Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?
Thread Starter
In that case I apologise.
But it’s a bit hard to defame someone who is anonymous!
And I don’t object to being insulted by someone who has the guts to list their real name!
But it’s a bit hard to defame someone who is anonymous!
And I don’t object to being insulted by someone who has the guts to list their real name!
He did give his name, Dick.
Dick, once again you are resorting to personal attacks. Are you familiar with the phrase “ad hominem?”
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person") short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
You have already had one go at me today now it’s le Pingouin.
Play the ball, not the man.
Don Gorrie.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person") short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
You have already had one go at me today now it’s le Pingouin.
Play the ball, not the man.
Don Gorrie.
[QUOTE=Dick Smith;10001509]Topdrops. My arguments may be discredited in your mind. But not in the minds of thousands of others./QUOTE]
And in Australian General Aviation, your proof of that is?
And in Australian General Aviation, your proof of that is?
Why the f#ck keep changing the bloody airspace and the damn rules? I have seen countless attempts since 1986 and it was all working ok back then. Why keep changing it? Pilots now have to be bloody lawyers to work this ****e out now. All I want to do is fly aeroplanes!
Beyond the name of a bureaucrat, Dick Smith, are you able to explain to me what it is you're wanting to do? The actual changes you want to make, as opposed to references to half-wound-back systems and better ways things are done elsewhere with different traffic mixes and equipment and oblique tangents about changes done and reversed and how MDX would be safe today in a different world with different equipment, training and facilities. All I would like to know is what the specific changes you want are, not the endless debate around the edges about who said what to who, and what should or didn't occur or did but was reversed.
In my personal experience it makes perfect sense to have the FIA frequency boundaries marked on the charts, and even more so in the era of electronic charting with nav displays and iPads - I can look at my chart and see where I am, and what frequency I should be on. Is the removal of marked frequency boundaries a big part of the airspace reforms? And if so, why? Either way the information is still there, and still relevant to pilots - having the boundaries marked just makes it vastly easier to use and less reliant on the imperfect judgement of pilots as to which frequency to be on and when to change, so people are much more likely to be on the correct frequency.
If anyone else is around, I can contact them on Centre and arrange separation if needed, knowing that if they are in the same area as me, they are on the same frequency. The idea of IFR flying without radios is mind-boggling...how are you supposed to arrange separation or be aware of traffic? The big sky theory only works up to the point someone coming the other way centre-punches you, and un-alerted see-and-avoid isn't a safe option once the aircraft performance gets up above small GA level. Even if you think you're safe being able to fly a light aircraft doing 60 kts no radio, it isnt much consolation when you get run over by something much faster out someplace remote and beyond radar coverage.
Thread Starter
De. The present big CTAF stuff up has been entirely caused by CASA attempting to get a system with frequency boundaries marked on charts to work.
I am told over a million dollars has been wasted on this .
What is wrong with you monitoring the nearest ATC ground outlet if you want to?
With the boundary system you like if you are 130 nm south of charlieville at 7500’ the correct frequency to be on will be that of the Charlieville outlet on 124.8. However you will not get communication or an emergency call out to Charlieville on that frequency - if you call the nearest ground outlet which is St George on 118.95 the signal will romp in. I know because I have tried it .
Keeping the unique boundary system is about resisting change. It worked in the old days because a directed traffic service was provided. That cost a fortune .
In other leading Aviation countries ATC advises a pilot when to change frequency. Believe it or not that already works in Aus at higher levels.
Fly across Europe ,the UK or North America and ask for a chart which shows ATC frequency boundaries. They will laugh at you.
And the 1986 system clearly did not work safely for MDX- the pilot was never allowed to talk to the person with the radar screen. It was an amateur system back then. That’s why I started the changes when I became Chairman of CAA in 1990.
I am told over a million dollars has been wasted on this .
What is wrong with you monitoring the nearest ATC ground outlet if you want to?
With the boundary system you like if you are 130 nm south of charlieville at 7500’ the correct frequency to be on will be that of the Charlieville outlet on 124.8. However you will not get communication or an emergency call out to Charlieville on that frequency - if you call the nearest ground outlet which is St George on 118.95 the signal will romp in. I know because I have tried it .
Keeping the unique boundary system is about resisting change. It worked in the old days because a directed traffic service was provided. That cost a fortune .
In other leading Aviation countries ATC advises a pilot when to change frequency. Believe it or not that already works in Aus at higher levels.
Fly across Europe ,the UK or North America and ask for a chart which shows ATC frequency boundaries. They will laugh at you.
