Civil Air changes its position?
Le Penguin,(Apologies in advance but someone has to say this)
To refer to Dick Smith as an enthusiastic amateur, is not only contemptible, it begs a question, in my mind, about who you think you are. A sarcastic "professional" it would seem!
If you had, given as much to Australian aviation as Dick, been so active in air safety, and held positions such as CEO of the Civil Aviation Authority, while not taking any salary, then I might listen to you.
But no, you post anonymously on a pilots' forum while bagging those who try to make a difference.
Have long look in the bathroom mirror and make a decision about who you are, before critisising those who do try to make meaningful contributions.
To refer to Dick Smith as an enthusiastic amateur, is not only contemptible, it begs a question, in my mind, about who you think you are. A sarcastic "professional" it would seem!
If you had, given as much to Australian aviation as Dick, been so active in air safety, and held positions such as CEO of the Civil Aviation Authority, while not taking any salary, then I might listen to you.
But no, you post anonymously on a pilots' forum while bagging those who try to make a difference.
Have long look in the bathroom mirror and make a decision about who you are, before critisising those who do try to make meaningful contributions.
Believe it or not, even Australian controllers will try to maintain safe separation between aircraft, regardless of the airspace classification! They are, however, hobbled in this country, by lack of surveillance and an ANSP that has to make a profit for the owner, the Federal Government. This results in an over -emphasis on the money making aspects of ATC. Where the big jets fly, oceanic, high level cruise and busy terminals areas. The rest is left to "see-and-be seen", with the help of a regulator and an investigator, that all answer to the same department and minister..
The Broderick Review into the Culture of Airservices wasn't looking at the whole picture, the safety culture at Airservices is adversely affected by this profit motive.
There are some comments on here that reflect very poorly indeed on their authors.
Geoff Fairless has pointed out the service Dick Smith has given to aviation and his continuing attempts to improve aviation safety in this country.
In turn, let me point out that Geoff has a lifetime of experience in Air Traffic Control and as a consultant to aviation ANSPs in other nations.
These are people who truly know what they are talking about.
I hold both Australian and US pilot licenses and an Australian ATC licence.
In the USA it is very simple indeed; IF you are operating IFR it is assumed you can not see to separate yourself therefore ATC separate you from other aircraft. To avoid delay to yourself and others, you are expected to announce when you can proceed VFR. There is little class G airspace and it is at levels where you had better be VFR because you are below LSALT for IFR.
The Mangalore mid air collision was not the fault of the ATCs on the console even if they could see what was about to happen. Geoff F points out the ICAO requirement that the function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft BUT the Airservices Act specifies that it is up to Airservices to decide the extent of services that they will provide (where, when and to whom). IF Airservices management decides no separation is to be provided to IFR aircraft in an airspace it would be untenable for some controllers to nevertheless provide it and some to not do so - the confusion would itself be a safety risk.
The concept of "traffic is" separation for IFR aircraft is and always has been a flawed concept. An aircraft on an IFR approach is, by regulation, compelled to remain on the published track and to follow the published approach (or go around but still following the published track) It matters not what the ATC says the traffic is, the pilot is legally required to follow the procedure. Likewise on IMC departure, the pilot must follow the route chosen for terrain clearance until LSALT is reached.
The management of Airservices needs to consider its lack of professional pilot input to their decision making - their level of service does not meet the ICAO requirements now and never has. Since people like Geoff Fairless and Merv Fowler left Airservices, even their incidental knowledge of aviation user needs has vanished. Not too many professional pilots left in CASA either though there are a frew - maybe they can push CASA into pushing Airservices, maybe??
That accident occurred in Victoria; which has a rare (for Australia) stature on Corporate Manslaughter. Applicable or not is beyond my legal knowledge but........
Geoff Fairless has pointed out the service Dick Smith has given to aviation and his continuing attempts to improve aviation safety in this country.
In turn, let me point out that Geoff has a lifetime of experience in Air Traffic Control and as a consultant to aviation ANSPs in other nations.
These are people who truly know what they are talking about.
I hold both Australian and US pilot licenses and an Australian ATC licence.
In the USA it is very simple indeed; IF you are operating IFR it is assumed you can not see to separate yourself therefore ATC separate you from other aircraft. To avoid delay to yourself and others, you are expected to announce when you can proceed VFR. There is little class G airspace and it is at levels where you had better be VFR because you are below LSALT for IFR.
The Mangalore mid air collision was not the fault of the ATCs on the console even if they could see what was about to happen. Geoff F points out the ICAO requirement that the function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft BUT the Airservices Act specifies that it is up to Airservices to decide the extent of services that they will provide (where, when and to whom). IF Airservices management decides no separation is to be provided to IFR aircraft in an airspace it would be untenable for some controllers to nevertheless provide it and some to not do so - the confusion would itself be a safety risk.
The concept of "traffic is" separation for IFR aircraft is and always has been a flawed concept. An aircraft on an IFR approach is, by regulation, compelled to remain on the published track and to follow the published approach (or go around but still following the published track) It matters not what the ATC says the traffic is, the pilot is legally required to follow the procedure. Likewise on IMC departure, the pilot must follow the route chosen for terrain clearance until LSALT is reached.
