VFR On Top: What the hell for?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of the Tweed, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otto
I think you meant to say: “How about we just agree either way that you’re a pedantic fool.”
Now we can agree!!!!
Galah
Thanks, but Otto did have smilies all over his post.
Your posts (and others) do raise the issue of how, when and why a controller can reasonably refuse a clearance when there is no separation responsibility. Will we get complaints when a clearance is denied because in the controller’s opinion, the procedure would have placed two aircraft too close together, but the pilot does not agree?
Hows about we just agree either way that your a pedantic fool.
Now we can agree!!!!
Galah
Thanks, but Otto did have smilies all over his post.
Your posts (and others) do raise the issue of how, when and why a controller can reasonably refuse a clearance when there is no separation responsibility. Will we get complaints when a clearance is denied because in the controller’s opinion, the procedure would have placed two aircraft too close together, but the pilot does not agree?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us hope Grot's 17th post can raise the standard, try a few cutting "Oh yeah?" messages if you can't come up with an opinion you half wit.
Yes Maaate, tracks & tracks.... erm, I don't remember which I meant, but think of this; which of the following has the most implications from duty of care?
1. IFR vs VFR on top - Skies are blue, aircraft involved have windows. Confliction in E airspace.
2. IFR vs IFR - Skies are blue, aircraft involved have windows. Confliction in G airspace.
Why should I be more worried about 1 than 2? I at least have confirmation that one of the aircraft in 1 is in VMC. Besides, I'm much more likely to be worried about 3.
3. IFR vs IFR - Weather absolute crap, traffic passed but they aren't talking, radar tracks (sorry, symbols) about to merge. Confliction in enroute G airspace.
Not a problem in the home of the depleted uranium exporters, they would separate regardless of the class of airspace. But we don't seem to be implementing that, probably wouldn't have passed the traffic either after Stage 3.
Yes Maaate, tracks & tracks.... erm, I don't remember which I meant, but think of this; which of the following has the most implications from duty of care?
1. IFR vs VFR on top - Skies are blue, aircraft involved have windows. Confliction in E airspace.
2. IFR vs IFR - Skies are blue, aircraft involved have windows. Confliction in G airspace.
Why should I be more worried about 1 than 2? I at least have confirmation that one of the aircraft in 1 is in VMC. Besides, I'm much more likely to be worried about 3.
3. IFR vs IFR - Weather absolute crap, traffic passed but they aren't talking, radar tracks (sorry, symbols) about to merge. Confliction in enroute G airspace.
Not a problem in the home of the depleted uranium exporters, they would separate regardless of the class of airspace. But we don't seem to be implementing that, probably wouldn't have passed the traffic either after Stage 3.
Last edited by Spodman; 6th Jul 2003 at 09:38.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the new NAS was supposed to simplify the system.
This is an additional and unnecessary procedure that will require more RT Comms, and I personally doubt it has any real benefit, and that anyone would really use it.
Also, someone should remind the implementors of these systems of the BASI Research Report 'Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Priciple' released in April 1991.
Part of its conclusions: "The most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace"
These people should look at reducing costs in the bureaucracy and not penny pinch the system, but it will take a calamity to make this obvious, and then no one will carry the can, except the pilots, of course.
This is an additional and unnecessary procedure that will require more RT Comms, and I personally doubt it has any real benefit, and that anyone would really use it.
Also, someone should remind the implementors of these systems of the BASI Research Report 'Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Priciple' released in April 1991.
Part of its conclusions: "The most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace"
These people should look at reducing costs in the bureaucracy and not penny pinch the system, but it will take a calamity to make this obvious, and then no one will carry the can, except the pilots, of course.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A certain operator of DHC8 aircraft from a state that is sunny refuses to use the IFR pick up procedure. I would be fairly safe to assume that for the same reasons they will not use the ohter 2 new procedures for climb and cruise. The unfortunate thing is that if a pilot/company is uneasy about using the procedure and they elect to never use it, they will by default be using it as the other people who elect to use it will just wizz by with no separation applied. This may be ok in radar airspace where they can request avaoidance advice but in no radar airspace the relatively easy vector are unavailable.
