Nice post Snakie :ok:

100% agree………coming from a single pilot IFR piston river. Albeit my environment is not as hostile and under resourced as you describe, but even in my fortunate position, your big white jet is not all that easy to find as you rightly describe. Until it is in your face so to speak.

:ok:

Get ADSB-IN and a decent display and VFR wouldn't have to worry. I'm sure thats how they'll do it in the USA.

thank you for your excellent and cogent post Snakecharma, I agree with you entirely.

Safety benefits of surveillance in airspace
 

Jabba,
Re your post #28. Been busy here in Singapore earning $$$ to service the Port Melbourne mortgage and missed your posts until this afternoon.

Great intell mate! Buy her a beer. The RFQ number might be incorrect so make it a lite beer or softie.

There certainly was a report commissioned by CASA to look into this. It was in mid 2010 but for some reason the report was not published.

The report was researched and drafted by an experienced international team of airspace managers, pilots, regulators and - shock, horror - ex FIS from Australia, UK, US and NZ. Critical sections and the full report were peer reviewed by an independent team from the UK, Australia and FAA. It runs to 102 pages with a comprehensive bibliography. It even includes that coverage chart of US airspace showing the redundant surveillance below 1000ft that one prominent aviation luminary calls a furphy.

Despite some of the team being - again, shock, horror - ex military senior officers, the recommendations were anything but, "no change". In fact one of the recommendations was "fundamental change".

The team devised a three dimensional risk model and applied it to the various surveillance technologies in all classes of airspace to come up with a relative numerical grading of the safety benefits of surveillance.

I led the team but the IP rests with CASA and the decision on publishing is theirs and theirs alone. After seeing some of the posts here, today I reminded the research and drafting team and peer review team where that IP lies.

Biased personal opinion but I think many serious posters here would benefit from reading the report in its entirety.

Do not bother sending a PM. Despite my desire as a past airspace regulator and leader of the drafting team to have the report available for all and sundry - and some of you are very sundry - I respect the contract conditions on the IP rights of CASA.

MJG
(decrepit old military type with some airspace and regulatory experience in Australia and elsewhere)

Jaba,
On airspace classes, have a look at India and Pakistan, that's give you pause for thought, given the traffic levels.

Mind you, Bloggsie would undoubtedly approve, none of that E stuff, just lots of G & F, with a bit of D & C for terminal control areas around major airports.

I would suggest you use NAA AIPs as references, rather than Wikipedia.

As Dick has said, time and again, and correctly, E is not dependent on radar, and despite the mysteriously unpublished CASA airspace management analysis, nobody of consequence, of whom I am aware, has seriously challenged the basic principle of separation assurance as the basis for ICAO airspace management.

If this mysterious report says anything new, what is the motivation for not publishing it. Maybe it doesn't support current ASA/CASA/Union policies. ASTRA knows nothing about it -- unless??

If it demolished Dicks/NAS/Airspace Act Airspace Policy Statement, I would have expected its proponents to shouting it from the rooftops.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster.

If that had been released, it would have made Australia a laughing stock --- or even more than it already is in aviation circles.

It's a pity more of you didn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the development of airspace management techniques over the years since WWII --- most of which have appeared first in the US, because, simply, of the needs of the traffic. Go back before "alphabet soup" airspace, and what is now E in US was previously still controlled airspace, but was called " --- VFR Exempt", this predated the widespread radar coverage in the lower 48, which, by the way, is now shrinking.

How the FAA ADS-B mandate plays out in the next 4 years will be interesting, as major airlines are effectively boycotting it --- on the basis that it is a major expense for no measurable benefit. Last time I looked, several months ago, it was around 9% for airline aircraft.

In contrast, in Australia, post WWII the position was very different, it all belonged to the RAAF, and civil aviation was "tolerated". When I started flying aircraft that would go high enough, the ceiling over Sydney was 20-25,000 ft, above that, all mil. R, inbound to Sydney we would always have to descent 60-80 miles early, at great cost in fuel, to stay below mil. R, and clearances for civil aircraft through mil. R was not ever requested "please don't ask, as refusal may offend". The huge AU military zones with sod all military traffic is the remnant of that era. The then maximum flight level anywhere in Australia was (from memory) FL390, FL400 and up was all Mil P.

