NAS Operational questions

[Winstun]

As I said in another post, 34% of our traffic who (by law) have to have their transponder on - don't. TCAS is useless then

Rubbish, this is blatant misinformation.

one realises that many VFR pilots are totally preoccupied with trying to fly the plane, let alone vigilantly looking out!!

Are you friggin serious? There appears to be a misconception that IFR pilots should be less responsible for visual collision avoidance than VFR.

you may not be aware how poltically charged this issue is.

In your dreams... System works fine in the US, fly where you want to, no bullsh*t, get with the program folks.

[ferris]

Winstun:
Excellent. You believe that we should have the U.S. system here, correct? I hope you will immediately begin lobbying for that. I'm sure all the redundant FS guys will appreciate your help in getting them re-hired (in fact, we'll probably need more- and more ATCs). I don't think you'll make too many friends on the "affordable safety" side of things, but let's face it, "affordable" is arbitrary.
You had better watch out for Dick when you start campaigning against AusNAS too, he has a long memory.
In fact, I don't think you'll have too many supporters, but I get the idea you like it that way.....

Anyway, good luck.

[Spodman]

A few problems with Maaaate's plan of handing out codes to all willy-nilly:

Joe Farmer gets his code on Tuesday, but its still dialled up on Friday when it has been given to somebody else. There have been instances where our track symbol leaps from central Australia (where the B744 is) to appear in a LOA doing 90 knots...

Most aircraft in radar coverage will cross a partition, so the only information the controller would get from this plan is a black code, half of the time. The main effect would be to lose the basic info that the track is a VFR doin his thing, rather than an IFR wandering around 30nm from where his flight plan thinks he is...

Even if there were enuf codes for all Australian aircraft, we should perhaps leave a few spare for visitors from forn part...

What planet is Weasil from? Does he understand the unnatural powers of the entity known as Dick Head? Does he understand we are not grousing about knobs in management in general but a particular speaking P*nis??? Is he just a little peeved how spectacularly dull the North American forum is?

[Four Seven Eleven]

Spodman

You say you have

few problems with Maaaate's plan of handing out codes to all willy-nilly:

I am not sure how the examples you cite are any different to the hundred and one other ways that aircraft are assigned codes.

I support Maaate's proposal for some very simple reasons already noted:
It's simple
It's cheap (or at not cost)
It's simple
It's safe
It's simple
It adds that little bit extra to safety.

Your example of the track leaping from another aircraft has been (to some extent) resolved by the addition of time based VSPs to the coupling corridor. Also, I think the 'rad-tag' codes are different from those allocated to FDRs, but stand ready to be corrected on that.

As to aircraft crossing a partition, let's say the incidence is 10-20%. In this case, it would be a very simple matter of a transfer of ident. Even if ident is not transfered for all aircraft, it could be done individually on as as-needed basis. (until they sort out 'partitions' - but that would probably cost a lot of French Francs.)

Weasil

a bunch of know it alls

You sweet-talkin' devil you

[WhatWasThat]

As an ATC working the Western portion of our wide brown land, I am particularly interested to hear comment from pilots operating in this somewhat unique part of the world (particularly the Goldfields).

Is the Directed Traffic Information service we currently provide useful?

Would you miss it if it was gone? (NAS stage3)

How do you feel about the removal of the existing non-standard MBZs? (YLST, YBWG etc)

What are your thoughts on the removal of FIA boundaries from the ERC Lows - effectively ensuring that any VFR outside 10 miles from an AD will not hear your TOD broadcast?

Will you use IFR pickup or VFR on top when they become available Nov 27?

Are you aware that in IMC, if we cant issue a clearance due traffic diverting everywhere, after Nov 27 you will be stuck at F180 instead of F200, and after stage 3 (date unknown) you will be stuck there with no traffic info on anything else down there?

I would also be interested in any general bitches/suggestions for improvement.

[Woomera]

I think this really belongs in Reporting Points??

It's a question but currently relevent.