/me reminds everyone of G demo and whacks a $20 note on the table. I give it 2 months.
/me reminds everyone of G demo and whacks a $20 note on the table. I give it 2 months.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: On the move
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Spodman,
I have expressed my opinions on this particular subject expecting people to either agree or disagree. Simple. I welcome all critisism as long as it is fair.
My previous post for Maaates benefit was "tongue in cheek" and unashamedly opportunistic towards that particular part of his/her post. Maaate seemed to see the lighter side of it.
I respect everyones opinion on this issue and understand that there are people in this world without a SENSE OF HUMOUR........ but "half wit"
,
OH YEAH
I have expressed my opinions on this particular subject expecting people to either agree or disagree. Simple. I welcome all critisism as long as it is fair.
My previous post for Maaates benefit was "tongue in cheek" and unashamedly opportunistic towards that particular part of his/her post. Maaate seemed to see the lighter side of it.
I respect everyones opinion on this issue and understand that there are people in this world without a SENSE OF HUMOUR........ but "half wit"
,OH YEAH
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vfr on top
It seems to me like the CASA are just instituting procedures to match the FAA system RE: Airspace/ IFR flight etc... the problem though is that it sounds like they intend to charge for their services down there where as those procedures all work great here because they are free.
Also most of the USA is covered in CLass E airspace down to 1200'agl and Radar coverage is fairly continuous also. The radar coverage down under is probably fairly limited I would imagine and it's mostly class g airspace right.
Also most of the USA is covered in CLass E airspace down to 1200'agl and Radar coverage is fairly continuous also. The radar coverage down under is probably fairly limited I would imagine and it's mostly class g airspace right.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman,
Ref your comment "3. IFR vs IFR - Weather absolute crap, traffic passed but they aren't talking, radar tracks (sorry, symbols) about to merge. Confliction in enroute G airspace." This IS what happens now, I agree, but there has never been a midair/nearmiss when both IFR aircraft have been on the same frequency and both getting Directed Traffic/an Air Traffic Advisory Service. Besides, if the other aircraft wasn't talking, you'd hardly be likely to go thru his level would you?
Weasil,
You are correct. However, our G is a bit different to yours: we are currently provided with a full Flight Information Service, which includes a full traffic collision avoidance servcie as required by ICAO Annex 11. You guys don't get that, I believe (although you do get separated!?). Many of us actually argue that our class g airspace is really class F since the Directed traffic/Collision Avoidance Service is an Air Traffic Advisory service.
Re Self Separation, I quote from the shiny pamphlet: "Pilot to Pilot exchanges should not take place in E" and "pilots using these procs...should not use radio arranged separation, but should use radio alerted See and Avoid. That is they should visually avoid traffic that ATC has informed them of.". So there you have it, another definition of radio-alerted see and avoid. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be a joke!!
The upshot of that is that we are not allowed to jibber between ourselves to self separate. If I can't do that, I may as well just stay IFR and get stuck with the pathetically huge separation standards provided by ATC, because by the time I pick up some twit in a VFR Citation, it'll be too late. So I don't want E, I want G(F???)!!
As alluded to already, VFR vs IFR Class E ops in NAS rely TOTALLY on being able to avoid the other aircraft by picking it up visually and manoeuvring away if nec. BASI, and thousands of other pilots know this is a fanciful method of preventing midairs.
Ref your comment "3. IFR vs IFR - Weather absolute crap, traffic passed but they aren't talking, radar tracks (sorry, symbols) about to merge. Confliction in enroute G airspace." This IS what happens now, I agree, but there has never been a midair/nearmiss when both IFR aircraft have been on the same frequency and both getting Directed Traffic/an Air Traffic Advisory Service. Besides, if the other aircraft wasn't talking, you'd hardly be likely to go thru his level would you?
