Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs

Old 13th Apr 2018, 23:24
  #141 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
That ATSB report is a lie

The pilot of the Tobago has stated in writing that he was continually refused a copy of the transcript of what he said to ATC.

The only possible reason this could be refused was that publishing the transcript would give a totally different interpretation to the incident.

I have also been advised that the airline crew involved were known to be violently opposed to NAS and fabricated the so called estimated distances involved. The Tobago pilot right from the start claimed that the airline turned towards him!

Lie lie lie. The ATSB can’t even release an honest report on the Mt Hotham incident in over 2 years.

And they have had E over D in Bloggs Broome airspace ever since the tower went in. Even he hasn’t complained.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 13th Apr 2018 at 23:38.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2018, 23:44
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
I reckon within 6 months most will say it’s safer because a pilot can concentrate on monitoring the CTAF when in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome where the collision risk is clearly higher rather than trying to work out whether to be on an ATC frequency and which one.
Seriously? Just goes to show who's stuck in the 50s. And who's completely out of touch with human behaviour.

Originally Posted by Dick
And they have had E over D in Bloggs Broome airspace ever since the tower went in. Even he hasn’t complained.
Fake News!
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:03
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
What does e.g. “E LL 5,500 H24” at the 31 DME Broome radius denote?

Are you saying that there’s no E over the Broome D?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:09
  #144 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
I think Bloggs may mean that he has complained. Which at least would be consistent with his consistent lack of understanding of risk management.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:12
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
That would explain it.

Yes - I can understand that there’d be a lot wailing and gnashing of teeth at the prospect of VFR aircraft tracking overhead Broome in E. Oh the humanity...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:15
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,929
Troll's back. Where's the Ignore button?!
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:20
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
SWTT: Note that you can fly over Broome “willy nilly in Class E” now. I would note that you are only allowed to do it “willy nilly” if your definition of that term includes having a serviceable transponder and a VHF monitoring Centre (or Tower, depending on your altitude).
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:37
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Led Balllon
a VHF monitoring Centre (or Tower, depending on your altitude).
Fake News! VFR requires a clearance in D!
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:39
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
Bad comprehension! My post was about a VFR aircraft in E.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 01:26
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,929
Yes, sorry about that, it's always the reader's fault if they misinterpret what was written.

BTW, "Continuous Two Way" does not mean "a VHF monitoring Centre".
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 01:35
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
I thought you were ignoring us trolls, Cap’n.

So does “continuous two way” mean that I should proactively contact Centre and say ‘g’day’, then Centre responds, then I respond, so that we are talking continuously? If so, I’ve got it completely wrong.

In E I’ve only ever monitored Centre and spoken up if and when I thought it would help or Centre asked whether an aircraft in my position was on frequency. I hadn’t realised we were supposed to be blabbing continuously in all circumstances.

As I recall there were some very weird arrangements for E near Avalon, but I’ve not been through there in a while.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 02:09
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Avalon is E over the top, 4500 from memory, pretty handy.

To fly over Tullamarine at 6,500ft in E would be might handy! I've lost count how many times I've been unable to do that even above 9,000ft!
StickWithTheTruth is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 02:12
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
But just imagine how ‘dangerous’ it would be to fly directly over Tulla at 6,500’ in E.

I refuse to fly commercially in the US precisely for this reason. This ‘dangerous’ activity happens over many, very busy US airports.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 04:26
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
If they missed by sooooo much explain the RA then Dick! Or is that just a porkie as well?

Did the ATSB make this up as well?

"The pilot calculated that the aircraft would pass each other at about 15 NM from Launceston, at which point, with 2 degrees between their respective tracks, there would be 0.5 NM lateral spacing between the aircraft with the Tobago passing to the right of the 737. The available evidence suggests that the aircraft passed each other about 12 NM from Launceston which, us ing the same calculation method, would lead to 0.4 NM lateral spacing between the aircraft"

How do you explain this if the 737 was going to miss by sooooooo much?

"the 737 was ascending in front of the Tobago and at his 11 o’clock position".

So much for the "turning towards him":

"TheTobago 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"

"Lies, lies, lies" and calling it a conspiracy are clearly the resort of the desperate. If you're not willing to admit there was a problem here then zero credibility Dick, zero credibility.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 06:25
  #155 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
I can assure you. The report is made up of a dishonest pack of lies.

Why else would not one person at the ATSB be identified with the report. Why wouldn’t they allow the Tobago pilot a copy of the transcript of his alleged radio calls. One reason. The ATSB investigators were dishonest.

It’s part of the disfunctional dishonest Canberra system.

The pilots never once saw the Tobago and if I had not introduced the mandatory transponder in E there would never have been an incident reported.

The Tobago pilot told me he was using alerted see and avoid and never got closer than one mile from the other aircraft. Are you suggesting alerted see and avoid doesn’t work?

Why then do you support it at dozens of airports with airline traffic in G?

I can see why you post anonymously. You clearly have an agenda that benefits from a mis allocation of resources in relation to airspace

Who could possibly suppport “ upside down airspace” with C above D?

Only someone with a clearly dishonest agenda. You have no credibility on this site. Can others work out what this agenda could be?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 14th Apr 2018 at 06:38.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 06:39
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Ooooooh, you've resorted to the personal "anonymous poster" attack again. Niiiice. Means you've reached the bottom of the barrel and can't justify your position.

Why was the RA triggered???? Still won't answer that will you?

How exactly did he judge one mile? Was he used to seeing 737 in the air in close proximity? I very much doubt it. At what distance do you think unalerted pax on a 737 would see a Tobago?

Explain to me how, as a controller, I'll benefit in any way or from? Resorting to personal attack, yet again demonstrating you don't have a leg to stand on here.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 06:46
  #157 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
Here’s further evidence of corruption at the ATSB.

The interim report was sent out with criticism of the 737 pilots for not confirming whether they were going to left or right base so “ alerted see and avoid” could work correctly.

When the final report came out that was deleted.

Believe nothing from the ATSB. It’s part of the Canberra dishonest corrupt system. The same reason that Mr Trump got in in the USA. The population were so angry about the swamp in the capital.

Imagine working for an organisation where you can’t put your name proudly on a report as a skilled professional investigator- you are forbidden from doing this.

No wonder the morale is so low.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 07:00
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
How could that help with "alerted see and avoid" in this incident? It would not have given the other aircraft a better idea of where the 737 was and could have in fact given a false sense of security. The deviation from the direct track wouldn't start being significant until close to the field. i.e. it was immaterial to the event. No wonder it was deleted.

Why did the VFR pilot think a two degree radial difference was anything like enough to avoid confliction?
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 07:51
  #159 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
Great question

The shortest and best fuel saving track is to right base for runway 32. It would have required the 737 to make a left turn away from the Tobago.

The Tobago pilot naturally believes the 737 will take the shortest route.

But the opposite happens. The 737 crew say nothing and head for the longer distance to left base and towards the Tobago.

Then the ATSB suppress the communication transcript even though the Tobago pilot claims they have it completely wrong.

And there is no personal attack- you are anonymous!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2018, 08:04
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Terrain, Dick, terrain. Surely you don't think "naturally believes" is a sensible means of ensuring a safe passing?!? Why didn't the 737 pilot saying nothing trigger the Tobago pilot to say something?

You still haven't explained the RA......

Yes, it can still be a personal attack - you're directing it at me, even though I'm using a pseudonym. I'm very definitely the only one using this account. Ask yourself how do we know it's always the real Dick Smith using your account?
le Pingouin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.