[snarek]

I think fixed skin codes is a great concept.

Now, any ideas on how we CAN do it rather than a multitude of reasons why we can't???

[Winstun]

For crying out loud, enough is enough! Bring in the FAA to sort out this mess. It would take them a day to sort out Australia's airspace and ATC system. With immediate significant savings to the taxpayer, private aircraft owner, airline accountant, etc, etc. And my piece of mind that we have bypassed a good 10 to 20 years of mundane education process.

[divingduck]

skin codes

Snarek...

Fixed skin codes used to be all the rage in Oz a few years back.

We liked 'em, the pilots liked 'em, it was no fuss, no muss, the only a/c that received codes were international flights and pop ups.

I think they went out of fashion as we were moving to flight number callsigns not rego's.

witsun, get a grip...haven't you got a terrorist to attack?

[Maaate]

Skin Codes

In my earlier post, I recommended a procedure which would add an extra layer of safety to our current system, at little or no extra cost. It is heartening to see that the professionals on this forum have supported it. (The abusive posts from the ‘usual suspects’ have confirmed to me that it may be a good idea after all.)

Any good safety system relies upon many layers of defence. Those who claim to be professional aviators and continue to mouth the ‘keep looking out of the window’ mantra with no other constructive thoughts fail to recognise this and their posts confirm their ignorance of basic safety management.

We use a multi-layered safety system on the roads: Driver training, licensing standards, road maintenance, road rules, law enforcement, vehicle maintenance, vehicle design standards, traffic signs, traffic lights, speed limits, looking out of the window, ABS braking, seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones etc. Why is it that some people want to base everything on just one aspect of an overall safety system? Placing all of our eggs in this one fragile basket is bound to end up in a lot of egg on a lot of faces.

Whilst I mentioned ‘skin codes’ in that post, I felt that reliance on them might have a few problems. These include:

1. There are 4096 ‘theoretically’ available codes (with many allocated for discrete purposes and therefore not available.)
2. There are more than 11,000 aircraft on the Australian register.
3. Military, many RPT and internationals use call-signs other than their registrations.
4. TAAATS does not currently support the maintenance of a database which will store code/call-sign relationships.

Possible solutions:
1. Allocate a ‘bin’ of codes (say 1001 to 1777) as a block of permanent codes.
2. Allow aircraft owners to apply for a ‘skin code’ if they meet certain criteria (for example: GA aircraft, mainly VFR use, mainly class G and E, not used internationally, based in or near radar coverage, uses registration as call-sign.)
3. Exclude any aircraft which does not use registration as call-sign.
4. Amend TAAATS software to:
a. Allow a database of code/call-sign relationships;
b. Immediately upon detection of a stored code, attach a call-sign label to the radar track (This could be done automatically, with no controller input – but any risks of misallocation would need to be assessed and mitigated against);
c. Display this track in a HMI colour different to the current colours. I suggest a colour such as a mid to dark purple, which will be more dominant than the current black ‘not concerned’ colour, but less so than the greet ‘jurisdiction’ or blue ‘announced’ colour.

It is important to note, however that the original proposal could be implemented now and at no cost and does not rely upon skin codes. Skin codes would just make it better.

For those of you who have been able to provide constructive input into this discussion, thank you and please feel free to continue (e.g. Capn Laptop, Chief galah, triadic, ReadMyACARS, Chimbu chuckles, Four Seven Eleven, Niles Crane, ferris, Spodman, WhatWasThat, Woomera, snarek, coral, divingduck).

To the others, please don’t bother.

[Bevan666]

Skin codes

If australia goes down the compulsory Mode-S path, this can easily be achieved, as each transponder sends a descreet code.

In Europe I beleive mode-s is compulsory, or soon to be. Mode-S can also be used to transport traffic information for ADS-B, so I can feel a change to mode-s will be inevitable in the medium term.

This will give all aircraft a descreet transponder ID and should be easily integrated into TAATS.