And the 1986 system clearly did not work safely for MDX- the pilot was never allowed to talk to the person with the radar screen. It was an amateur system back then. That’s why I started the changes when I became Chairman of CAA in 1990.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Dec 2017 at 16:47.
Dick,
not everyone has flown GA in Europe of US/Canada. I would say the majority of PPLs and CPLs in Oz haven't (including me) and are not aware of the procedures used or how easily they could be transferred to Oz.
If you want to sell it, the things that would influence my support are when I understand what impact it will have practically in how I fly from a convenience and safety viewpoint.
Saying it will be great and other countries do it is not going to convince me - it may well be true but I cannot know that without more info.
Suppose your desired model was implemented here?
How would typical operations (GA VFR and IFR) change?
Say for a VFR bug smasher flying say from BK to BNA, from the pilot's view? (through the lane).
How about for a night IFR chtr CB to BK?
How about a typical sydney basin CTA intro for students doing BK - HBB and south via V1?
How about VFR BHI to YBAS with a stop at CBP CTAF?
What changes to facilities/equipment needed? (extra radar? operators? transponders?)
What would the cost of the roll out be? ($ orders of magnitude: 100 thousands?, millions?, 10 millions?)
You clearly see it as a way to increase the viability of GA - what would the savings for operators be and why? (I am guessing you see lower ATC costs?)
My big concern is, are we actually going to get much advantage (safety/cost) for a lot of pain of going through (yet another) change to procedures.
(I also am a bit thick but I just don't get why having frequency boundaries marked on charts are a problem.)
Genuine questions, not trying to oppose things for the sake of it - if there are better systems, sell them to me with practical explanation of what the changes will be and explain why what we have needs to change.
Sell it to me.
not everyone has flown GA in Europe of US/Canada. I would say the majority of PPLs and CPLs in Oz haven't (including me) and are not aware of the procedures used or how easily they could be transferred to Oz.
If you want to sell it, the things that would influence my support are when I understand what impact it will have practically in how I fly from a convenience and safety viewpoint.
Saying it will be great and other countries do it is not going to convince me - it may well be true but I cannot know that without more info.
Suppose your desired model was implemented here?
How would typical operations (GA VFR and IFR) change?
Say for a VFR bug smasher flying say from BK to BNA, from the pilot's view? (through the lane).
How about for a night IFR chtr CB to BK?
How about a typical sydney basin CTA intro for students doing BK - HBB and south via V1?
How about VFR BHI to YBAS with a stop at CBP CTAF?
What changes to facilities/equipment needed? (extra radar? operators? transponders?)
What would the cost of the roll out be? ($ orders of magnitude: 100 thousands?, millions?, 10 millions?)
You clearly see it as a way to increase the viability of GA - what would the savings for operators be and why? (I am guessing you see lower ATC costs?)
My big concern is, are we actually going to get much advantage (safety/cost) for a lot of pain of going through (yet another) change to procedures.
(I also am a bit thick but I just don't get why having frequency boundaries marked on charts are a problem.)
Genuine questions, not trying to oppose things for the sake of it - if there are better systems, sell them to me with practical explanation of what the changes will be and explain why what we have needs to change.
Sell it to me.
Thread Starter
Jonkster. Good question. Unfortunately it would take me a lot of time to explain on this forum
That’s why the Aviation Reform Group brought John and Martha King to Aus to explain how NAS worked. They toured right across Australia.
Nearly all pilots watching the presentations were supportive .
However within about three months the NAS was undermined by Airservices sending out a chart with frequency boundaries and with no education material to explain how the wound back system would work
That’s why the Aviation Reform Group brought John and Martha King to Aus to explain how NAS worked. They toured right across Australia.
Nearly all pilots watching the presentations were supportive .
However within about three months the NAS was undermined by Airservices sending out a chart with frequency boundaries and with no education material to explain how the wound back system would work
Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Dec 2017 at 03:58.
Jonkster. Good question. Unfortunately it would rake me a lot of time to explain on this forum
If this is as advanced as you say it is then there must be a fairly mature airspace change proposal (you know what that is right?) or mature safety case? Or extensive explanatory report we can read?
Who in the OAR have you approached about this change? Who is going to be the proponent for this proposal? It won't be CASA as its not even mentioned in their corporate plan.
Is this an AOPA initiative? If it is they had better start attending the forums where this would be discussed.....they are no where near being taken seriously enough to run with a proposal this big.
Nowhere near good enough Dick. That's just a cop out. If you can't put in the effort, there is no way we are going to take your word for it.
If this is as advanced as you say it is then there must be a fairly mature airspace change proposal (you know what that is right?) or mature safety case? Or extensive explanatory report we can read?
