|
Arrghhhh, FFS!.
Dick – perhaps some homework and a little 'thinking' is required here: look and listen, carefully, to the last Senate estimates video and you will see, precisely and exactly where the problems lay. Give you a clue - it's not with the kids slaving at the coal face. KIR, LP, Morno, NB, AC and half a dozen other priceless ATCO; who actually care enough to bother reading Pprune and can find the 'responsibility' and energy to respond – after probably another long hard shift – try, repeatedly, to tell you where the areas of concern and responsibility lay. Want a target, watch the last estimates and get after the "Slick & Fick" crew, those are your real targets. Read their pitiful answers to the QoN. Piss in the pot or get off it, go after the real culprits, or is that a bridge too far? a challenge perhaps. The ATCO 'troops', regularly go above and beyond the call, often, at great personal risk.
I get very weary of reading personalised "Dick" speak, when the rest of the 'workers' are trying to make what they can of a totally buggered up, top heavy administrative, trough reared system. Find a solution, present an argument, use your vaunted influence; but, please, FFS stop this eternal sniping, bitching and 'twisting' the facts, from the sidelines to suit your own agenda. It's not only boring; it's counter productive and negative; which I could, probably live with- if it ever achieved anything. Tell me what, in the past 12 month you have achieved or changed that makes this unholy system better. Nothing would be as good an answer as any; and we are still, no bloody closer to the damn truth. JHFHCOAC. |
Kharon. You are fantastic. Can we talk on the phone some time? May be able to do some of the things you want.
|
What do I believe? After the CASA mandate for Tassie approach, the way the failed experiment of running Adelaide approach at night in Melbourne were handled and the whole SDE debacle I have no faith that it could be implemented safely. Too many managers willing to implement too many smart arse solutions that cut corners that CASA is willing to sign off on. As Kharon says there are too many acolytes of the previous regime in place to make this sane. Managerial "risk taking" was a praiseworthy attribute back then.
What we'd get is the same number of controllers handling the same old large sectors with bits of procedural approach tacked on the bottom. And unless you could guarantee solid surveillance coverage down to the ground a procedural service is what you'd get. One in, one out. How would said controllers of large sectors provide a half decent surveillance approach service, considering they have other traffic to watch? Uberlingen ring a bell? That's exactly what you're asking for. How are we to run a US style service unless we run it with a similar number of controllers? Running an approach service on a 500 mile screen range and asking us to actually properly monitor it in every situation is insane. |
Dick, morno actually lived this pre his current jet job. IFR, all weather day and night, single pilot IFR out of a regional D.
Tell me this, it might be OK in Rocky or Townsville, but many regional ports can't get ATC comms, let alone radar or ADSB coverage in the SFC-700 or even 5000' so how do they get a clearance before entering the CTA? Otherwise they break the rules?? If you fix the SSR or ADSB for all, at all the places to a standard where the average GA light can get identified and have VHF on the ground, then maybe you have the infrastructure to deliver the service. Then get enough ATC's able to deliver the service. While you are at it get a transponder requirement in E that is actually followed by all (RAAus included) and we will all be happy. Otherwise I would rather accept the risk and know what I don't know and be aware of it, Vs breaking the law on climb waiting for a clearance that can't be given all the while thinking I am protected slightly when I am not at all. I want what you are offering Dick. i fly IFR in and out of many regional areas, I have been an ADSB convert all along (onto my 2nd set after an upgrade) but until ASA can deliver the goods, I would prefer G. At least then I know what my risks and responsibilities are. I almost hit another aircraft (VFR crossing L-R) passing 6200' one day, it happened so fast I could not catch the rego, but it would have been visible. No radar or in this case no ADSb for another 10 minutes. Was I out in the boonies? No on climb between YSGE and BARTA. I was on my own. If that was class E, without any chance of surveillance what would be the point of that false sense of security? At least the USA has surveillance almost to the ground in the majority of the country. You want a fast Citation with Rotax 2 stroke engines. morno/le pigeon/chief galah, please tell me where I am mistaken here? |
Jaba, you're not mistaken. E provides nothing to IFR that they couldn't manage on their own given traffic and a brain. If you aren't positively separated from all traffic what's the point?
P.S. I'm very definitely a non-flying bird ;-) |
this may be a place for some low level class E..... Brisbane West Wellcamp has a GNS approach to RWY 12 which up until recently has not really been an issue.
However of late the Military controllers at OK have not been able to approve or provide a clearance for that approach as it starts in CTA/CTR and ends in Class G. :confused::confused: Seems someone discovered that ATC cannot authorise such an approach according to the ICAO rules (??). As a result the 12 approach can only be used when OK is not active. So when any of the operators such as QL & Rex turn up and it is blowing from the SE, then they have no choice under the present rules to do the 30 approach and then circle, which we know GNS was meant to avoid having to circle. What a crock! Certainly a safety issue. Maybe a tower at YBWW would be the long term answer, but in the meantime, what is it to be... A larger zone for OK or maybe some class E ... ????:ugh::ugh: I believe everyone knows what the answer is but getting there seems somewhat difficult at the moment.... Best they think outside the box perhaps? Dick, I believe low level class E has a place in the system, however finding a fit and then making the oponents accept the change might be the battle... |
Seems someone discovered that ATC cannot authorise such an approach according to the ICAO rules (??). Its a CASA MOS Part 173 requirement that instrument flight procedures be designed clear of active Prohibited and Restricted areas. The requirement is probably direct from ICAO SARPs. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Our class E has mandatory transponder and mandatory radio for VFR.