[weasil]

Four Seven Eleven

Question 2

Under the FAA system VFR aircraft in class g or E airspace are not required to be using any particular radio frequency.

They do however have the option of maintaining "VFR Flight Following" from whoever the nearest ARTCC (Center) frequency happens to be. This is due to the widespread coverage of radar in the USA.
The NACO publishes a booklet called the Airport/Facilities Directory and it is updated every 56 days. It will tell you what the frequency to contact is in your area.

What is the coverage of Class E airspace down there? In the USA most of the country is class E from 18000 down to 1200 agl and in some places 700 agl or even down to the surface.

There is not too much class G left except in remote parts of the country like the Western Mountain ranges.

And as for Mode-S. It is set to become compulsory in the USA also. It is already deployed in some major cities. Great system.


Do they have Class B in AUstralia?

[Neddy]

Bevan666,

You are correct in regards to ADS-B equivalent of skin codes (mode S/VDL4 or UAT).

In the ADS-B (mode S) proposal and in fact the trial about to commence in the Bundaberg area, an airframe specific code (known as a 24 bit code) is allocated to each aircraft, coded into the transponder during fitment and coupled to the respective registration. Regardless of the flight number/callsign or any other change that aircraft becomes identified to the system, be it ATC (TAAATS) or CDTI.

The trouble is that in trying to introduce such a system you encounter the perennial paranoid whingers who bleat about everything on the basis of they may actually get caught doing something they shouldn’t be doing or doing it for free when they should be paying.

Imagine what could be achieved in terms of airspace reform (not NAS rubbish), combating VCAs and SAR utilising such a system!

Snarek,

I am interested, given your comments here and on other threads related to NAS and Dick (and given your association with AOPA), what the official AOPA line is on NAS.

Pre the disbanding and election of the new AOPA board it’s previous President widely lauded Dick and the NAS proposal as the panacea of all things ill in aviation. Now I understand that the election is only of a recent nature but tide and airspace waits for no man.

All board members claim to have been actively involved in aviation and were elected on the basis of all “singing from the same sheet” so I don’t see this as an issue requiring long internal philosophical debate.

For the record does the AOPA Board support NAS and ALL that it entails?
Does AOPA Board agree with the purported cost savings associated?
Are there any elements that they (the Board) oppose and if so what have they done about it?

You will note that I refer to the Board’s view on this issue not AOPA the organisation. Are you aware of any move to elicit the views of the membership on NAS (given it’s significance) or is the Board/President’s view going to be masqueraded as that of the membership (as in the past)?

[ferris]

Weasil

Not too sure what you you mean by "class B"? Surely you don't mean airspace?

They do however have the option of maintaining "VFR Flight Following" from whoever the nearest ARTCC (Center) frequency happens to be. This is due to the widespread coverage of radar in the USA.

This is not available in oz (any more). We sacked all of our Flight Service Officers, to save money. You can get a RAS if in a small circle around the largest cities. The non-revenue generating VFR pilot is actively discouraged from contacting centre.

The NACO publishes a booklet called the Airport/Facilities Directory and it is updated every 56 days. It will tell you what the frequency to contact is in your area.

There is no such thing in oz.

What is the coverage of Class E airspace down there?

There is proposed to be a lot of E, of which very little will be in radar coverage.

There is not too much class G left except in remote parts of the country like the Western Mountain ranges.

There will still be HUGE amounts of class G, with no service available.

Are you starting to see where the "bitching" is coming from? Oz is not the US, so trying to transplant half the US system here is folly.

We have to deal with reports by 'consultants' making ludicrous claims about how much money will be saved by going to this hybrid system. The cost of infrastructure, even if it is only used 10% of the time, cannot be accounted like that. Radio repeater stations, VOR maintenance, wages etc have to be paid constantly, not just 'per use'. It all has to be there, ready to go, for those days when the weather is crappy. $70mil??? What a joke. Who has to face the music when NAS turns out to save notone cent ? Not the consultant. Even the CEO of AsA is trying to distance himself from that one.

