Radio alerting failures happening any more?
Sunfish, the diff between amateur and professional (broadly speaking VFR v IFR) is important because we speak a different language.
Position 69dme 142 radial ABC tracking to ABCSI for the RVAV Z is a definitive position in IFR speak but gibberish to the VFR driver as is "about to cross Farmer Brown's top paddock near the sheep dip" is to me. I don't have the charts and at 4-8 miles/minute and possibly still in IMC, I don't have the time.
LB, I get what you are playing at but I've seen on many occasions TCAS symbols leap miles across the screen instantaneously, so I would not use it for separation.
Position 69dme 142 radial ABC tracking to ABCSI for the RVAV Z is a definitive position in IFR speak but gibberish to the VFR driver as is "about to cross Farmer Brown's top paddock near the sheep dip" is to me. I don't have the charts and at 4-8 miles/minute and possibly still in IMC, I don't have the time.
LB, I get what you are playing at but I've seen on many occasions TCAS symbols leap miles across the screen instantaneously, so I would not use it for separation.
No choice, that is, unless the strength of your convictions is sufficient for you to refuse to fly in any airspace other than D, C, B or A.
Or get with the Bloggs Brigade. He thinks its better to have Australian G rather than Australian E, even though the lowest of us lowest common denominators can lawfully be in G without a radio and without a transponder, whereas we cannot lawfully be in E without a radio and a transponder.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, the diff between amateur and professional (broadly speaking VFR v IFR) is important because we speak a different language.
Position 69dme 142 radial ABC tracking to ABCSI for the RVAV Z is a definitive position in IFR speak but gibberish to the VFR driver as is "about to cross Farmer Brown's top paddock near the sheep dip" is to me. I don't have the charts and at 4-8 miles/minute and possibly still in IMC, I don't have the time.
Position 69dme 142 radial ABC tracking to ABCSI for the RVAV Z is a definitive position in IFR speak but gibberish to the VFR driver as is "about to cross Farmer Brown's top paddock near the sheep dip" is to me. I don't have the charts and at 4-8 miles/minute and possibly still in IMC, I don't have the time.
As another poster said a while back whilst IFR's talk Martian the VFR's talk Venusian. At NO time should the GNNS waypoint names be used in class G. It is far better to use distance in miles and quadrants to indicate position which can be interpreted by all users and is less prone to error. Never use radials as they are often 180 out and cannot be trusted, even for some IFR's!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic. Total agreement, except when IFR is talking to IFR.
IFR speak may be the more appropriate, when organising separation.
Hope you are well.
High Capacity jets into class G airspace airfields at the high volumes that we have now are a normalisation of deviance.
One sad day we will all ask why we allowed it to happen.
IFR speak may be the more appropriate, when organising separation.
Hope you are well.
High Capacity jets into class G airspace airfields at the high volumes that we have now are a normalisation of deviance.
One sad day we will all ask why we allowed it to happen.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So no WAC, VNC or VTC at all in RPT IFR?
Can't talk for anyone else of course but you tell me if Jepp FD Pro has WAC's VNC's or VTC's.
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.
Besides I have no intention of playing with IPads and such with eyes inside in that airspace.
Edit for Q below so as not to continue on this tangential deviation.
Stick. Asked and answered in the posts above by Bloggs, triadic and LB and others.
Last edited by Back Seat Driver; 25th Jan 2018 at 09:42.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You said you don't have the charts so I asked the question.
So when Joe Bloggs VFR bug smasher says he is 5 miles east of the town of Boganville, overhead the Boganville dam wall and didn't give a reference to the airfield as it's actually 9 miles from the dam, do your IFR charts show where the town is?
Do you just ignore his call, ask him for more info or look on a more detailed map? Just wondering for my own interest.
If Joe Bloggs wasn't taught IFR waypoints, radials and IFR approaches, that's not his fault, it's a fault of the system... a system which you also need to work in.
So when Joe Bloggs VFR bug smasher says he is 5 miles east of the town of Boganville, overhead the Boganville dam wall and didn't give a reference to the airfield as it's actually 9 miles from the dam, do your IFR charts show where the town is?
Do you just ignore his call, ask him for more info or look on a more detailed map? Just wondering for my own interest.
If Joe Bloggs wasn't taught IFR waypoints, radials and IFR approaches, that's not his fault, it's a fault of the system... a system which you also need to work in.
Dick, you put that brochure out in 1998.
A few years later, the FAA did a study of the 329 mid airs between 1983 - 2000 in their proven, safer system.
