Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
SWTT,
I suppose you know that you can fly over Los Angeles International (and many other major US airports) in Class B airspace, in designated lanes, and nobody gets their knickers in a twist.
I suppose you know that you can fly over Los Angeles International (and many other major US airports) in Class B airspace, in designated lanes, and nobody gets their knickers in a twist.
That's what you also said of current RAAF members in an MDX thread. One of your unconvincing, throw away lines, Dick.
I reckon that if you disagree with an organisation, there's no reason to try to collectively denigrate the individuals.
I reckon that if you disagree with an organisation, there's no reason to try to collectively denigrate the individuals.
Thread Starter
No Gerry. Not the individuals. It’s the lack of proper leadership. Williamtown has the worst airspace in the world. Single engined planes still being held orbiting at low level over the sometimes rough ocean at Anna Bay where the pilot and passengers, quite often young kids ,will likely die if an engine failure occurs. CASA recommended class D to solve the safety problem. Same classification as Heathrow. But no change has taken place.
Le Ping. The Tobago pilot did not do what you state. The ATSB report is a lie. I have spoken to the pilot many times.
Why do you reckon the ATSB has continually refused to give the pilot a copy of the transcript of his communication to the tower on that day?
Because it would expose the real agenda of the report I reckon.
Le Ping. The Tobago pilot did not do what you state. The ATSB report is a lie. I have spoken to the pilot many times.
Why do you reckon the ATSB has continually refused to give the pilot a copy of the transcript of his communication to the tower on that day?
Because it would expose the real agenda of the report I reckon.
You can't blame Le P, Dick. Those that work for these government departments are brainwashed into thinking that they are doing the right thing. Team meetings, steering committees, continuous improvement sessions, team lunches, the list goes on of the things that give employees a warm and fuzzy feeling to make them feel valuable. It's a hard pill to swallow that think that you're contributing to something that maybe unsafe, inefficient and not for the greater good, so any wonder he's defending the system that employs him.
Thanks for the laugh.
How about you produce some evidence or it's just paranoia and conspiracy theories.
So much for your "interesting" comment: "The Tobago pilot subsequently advised ATSB investigators that he was aware that the appearance of cross-tracking was probably an illusion which resulted from the strong wind".
So much for your "interesting" comment: "The Tobago pilot subsequently advised ATSB investigators that he was aware that the appearance of cross-tracking was probably an illusion which resulted from the strong wind".
Last edited by le Pingouin; 14th Apr 2018 at 17:52.
Thread Starter
I bet you must be frustrated when you hear how much simpler and user friendly airspace and procedures are in other countries but we can’t copy here.
It’s about resistance to change. Requires good leadership to communicate the advantages of copying the best proven safe systems from around the world.
It’s about resistance to change. Requires good leadership to communicate the advantages of copying the best proven safe systems from around the world.
Originally Posted by Ping
Do tell about the event north of Brisbane.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200401273/
It actually demonstrates how risks are grossly over-exaggerated in Australia.
When ATCers and the likes of Bloggs contemplate a risk, they contemplate the disaster of a mid-air collision - a perfectly reasonable and rational consequence to contemplate. After all: that’s why air traffic controllers and flight information services folk and pilots are paid the big bucks.
But the fact is that their perceptions of the consequences of a mid-air collision result in them grossly over-estimating the probabilities of a mid-air collision. This phenomenon is called “cognitive bias”.
This phenomenon is not controversial or subject to debate. It’s how the human mind naturally works.
The only thing you’re asked to do is consider, objectively rather than on the basis of cognitive bias, how air traffic control systems work in other countries - countries in which the volume of traffic is similar to and in some cases greater than those in Australia. Having considered those other systems, you’re then asked to contemplate why the disasters you contemplate don’t happen at the frequency your cognitive bias drives you to believe they would be happening.
Why hasn’t it been raining aluminium at Broome?
You do realise that no class of airspace is collision risk free?
When ATCers and the likes of Bloggs contemplate a risk, they contemplate the disaster of a mid-air collision - a perfectly reasonable and rational consequence to contemplate. After all: that’s why air traffic controllers and flight information services folk and pilots are paid the big bucks.