Every time politicians and bean counters meddle with the system, the professional pilots (and others) murmur "we like DTI, we want it" "we like flight following, we want it" over and over until the day before the changes are due to happen. Then they quietly say "we are not flying in the new airspace" and the pollies and bean counters wander away, wondering what went wrong. The cycle then repeats 10 years later. They have been a bit smarter this time, and are dismantling it slowly, piece by piece. I wonder if it will work?

Skin Codes.
TAAAATS not capable. People would be shocked if they realised how much tail-wagging-dog goes on reference TAAATS. How many work-arounds are there now, boys? Wouldn't it be great if VFRs did call up all the time asking for RAD-TAGs? More controllers, but safer (where have I heard that before???)

Solutions.
I am still available for consultation (as Mr Smith has still not taken up the opportunity). Please email for a pricelist. I guarantee to be as least as credible and expensive as Wes.

[Capn Laptop]

Skin codes would stop the number of incorrect code selections that occur every day.

assign each RPT aeroplane with skin codes and that is fixed. Assign some as discussed above, keep the rest for popups, internationals and emergency - special use codes.

surely we would have enough codes.

change the TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATS software if need be.

and don't exclude aeroplanes that use FNC's

[ferris]

Capn

See comment above about "tail-wagging-dog". This may in fact be a system architecture problem. In any case, changes to the software cost big $$$$$$. (It's how the company who put it in makes the real money- customer changes to spec). Something like this might cost $1mil. What budget does it come from? Which manager does his bonus over it? How will it be clawed back from another part of the 'business'? (starting to get a taste of the AsA environment? Safety is about priority number 12).

[triadic]

The proposed NAS changes for November is ten years since the famous 11/11 AMATS changes were scrapped at the last minute.

One really wonders if we are going to see the same thing again, especially considering the underhand methods used to promote these changes and the lack of support from industry, especially now that we are told there is no signficant savings to be made.

"No known traffic"

[Four Seven Eleven]

Another question, this time about Stage 2A:

The AIP Sup H23/03 says:

ENR 1.1 para 8.2: Replace with:
8.2 Except when radar identified, position reports are required for all
aircraft in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights
using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in
classes E and G airspace.

How does this affect the later provision in AIP which states:

OPERATIONS IN NON-CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
58. POSITION REPORTS
[I}58.1 Position reporting is mandatory when operating under the IFR and
must normally be made at the positions or times notified on the
flight notification (See ENR 1.10 para 3.4 for flight notification requirements).

The AIP sup provision causes confusion because:

1. It is too long and its meaning becomes lost.
2. It is under the heading “Operations in controlled airspace", but makes reference to class G, which appears to be a contradiction.
3. It appears to imply that aircraft use the ‘IFR pick up’ procedure in class G airspace.
4. It now creates a conflict between the (replaced) para 8.2 and the (still-existing) 58.1. Pilots of radar-identified IFR aircraft in class G would be forgiven for not knowing whether position reports are required.

What will be the position reporting requirements for a radar identified aircraft in class G, when Stage 2A is in effect?

If any of the people in charge are monitoring these threads (and I know you have been a regular visitor, Open Mic), is it possible to obtain clarification of these issues, in the interests of broader understanding? Asking the ‘official’ channels is less than useful at times.

[iss7002]

Class B does not exist in Australia at the moment, to conform with ICAO requirements it will shortly be introduced in the Sydney Control Zone.

[Spodman]

ISS, on what do you base that rumour? Best I have heard is if the Goober's rules for allocating airspace classes are applied SY MIGHT get B airspace. It would still have E airspace over the top.

For the skin-code junkies, there are 4096 codes. Some start with 7 and are not assigned. some end in 0 and are not assigned. Some are reserved for inbound international aircraft and are not assigned to domestics. Some are reserved for individual ATC workstations to assign when the system sh1ts itself and we work in bypass, and are otherwise not assigned. Then, with the few remaining, you want to nail a code to all the aeroplanes AND all the flight-number-callsigns.