Dick- You might have to contact the ATSB as I can't find it on the website. I do know that a recommendation was made and CASA received it. There is currently a CASA requirement for TAWS but it is only for aircraft of 10 seats or more. Unfortunately too late to save the victims of the Lockhart River accident. I have to disagree with you about Proserpine being the site of the jet aircraft accident. It will be Ballina and it won't be because of a lack of radar, it will be because of the third world state of the airport.

nitpicking on definitions of ICAO airspace
 

Mr D. SmithSure., the USA can call it class-G, yet provide a (better) class-E service.
Our class-G usually provides class-F service, probably because our radar coverage simply isn't that wonderfull, extensive, or reliable enough at lower levels.

Ok, the solution for Oz is simple.... replace class-G with E (or better), airspace.
but that will require a lot more ATCOs and surveillance equipment to provide that better service., and in this age of beancounters and costs v benefits v profit, I just don't see it happening.

Air Ace

Sorry to disagree but I am NOT wrong. I did not suggest fare paying pax would need to read the CEO direction. What I suggested is that pax aboard a 'light' aircraft accept a different degree of risk and are far more aware they do not have two ATPL up front etc.

Certainly pax are price driven to a point. But again I disagree that is the only prime motivator. Otherwise VB and JS would be carrying all the QF pax.

Dick

I note you have written to the Minister about this dreaded GPS.

Looked at the John Chew report, particularly points 48-52 and particularly 62-66. Describes lots of alarms (far more than the ATC received?)

When does piloting become overtaken by external hand-holding? The Chew report mentions 'automation induced complacency' - are we now to have 'ATC induced complacency' in radar coverage?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

This, like most all aviation disasters, is the result of a chain of events. The breaking of this chain at any part would have prevented this crash. Intervention being the most obvious.

Dick,
You quote anonymous friends who are Safety experts, and or USA,Canada,etc ATCs on these forums.
Why don't you send them a link to pprune, let them sign up anonymously, so they won't get any heat from their employers,
and get them on here so we can ask them direct questions and get unfiltered (by you)opinions.

BobI agree with you entirely that intervention was the most obvious.When PIC I prefer to be the 'intervention-er' because it's me and the aircraft at risk not an ATC sitting a long way away.If we follow this handover of responsibility away from ourselves and take this intervention strategy to finality, perhaps the CFI should sit with a radio at the end of the runway and watch each of our landings and intervene if concerned?PS I hope you get this - when I come in using my normal IP today I am not getting the normal Pprune display - if I manage to get through, despite all my other sites working OK.

Why? Which part of Sect 9 of the Act do you not understand? :confused:

You and I may know that lesser performance and a different (not necessary lower) standard of certification applies to GA aircraft, but the average punter has no idea at all. He/she expects to "survive this ride" whether in a Cessna 402 or a Boeing 747.

And if GA aircraft are operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and air navigation regulations and CASA is functioning in accordance with regulatory it's mandate and legislation and ASA are providing the service they should under their legislation and duty of care obligations, why should there be any element of risk in flying in a GA aircraft?

Air Ace,

Be that as it may .... have you got any friends who jump on a QF/VB/JQ flight without hesitation , BUT, any mention of going up in that dang Cessna jalopy starts making them cringe ... or say things like ... " oh, dunno about that ..." ?

Most of mine do .... but maybe that's beacuse they know how I fly ...:hmm:

AAWe are talking at cross purposes and I suggest we agree to differ.I do not have difficulty with the Act, any more than I have difficulty thinking that 4 pax with me on my first Outback trip long ago in an aged six seater six cyl on which I had around 5 hours on type - would believe they were as safe as on a 747.I cannot do a quote due this system glitch that TW tells me is a server problem but as regards your comment:"And if GA aircraft are operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and air navigation regulations and CASA is functioning in accordance with regulatory it's mandate and legislation and ASA are providing the service they should under their legislation and duty of care obligations, why should there be any element of risk in flying in a GA aircraft?"Let me suggest that you don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that one well maintained 6 cylinder engine near TBO does not qualify for the safety mindset of any pax jumping on something with multiple kero burners. As I have heard many say - I don't fly unless the type number has a "7" in it Apology if this does not space properly - last post didn't.
Edited to add - and I doubt any of those kero burners use a 2 line Trimble display for an IFR approach.

