99% of the time and the professional is receiving a radar traffic service - not the case in most of Australia.
Example: I fly into Inverness in Scotland in an A320 - an airport with a tower but otherwise OCTA. When I leave controlled airspace on descent I have a choice of three levels of service. A Basic service - flight following and traffic information when the controller has a bit of spare time (but no guarantees). A Traffic service - directed traffic information on radar targets, including primary targets (no transponder). Or a Deconfliction service - where I am given headings and altitudes to avoid other traffic. This "feels" identical to a normal control service, except that as the other targets are NOT being controlled you can get quite a few heading changes if the other trafic begins manaouvreing, and you can always decide to do your own thing in which case you will have the deconfliction service cancelled and downgraded to a traffic service. On flying into Dortmund (class D) I have been given traffic (while in cloud) on primary paints within a mile or more of me. In all of these cases the other traffic is silent - probably not on the same frequency. It is uncomfortable in some cases, and only works because of the ATC radar.
If you really want the cheapest and simplest OCTA system and you only fly a couple of times a year, then the first seems fine. If you live your working life in the skies, then it seems a bit like taking a job as a motorcycle courier...
... and what's wrong with listening to calls on the radio while you are flying? It's part of the enjoyment of aviation - there are hobbyists who do it for the fun of it!
I don't know that it matters - but my name is Andrew McConnell. I flew as an instructor at Moorabbin, a bank-runner out of Archerfield, a freight pilot in Darwin, 146 & 737 in Ansett until the end and now easyJet in the UK/Europe. I have never worked for CASA, unlike yourself.
Call taxiing on CTAF. Follow your GPS to your destination, with the radio off for all anyone cares. If you want some info from ATC find the nearest biscuit on the chart, ask them for whatever, then turn the radio off if you want until destination. Give an inbound call on CTAF. Land.
Rely on the Big Sky for separation in climb and descent, and hemishperical separation with an unalerted visual scan for separation in cruise.
The problem:
This drags the professional pilot down to the same safety level for climb & descent and you have to be comfortable that you share the sky with other aircraft wandering along off frequency (albeit at a separated level). This is accepted in Europe because radar exists 99% of the time and the professional is receiving a radar traffic service - not the case in most of Australia.
Example: I fly into Inverness in Scotland in an A320 - an airport with a tower but otherwise OCTA. When I leave controlled airspace on descent I have a choice of three levels of service. A Basic service - flight following and traffic information when the controller has a bit of spare time (but no guarantees). A Traffic service - directed traffic information on radar targets, including primary targets (no transponder). Or a Deconfliction service - where I am given headings and altitudes to avoid other traffic. This "feels" identical to a normal control service, except that as the other targets are NOT being controlled you can get quite a few heading changes if the other trafic begins manaouvreing, and you can always decide to do your own thing in which case you will have the deconfliction service cancelled and downgraded to a traffic service. On flying into Dortmund (class D) I have been given traffic (while in cloud) on primary paints within a mile or more of me. In all of these cases the other traffic is silent - probably not on the same frequency. It is uncomfortable in some cases, and only works because of the ATC radar.
If you really want the cheapest and simplest OCTA system and you only fly a couple of times a year, then the first seems fine. If you live your working life in the skies, then it seems a bit like taking a job as a motorcycle courier...
... and what's wrong with listening to calls on the radio while you are flying? It's part of the enjoyment of aviation - there are hobbyists who do it for the fun of it!
Have you noticed I want to make the system simpler and lowest cost while many who post anonymously on this site want the opposite!
I wonder if most are on the gravy plane?
I wonder if most are on the gravy plane?
Last edited by Checkboard; 23rd Dec 2017 at 09:32.
Thread Starter
Check. What you are describing is not the NAS procedures as we introduced.
They clearly stated that if flying en route in the airspace normally used for approach and departure of an airport to monitor and announce on that airports frequency .
Pretty straightforward for those who want class g to operate with radio arranged separation.
And by the look of it you have never operated in undoubtably the most proven airspace system in the world. That is the North American system including the very substantial non radar airspace in Canada.
And the UK system has larger amounts of class G where radio is not even required for IFR operations in IMC.
They clearly stated that if flying en route in the airspace normally used for approach and departure of an airport to monitor and announce on that airports frequency .
Pretty straightforward for those who want class g to operate with radio arranged separation.
And by the look of it you have never operated in undoubtably the most proven airspace system in the world. That is the North American system including the very substantial non radar airspace in Canada.
And the UK system has larger amounts of class G where radio is not even required for IFR operations in IMC.
And the UK system has larger amounts of class G where radio is not even required for IFR operations in IMC.
Thread Starter
Come on . Much of the G radar closes down on weekends but RPT still fly into places like Plymouth without the radar service .
We have as good a radar coverage under most of the J Curve as the UK.
The UK possibly has the worst airspace in the world. They separate IFR in class G rather than call it E.
Up until recently Heathrow was A even though they allowed VFR heliops!
The UK once manufactured RPT and GA aircraft in quantity. No more!