Weasil,
You are correct. However, our G is a bit different to yours: we are currently provided with a full Flight Information Service, which includes a full traffic collision avoidance servcie as required by ICAO Annex 11. You guys don't get that, I believe (although you do get separated!?). Many of us actually argue that our class g airspace is really class F since the Directed traffic/Collision Avoidance Service is an Air Traffic Advisory service.
Re Self Separation, I quote from the shiny pamphlet: "Pilot to Pilot exchanges should not take place in E" and "pilots using these procs...should not use radio arranged separation, but should use radio alerted See and Avoid. That is they should visually avoid traffic that ATC has informed them of.". So there you have it, another definition of radio-alerted see and avoid. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be a joke!!
The upshot of that is that we are not allowed to jibber between ourselves to self separate. If I can't do that, I may as well just stay IFR and get stuck with the pathetically huge separation standards provided by ATC, because by the time I pick up some twit in a VFR Citation, it'll be too late. So I don't want E, I want G(F???)!!
As alluded to already, VFR vs IFR Class E ops in NAS rely TOTALLY on being able to avoid the other aircraft by picking it up visually and manoeuvring away if nec. BASI, and thousands of other pilots know this is a fanciful method of preventing midairs.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep in mind that when refering to the ATC sep standards that there is only one standard (without vertical of course) and that is 1 mile. The actual size of the distance required in the aplication of the one and only lateral/longitudinal standard is varied on the information provided by various equipment in the aircraft (or radar head) Perhaps the Pathetic Navigation Provided by aircraft is more to blame.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tobzalp,
Not quite sure where you're coming from and but...
What about the 20nm "in-trail" standard that ATC apply before allowing descent thru each other's level?? Both aircraft are fitted with more accurate RNAV equipment than the shuttle. That is but one example of ridiculous separation standards which, if there were a few clouds about, would prevent me from descending in E airspace until over my destination. What a crock.
Yet another: two aircraft head to head: why in hell do we have to be at separated levels 10 minutes before crossing??
The thing that really gets up my nose is that, as soon as one of the aircraft goes into Class G, ATC says "see ya later" and they wipe their hands of the affair. Now I don't have anything against ATC (except their bosses that shafted FS), and I know they are merely applying the rules, but that's what happens. And, I might add, it'll be even worse in E down to lower levels.
Not quite sure where you're coming from and but...
What about the 20nm "in-trail" standard that ATC apply before allowing descent thru each other's level?? Both aircraft are fitted with more accurate RNAV equipment than the shuttle. That is but one example of ridiculous separation standards which, if there were a few clouds about, would prevent me from descending in E airspace until over my destination. What a crock.
Yet another: two aircraft head to head: why in hell do we have to be at separated levels 10 minutes before crossing??
The thing that really gets up my nose is that, as soon as one of the aircraft goes into Class G, ATC says "see ya later" and they wipe their hands of the affair. Now I don't have anything against ATC (except their bosses that shafted FS), and I know they are merely applying the rules, but that's what happens. And, I might add, it'll be even worse in E down to lower levels.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Custard:
Maybe it's not your intention, but it sounds like you're having an each way bet..
"That is but one example of ridiculous separation standards which, if there were a few clouds about, would prevent me from descending in E airspace until over my destination. What a crock."
Then;
"The thing that really gets up my nose is that, as soon as one of the aircraft goes into Class G, ATC says "see ya later" and they wipe their hands of the affair."
Which way do you want it? To be separated or not be separated.
Further:
"why in hell do we have to be at separated levels 10 minutes before crossing??"
This standard is based on ESTIMATED time of passing, which is itself derived from pilot ESTIMATES. I concede that when the numbers are accurate, you could squeeze a few small European countries in the distance that the aircraft have to be vertically separated.
However, given that revised estimates are only required for variations of 3 minutes or more. And that pilots routinely fail to even pass these changes, that small European country quickly becomes a Carribean island.
Blue skies, you'll need 'em
Maybe it's not your intention, but it sounds like you're having an each way bet..