• All occurred in visual meteorological conditions. Only six occurred at night and
four occurred at dusk. Bright sun was on the only commonly sighted factor related
to weather.
• About 88 per cent of pilots involved in midair collisions do not see the other
aircraft in time to avoid a collision.
• Most midair collisions involve low closing speeds, as one aircraft usually strikes
the other from behind, above or from a quartering angle.
• Most midair collisions occur near airports, especially airports without a control
tower. Midair collisions at high altitudes are rare events.
• A common factor in midair collisions was pilots using inappropriate entries into
the circuit and failing to use radios at non-towered airports.
• The 329 midair collisions indicate that see-and-avoid has inherent limitations as a
tactic or strategy for avoiding midair collisions.
An ATSB study at the same time of the 37 in Australia between 1961 and 2003 showed 29 occurred in or near the circuit area, with 15 happening at an ATC controlled Secondary airport, most prior to GAAP procedures. Only 1 occurred in a MBZ (at night).
A few years later, the FAA did a study of the 329 mid airs between 1983 - 2000 in their proven, safer system.
• All occurred in visual meteorological conditions. Only six occurred at night and
four occurred at dusk. Bright sun was on the only commonly sighted factor related
to weather.
• About 88 per cent of pilots involved in midair collisions do not see the other
aircraft in time to avoid a collision.
• Most midair collisions involve low closing speeds, as one aircraft usually strikes
the other from behind, above or from a quartering angle.
• Most midair collisions occur near airports, especially airports without a control
tower. Midair collisions at high altitudes are rare events.
• A common factor in midair collisions was pilots using inappropriate entries into
the circuit and failing to use radios at non-towered airports.
• The 329 midair collisions indicate that see-and-avoid has inherent limitations as a
tactic or strategy for avoiding midair collisions.
An ATSB study at the same time of the 37 in Australia between 1961 and 2003 showed 29 occurred in or near the circuit area, with 15 happening at an ATC controlled Secondary airport, most prior to GAAP procedures. Only 1 occurred in a MBZ (at night).
Dick, you put that brochure out in 1998.
A few years later, the FAA did a study of the 329 mid airs between 1983 - 2000 in their proven, safer system.
• All occurred in visual meteorological conditions. Only six occurred at night and
four occurred at dusk. Bright sun was on the only commonly sighted factor related
to weather.
• About 88 per cent of pilots involved in midair collisions do not see the other
aircraft in time to avoid a collision.
• Most midair collisions involve low closing speeds, as one aircraft usually strikes
the other from behind, above or from a quartering angle.
• Most midair collisions occur near airports, especially airports without a control
tower. Midair collisions at high altitudes are rare events.
• A common factor in midair collisions was pilots using inappropriate entries into
the circuit and failing to use radios at non-towered airports.
• The 329 midair collisions indicate that see-and-avoid has inherent limitations as a
tactic or strategy for avoiding midair collisions.
An ATSB study at the same time of the 37 in Australia between 1961 and 2003 showed 29 occurred in or near the circuit area, with 15 happening at an ATC controlled Secondary airport, most prior to GAAP procedures. Only 1 occurred in a MBZ (at night).
A few years later, the FAA did a study of the 329 mid airs between 1983 - 2000 in their proven, safer system.
• All occurred in visual meteorological conditions. Only six occurred at night and
four occurred at dusk. Bright sun was on the only commonly sighted factor related
to weather.
• About 88 per cent of pilots involved in midair collisions do not see the other
aircraft in time to avoid a collision.
• Most midair collisions involve low closing speeds, as one aircraft usually strikes
the other from behind, above or from a quartering angle.
• Most midair collisions occur near airports, especially airports without a control
tower. Midair collisions at high altitudes are rare events.
• A common factor in midair collisions was pilots using inappropriate entries into
the circuit and failing to use radios at non-towered airports.
• The 329 midair collisions indicate that see-and-avoid has inherent limitations as a
tactic or strategy for avoiding midair collisions.
An ATSB study at the same time of the 37 in Australia between 1961 and 2003 showed 29 occurred in or near the circuit area, with 15 happening at an ATC controlled Secondary airport, most prior to GAAP procedures. Only 1 occurred in a MBZ (at night).
Given those numbers, a valid risk assessment would more than likely result in an assessment that the risk of a midair was “low”, with the highest risk in the vicinity of an airfield.