The "we won WWII, it all belongs to us" is still much in evidence -- sub-consciously, if nothing else.

Re. use of ADS-B in US, FAA does not regard ADS-B IN, (the mandate is only for ADS-B out) as an anti-collision aid, ADS-B OUT is just a supplement to or a substitute for radar.

Again, as been said, time and again, neither the FAA or Eurocontrol mandates for ADS-B impact un-pressurised GA aircraft to the degree that it does in Australia --- and now we have AVM() Skidmore advocating mandatory ADS-B for everything flying. Although expressed differently, the FAA and EEC mandates are very similar end results, with EEC mandate actually being less restrictive than US.

Chronic Snoozer,
Been snoozing too much, FAA have no such plans, and so far, none of the manufacturers of TCAS II have taken up the option of incorporating ADS-B (or C) IN in the TCAS processing --- the standard has now been available for years ---- probably because there is negligible ( probably zero, but I don't know that for a fact) demand from the HCPT market or major airframe manufacturers --- and it doesn't produce an enhanced output, so why bother.

Fujii,
50's through early '60s, generally the period when Don Anderson was D-G of DCA. In those days, a very large % of recruits to ATC/FS were already pilots.

Snakecharma,
More likely, too much Valium is the problem, but it still hasn't been enough to temper you anti-US prejudices. How come you didn't recommend getting rid of their aircraft and engines, and avionics, they couldn't possibly be any good, coming from such a crap country.
You better stop using that yankee GPS rubbish.
Indeed, look at our pristine financial institutions in Australia, never a word about customers being screwed, never a word about inquiries into banks??
Our wonderful insurance companies, with hoards of happy smiling claimants --- never a dispute about a payout.
Obviously the present call for a bank Royal Commission is just a bunch of mislead dills.

Tootle pip!!

LS,
Not snoozing, just cruzin....I'm talking VFR mate, not RPT.

A quick LMGTFY search revealed this report on the FAA website.

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/...fitsReport.pdf

which I am inclined to believe is evidence of plans to use ADSB In in some fashion by the FAA which is all I alluded to.

Also found this

Garmin | ADS-B

which indicates that Garmin have an ADSB In/Out solution for 4K. Am I missing something?

Once ADSB In is truly affordable, why wouldn't you have it? Two guys out in the GAFA could safely operated at their unmarked strip, without radios (if thats your preference) and radio calls and still know each others whereabouts with higher accuracy than surveillance radar.

LMGTFY = 'Let me Google that for you'

Having been a long time sparring participant in this NASdebate, my main concern is that an enormous responsibility is put on the VFR pilot to be pretty much the final arbiter in separation as the enormous cluster **** in launny showed. I understand the apprehension of the RPT drivers who keeping in mind were once that very guy. Some are good I am sure but when a lowest common denominator is an 18 year old gen Y hotshot or worse, I certainly support some intervention to protect the person who pays for it all namely the passenger.

Sure the US does it under certain conditions but maybe, just maybe the way Australia is the world's best practice.

It's in my opinion unacceptable to allow a system to assume everyone does the right thing when they give out licenses to individuals from a packet of fruit loops.

GAME ON my dear Leadie!

I reckon there are bound to be folk on the board or in senior positions who know it/have it. I understand half the OAR don't know about it, but it exists none the less. I have no idea why it never saw the light of day. I see the team lead actually posts here, and has confirmed it, well I will be buggered!!

There is a link for the original RFQ if you go searching….or there was. It may have vanished by now. :ooh:

For some refresher reading perhaps, well worth a read are the Ambidji report appendices, in particular the stakeholder feedback and comparisons with US airspace and services which neatly align with the report providing advice to the government on ministerial direction and in particular on regional class C services.
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...rs-and-reports

Good luck hunting waskerly rabbits in the Capital Territory :}
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20110827193619

The low cost Garmin "in" unit won't work in Aus. We don't have that frequency available nor the ground stations

Leadsled, despite what you may think, I don't have a raging anti US bias, or pro anything else bias, BUT I am getting a bit sick of the constant referencing to the US model as the be all and end all. Or at least I am perceiving that some proponents are saying that the US system is awesome and what we have here is crap.

The US has some terrific stuff, but as I pointed out in my post, it has some less than terrific stuff as well, and I get the sense that we in this country have an inbuilt inferiority complex that says anything we do here MUST be less worthy, less capable, less efficient, less whatever than something designed overseas.