The management of Airservices needs to consider its lack of professional pilot input to their decision making - their level of service does not meet the ICAO requirements now and never has. Since people like Geoff Fairless and Merv Fowler left Airservices, even their incidental knowledge of aviation user needs has vanished. Not too many professional pilots left in CASA either though there are a frew - maybe they can push CASA into pushing Airservices, maybe??
That accident occurred in Victoria; which has a rare (for Australia) stature on Corporate Manslaughter. Applicable or not is beyond my legal knowledge but........
Originally Posted by Advance
IF you are operating IFR it is assumed you can not see to separate yourself therefore ATC separate you from other aircraft.
Originally Posted by Advance
To avoid delay to yourself and others, you are expected to announce when you can proceed VFR.
Originally Posted by Advance
The Mangalore mid air collision was not the fault of the ATCs on the console even if they could see what was about to happen.
[QUOTEAdvance]The concept of "traffic is" separation for IFR aircraft is and always has been a flawed concept. An aircraft on an IFR approach is, by regulation, compelled to remain on the published track and to follow the published approach (or go around but still following the published track) It matters not what the ATC says the traffic is, the pilot is legally required to follow the procedure. Likewise on IMC departure, the pilot must follow the route chosen for terrain clearance until LSALT is reached.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Have you heard of class F? Have you never organised traffic segregation OCTA while doing an instrument approach? "Must follow the route chosen for terrain clearance"?? Do you really get airborne, then ascertain the affect the traffic is going to have on you and say sorry, can't do, I'm already on my departure"?
Geoff Fairless is out of line in his criticism of Le Ping. Geoff may be the ace of the base but everything Le Ping writes on Prune is sensible and logical.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is simply brilliant to see Dick post an opinion continuing an energetic conversation of half a decade ago and the debate just launches beautifully into an elegant multi-stream hydra of profundity and bogusness. But I compliment everybody on the content. Advance & Geoff Fairless make lovely sense. Plazbot does not disappoint with his insightful comment. It would be lovely if this stuff DID influence the vote here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_G...yst_for_change
As Missy indicates, I have taken my 39.5 years of ATS experience and become a LEGEND, (Learned Erstwhile Gentleman Experiencing New Directions). I have looked into all this stuff from the prospect of an Australian ATC and a VFR private pilot, with a very limited experience of flying in the US. I am not seeking or expecting re-employment from the lovely department of many names. My other identities can wither and die, and SPODMAN will communicate anything I have to say from henceforth. From the above debate:
Why do even those who were involved in past change debacles seem so uninformed: Being involved in the implementation of NAS and the previous LLAMP way back when I could see a HUGE disconnect. Those driving the project had their eye on the finish line, and assumed everybody else did too. Any pushback on any element was seen as an attack on the project end-state. Line controllers, dedicated competent controllers, proud of their safety record and their own drive for an efficient service, had no appreciation or great understanding of the end state, and saw each individual element as a bizarre distraction from their core business, with no plausible benefit, and pushed back on details. I can't speak for the attitudes of professional pilots, but discussions with individual pilots in safety discussions and pilot union groups at the time seemed quite similar. The debate above seems to make more sense when looked at this way.
Why didn't NAS go forward: Management seemed to welcome being bypassed by the 'crash through or crash' implementation process until somebody noticed that despite Dick and side-kicks bashing individual bits of the US system to fit, in a process that may have worked when they all came together, it was not following the process for implementing new procedures THEY were responsible for. So they rolled the stuff back that had not been introduced with a valid safety analysis or valid comparison with the US system, then said, "Now do it properly." Nobody did, and we are stuck with a half-assed system. The service provided at Mangalore aerodrome today is fundamentally the same as when I did it from Melbourne FIS7 in 1991, and from the year after that there has been radar coverage in the circuit permitting a premium US-style Enroute ATC approach service at high efficiency, but we don't do it. Last year there was a proposal to lower Class E to 1500'AGL in the J-curve. BRILLIANT! Ham-fisted implementation needlessly locking VFR out the airspace may have led to a less practical change.
The US hasn't got G airspace: They have lots. They have a network of skinny airways, with G airspace underneath below 1,200' AGL, lowering to 700' AGL in terminal areas. Between the airways are blocks of G from the surface to 18,000'
The US wouldn't separate in G airspace: They do! It doesn't matter what is written down, a US pilot would not take off into IMC without a clearance, even if they have to do it by telephone and cop a delay. If the conditions are visual they can get airborne and enter Class E, but if they get airborne and require an immediate clearance it is their problem if ATC say, "Unable clearance." The NAS 'IFR Pickup' procedure was supposed to replicate this, rather torturously and impractically, because it permitted IFR flight without a clearance in Class G in the interim stages.
