NAS Operational questions

[Four Seven Eleven]

Questions on NAS

As the other threads on NAS are now closed, it may be useful to clarify some of the operational NAS questions that still exist.

Dick Smith, Open Mic - or anyone else who is involved – please comment if you would. Hopefully, you can dispel some of the myths and misunderstanding (including my own).

1) QNH (repeat or follow-up question from a previous thread)
What QNH should an IFR aircraft in class G airspace use in the cruise?
AIP suggests that local QNH within 100NM of track should be used, but MATS instructs ATC to always provide area QNH. Is this an oversight and should MATS be changed to reflect an ‘on request’ service.

2) Frequencies
What frequency (if any) should VFR aircraft monitor when in:
a) Class G airspace?
b) Class E airspace?

3) Frequencies (Follow-up)
Where will the frequencies be published for VFR aircraft?

4) IFR pick-up
What services should ATC provide to an IFR-planned aircraft operating as VFR/IFR pick-up in Class E airspace? Are these different to ‘real’ VFR aircraft in the same airspace?
‘Full’ IFR obtain (where appropriate):
a) Separation from other IFR
b) Hazard alerting
c) SAR alerting
d) Traffic on known VFR
e) Radar services
f) Terrain clearance (not really applicable at current class E levels)

5) IFR pick-up (Follow-up)
How is “IFR pick up” different to just operating VFR, or planning a change of category in-flight?

[Niles Crane]

I have just read the latest AIRAC,
H23/03
IFR OPERATIONS - CLASS E AIRSPACE VRF-ON-TOP / VFR CLIMB AND DESCENT
10 JUL 03

Now I am just a dumb pilot, but I cannot thank of ANY reason where an IFR aircraft would like to cruise VFR-on-top in lieu of an assisgned level and do so at a VFR level! Please explain!!

On the VFR climb and descent, what safety case has been done on this one, any number of aircraft can do this procedure at the same airport at the same time, so the question has to be asked: "Why have class E airspace at all?"

[Chief galah]

Are there any ******* questions...

4711/NC

Now you are starting to ask the right questions.

CG

[triadic]

Answers??????

4711... my guess as to the answers to your questions.... eo&e

1) Whatever QNH you like

2) None - turn the radio off and listen to the stereo

3) VFR use radio? Why publish the freqs?

4) None! He is VFR until he is IFR

5) It's not. Just permits VMC ops till IFR cnce avbl


Niles Crane

So he can listen to the stereo! Avoid airways charges?

Not all that different to what you do now in G. Just that once in E with a cnce you get a separation service!

------------------------

Readers interested in the politics behind NAS should have a read of the Hansard for the Senate Rural and Regional affairs and Transport legislation committee held on Thur 29 May starting about page 12.

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/...ked/2526-2.PDF

Some interesting views and not all agree with NAS. The performance of Open Mike is interesting in so far as his comments on the AFAP report of the recent trip to the USA are concerned.

Not everyone agrees with the AFAP views but the report made by their representative I thought was quite balanced considering the known views of the writer. To have that report rubbished in such a way was not cricket.

Page 46-47 talks about costing etc for NAS where a well known consultant has said in a report tabled last week there is a potential benefit of over M$70.2 from NAS...... however the CEO of Airservices does not seem to agree with the numbers.

Again the costing or savings (?) are being bounced around and nobody seems to know what the REAL figures are.

What a mess..... and we have not got onto the education yet!

[Four Seven Eleven]

triadic

Thanks. It is a pity that we have to 'guess' the answers to these very basic operational questions. It would certainly assist in safe application of the system if everyone had a common and easily verifiable understanding of these basic concepts.

Some comments on your answers.

1) OK, but why do I have to transmit area QNH to every IFR aircraft, when you guys don't want it 99% of the time? Surely, if you want it, you will ask for it and I will provide that service, rather than have you ignore it the other thousand times. Let's have this changed and reduce unnecessary transmissions.

2) and 3) OK, then let's make the rules nice and simple, e.g.: "VFR aircraft are not required to use radio in Class G and E airspace." (personally, I think we could do better - i.e. safer - without any added cost, but that's just me.)

4) and 5) Then why publish an "IFR pick up" procedure? Why not just change the one rule that says that IFR-capable RPT must operate IFR, and allow anyone who wants to operate VFR to do so? Why not keep it simple and affordable, and leave the decision making where it belongs: with the pilot in command.