Accepting that we as an industry have accepted this “low” risk for many years, then the only way to lower it further is to apply the appropriate class of airspace for the location and traffic density. If this comes at a cost (which it would) then that segment of the industry that requires it may well have to pay. It is obvious that to date extra costs have been rejected in favour of an acceptance of the above mentioned “low” risk. Remember back in the 80’s RPT jets from DC9 size upward could only operate into a towered airport? There were some excemptions in WA for MMA and the F28. The tower was built at Gove, but never used due to a change in policy, and I bet a risk assessment and cost benefit analysis.
If class G is the answer then we have to invoke simple procedures that can be understood and used by ALL users - with an ongoing education program to match. The responsibility for training, education and standardisation rests with the regulator, whom to date don’t seem to understand the real issues in the field (only in the office). Let’s face it there is no airspace and procedures in any pilot syllabus, so who does the training? The instructors I guess? Who provides the training and standardisation of the instructors? The CFI? Who provides the standardisation of the CFI’s, Chief Pilots, and training pilots in the larger operators? Guess? Nobody! (external that is) That is but one reason why some of the contributors here have obvious different views on how it should all work.
We don’t always agree with what is said, but in doing so we must provide alternative suggestions based on our experience in the field. You never know what will surface unless you put your hand up. Play the ball, not the man!
As has been said previously, the experience and expertise today is in the industry and NOT within the regulator. When those managers with the egos within the iron ring start working with industry we will see some positive change. It is up to the DAS to fix that.
Thanks Dick, problem is, it not too common!
Maybe we need a Common Sense Ops Manual. It would go nicely with the Good Airmanship manual......
Maybe Bloggs or LB would be good authors?
Maybe we need a Common Sense Ops Manual. It would go nicely with the Good Airmanship manual......
Maybe Bloggs or LB would be good authors?
If this comes at a cost (which it would) then that segment of the industry that requires it may well have to pay.
Let's face it, the alphabet soup airspace system is a dog's breakfast and provides no decent and practical options. Class G doesn't fit our needs, nor does Class D or E. Australia got sucked in to complying with this Northern hemisphere nonsense because "that's what's done elsewhere, why wouldn't it work??".
Good on the D of A, CAA and CASA for having a graduated scale of mid-air mitigators in mandatory radio, CAGRO, then AFIS and finally a tower, overlaid by DTI. Next step, ADS-B for all aircraft that go near a jet OCTA with traffic alerts from ATC.
Of course, at non-towered airports, Class E to 700ft (so that circuit traffic is captured on the radio) which covers instrument approaches ie 20nm out at each runway end and the missed approaches, with it's consequent mandatory transponder fitment and use ("unable to power? Tough, stay away) and continuous two-way radio contact with ATC, would be a clumsy, expensive and for runway ops, a less-safe way to further mitigate mid-airs. Be careful what you wish for...
Transiting E (VFR) at Avalon some time ago, I was asked for a position report by 'the tower". I replied "over the saltworks heading to point Richards". Tower then asked for a bearing and distance from the reference point because "our radar doesn't have maps". I was slightly surprised.
I'd hate to run up against RPT nearan airport if they had no familiarity with local place nams.
I'd hate to run up against RPT nearan airport if they had no familiarity with local place nams.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd hate to run up against RPT nearan airport if they had no familiarity with local place nams.
Transiting E (VFR) at Avalon some time ago, I was asked for a position report by 'the tower". I replied "over the saltworks heading to point Richards". Tower then asked for a bearing and distance from the reference point because "our radar doesn't have maps". I was slightly surprised.
ATC air situation displays and Tower TSADs don't have a geo/topo base map such as VTC or ERC. To reduce clutter they have a base "mud map", with published VFR and IFR points and routes etc. relevant to the operating position. Aviation maps available on overhead displays or the console. Ditto for ATC around the world.
So obscure places not marked on aviation charts such as you gave are unlikely to be known by ATC nor - importantly - other aircraft listening who may be traffic.
But I suspect you well knew that
and sadly would have left a great impression of GA pilots with ATC and listeners.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And from a quick look at the Melbourne VTC, there are two salt evaporators near Avalon, and I can't find anywhere named Point Richards. And you're surprised ATC didn't know where you were?
The least ambiguous reply would be a bearing (or direction) and distance from a known location, the best known, and most easily identifiable to pilots (both IFR and VFR), and whether they are local or not, is the airfield.
The least ambiguous reply would be a bearing (or direction) and distance from a known location, the best known, and most easily identifiable to pilots (both IFR and VFR), and whether they are local or not, is the airfield.
You said you don't have the charts so I asked the question.
So when Joe Bloggs VFR bug smasher says he is 5 miles east of the town of Boganville, overhead the Boganville dam wall and didn't give a reference to the airfield as it's actually 9 miles from the dam, do your IFR charts show where the town is?
