Civil Air changes its position?
Thread Starter
Civil Air changes its position?
I found details of a letter from Michael Haines of Civil Air to Minister Anthony Albanese dated 30 November 2007, which states:
I wonder if Civil Air has changed its position?
"The current system of airspace promulgation is an ill defined half way system. The main problem from an Air Traffic Control perspective is that the service to be provided in some classes of airspace are ill or under defined. Air Traffic Controller and Pilots must be clearly aware of the service that is provided in a particular class of airspace."
I doubt anyone who disagree with the proposition that both ATCs and pilots must be clearly aware of the service being provided in a particular class of airspace A to G.
What is the context of the letter?
What is the context of the letter?
Thread Starter
I agree that it is a half way system.
The original AMATS decision in the 90s and the later NAS decision completed the design to go to a world proven system. This never happened.
The Mangalore accident should make it clear that one day we will have to follow proven world practices.
The original AMATS decision in the 90s and the later NAS decision completed the design to go to a world proven system. This never happened.
The Mangalore accident should make it clear that one day we will have to follow proven world practices.
Breathtaking.
Is there anyone who disagrees with the proposition that both ATCs and pilots must be clearly aware of the service being provided in a particular class of airspace A to G?
Is there anyone who disagrees with the proposition that both ATCs and pilots must be clearly aware of the service being provided in a particular class of airspace A to G?
Thread Starter
In the USA if you are operating on an IFR plan under surveillance and communicating with ATC you will be separated by ATC from other IFR aircraft even if in G airspace.
Just commonsense!
Doesn't happen here.
Just commonsense!
Doesn't happen here.
In the USA if you are operating on an IFR plan under surveillance and communicating with ATC you will be separated by ATC from other IFR aircraft even if in G airspace.
Thread Starter
Yes. Heard that before-
Not a lot of G in the USA and I can assure you that IFR are separated from IFR when under surveillance.
It's just part of their safety culture.
Not a lot of G in the USA and I can assure you that IFR are separated from IFR when under surveillance.
It's just part of their safety culture.
DIck, you'll be pleased to know that 1000's of years of ATC experience has left Air Services over the past few months or so. All those recalcitrant have now retired. Ideal opportunity for you to weave your magic and engender a new safety culture.
Alfacentauri, I respect your experience and judgement and don't doubt the correctness of the regs you referenced. However, there are now quite a lot of private and corporate pilots in the US who now put up flights on youtube. When you watch them, it makes a stark contrast with the experience in Australia with AsA. While I cant bring to mind specific examples, having watched many of these videos I don't doubt Dicks statement at all that (regardless of regs) the US controllers do still provide separation srervice in class G. Some of these pilots who publish these videos are a VP of sales for Cessna (Schmindy), a freelance video guy who flies a baron but also flies jets for a part 135 operation (Baron Pilot) an ex-miltary fighter pilot in a Beechjet (Premier 1 Driver). Not dumb people and people who fly a lot. some of their interaction with controllers makes me jealous.
Part of the AsA disease is common to other departments. They keep hiring middle managers, safety managers, compliance managers, HR managers, etc. and retrench operational staff to pay their salaries.
Part of the AsA disease is common to other departments. They keep hiring middle managers, safety managers, compliance managers, HR managers, etc. and retrench operational staff to pay their salaries.
missy, Dick is an enthusiastic amateur, nothing more. He's very definitely not the messiah you seem to think he is. What makes you think it was recalcitrant controllers who caused AMATS and NAS to fail? The transition process was a huge experiment fraught with risk, and it was very definitely an experiment.
Almost like we replaced a system (CTA v OCTA) that suited the Australian environment with a system developed to fit a differenet set of circumstances.
WHY would US ATCs provide IFR to IFR seperation in G when it is not a requirement? Because there's not much of it, and they have the resouces to do so- so Alphabet works in the US because ATC go above and beyind its' scope.
The idea that a system was introduced that only works when key players do other than what the system is actually designed to do would seem to be a flaw.
Now, on who's watch was it instigated?
WHY would US ATCs provide IFR to IFR seperation in G when it is not a requirement? Because there's not much of it, and they have the resouces to do so- so Alphabet works in the US because ATC go above and beyind its' scope.
The idea that a system was introduced that only works when key players do other than what the system is actually designed to do would seem to be a flaw.
Now, on who's watch was it instigated?
[A] huge experiment fraught with risk, and it was very definitely an experiment.
And mandate ASD-B then watch the accurate returns on radar screens collide.
Yep: No one should ever presume to upset government agencies doing it their way in the name of ‘safety’.
