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

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

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

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

Old 1st Mar 2020, 11:24
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Spoken like a true bureaucrat, Vag!

Those who haven’t failed to “pay attention” for the last couple of decades or so know why the airspace regulation hot potato/ticking parcel/stinking turd is in the lap of CASA.
It's in the lap of CASA because they are the regulator - Office of Airspace REGULATION.
Airservices is a Service Provider; they should never have had the function in the first place.
40years is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 12:01
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,286
Originally Posted by AlphaVictorFoxtrot View Post
It has been equally silly to see that there isn't such a thing as Mandatory Frequency airports, as there are in Canada
We did have 'Mandatory Broadcast Zones' for a while until that was changed.
gerry111 is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 12:24
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by gerry111 View Post
We did have 'Mandatory Broadcast Zones' for a while until that was changed.
Was there a requirement for staffing of the zone (the ones I talk about are considered "Control Zones" for the purpose of the DAH), or was it the case that you had to have a radio?

If there wasn't staffing (ATC or FIS), it really isn't too different from the CTAFs of today, except with a big wooden sign of "No NORDO allowed" out front.

Which I guess would explain why everyone hated it... No real benefit, and extra expense of a radio, all to then have to do everything yourself anyways
AlphaVictorFoxtrot is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 12:34
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,330
Isn’t the ultimate problem that the government instrumentalities won’t take responsibility for anything? Even the promulgation of rules regarding separation.

All I’m hearing is “it’s not AtC’s fault it’s not CASAS fault”! This sounds like a rehearsal for when a B737 collides with a C172.

The regulators are paralysed because they fear liability. Their directions are therefore not aimed at preventing you and me from colliding; they are directed at ensuring they can’t be blamed.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 12:54
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Dang. It's a public holiday tomorrow. Kindergarten won't be open until Tuesday.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 13:00
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karratha,Western Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 445
Which rules would you like promulgated regarding separation?
Awol57 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 21:00
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
While I can't fully decode what was meant here because it's not quite written in English, the general idea is they are calling you a hypocrite. Probably something to do with the fact that you were calling someone out for telling you how good they are literally one post after you told everyone how good you were.
I get that comprehension is a problem for you, go back to those group of posts, read them in order. The hypocrisy runs in the other direction.

I was called out for saying I knew what I was talking about. Seems to be a bit of a problem in Australia. Saying in public that you might know a bit.

I then found it amusing, that after being chastised for you know, saying that I might know what I'm talking about, that the next batch of posts contained a statement that this poster, might know what he/she was talking about.

Hoosten is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 21:23
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,330
Considering the Canadian solution - get permission to enter the zone five minutes out, why couldnt we at least produce an upgraded, minimally intelligent AWIS - like box that can broadcast information on who is inbound, in circuit or outbound when polled by a transmission? Solar power, batteries, a software defined radio dongle and a raspberry Pi computer should be able to do it.

For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.

That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 23:17
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Considering the Canadian solution - get permission to enter the zone five minutes out, why couldnt we at least produce an upgraded, minimally intelligent AWIS - like box that can broadcast information on who is inbound, in circuit or outbound when polled by a transmission? Solar power, batteries, a software defined radio dongle and a raspberry Pi computer should be able to do it.

For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.

That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.
As a software developer on the side (while looking for work - still available for hire, employers!) I think it would be difficult to get that part to work consistently. Just think, voice recognition systems are just now getting decent enough to figure out what you're saying... Now throw in low power transmissions, heterodyne, and people whose English isn't perfect, and, realistically, you now have a similar problem when things do go wrong.

Arguably, worse, since now you have an extra computer voice talking whenever a new plane pipes up, with potentially wrong data.

I still think that the key part would be to add a VHF transmitter/receiver and a ADSB receiver that's linked to the AirServices systems. Should cost significantly less than a tower, while increasing the visibility of existing movements. That would also provide data, so at least decisions could be made on that basis, instead of estimates.

The full Canadian system would be nice, but, having seen how the Australian system works, I'm not sure it would get done anytime soon due to the minimum FIS staffing requirement. (Fun fact: where I was flying, there was up to 5 airports "controlled" by 1 FIS at quieter times. When it got busier, it was as few as 1 per airport)
AlphaVictorFoxtrot is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2020, 23:51
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by 40years View Post
It's in the lap of CASA because they are the regulator - Office of Airspace REGULATION.
Airservices is a Service Provider; they should never have had the function in the first place.
Yet Airservices did have the function. For a long time.