Who in the OAR have you approached about this change? Who is going to be the proponent for this proposal? It won't be CASA as its not even mentioned in their corporate plan.
Is this an AOPA initiative? If it is they had better start attending the forums where this would be discussed.....they are no where near being taken seriously enough to run with a proposal this big.
If this is as advanced as you say it is then there must be a fairly mature airspace change proposal (you know what that is right?) or mature safety case? Or extensive explanatory report we can read?
Who in the OAR have you approached about this change? Who is going to be the proponent for this proposal? It won't be CASA as its not even mentioned in their corporate plan.
Is this an AOPA initiative? If it is they had better start attending the forums where this would be discussed.....they are no where near being taken seriously enough to run with a proposal this big.
Agreed they could, but isnt the CASA proposal just a discussion paper? Which why we are all discussing it. Then will come NPRM, etc. He isnt entitled to ram it down our throats without explanation. And neither is CASA
Where is Dicks discussion paper? There needs to be something if his NAS plan is as advanced as he claims
Where is Dicks discussion paper? There needs to be something if his NAS plan is as advanced as he claims
Thread Starter
My document is the very expensive full colour 52 page Australian Government document titled
REFERENCE GUIDE. How to operate in the National Airspace System- effective from
27th Nov 2003
Interestingly it states on page 8. “A major change is that - all frequency boundary information has been removed from the charts “
Get it out and have a read. It shows how the system works for both IFR and VFR. It is government policy that has never been reversed!
REFERENCE GUIDE. How to operate in the National Airspace System- effective from
27th Nov 2003
Interestingly it states on page 8. “A major change is that - all frequency boundary information has been removed from the charts “
Get it out and have a read. It shows how the system works for both IFR and VFR. It is government policy that has never been reversed!
I thought this started out as a discussion about a very narrow question: What frequency should be used if someone with a radio-equipped aircraft wants to make a broadcast of potential safety interest to persons in the vicinity of an airfield that isn’t marked on aeronautical charts. How it was allowed to morph into a discussion about the potential for 20nm radius CTAF procedures only chronic complicators would know.
I’m guessing it’s because mandating radio carriage and mandating radio calls is perceived by some to be the panacea for the safety of operations in the vicinity of uncontrolled aerodromes? The greater the area that is ‘in the vicinity’, the greater the level of ‘safety’? And - surprise, surprise - it doesn’t cost Airservices a cent.
I’m guessing it’s because mandating radio carriage and mandating radio calls is perceived by some to be the panacea for the safety of operations in the vicinity of uncontrolled aerodromes? The greater the area that is ‘in the vicinity’, the greater the level of ‘safety’? And - surprise, surprise - it doesn’t cost Airservices a cent.
Dick, Google has never heard of your document, and neither have I. No mention of it on the DIRD website, no mention of it under the heading 'Australia Airspace Policy'...doesn't look like its a current policy document to me.
If not from an Australian Government source, where would one find such document?
LB...I think you are thinking of the Class G discussion thread.....
If not from an Australian Government source, where would one find such document?
LB...I think you are thinking of the Class G discussion thread.....
Arrhh yes, Mike Smith, Arthur and Martha. Remember it well. Didn't like the pointed questions so he shut me down. A bit like what is happening here (and the other threads...). On and on and on and on and round and round we go...
My document is the very expensive full colour 52 page Australian Government document titled
REFERENCE GUIDE. How to operate in the National Airspace System- effective from
27th Nov 2003
REFERENCE GUIDE. How to operate in the National Airspace System- effective from
27th Nov 2003
Oh, and for a bit of light reading, turned up in NAS searches of this forum:
NAS Chart simplification! why, why, WHY?
John and Martha King
NAS Has Been Rolled Back
Airspace Reform – Quiet Reflection
Thread Starter
I have always thought VOR would have been a person worth talking to.
Or could VOR be a group of people ?
It has always been strange. I will give a free jar of OzeMite for anyone who can get VOR to become one of my advisors!
Surely after 20 years the cloak of secrecy can be removed!
Or was it Adrian D ....... ?
Or could VOR be a group of people ?
It has always been strange. I will give a free jar of OzeMite for anyone who can get VOR to become one of my advisors!
Surely after 20 years the cloak of secrecy can be removed!
Or was it Adrian D ....... ?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 27th Dec 2017 at 12:17.
Did I imagine it, or was young Mike at the wrong levels tracking Canberra to Albury? I heard 9,000 and 9,500’, but I may be mistaken as to the numbers and the track.