"That is but one example of ridiculous separation standards which, if there were a few clouds about, would prevent me from descending in E airspace until over my destination. What a crock."
Then;
"The thing that really gets up my nose is that, as soon as one of the aircraft goes into Class G, ATC says "see ya later" and they wipe their hands of the affair."
Which way do you want it? To be separated or not be separated.
Further:
"why in hell do we have to be at separated levels 10 minutes before crossing??"
This standard is based on ESTIMATED time of passing, which is itself derived from pilot ESTIMATES. I concede that when the numbers are accurate, you could squeeze a few small European countries in the distance that the aircraft have to be vertically separated.
However, given that revised estimates are only required for variations of 3 minutes or more. And that pilots routinely fail to even pass these changes, that small European country quickly becomes a Carribean island.
Blue skies, you'll need 'em
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Custard,
I think many controllers would agree whole heartedly that certain non-radar separation standards are too large. The situation you allude to where a confliction in class C is "resolved" by forcing one or both aircraft to descend OCTA has frustrated me throughout my career.
My feeling is that the GPS derived sep standards are far too conservative, pilots appear to have a high degree of trust for GPS and our sep standards should reflect that.
The bizarre aspect of this debate is that we are apparently a "world leader" in application of RNAV seperation, ICAO are even more conservative and one of the most outspoken opponents to further reductions in RNAV derived sep standards is IFALPA! I suggest you and other pilots make representions to ASA through your companies and AFAP that the existing GPS standards are too conservative.
I believe that with a more realistic figure for GPS Navigational Errors, we could roll out more class E, and seperate everyone positively while minimising unecessary interventions. Then we could consign this bodgy see and avoid nonsense to the same bin as the G trial and AMATS and Airspace 2000 etc
I think many controllers would agree whole heartedly that certain non-radar separation standards are too large. The situation you allude to where a confliction in class C is "resolved" by forcing one or both aircraft to descend OCTA has frustrated me throughout my career.
My feeling is that the GPS derived sep standards are far too conservative, pilots appear to have a high degree of trust for GPS and our sep standards should reflect that.
The bizarre aspect of this debate is that we are apparently a "world leader" in application of RNAV seperation, ICAO are even more conservative and one of the most outspoken opponents to further reductions in RNAV derived sep standards is IFALPA! I suggest you and other pilots make representions to ASA through your companies and AFAP that the existing GPS standards are too conservative.
I believe that with a more realistic figure for GPS Navigational Errors, we could roll out more class E, and seperate everyone positively while minimising unecessary interventions. Then we could consign this bodgy see and avoid nonsense to the same bin as the G trial and AMATS and Airspace 2000 etc
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is so difficult to differentiate between true concerns and industrially related b/s. Alaska for example is smaller than Australia, has more aircraft, and virtually no low level radar. Most VFR in the US do not use the radar available because if they did one couldn't get a word in. Commonly one hears "Multiple VFR returns in your area". Is that radar arranged separation? I am responsible for the AOPA position on airspace. I have flown VFR in heavy traffic in VietNam, I was Chief Pilot for Masling Commuter Services when light aircraft were far more common than they are now, but it is so hard to know the difference between real concerns and (may I say it ) whinging ******s. Any fair dinkum Regionals who want to talk, my number is 0249903717.
Bill
Bill
Last edited by Bill Pike; 11th Jul 2003 at 11:41.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Pikey,
Some time ago on one of the NAS threads I asked what the official AOPA line is in regards to NAS. I notice that Doug Stott has been asking the same question on the AOPA site.
I am guessing that seeing as you decided to inform us of your responsibilities for airspace on behalf of AOPA whilst simultaneously promoting NAS then this must be the defacto AOPA position. If not then why bother telling us of your airspace portfolio?
If AOPA do in fact support NAS (no secret that you personally do) then can we assume that they also support the following:
The Willoughby Report (upon which NAS is based),
The lack of industry consultaton,
The non existant industry education,
The amateur production of AIP Supps,
The use of NOTAM as notification of change,
The waste of money to date.