Yabbering to an ATCO on Comm 1 whilst trying to self-segregate with a lighty on the CTAF on Comm 2. Nice plan. Provide the radar (or mandatory ADSB for all) and coverage to the ground and I'll think about low level Class E. Otherwise, I'll stick with the current system, thanks. You rave on about the cost of aviation; have you actually done any numbers on how much more procedural Class E would cost?? Didn't think so. |
Yair. Keep the current system. Resist change in every way.
Don't learn anything from the Benalla crash where the radar alarm went off but the pilot wasn't told because he was in uncontrolled airspace . Blame the pilot. Good pilots don't need ATC and radar! 1920's Class G forever. |
Oh, FFS! Not all this again...
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: :ugh::ugh: |
Dick, isn't that some form of new generation E airspace after hours at Launceston and Hobart?
It seems to work very well one aircraft in, one aircraft out after hours must be a very positive step in improving safety for the travelling public into those ports wouldn't you say? |
Dick, as has been repeatedly said we'll work whatever, but for heaven's sake it needs to be done properly! Not the half-arsed solution we'd undoubtedly end up with in the current environment. Give us the bloody tools, controllers and resources first before demanding change. Show us the money! Show us the consoles, the radars, the ADSB outlets! :ugh::ugh::ugh:
There's a bigger game afoot at present, namely oneSKY/CMATS, so I doubt calls for major changes, unless they were safety critical in a major way (and what you want isn't), will gain any traction, regardless of the merits. |
Capn Bloggs
Refer AIP ENR 1.4-9 Classes of Airspace - Services & Requirements for VFR aircraft in Class E: Radio COM Requirements "Continuous two-way" In Class G Airspace I have found the hardest task is to have a VFR aircraft respond to any request for position and intentions. Centre often gives us unidentified VFR traffic so we know they are there when in radar coverage but to get an answer is nigh on impossible. Don't know how the VFR's react when in Class E. |
They’re probably all welded to 126.7, in accordance with Dick’s and triadic’s advice… :E
|
Blackburn, I can perhaps enlighten you in a small way.
I have spoken up on the area frequency when it was obvious to me that I was the said unidentified VFR aircraft cruising in Class E or G airspace at an unverified level. I've identified myself by callsign, position, confirmation of level and stated my intentions, and all I've ever received in return is silence. |
Blackburn, fair enough. I was looking at Broadcast requirements and VFR "shoulds" in E. Above post corrected.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Yair. Keep the current system. Resist change in every way.
Dick, isn't that some form of new generation E airspace after hours at Launceston and Hobart? |
[P]rovide us with the infrastructure that the yanks have and we'll use your Class E. Stop trying to introduce bits and pieces, the bits that suit you. |
Refer AIP ENR 1.4-9 Classes of Airspace - Services & Requirements for VFR aircraft in Class E: Radio COM Requirements "Continuous two-way" Transponders are not mandatory for gliders and sport aviation types not capable of powering one. Refer to CAO 95 exemptions which include certain ultralight types, hang gliders, gyrocopters etc. Hang gliders operate in NE Victoria regularly up to A100. Exemptions also exist for such types for radio comms with ATC. |
Just like when I have been on the phone…..:rolleyes:
Dick, morno actually lived this pre his current jet job. IFR, all weather day and night, single pilot IFR out of a regional D. Tell me this, it might be OK in Rocky or Townsville, but many regional ports can't get ATC comms, let alone radar or ADSB coverage in the SFC-700 or even 5000' so how do they get a clearance before entering the CTA? Otherwise they break the rules?? If you fix the SSR or ADSB for all, at all the places to a standard where the average GA light can get identified and have VHF on the ground, then maybe you have the infrastructure to deliver the service. Then get enough ATC's able to deliver the service. While you are at it get a transponder requirement in E that is actually followed by all (RAAus included) and we will all be happy. Otherwise I would rather accept the risk and know what I don't know and be aware of it, Vs breaking the law on climb waiting for a clearance that can't be given all the while thinking I am protected slightly when I am not at all. I want what you are offering Dick. i fly IFR in and out of many regional areas, I have been an ADSB convert all along (onto my 2nd set after an upgrade) but until ASA can deliver the goods, I would prefer G. At least then I know what my risks and responsibilities are. I almost hit another aircraft (VFR crossing L-R) passing 6200' one day, it happened so fast I could not catch the rego, but it would have been visible. No radar or in this case no ADSb for another 10 minutes. Was I out in the boonies? No on climb between YSGE and BARTA. I was on my own. If that was class E, without any chance of surveillance what would be the point of that false sense of security? At least the USA has surveillance almost to the ground in the majority of the country. You want a fast Citation with Rotax 2 stroke engines. morno/le pigeon/chief galah, please tell me where I am mistaken here? |
Jaba. Keep on going with the old myths to stop any improvements with the system.
The USA does not have surveillance almost to the ground in the majority of the country. In fact 50% of IFR approaches in the USA have no radar coverage from the initial approach fix. The radar coverage over most of the USA is similar to the radar coverage in our J curve. Why then can't we have the safety improvements in the J curve- I know- resistance to change. Ballina has VHF coverage to the Brisbane centre at ground level and radar coverage below 8500'. Why not re direct the $14 m spent in the fire station to providing a class E service at Ballina. I know. Resist change- keep following a 1950s establishment formulae for RFFS and a 1930s system of radio calls when in IMC. My plan is to bring in the safety improvements before the inevitable accident occurs . Ballina doesn't even have a unicom radio operator to give traffic on aircraft that may be taxiing and on the wrong frequency - as per the Qantas jet at Ayers Rock. That's because CASA changed the rules so we couldn't follow the proven US Unicom system. Resist resist resist copying the proven success of others until people are killed is the result if we follow your post. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.