We have as good a radar coverage under most of the J Curve as the UK.
The UK possibly has the worst airspace in the world. They separate IFR in class G rather than call it E.
Up until recently Heathrow was A even though they allowed VFR heliops!
The UK once manufactured RPT and GA aircraft in quantity. No more!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Dec 2017 at 22:40.
Thread Starter
Checkboard. The UK CAAs removal of the ICAO radio requirement for IFR in G had nothing to do with radar coverage.
It was all about the incredibly low probability of two IFR colliding when in IMC.
It’s called proper objective risk management.
We should copy it here to facilitate an IFR rated pilot to enter IMC rather than scud run.
Under NAS it was called “free in G” - but stopped with the wind back.
It was all about the incredibly low probability of two IFR colliding when in IMC.
It’s called proper objective risk management.
We should copy it here to facilitate an IFR rated pilot to enter IMC rather than scud run.
Under NAS it was called “free in G” - but stopped with the wind back.
The UK once manufactured RPT and GA aircraft in quantity. No more!
Thread Starter
More to the point it shows countries that have dysfunctional aviation bureaucracies that have destroyed more than one part of their industry by not copying the best!
What I find fascinating about the CASA people is that they never mention if they are constantly looking around the world to see if they can regulate with a lower resultant cost so more people can benefit from safe aviation.
It’s clear they don’t do this. Sad.
What I find fascinating about the CASA people is that they never mention if they are constantly looking around the world to see if they can regulate with a lower resultant cost so more people can benefit from safe aviation.
It’s clear they don’t do this. Sad.
Thread Starter
Not irrelevant. The most successful aircraft manufacturers and flying schools are not in $5 per day countries.
Why do you defend dysfunctional bureaucracies? It’s futile
We could be the leaders in the world in flying training and also have a viable airline aircraft manufacturing business if we had supportive bureaucrats and policies.
Why do you defend dysfunctional bureaucracies? It’s futile
We could be the leaders in the world in flying training and also have a viable airline aircraft manufacturing business if we had supportive bureaucrats and policies.
Very few are in favour of dysfunctional authorities - however, we also get sick and tired of seeing you trot out the same discredited arguments every 6 months or so and whenever there is a new Minister.
I would love to know the true story so I can put it in my memoirs.
Re your statement - "I would love to know the true story so I can put it in my memoirs".Yeah right!!
For what it's worth, I re-read your post and my comment stands.
ps for info rediculous is actually spelt ridiculous...
For what it's worth, I re-read your post and my comment stands.
ps for info rediculous is actually spelt ridiculous...
also have a viable airline aircraft manufacturing business
Thread Starter
VH. I will add “ can’t spell” to “can’t write” to my failings !
Checkboard. That’s why the UK CAA does not have IFR air routes marked on charts in G - just commonsense- that’s why “ free in G” can be so safe.
Topdrops. My arguments may be discredited in your mind. But not in the minds of thousands of others.
I have been involved in pushing aviation regulatory change for over 30 years now. Most of what I have pushed for still remains. There is still a little way to go to result in a rational system based on worlds best practice. Get in and assist and feel good. And if you are going to undermine me at least have the honesty to put your real name on your beliefs
Otherwise many may think you have an agenda to damage our country in any way you can. It’s happened in the past in our history!
Checkboard. That’s why the UK CAA does not have IFR air routes marked on charts in G - just commonsense- that’s why “ free in G” can be so safe.
Topdrops. My arguments may be discredited in your mind. But not in the minds of thousands of others.
I have been involved in pushing aviation regulatory change for over 30 years now. Most of what I have pushed for still remains. There is still a little way to go to result in a rational system based on worlds best practice. Get in and assist and feel good. And if you are going to undermine me at least have the honesty to put your real name on your beliefs
Otherwise many may think you have an agenda to damage our country in any way you can. It’s happened in the past in our history!
Thread Starter
Vh. This is what you said
“Probably for the same reason as Caroline Thulip - remember her, you know, the one you were going to sue because she made comments you didn't agree with?”
I did not threaten to sue her because I did not agree with her comments. In fact I welcome comments from those I do not agree with. I learn a lot . It the reason I spend so much time on this site.
She made claims about me that were both defamatory and not factual . A slight difference. More importantly she hid behind a fake name to make the comments and it came out she was a highly paid employee of CASA and clearly being manipulated by others in the organisation.
They didn’t even have the guts to make their own posts. Probably still happens now ! Are you posting for others?
“Probably for the same reason as Caroline Thulip - remember her, you know, the one you were going to sue because she made comments you didn't agree with?”
I did not threaten to sue her because I did not agree with her comments. In fact I welcome comments from those I do not agree with. I learn a lot . It the reason I spend so much time on this site.
She made claims about me that were both defamatory and not factual . A slight difference. More importantly she hid behind a fake name to make the comments and it came out she was a highly paid employee of CASA and clearly being manipulated by others in the organisation.
They didn’t even have the guts to make their own posts. Probably still happens now ! Are you posting for others?