As a controller, I am quite happy to provide the services that you want. If you want to operate your DHC8 VFR in E, then that is your choice. If you want to operate your C182 IFR, then do so. Why make it any more complicated than that?

PS: What does "eo&e" mean?

Dick Smith or Open Mic

Any comments, and specifically, are you able to provide the definitive and official answers to the original questions?

[Chief galah]

H23/03

4711

You are on the right track. If E airspace is promugated 8500ft in the J curve, and 14500 elsewhere, then NAS is workable with the current AsA infrastructure. The meatbombers and GFY's would worry me a bit tho'. Apart from them, there is probably few enough VFR's or IFR'S needing to go VFR, to be a real problem.

Lower E corridors would be a different matter. I think it's significant that in both VFR-ON-TOP and VFR CLIMB and DESCENT procedures, H23/03 states

When, in the controller's judgement, there is reason to believe that flight in VMC may become impracticable, the controller must issue an alternative clearance that ensures separation from all other aircraft for which he/she has separation responsibility

Obviously written by a clerk.

As a controller, are you happy to make those decisions from your bunker 1000nm away, about several different areas where your knowledge of differing VMC conditions is minimal?

Conservative controllers may well be very restrictive because of this, thus limiting the freedom E airspace is supposed to provide, and taking away the choices you quite correctly espouse.

"eo&e - errors and ommissions excepted (hope I haven't trod on triadic)

CG

[triadic]

I must admit that my "guess" answers to the above questions from 4711 were a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it serves to show how some of these proposals will change the culture of our pilots to one which is without doubt less safe. It will only be the "big sky policy" which might save the day?

Many of these changes fail to acknowledge just were "worlds best practice" might presently be. In many cases it is right here in good old Oz. But oh no, we have to go down a path that is suitable for many third world countries. Sure, there are many good ideas and procedures used throughout the world, but does that mean we have to make wholesale changes to comply with procedures used in Africa where the accident rate is significantly higher than elsewhere in the world?

The CEO of Airservices has said that he does not understand where savings of M$70 can be made with NAS and in all probability it is my view there will be no savings whatsoever. Couple this with the introduction of practices which encourage VFR NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the airways system and you have ingredients of a potential for a reduction in safety that our politicians will find intolerable once the first accident occurs.

And all this is proposed with minimal pilot and industry education. There has not been any significant education on airspace for over a decade and the amount now required to bring even regular flyers up to speed is probably greater than ten times what is proposed by the NAS group and CASA.

Considering that the savings with the introduction of NAS will be minimal if any, then it is my belief that the status-quo with some panel beating will be the way to go. Everyone is more or less happy with the existing set up and procedures and they are generally understood. Only some changes to make it better should be contemplated, and obviously in line with ICAO recommendations where possible.

"No known traffic" !

[Maaate]

A slightly off-topic, but hopefully constructive suggestion:

The ‘problem’

At the moment, a large number of VFR aircraft fly around in class G and E airspace, squawking 1200, and are visible on radar. They generally don’t talk to us (ATC) but can often be heard making broadcasts.

When providing a radar service, the best we can do is “traffic is unidentified , at unverified level” We sometimes see unidentified aircraft enter restricted areas, but don’t know who it is.

Background

TAAATS has a ‘rad-tag’ function, which allows a controller to very quickly assign a code to an aircraft which does not have a plan in the system. This attaches a call-sign label to the track and provides Mode C data where available. The ‘tag’ is visible to all controllers within the same ‘partition’ (i.e. it is not visible to a TMA controller when it is an enroute tag and vice versa, nor is it visible to a Melbourne controller when it is a Brisbane tag. They will just see the SSR code.)

Suggested procedure
1. VFR aircraft in class E or G call centre once with a phrase such as “ABC request SSR Code.” No broadcasts of positions reports etc. would be required.
2. With very few modifications (to software or procedures) this code could be made available pre-departure by phone, SMS, e-mail or other means.
3. “Skin” codes might be a viable option, but I am not sure if this could be done at the moment.
4. The controller rad-tags the aircraft and uses a phrase which means “identified but no radar service is being provided”.
5. The VFR aircraft monitors whichever area frequency is appropriate for their location.
6. From then on, if the VFR aircraft becomes traffic to an IFR or another VFR, or appears to be about to enter a restricted area or needs to be told anything, the controller knows who it is and can make a directed call. The IFR aircraft can be told not only where the traffic is, but also who it is. The two aircraft would then be able to talk to each other to sort out any confliction.
7. Another benefit would be in the case of a VFR with an expired SARtime. A quick search of the ‘tag’ list would identify if they are still flying and where they are.