Part of the AsA disease is common to other departments. They keep hiring middle managers, safety managers, compliance managers, HR managers, etc. and retrench operational staff to pay their salaries.
Almost like we replaced a system (CTA v OCTA) that suited the Australian environment with a system developed to fit a differenet set of circumstances.
WHY would US ATCs provide IFR to IFR seperation in G when it is not a requirement? Because there's not much of it, and they have the resouces to do so- so Alphabet works in the US because ATC go above and beyind its' scope.
The idea that a system was introduced that only works when key players do other than what the system is actually designed to do would seem to be a flaw.
Now, on who's watch was it instigated?
WHY would US ATCs provide IFR to IFR seperation in G when it is not a requirement? Because there's not much of it, and they have the resouces to do so- so Alphabet works in the US because ATC go above and beyind its' scope.
The idea that a system was introduced that only works when key players do other than what the system is actually designed to do would seem to be a flaw.
Now, on who's watch was it instigated?
You mistake the requirements placed on ATC. 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. The aim of the ICAO airspace designations was to standardise on all of the different ways member nations were fulfilling their ICAO obligations. Note: The airspace divisions came first, ICAO only standardised the naming convention.
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.
They all, it seems, are pinning their hopes on ADS-B becoming so widespread that surveillance becomes cheap. The question therefore is whether their (our) luck will hold out.
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.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff, wise words as usual.
As I have said in another post, part of the ATS problem I believe is culture shift and the other part related to airspace management and design is related to ego's within senior CASA management that don't want to do anything should they upset their mates in ASA or perhaps their political masters?? (and make them spend money)
A few years ago, I had a mate that did a lot of international ferry flying (non-airline). He came back from one trip and said.... "You know that everywhere I have flown they (ATC) treat you as a professional until you prove you're an idiot, but entering the Aust FIR you seem to be treated as an idiot until you prove you're a professional" Now that was a few years back and things might have changed, but the culture that we see is grown from the top and controllers seem to be silently encouraged not to work outside the box for fear of their job. I suggest a lot of GA pilots think they are treated as idiots - some are no doubt, but that should not be the way to start a conversation. A more flexible culture where that thinking did not prevail might be better for us all? (like in the USA as stated above providing a service in class G) Like all culture issues, it is the leadership that sets it up.
As I have said in another post, part of the ATS problem I believe is culture shift and the other part related to airspace management and design is related to ego's within senior CASA management that don't want to do anything should they upset their mates in ASA or perhaps their political masters?? (and make them spend money)
A few years ago, I had a mate that did a lot of international ferry flying (non-airline). He came back from one trip and said.... "You know that everywhere I have flown they (ATC) treat you as a professional until you prove you're an idiot, but entering the Aust FIR you seem to be treated as an idiot until you prove you're a professional" Now that was a few years back and things might have changed, but the culture that we see is grown from the top and controllers seem to be silently encouraged not to work outside the box for fear of their job. I suggest a lot of GA pilots think they are treated as idiots - some are no doubt, but that should not be the way to start a conversation. A more flexible culture where that thinking did not prevail might be better for us all? (like in the USA as stated above providing a service in class G) Like all culture issues, it is the leadership that sets it up.
Triadic, slightly off topic, but did your mate elaborate about what they were doing to treat him like an idiot? I have heard this anecdotally before and I am not sure if maybe it's something centre do versus a tower but I am genuinely curious. I try not to treat anyone like an idiot unless they really earn it, but I still do need to chase up read backs etc. I know all the sayings like world's second best but the bulk of my workmates are just trying to move as much traffic as we can safely and efficiently within the rules. If it's something we are doing specifically at least we can keep an eye out.
Triadic, slightly off topic, but did your mate elaborate about what they were doing to treat him like an idiot? I have heard this anecdotally before and I am not sure if maybe it's something centre do versus a tower but I am genuinely curious. I try not to treat anyone like an idiot unless they really earn it, but I still do need to chase up read backs etc. I know all the sayings like world's second best but the bulk of my workmates are just trying to move as much traffic as we can safely and efficiently within the rules. If it's something we are doing specifically at least we can keep an eye out.
The FAA disagrees with you.... Airspace (faa.gov) and PHAK Chapter 15 (faa.gov)
Agreed, that's how I try to operate, but if there is something happening that makes people think we assume they're idiots it probably should be addressed. I get this may have just been said to make a point, but in the off chance the friend elaborated I am genuinely interested.
Agreed, that's how I try to operate, but if there is something happening that makes people think we assume they're idiots it probably should be addressed. I get this may have just been said to make a point, but in the off chance the friend elaborated I am genuinely interested.