Time to chuck it in after staying up till 0430 to watch us get smashed by Kholi.

But, as usual, Dick doesn't respond when I post the inconvenient truths.

I guess he must just be hoping that my two previous will slip down the board and disappear.

Night all, including the zealots, and hope you had a good Easter.

Are you certain of that? I am pretty confident that there are currently no charges associated with it. Do you know someone that has actually paid a bill for flying into PD that has a charge for the AFIS, as opposed to the normal airways charges.

Thanks for the reminder Dick,

Re the 'Traffic Advice' given by FS;
You are correct in that the statement given was
"ABC, Traffic is 'XYZ, a Beech Baron...position...level etc etc'

It didn't matter if the traffic was IFR or VFR....If you hit it, bad things were going to happen. The fact that it was IFR or VFR was irrelevant, it was still 'traffic' according to the criteria of the time, and was 'of concern' to you.
(So to speak...)

Then after 12/12/91 when we stopped giving any services to VFR, the traffic was only then between IFR to IFR.

And there was even a 'push' by AsA to promote 'IFR Category' vs 'IFR Procedures'. In that an IFR Category acft, cruising in VMC conditions was to be considered 'VFR Conditions',
and the traffic would not apply. It was proposed that having attained flight in VMC, the pilot would advise us, and we would then consider him as VFR!
Truly, this was presented to us, but if I recall, it was the industry that got this 'reversed'.

Various phrases were promulgated to be used in this transition period of the next year or two....
'Known traffic is.....
IFR Traffic is.....
Then simply 'Traffic is.....(Again)

I will admit that this took quite 'some time' to get out of our system, as we may have knowledge about a VFR acft in proximity to an IFR, but were NOT to pass such traffic.

AsA kept telling us that that was the 'new' system.

FSOs generally were more than a little 'concerned' at the time about 'duty of care' and how that might 'play out' in a Court of Law in the unhappy event that....and the 'support' we may have got.....

NIL satisfactory answers were forthcoming, so the new system 'stumbled along' for a while....Even RPT pilots did not have a full 'grasp' of the new rules.

Re the VFR 'at or above 5,000ft', yes we all flew at the same quadrantal levels. I cannot recall flights above 5,000 having to go 'full reporting'.

I was engaged in VFR Charter at the time, and as such, went 'Full SAR' at all times, as required. On the odd occasion I did private flying, I don't recall having to remain B050 because I might have been on a SARTIME due to not having HF on a 'long flight'.....Perhaps others have better recall - Its been a while.... and apart from the 'interest' I really don't care any more.
When I am aviating, I use the radio to keep ME safe...and that seems to have worked for the last 50 odd years....
Goodnight.

Cheers:ok:

Too true. Now we have IFR flying at the same level in almost the opposite direction... at least 90° is front-quarter closing. There was a lot of sense in Quadrantal flying, but because they didn't do it in Yanksville, it got canned.

The same logic drives the E airspace ideology... VFR and IFR exist in two different worlds which never meet... ha ha.

Awo. AsA costs are totally paid by the industry. So the cost of Port Headland is paid by the industry. In this case the cost is loaded on to some other charging regime.

I understand that, I guess my point was that the airways charges did not go up when the AFIS was introduced and I doubt they will decrease if the AFIS is removed.

I just gotta do this.....

'Tis Port HEDLAND, so named after the sea-faring captain who first sailed into it....

"In April 1863 Captain Peter Hedland aboard the cutter Mystery nosed his craft into the narrow entrance of a channel and discovered a magnificent sheet of water appearing like an inland lake. He named it Mangrove Harbour and two months later it was renamed Port Hedland by the Surveyor-General in his honor."

Not necessarily the 'nicest' place on de planet - I used to live there when commiting full time aviation - the dust is still the same yucky brown.....
And not a 'headland' in sight.....

Cheers :p

Thanks Griffo. Bloggs it got canned because it cost $70 million a year to have a duplicated ATS system.

The ICAO semi circular rule meant VFR did not have to go full position reporting .

I am glad I had that success. I wonder when CASA will get it reversed now that they have reversed the multicom at non mapped airports! Won't be long.

Ullo,

You keep saying $70M per year.....

When going around the traps spruiking the then 'new world', 'Mike' (surname forgotten) from the 'implementation team', kept saying it was $80M per year for FS !