I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.

As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 01:21
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Less than 24 hours to go, Leddie.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 01:50
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
It may come as a surprise to you, Cap’n, but just because it’s a public holiday where you are does not mean it’s a public holiday everywhere. I’m at my primary school desk practising my times tables (and lobbying for a reinstatement of AFIZs).

Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 06:02
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Yet Airservices did have the function. For a long time.

I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.

As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?
I mean, considering the current system is clearly not working (from my lurking the forums, it seems like it's a recurring topic), doesn't seem like it would be any worse trying it the Canadian way, eh?
AlphaVictorFoxtrot is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 07:50
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
As well as bringing back AFIZs we could get all airline aircraft to be fitted with those reliable radial piston engines.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 08:12
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by AlphaVictorFoxtrot View Post
I mean, considering the current system is clearly not working (from my lurking the forums, it seems like it's a recurring topic), doesn't seem like it would be any worse trying it the Canadian way, eh?
Almost everything has been tried a few times. Except....

Class E to 1,200’.

There’s a reason for airspace designation having originally been done in Airservices and why moving it to CASA was not and is not a panacea.

Let’s take the option of reinstating the AFIZ system. CASA could do that with a stroke of a pen. Same with making various chunks of airspace around aerodromes E or D. But....

CASA’s stroke of a pen cannot create and fund the resources to deliver the required AFIS. Service provision - the ‘S’ in ‘AFIS’ - is up to an ANSP. Ditto ATC in E or D.

Accordingly, unless an ANSP is willing and able to and does provide the services necessary for the chunk of airspace designated by the regulator, the designation is practically meaningless. Either the designated airspace cannot be used because the required service is not provided, or the airspace reverts to good ‘ol G (or, more accurately, what Australia calls G).

So you can see the ostensibly compelling argument: Let Airservices designate airspace because, as a matter practicality, Airservices gets to decide whether or not the airspace gets ‘serviced’.

The purists - as you can see in this thread - say the regulator should designate airspace based upon objective risk and international standards. Quite so. Who’d argue with that? However, it follows either that: (1) the kind of risks to which passengers are exposed on RPT flights in and out of places like Mildura don’t justify anything other than Australian G, or (2) the regulator is too timid, for political reasons, to ‘upgrade’ the surrounding airspace.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 2nd Mar 2020 at 08:58.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 09:08
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
So you can see the ostensibly compelling argument: Let Airservices designate airspace because, as a matter practicality, Airservices gets to decide whether or not the airspace gets ‘serviced’.
Arguably, having the middle ground of the AFIZ would allow AirServices to increase or re-allocate services more sensibly.

I'm not saying that AirServices will choose to do so, having seen the kind of bureaucratic wrangling that it takes to get anything done. But starting by putting a VHF/ADSB at the busier aerodromes (and redesignating airspace as E down to the ground in CZ when operational) at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction. What happens after is a matter of community engagement (badgering for a tower may not go anywhere; badgering for an AFIZ as a middle ground might) and ASA resourcing it appropriately.

I'm not saying it's not a pipe dream, based on what I've seen so far of the two agencies, but it's at least somewhat more achievable than some folks' demands of "towers, everywhere!"


Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
As well as bringing back AFIZs we could get all airline aircraft to be fitted with those reliable radial piston engines.
If we're bringing back things, can we get the open cockpits mandated by regulation? The sound of the air rushing past (and the smell of exhaust) need to be a mandatory part of flying again!
AlphaVictorFoxtrot is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 09:13
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
But starting by putting a VHF/ADSB at the busier aerodromes (and redesignating airspace as E down to the ground in CZ when operational) at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction.
Alas, objectively sensible suggestions like that are laughably impracticable in the aviation Galapagos that is Australia.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 09:26
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Originally Posted by Ballon
Alas, objectively sensible suggestions like that are laughably impracticable in the aviation Galapagos that is Australia.
Care to post a copy of your submission re airspace arrangements n Australia, Leaddie?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 09:38
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
Care to post a link to the inquiry into airspace arrangements to which I can make or could have made a submission, Cap’n?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 09:59
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Oh well, another Prune thread dies at the hands of Lead Balloon. Well done.
Capn Bloggs 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.