It would be nice to clear this up in readiness for the inevitable whinge that comes at a later date from your constituents about the consequences. Time for AOPA to get off the fence if they expect to have any relevance.
Some time ago on one of the NAS threads I asked what the official AOPA line is in regards to NAS. I notice that Doug Stott has been asking the same question on the AOPA site.
I am guessing that seeing as you decided to inform us of your responsibilities for airspace on behalf of AOPA whilst simultaneously promoting NAS then this must be the defacto AOPA position. If not then why bother telling us of your airspace portfolio?
If AOPA do in fact support NAS (no secret that you personally do) then can we assume that they also support the following:
The Willoughby Report (upon which NAS is based),
The lack of industry consultaton,
The non existant industry education,
The amateur production of AIP Supps,
The use of NOTAM as notification of change,
The waste of money to date.
It would be nice to clear this up in readiness for the inevitable whinge that comes at a later date from your constituents about the consequences. Time for AOPA to get off the fence if they expect to have any relevance.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug is well aware that AOPA has welcomed any movement towards the US system from day one. So far that has not changed. Hardly sitting on the fence old son! IMHO one of the biggest challenges will be to educate our controllers that there are substantial differences between B, C, and D airspace already, it appears to me that it is all B to them. Not their fault really, I departed Scone this pm and an inbound advised that he would maintain 1,000 feet above me until we passed. Sounded to me more like IFR standards than radio alerted see and avoid. He would have a busy time in the Los Angeles basin.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucky you weren't in the LA Basin, then. What's the radar coverage like at Scone?
ps. You can get a flight following service in the LA Basin. How about Scone?
pps. Moving toward the U.S. system. Now that, Mr Pike, is called spin.
ps. You can get a flight following service in the LA Basin. How about Scone?
pps. Moving toward the U.S. system. Now that, Mr Pike, is called spin.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you certainly cleared that up Pikey! Whatever it was you were referring to.
Now perhaps you would like to answer the questions. Does AOPA support NAS (and all that it entails) including the methods, costings and processes of implementing it?
In case you have missed the debate even Dickey and "mouth open" Mike admit it ain't the US system.
You say AOPA welcome any movement to the US system. When were the members canvassed and the vote held? I am well aware that other members of the committee, including both your vice presidents, have been arguing vigorously (and recently very publicly) against various elements of NAS and the process in general so excuse me if I am a little sceptical.
From what I hear NAS is starting to look more like LAMP (including those pesky MBZs and J curve) than LAMP ever did.
"Damn fine those US MBZs!"
Now perhaps you would like to answer the questions. Does AOPA support NAS (and all that it entails) including the methods, costings and processes of implementing it?
In case you have missed the debate even Dickey and "mouth open" Mike admit it ain't the US system.
You say AOPA welcome any movement to the US system. When were the members canvassed and the vote held? I am well aware that other members of the committee, including both your vice presidents, have been arguing vigorously (and recently very publicly) against various elements of NAS and the process in general so excuse me if I am a little sceptical.
From what I hear NAS is starting to look more like LAMP (including those pesky MBZs and J curve) than LAMP ever did.
"Damn fine those US MBZs!"
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If YOU pay the enroute charges then VFR on Top is the way to go.
If some one else ( Your employer ? ) pays, well ? ?
And. What do you get for your money in a primarily VMC country ?
You don't have to look out the window, someone else you don't know is taking care of that for you.
Is it that much trouble really to look outside sometimes ?
If some one else ( Your employer ? ) pays, well ? ?
And. What do you get for your money in a primarily VMC country ?
You don't have to look out the window, someone else you don't know is taking care of that for you.
Is it that much trouble really to look outside sometimes ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If YOU pay the enroute charges then VFR on Top is the way to go.
If you have been sold that using VFR on TOP cost you less in charges, you have been sold a pup. As an ATC, I do nothing different to your flight plan if you request VFR on TOP, so how will the avcharges section even know you did something other than full IFR?
Bottle of Rum