It seems to me that we have developed a lot of innovative ideas in this country only to see them shift offshore and become successful.

Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make, clearly unsuccessfully, is that our system here may well be different to that that exists in the US, but is it wrong, or worse, or more dangerous? If we remove the alerted part of see and avoid we are dumping a lot of additional pressure/workload on those that are the least equipped to manage it (as a generalisation - i am not trying to denigrate GA pilots).

Whilst we are broadly similar to the US in many ways, we are also very different. Culturally, politically, socially we are different and things that seem to be acceptable there (gun control - or lack thereof, public health care - or lack thereof, religious zealotry, the US style of management - which quite frankly sucks the big weinie) aren't necessarily ok here. Having worked for some airline managers directly imported from the good old US of A I have to say that they are not the best thing since sliced bread - quite the opposite, and if you look at airline salaries, terms and conditions, the ability to furlough people, the ability to hide behind chapter 11 protection etc, the US airline industry is a much less pleasant and dare I say ethical place than that which exists here.

So back to my original statement, just because I disagree with Dick (and clearly you) it doesn't necessarily make me wrong and because people are advocating a shift to the US system, it doesn't necessarily make them right!

But in true democratic form I respect your right and ability to tell me I am wrong :)

As I understand it the GTX345 is 1090ES transponder. Coupled with a display and presto! Receives both 978UAT and 1090ES frequencies. OK...what am I missing now?

Chronic Snoozer,
You are missing the required C-145/146 GPS feed.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Despite the very slow takeup of ADS-B by US airlines , the shortcomings of a 1090ES based system are becoming very evident re. channel saturation. This was forecast in the mid-90's, but the lobby for the "el-cheapo" 1090ES system, as opposed to a broadband datalink envisaged by ICAO, buried the forecasts.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

PS2:
Snakecharma,
What I want to see is a properly ICAO risk managed and efficient airspace management. where resources are not squandered on perceived risks, but on real and quantified risks. As the current ICAO system was based on the US arrangements, the US NAS represents the most mature iteration of said ICAO recommended system. My experience of the US NAS, over some (now) 50 years, in aircraft from very small to very large, informs my view of how well it works.

As for culture, if that is really a problem, how do so many Australian pilots (approximately 100% -1) , flying in US airspace, instantly adapt to the "foreign culture".

This "cultural difference" argument was run for years by AFAP, along the lines that "Australian pilots" ( and LAMEs) are used to a narrow and highly prescriptive regulatory command and control system, and would be unable to cope with a system where they were required ( for example) to vary radio calls, depending on the circumstances, that is MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS AND DECISIONS, as opposed to chanting the prescribed mantra, as laid down in the AU AIP.

To this day, CASA make the same claim, as to why we have to have such prescriptive and detailed micro-management regulation, all backed up by a draconian criminal penalty system, because quote:Neither CASA nor the Australian aviation industry is sufficiently mature to be able to handle outcome (performance) based plain language regulation.

This despite the fact that Australian industry, on the whole, exists in a performance based regulatory environment --- AU aviation is the odd one out in Australia.

NAS 2b was NOT wound back because of "safety" problems, it was entirely industrial. Indeed, the circumstances were not entirely unrelated to the failure of Ansett some time later --- same personalities.

Yep. I thought that was obvious. I'm guessing most VFR guys have that equipment or at least plan to install it.

LS you did once say that

As I've said before... twoddle. Where's that Jepp 1-page summary of the 100-odd pages of Fastair ops radio calls (aka ICAO RT Doc 9432) you were pontificating about last week, Leddie?

Taps on one's head: "Bloggs, make sure you don't use judgement calls and decisions when going flying tomorrow. Only activity permitted is chanting!".

Leadie, I disagree entirely with the premise that the winding back of NAS was entirely industrial. I genuinely believe it was safety driven.

I, and clearly a large number of fellow pilots were really concerned that we were going to get ourselves into a position where our lives, and the lives of those that we were transporting, were going to be placed in danger.

The personalities involved at the big end of town were indeed big personalities prone to theatrics however that didn't apply to the chief pilot of impulse, who I had and continue to have an enormous amount of respect for. I really can't see him caving on some flimsy industrial argument. Without putting words into his mouth or indeed knowing what he was thinking, but using what I know of the man, I just can't see NAS being the fight he would have in order to satisfy some form of industrial agenda.