But the fact is that their perceptions of the consequences of a mid-air collision result in them grossly over-estimating the probabilities of a mid-air collision. This phenomenon is called “cognitive bias”.
This phenomenon is not controversial or subject to debate. It’s how the human mind naturally works.
The only thing you’re asked to do is consider, objectively rather than on the basis of cognitive bias, how air traffic control systems work in other countries - countries in which the volume of traffic is similar to and in some cases greater than those in Australia. Having considered those other systems, you’re then asked to contemplate why the disasters you contemplate don’t happen at the frequency your cognitive bias drives you to believe they would be happening.
Why hasn’t it been raining aluminium at Broome?
You do realise that no class of airspace is collision risk free?
As opposed to the open slather of E! Flying within lanes is a whole different ball game to flying random tracks in E.
Of course they are, they are at a much lower level than the cap on (say) KLAX Class B. I suggest you have a look at the whole vertical structure of ICAO/FAA airspace in US.
If there is E over B,C,D the rules for E apply in E.
It is that simple.
Do tell about the event north of Brisbane. Any reference to a report?
Tootle pip!!
How many RAs are there in the US? How many in E? How do they deal with an RA? They obey it.
Actually, one of the recommended ways of dealing with RAs is to disable the RA function on the transponder, so that they do not become a distraction in the terminal area.
show in black and white how stupid terminal E really is.
Amazing, isn't it, that the world is full of stupid people, except Australia domestic pilots, who know better.
I suppose you understand that E is not limited to US airspace??
Tootle pip!!
ATSB has continually refused to give the pilot a copy of the transcript of his communication to the tower on that day?
On reading the paper transcripts furnished by the investigator I realised that whoever did the transcription from the ATC tapes had little idea of R/T language and had included words which I had certainly never made but which he thought I made and which in turn completely changed the meaning of what actually happened.
For example one written transcript showed the words as "Are we clear?"
However the ATC tape showed I said "Airways Clearance."
There were other "fake words" written in the transcript wrongly interpreted by whoever did the transcript from the ATC tapes.
My advice from that experience is that a pilot undergoing a grilling for a perceived violation, where evidence is produced by way of a written transcript from ATC or other sources, should demand to listen to the actual tape recording, rather than meekly accept what someone has transcribed to paper.
Last edited by Centaurus; 15th Apr 2018 at 04:47.
LeadSled, don't be lazy - you know exactly what you're referring to and want to use as part of a discussion so you can provide us with a link, after all if it shouldn't be too hard for me to find on the vaguest of descriptions then you'll find it a doddle.
You might turn the RA function off to prevent them being triggered but I very much doubt they'd turn it off during an RA event. What level would they disable it at? Surely lower than 10,000ft?
I see Bloggsie has done the work for you LS. I must say your claim that the manoeuvring of the 737 was a deliberate attempt to make it worse utterly unbelievable and quite pathetic. Up there with Dick's claim about the other report being total lies.
The 737 turning right is not exactly a mystery if the crossing point was in front of both aircraft - the Lancair would have been on the 737's left and would likely have appeared to the left on the TCAS display so the tendency would be to turn right.
Whether turning left or right will be the best direction depends on the geometry of the situation. Unfortunately TCAS is very poor at showing relative motion.
"See and avoid" just doesn't work too well when the "see" bit is missing.
The 737 turning right is not exactly a mystery if the crossing point was in front of both aircraft - the Lancair would have been on the 737's left and would likely have appeared to the left on the TCAS display so the tendency would be to turn right.
Whether turning left or right will be the best direction depends on the geometry of the situation. Unfortunately TCAS is very poor at showing relative motion.
"See and avoid" just doesn't work too well when the "see" bit is missing.
It’s about resistance to change. Requires good leadership to communicate the advantages of copying the best proven safe systems from around the world.
Thread Starter
Le ping. I agree. Visual sighting is no good. A airspace everywhere is clearly necessary.
But how come we have all these jet airline aircraft in terminal G which other countries don’t allow ?
I know. We did it that way in the 1950s and the concrete has set!