This proposal should cost next to nothing, would add an extra layer of safety, would allow us to provide a better, more specific service and would increase everyone’s situational awareness. Of course, it is limited to radar coverage, but it’s a start.

Your comments, suggestions or gratuitous insults?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Agreed Triadic

As I've said a few times on other threads, after flying around a good chunk of the world on a day to day basis I think we already have world's best practice. All we need is a little fine tuning along the lines of Maaate's suggestion (excellent BTW) to have as good a system as we can ever want.

Why do ******** and his mates think that copying parts of another system (cherry picking) is going to save more money than our system now?

I don't think it can for starters let alone factoring in safety concerns that we all have based on real experience.

When the first C182 gets cleaned up by a Dash 8/B737 etc in E where will ******** and the ARG be?

Chuck

[ReadMyACARS]

Continuing on Maaates theme, whatever happened to the idea of having permanent squawk codes assigned to aircraft. If each aircraft was able to apply for their own code and squawked that instead of 1200, ATC could provide a call sign and hence have a directed call made to specific aircraft operating in the area. Aircraft would not have to have a permanent code, but if you are going to operate in G or E airspace a lot it would be very convientient to have a fixed code to work with.

There are 11866 aircraft on the current registry, I would imagine that half or less of those would need or want to have a permanent code.

[triadic]

Transponder Codes

Skin codes were once used but were discontinued prior to TAAATS.

Reason is that there is not enough codes available for even half the Oz register to use. Many codes are allocated or reserved for special and military use and with common radar boundaries to our North codes must be allocated/reserved on a shared basis with those facilities where coverage may overlap.

But having said that, it should be no great problem to obtain a code for specific flights, especially if likely to be within radar range. Certainly if the ATC facility has the capability, then allocating a bin code on request would not be a great drama and certainly would provide a safety benefit at minimal or no cost.


"No known traffic"

[Chief galah]

Chimbu chuckles

Re your C182/Dash 8/B737 scenario, the NAS people will argue that this is possible under the current G airspace.
My concern, if I was an enroute controller, is the field day the court rats would have if it occurred in E airspace. Airspace which is controlled, but not controlled.

CG

[Winstun]

You IFR folks need to do less chit chatting and more looking out the window (in VMC).
VFR guys are looking at you. Plus you got your TCAS, it don't care what the sqwak number is.

[Capn Laptop]

Winstun,

It is informed comment like that that has clowns like RHS and the other SMITH formulating airspace rules like the NAS.

What would you prefer, un-notified see and avoid - which is essentially what the smiths would have us have, or a system where aeroplanes doing 4-7 nm per minute have at least a fighting chance of not running into you!

Telling IFR types to chit chat less is hardly constructive.

You wouldn't be a former biscuit maker by any chance would you?

[Four Seven Eleven]

Maaate said his proposal would:

cost next to nothing, would add an extra layer of safety

Winstun said IFR should simply:

do less chit chatting and more looking out the window

Now, whose idea actually adds something to safety, affordability, service and efficiency?

Onya, Maaate!!!!

[Chief galah]

Winstun

I sense that you will the one who bellyaches when Centre can't give you a clearance and it is non VMC.

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 and so is AsA radar outside of 50nm from the major centres with primary radar. I don't expect transponder discipline to be any better out in the sticks.

And as for

VFR guys are looking at you.

Dream on. After many years of issuing traffic, one realises that many VFR pilots are totally preoccupied with trying to fly the plane, let alone vigilantly looking out!!

CG

[weasil]

:-)

[Four Seven Eleven]

Weasil

I started this thread in the hope of getting some simple answers to QNH procedures, frequency requirements etc.

Living in the US, you may not be aware how poltically charged this issue is.

Your post is, I hope, not meant to be an example of the tone and style you would prefer to see, with its spray of invective and lack of any meaningful input.

I really hope that the NAS people (Messrs Smith et al) will provide some answers to the operational questions posted here, and ignore the sort of abuse in Weasil's post.

[Capn Laptop]

Weasil,

I hope you paid for the title of moderator - you certainly don't add anything constructive to the discussion.

you have an appropriate name by the way...

[ferris]

Weasil

What a whining pansie.

Every time you spend time on the Australian forum to see what's going on down here, we hear nothing but a know it all who complains about everything that is posted about Oz Aviation.

"Everybody in power is a dick head, anybody who makes a comment is a moron etc..." this is usually the gist of your posts on D&G. Quit your bitching.