At the RAPAC meeting where he kept saying this, I challenged him and said that I really would like my share of that.....
$80M, (or &70M...doesn't matter that much...)
divided by the number of FSO's at the time = a very 'tidy sum' thankyou.

He couldn't justify the amount, but just kept on repeating it - obviously a major part of his 'speel'.....

I do not know, and was never able to ascertain, just how this 'figure' was derived, but can only imagine it was a figure that encompassed all CAA / AsA infrastructure, radio facilities, buildings, vehicles, etc etc a lot of which was joint ATC / FS infrastructure.

And the cost? A 'levy' of 2C per litre on avgas was the FS source of income at the time.

What is the current levy?
And for what?

No Cheers this time.....:=

Griffo,

And from memory. I think you'll find that the B050 rule applied to NOSAR, not SARTIME, flights for excursions less than 50nm.

Yes, the ageing memory can play tricks, but I am pretty certain on the above.

SARTIME was never restricted by altitude. It was common practice for PICs of 'charters' to plan with a SARTIME coming out of places like Kakadu, and transit was normally in the A060 to A090 range.

We were once told @ a RAPAC in the late 90's that FS actually cost $15m per year, and yes it was funded from the 2c levy on AVGAS.

There were (much) less than a couple of hundred staff Australia-wide by then, and yes the infrastructure was just a component shared with ATC. There wasn't much then that was FS-specific, given all the remote stations and GAAP briefing offices had been closed down.

Others later claimed FS cost $50m per year and now its $70m -

Hi Mr H,

Thanks for that.

Cheers:ok:

It always bemuses me that the 'zealots' can make, what in my opinion, are unsubstantiated allegations in respect of our 'unique' airspace system, but never stump-up when the facts are put as regards the 'inconvenient truths.'

My #251, #256, and #258, Leady and Dick, when it comes to 'pulling the wool!'

Go for it!

It always bemuses me that ostensibly intelligent people can devote so much energy to refuting arguments that weren't made. In the post to which you referred in your own posts, Howabout, LeadSled said:Please read that twice. :ok:

LB, and with all due respect, I was around the scene for a long, long time. Probably way longer than you when it came to the politics.

Constantly hammered on how our system is/was unique to push an ideological agenda. You see LB, if people are being loose and fast with the truth, I can't but reply.

I don't mind facts, LB, and my arguments stand or fall on fact.

Re-read Leady's posts and mine in rebuttal. Twice!

It was unique and stupid. When in radar coverage in uncontrolled airspace under the J curve you could not talk to a radar controller .

It helped destroy MDX.

That's why I and others pushed for change despite incredible resistance by people who post on this site.

Now if in Radar coverage you can call direct for flight following if VFR and you get a proper radar service if IFR.

Isn't it still for VFR, "When workload permits"...??

Or, have 'things' improved since then....?

Any ATC's wish to verify?

Cheers:(

Just doesn't answer the question as to how we are 'unique,' Dick. See previous posts in respect of the obfuscation going back years.

Like all your other arguments, you revert to the emotive when pinned.

MDX was dumbass stuff, IMHO. The PIC had choices and did not take the logical.

I thought it was all the RAAF's fault in respect of your previous arguments. Please, can we have some consistency rather than sprays?

And please answer my question as to how we are 'unique' in comparison to Canada and NZ in respect of offshore airspace?

You and the acolytes hammered this one for years in respect of NAS. 'Uniqueness' underpinned your arguments in pushing a flawed system and offshore airspace was consistently offered up as proof that we are 'unique.'

Well, Cobber, we ain't 'unique,' Once again, see previous posts. When you make an argument about 'uniqueness,' make sure you cross the t's and dot the i's!

That's why it was called "uncontrolled". And you could talk to a controller if you needed to. I remember transferring several aircraft over to ATC if they were unsure of their position, and radar could identify them. Usually once they were sorted out, they would be transferred back. Back then I guess, VFR pilots were expected to know what they were doing, and not need mothering along by a controller. Back then it was pretty much accepted that ATC was there to keep the jets apart, and other aircraft away from the jets.
So, if the situation had existed back then that MDX could have requested flight following, but didn't , would the controller have been able to prevent anything, or would it have been just another unknown radar paint doing its own thing? Don't forget that ATC didn't have much in the way of fancy electronics to help them in those days. They were still pushing shrimp boats around their screens.