But how come we have all these jet airline aircraft in terminal G which other countries don’t allow ?
I know. We did it that way in the 1950s and the concrete has set!
I must say your claim that the manoeuvring of the 737 was a deliberate attempt to make it worse utterly unbelievable and quite pathetic
That is a matter of your opinion, I simply disagree that there was ever a satisfactory explanation of the actions of the PIC of the heavy.
As you may or may not know, there was a NAS review team that examined EVERY report that was filed during the "trial", the efforts of a group of so called "professional" pilots, opposed to change, was quite amazing.
Almost all the "airmiss" and other incident reports filed were dismissed as attempts to discredit the trial. One of the lulus was opposite direction traffic with 2000' separation filed as an incident, and we had the nonsense of one group of pilots letting down in the restricted area near Ballina and flying down the coast back to Ballina in G, to avoid this 'orribly dangerous E.
The review team was made up of a cross section of people, CASA, industry and independent, my views on that Brisbane "incident" are based on interviews with the pilot of the light aircraft, the report of the review team and the ATSB report.
It will not surprise you that I do not wholly agree with the "contents" of the ATSB report, and your conclusions will be just as slanted by your preconception bias.
Given ATSB's track record, to this day, does that surprise you?
Tootle pip!!
A warning from personal experience at Alice Springs many years ago. An incident report was filed by myself which resulted in me being blamed by BASIS.CAA? . The Departmental investigator provided "proof" by way of a written copy of tape transcripts between myself in a Departmental F27 engaged on navaid testing, an Ansett B727 in the circuit, and ATC.
On reading the paper transcripts furnished by the investigator I realised that whoever did the transcription from the ATC tapes had little idea of R/T language and had included words which I had certainly never made but which he thought I made and which in turn completely changed the meaning of what actually happened.
For example one written transcript showed the words as "Are we clear?"
However the ATC tape showed I said "Airways Clearance."
There were other "fake words" written in the transcript wrongly interpreted by whoever did the transcript from the ATC tapes.
My advice from that experience is that a pilot undergoing a grilling for a perceived violation, where evidence is produced by way of a written transcript from ATC or other sources, should demand to listen to the actual tape recording, rather than meekly accept what someone has transcribed to paper.
On reading the paper transcripts furnished by the investigator I realised that whoever did the transcription from the ATC tapes had little idea of R/T language and had included words which I had certainly never made but which he thought I made and which in turn completely changed the meaning of what actually happened.
For example one written transcript showed the words as "Are we clear?"
However the ATC tape showed I said "Airways Clearance."
There were other "fake words" written in the transcript wrongly interpreted by whoever did the transcript from the ATC tapes.
My advice from that experience is that a pilot undergoing a grilling for a perceived violation, where evidence is produced by way of a written transcript from ATC or other sources, should demand to listen to the actual tape recording, rather than meekly accept what someone has transcribed to paper.
The report contained supposed transcripts of weather information transmitted to NGA. The report quoted e.g. “999” as part of a weather information transmission. The report did not say whether the original words were “nine hundred and ninety nine” or “nine nine nine” or “niner niner niner”. Whetever the case, there was a patent error in either the transcription or the weather information transmission - there was a digit missing....
As I recall, this was not the only patent error.
Unless I hear CVR or ATS tapes myself, I’m dubious of the accuracy of transcripts.
If the pilots of the 737 hadn't seen the Lancair how on earth could they deliberately fly towards it to make the situation worse and trigger an RA?
Have you ever considered those reports being submitted because the system was new and if even relatively minor incidents weren't reported it would be seen that everything was working perfectly - the lack of reports would be taken as lack of problems. Been there done that - no complaints filed equals no problems. Who had an agenda to dismiss them so quickly?
You're hardly a balanced and impartial observer here either.
Have you ever considered those reports being submitted because the system was new and if even relatively minor incidents weren't reported it would be seen that everything was working perfectly - the lack of reports would be taken as lack of problems. Been there done that - no complaints filed equals no problems. Who had an agenda to dismiss them so quickly?
You're hardly a balanced and impartial observer here either.