A chain of events has many links. Any one, or a combination, could be the catalyst for disaster- just as others, such as intervention in this case, would be the obvious catalyst for prevention.

Bob

I have to agree with your philosophy.

Yet it is at odds with some past philosophies about big brother watching us in G via ADS-B, and 'free in G'.

You seem to be moving us towards the concept of all airspace 'controlled' if we adopt this strategem of ATC resourcing to provide extra advisory and control services in G?

Given the Trimble was seemingly bringing up multiple alarms, it also seems ATC will need a handy reference library of POH for GPS, AWIS info for each CTAF so they understand why we are deviating to join for which runway, and so on. NO?

I still have this vision of the CFI sitting at the end of the runway with his handheld comm advising if we are not on target for a good landing. Perhaps we should take the CFI with us each time we fly if we wish to remove danger links via intervention?

Your argument is even more useful once ADS-B spreads ATC coverage wider and further than we now have with radar. Otherwise ATC will only be holding our hand in a limited area and we will have to look after ourselves elsewhere.

Where does pilot responsibility end as we hand over to big brother to nurse us?

Please don't attempt to put a different bend on things that are not there.

I refer to THIS case of IFR traffic, in the system, watched by existing manned radar while it deviated from track, and the non intervention after alerts were given to the ATCO while it was still in controlled airspace.

One only link in a chain of events including the Trimble arguement that had the corolory to prevent this crash. Other links could be that the pilot didn't stay in bed that day, but that's a bit Islamic.

What this has to do with ADSB, VFR, free in G, or CFI's on airports or big brothers escapes me.:=

Bob

What is has to do with it is quite simple - are WE going to be in control in the cockpit and monitor the information available or are we going to expect Big Brother to guide our footsteps.

If the latter, whcih seems to be what you are suggesting, we are turning Class G into a form of controlled airspace, and at a $ charge.

I am prepared to take responsibility for making PIC decisions - and calling ATC if I have a concern.

There is much more I could add about the circumstances detailed in the Chew report and the defences highlighted therein but I stand by what I said earlier - this is not a matter to push personal agenda/s on platforms built on tombstones.

The aeroplane PIC is the controller of a flight even if it is CFIT. He controls the aeroplane even in controlled airspace.

Does that put paid to your concerns about my ability to know what I am suggesting?

"Bully" for you for making PIC decisions and asking for assistance if you feel the need. Doesn't everyone? Monitoring information is all well and good so long as it is accurate information.

If you saw a blind man receiving inaccurate audible information and about to walk in front of a car, would you advise him or watch because he may feel offended that you are treating him like “big brother”?

As for personal agendas built on tombstones, I did know Kerry Endicott, taught me basic aerobatics in VH-KDE in 1977, lovely bloke and a meticulous safe aviator, but my concern is based upon the air safety dogma that we all should learn from the mistakes of others because we will not live long enough to make them all ourselves.

I have witnessed the deification of the departed by people with agendas, don’t link me to them. If nothing is learned from this crash, then the deaths of those on board are wasted.

The learning, Bob, will come from the Coroner's court and I for one am pleased she exercised her discretion to keep Circus NAS on some paddock outside her presence. Full marks to John Langmead.

Plenty can be learned from the matter by reading the Chew report in its own right.

More was learned by Airservices making the recommended ATSB changes.

If we continue to adopt your "ATC Mum" approach, they will need to also keep RAIM data close by and check every GPS arrival to ensure the pilot has not missed a GPS message.