So when Joe Bloggs VFR bug smasher says he is 5 miles east of the town of Boganville, overhead the Boganville dam wall and didn't give a reference to the airfield as it's actually 9 miles from the dam, do your IFR charts show where the town is?
Do you just ignore his call, ask him for more info or look on a more detailed map? Just wondering for my own interest.
If Joe Bloggs wasn't taught IFR waypoints, radials and IFR approaches, that's not his fault, it's a fault of the system... a system which you also need to work in.
If Joe Bloggs wasn't taught IFR waypoints, radials and IFR approaches, that's not his fault, it's a fault of the system... a system which you also need to work in.
The crew don't expect Joe Bloggs to know anything about radials and waypoints, they do expect Bloggs to be able to give a simple position report with intentions, "Boganville traffic, Jabiru ABC is 10 miles west of Boganville at 3000 feet, tracking East for Clownsville".
CaptainMidknight:
Thank you for your sarcastic and biting reply, which just about sums up everything I dislike about so called "Aviation Professionals".
To reply to your observation. Your reply regarding the workings of an ATSC makes perfect sense, as does Aerocats reference to a high speed jet visiting an airfield, possibly for the first time.
However your rude assertion "you well knew that" is incorrect. I didn't know that. I wasn't taught that, nor was it ever explained (including the reasoning) to me until now. I don't know if its in the syllabus. If it was, it certainly wasn't brought to my attention, ever.
Furthermore to someone who was trained at YMMB , where the VFR reporting points are all place names associated with obvious landmarks and there is a very accommodating and patient tower staff, it isn't obvious that the tower doesn't know your reference point.
For the record, Point Henry (not pt richards) is the site of the Geelong Aluminium refinery which is certainly visible. I could have perhaps said "leopold" which is a VFR waypoint nearby.
Perhaps the syllabus needs a section on 'target designation" as we used to call it.
Perhaps its time you - and a few others here - visited an ATSC.
ATC air situation displays and Tower TSADs don't have a geo/topo base map such as VTC or ERC. To reduce clutter they have a base "mud map", with published VFR and IFR points and routes etc. relevant to the operating position. Aviation maps available on overhead displays or the console. Ditto for ATC around the world.
So obscure places not marked on aviation charts such as you gave are unlikely to be known by ATC nor - importantly - other aircraft listening who may be traffic.
But I suspect you well knew that and sadly would have left a great impression of GA pilots with ATC and listeners.
ATC air situation displays and Tower TSADs don't have a geo/topo base map such as VTC or ERC. To reduce clutter they have a base "mud map", with published VFR and IFR points and routes etc. relevant to the operating position. Aviation maps available on overhead displays or the console. Ditto for ATC around the world.
So obscure places not marked on aviation charts such as you gave are unlikely to be known by ATC nor - importantly - other aircraft listening who may be traffic.
But I suspect you well knew that and sadly would have left a great impression of GA pilots with ATC and listeners.
To reply to your observation. Your reply regarding the workings of an ATSC makes perfect sense, as does Aerocats reference to a high speed jet visiting an airfield, possibly for the first time.
However your rude assertion "you well knew that" is incorrect. I didn't know that. I wasn't taught that, nor was it ever explained (including the reasoning) to me until now. I don't know if its in the syllabus. If it was, it certainly wasn't brought to my attention, ever.
Furthermore to someone who was trained at YMMB , where the VFR reporting points are all place names associated with obvious landmarks and there is a very accommodating and patient tower staff, it isn't obvious that the tower doesn't know your reference point.
For the record, Point Henry (not pt richards) is the site of the Geelong Aluminium refinery which is certainly visible. I could have perhaps said "leopold" which is a VFR waypoint nearby.
Perhaps the syllabus needs a section on 'target designation" as we used to call it.
If this comes at a cost (which it would) then that segment of the industry that requires it may well have to pay.
Yep. That's Dick Smith. And LB.
If you think the cost of ‘the system’ to us LCDs was and remains a relevant consideration in the construction of ‘the system’, you haven’t been paying much attention to the results of a couple of decades of regulatory ‘reform’.
While ever heavy metal pilots fulminate about the limitations of un-alerted see and avoid on the one hand, yet fly around in the class of airspace that maximises the chances of reliance on un-alerted see and avoid on the other, this will continue.
In your case, you go so far as saying that Australian G is better than Australian E. I note that I haven’t seen a groundswell of support for your position from your colleagues.