What would have happened at Mangalore if NAS had been fully implemented: Full and due respect for all those working or flying that day. If this had happened to me on FIS7 in 1991, or with the arrangements today and all boxes real or imaginary everybody could think of ticked, the outcome could have been exactly the same. With Class E base 1200', a cloud base of 4,000', airplane #1 on instrument approach, and airplane #2 taxies. They are told, "Unable clearance, call again at time [xx]". Everybody is safe. When #1 gets visual he has the option of cancelling IFR enabling a clearance. #2 has the option of departing VFR, and getting a clearance when ATC has 5 miles by radar or #2 lands or gets 1,000' above the MSA on a missed approach. This is what Dick wants. It is good. It is needed. It is best for everybody. It is just obviously fahking simple! If it makes it impractical to do practice VOR approaches at Manglore, stiff sh1t!
Please keep banging, Dick!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_G...yst_for_change
As Missy indicates, I have taken my 39.5 years of ATS experience and become a LEGEND, (Learned Erstwhile Gentleman Experiencing New Directions). I have looked into all this stuff from the prospect of an Australian ATC and a VFR private pilot, with a very limited experience of flying in the US. I am not seeking or expecting re-employment from the lovely department of many names. My other identities can wither and die, and SPODMAN will communicate anything I have to say from henceforth. From the above debate:
Why do even those who were involved in past change debacles seem so uninformed: Being involved in the implementation of NAS and the previous LLAMP way back when I could see a HUGE disconnect. Those driving the project had their eye on the finish line, and assumed everybody else did too. Any pushback on any element was seen as an attack on the project end-state. Line controllers, dedicated competent controllers, proud of their safety record and their own drive for an efficient service, had no appreciation or great understanding of the end state, and saw each individual element as a bizarre distraction from their core business, with no plausible benefit, and pushed back on details. I can't speak for the attitudes of professional pilots, but discussions with individual pilots in safety discussions and pilot union groups at the time seemed quite similar. The debate above seems to make more sense when looked at this way.
Why didn't NAS go forward: Management seemed to welcome being bypassed by the 'crash through or crash' implementation process until somebody noticed that despite Dick and side-kicks bashing individual bits of the US system to fit, in a process that may have worked when they all came together, it was not following the process for implementing new procedures THEY were responsible for. So they rolled the stuff back that had not been introduced with a valid safety analysis or valid comparison with the US system, then said, "Now do it properly." Nobody did, and we are stuck with a half-assed system. The service provided at Mangalore aerodrome today is fundamentally the same as when I did it from Melbourne FIS7 in 1991, and from the year after that there has been radar coverage in the circuit permitting a premium US-style Enroute ATC approach service at high efficiency, but we don't do it. Last year there was a proposal to lower Class E to 1500'AGL in the J-curve. BRILLIANT! Ham-fisted implementation needlessly locking VFR out the airspace may have led to a less practical change.
The US hasn't got G airspace: They have lots. They have a network of skinny airways, with G airspace underneath below 1,200' AGL, lowering to 700' AGL in terminal areas. Between the airways are blocks of G from the surface to 18,000'
The US wouldn't separate in G airspace: They do! It doesn't matter what is written down, a US pilot would not take off into IMC without a clearance, even if they have to do it by telephone and cop a delay. If the conditions are visual they can get airborne and enter Class E, but if they get airborne and require an immediate clearance it is their problem if ATC say, "Unable clearance." The NAS 'IFR Pickup' procedure was supposed to replicate this, rather torturously and impractically, because it permitted IFR flight without a clearance in Class G in the interim stages.
What would have happened at Mangalore if NAS had been fully implemented: Full and due respect for all those working or flying that day. If this had happened to me on FIS7 in 1991, or with the arrangements today and all boxes real or imaginary everybody could think of ticked, the outcome could have been exactly the same. With Class E base 1200', a cloud base of 4,000', airplane #1 on instrument approach, and airplane #2 taxies. They are told, "Unable clearance, call again at time [xx]". Everybody is safe. When #1 gets visual he has the option of cancelling IFR enabling a clearance. #2 has the option of departing VFR, and getting a clearance when ATC has 5 miles by radar or #2 lands or gets 1,000' above the MSA on a missed approach. This is what Dick wants. It is good. It is needed. It is best for everybody. It is just obviously fahking simple! If it makes it impractical to do practice VOR approaches at Manglore, stiff sh1t!
Please keep banging, Dick!
In the ICAO documents the aim of ATC is to "prevent collisions between aircraft".
A nation's airspace is (should be) then designed, according to local conditions, to enable controllers to fulfill that requirement.
A nation's airspace is (should be) then designed, according to local conditions, to enable controllers to fulfill that requirement.
They are, however, hobbled in this country, by lack of surveillance
Get a system that works for us, and if it isn't ICAO compliant, who gives a sh*t.
Well said, Spodman. More power to your voice. Safe flying.
TIEW: ICAO mandates only one thing: Notification of differences from SARPS. That’s because it provides a common ‘baseline’ and transparency as to the ‘deltas’ from it, for all contracting states. (Be interesting to find out, for example, whether the FAA would permit Part 121 certified US operators to conduct those operations into and out of places like Ballina.)
TIEW: ICAO mandates only one thing: Notification of differences from SARPS. That’s because it provides a common ‘baseline’ and transparency as to the ‘deltas’ from it, for all contracting states. (Be interesting to find out, for example, whether the FAA would permit Part 121 certified US operators to conduct those operations into and out of places like Ballina.)