Your blind man analogy suggests he is unaware the car is bearing down on him - despite horn tooting, spectators calling etc. Enough said.

OK, he's an anorexic deaf blind autocratic Labor voting gay black man with warts and no sense of smell in command of a wheelchair, all by himself on a country road and you are the only one there. (could also substitute good looking white naked female), whatever takes your fancy.

Don't be obtuse, the aircraft was in IFR cruise when the alerts went off. Are you telling me that intervention at this stage of the flight would have no effect on the outcome?

ATC is "mum" to the major airlines, and it appears they do not like to operate if mum is not watching and clearing the skies for them. That is why there is a great push for ADS-B. The airlines and tASA want it.

But aviation in Australia consists of far more than major airlines. The days when aviation consisted of airlines and the military are long gone.

We inherited a regulator which consisted mainly of ex military people and had military thinking. They were used to the idea that they had to keep track of ALL aeroplanes, and shoot down the ones they did not know about.

So we had controlled airspace to keep the bugsmashers away from the major airports and flight service to keep track of all the others. Flight servie did not have radar. they just monitored ETA's. And some private owners elected to go "nosar no details" (shock horror)

Then someone did some thinking????????? They decided that flight service was not really necessary, as we no longer shot down the unknown aircraft, and the pilots could look after themselves outside the controlled airspace. They set up a SAR centre instead.
Unfortunately a lot of FSO's lost their jobs, and the "thinker" has been fiercely antagonised ever since.

But more thinking was happening. (god help us) and the predatory major airlines were operting into new ports and eating up the smaller operators. But "mum" was not there. This was class G airspace, and there was no tower at Ayers Rock and lots of other places. ASA would not spend the money to build towers and the airlines would not either.
So they want ADS-B so mum knows what they are doing.
And ASA can monitor what everyone else is doing.

And a side effect is that the military, customs police , CASA etc can monitor what everyone is doing.

It would be good if the VFR aircraft could have a GPS readout from it, and if it had weather, and terrain. Otherwise vfr pilots would be better off putting their money into something that does that for them.

Dick

You state

"Other GPS units, such as the Garmin, simply freeze when there is a loss of signal in the air – i.e. they do not go into dead reckoning."

The Garmin 430w/530w in fact will go into DR but with probably more alerting for the pilot. This is from the Garmin "What’s New with the 400W / 500W Series" manual:

"Dead Reckoning (DR)
Dead reckoning is the process of continuing navigation
based on your last known position using your current heading, speed, time, and distance to be traveled after a loss of GPS navigation on an active flight plan. Navigation using dead reckoning is therefore only an estimate and requires that you maintain the course and speed shown on your 400W/500W unit. Dead reckoning should not be used if any other means of navigation is available, such as a VOR or pilotage.
Dead reckoning becomes active after a loss of GPS position while you are navigating using an active flight plan. A pop-up message will appear and requires pilot input to clear the message. Dead reckoning is not available
if you are in terminal or approach modes.
When Dead Reckoning is active, the ownship icon color is changed to yellow and the To/From flag is removed from the CDI. The Dead Reckoning annunciator
(DR) appears on the left side of the map display when GPS position is unavailable and the unit is in Dead Reckoning mode. All external outputs dependent on GPS position are flagged.
See the section on Dead Reckoning in the Nav Pages chapter of the Pilot’s Guide for more details"

Barleyhi, thanks for the correction regarding the Garmin GPS. The key phrase about the Garmin is:

As we can see from the information given to the Coroner, the Trimble unit actually still provides a dead reckoning position in the terminal and in the approach mode. This is simply ridiculous. The unit should be modified immediately so it cannot do this.

I will say it again. Just about any error that can be made by a pilot will be made. We are not infallible, and it is obviously a faulty design to allow the unit to fly a complete approach in the dead reckoning mode.

Demo mode??
 

Some of the early navigators had a demo mode for training and practise. In this mode they nwould appear to fly a whole flight when the unit is sitting on the bench and stationary.