At the end of the day what is ICAO? How can a one size fits all approach to anything the world over possibly mean anything other than a compromise for most if not all of the parties? Not just aviation, but anything? Do we have standard electrical safety standards the world over? Do we have common traffic laws the worldwide over? Do we have common medical standards world over? These are areas where the risk to lives is real and as we know from the statistics medical and road safety standards or lack thereof kill 1000's of times more people than aviation.

Let's fight the fights that matter, the fights that genuinely improve safety and reduce the number of lives lost and families decimated by their loss. The number of mid air collisions between aeroplanes, particularly lighties and airliners is larger in the US than it is here, and whilst a reasonable argument can be made that says the rates of traffic are greater in the US and as a result the real risk of a mid air here, given our traffic levels, is correspondingly low and therefore considered negligible and can be disregarded, the fact remains that we, the people who will be directly impacted - literally and figuratively - by a midair, have concerns. Why should our concerns be disregarded as industrial crap simply to satisfy the need some people have to align with a theoretical model that cannot possibly be all things to all people.

We of course have been guilty of industrial sabotage of safety improvements or changes - CVR's/FDR's, weather radar, two man crews (yes, yes I know but you get my point), so it is not unreasonable to suspect it as an underlying motivation, BUT in this instance it is my genuine belief that the fear of being splattered across the landscape (however remote and unlikely that may be) is the true motivation of most pilots at the coal face.

Safety benefits of surveillance in airspace
 

LS,

Bit distracted here in Singapore on fee paying work (oh, and watching the Rebels get a rugby lesson from the Canes - pity I picked the wrong team in the tipping comp).

I can assure you that the report we submitted to OAR in 2010 was not the one to which you referred in your post #45:
"Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster."

I can also assure you that as recently as October 2015 someone in OAR went looking for and found the report.

I can also tell you that when I advised the peer review team of the CASA decision not to publish, one of the reviewers, who was a very senior ATM person in an international industry representative organisation, offered to pay for the research to be redone so that organisation could publish. On legal advice, I declined the offer.

Next rugby game on TV here is 0100 and I have tickets for the Sevens tomorrow so I might retire to my monastic couch.

MJG
Idiot who has worked on airspace issues in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Iraq.

I have been told that the Garmin transponder only has ADSB "in"using uat 900 MHz band

This means no ADSB "in" in Australia with this unit.. Can anyone confirm this?

Aeromil have come back and advised that if the Garmin is fitted the two Collins transponders have be turned off or disabled.

This results in a permanent amber warning showing. It appears CASA have allowed one Sovereign to fly this way but claim they will not allow any other installations to go this way

This is what happens when people decide to lead the world with ADSB mandates

Leadsled,

How is the hunting going? Surely you would have something by now?
Did you get stone walled in CBR perhaps?

Wabbits…yeah to keep the rabbits out son.

From the Garmin website it appears that the GTX345 is "dual link" meaning it will pick up traffic on 1090.
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-t...rod140949.html

Jaba,

LS might not be looking but it seems others are. I've had several PMs asking for a copy.

Folks who have PM'd: A reminder about my stance on the IP. Under the contract IP restrictions I am unable to distribute copies. I appreciate the assurances some of you have given on confidentiality; however, as those who know me have come to realise over the years, although I'm quite a personal risk taker - hell, I spent 12 months in Kabul and 6 weeks in Iraq on ICAO work, I've been to Mogadishu a couple of times and the staff in BATS know me by name - my professional standards (and legal advice) dictate no spare copies of that report will get into the wild direct from my laptop.

Names have been changed to protect the guilty who have asked for copies:
X - I'd be on shaky ground even with your suggestion of paraphrasing;
Y - I can confirm that paragraph you quoted was in the final draft provided to OAR, so it seems you have a copy;
Z - You obviously do not know me as the name you addressed me by is not mine. Perhaps my PPRuNe handle is effectively hiding my true identity;
AA - I'm in Singapore/KL for the rest of the year but if they summon me and pay the travel and accom costs I'd be happy to attend and give them the benefit of my experience.

MJG

how about an foi application Dick?

Snakecharma,

You are quite entitled to your beliefs and fond memories, the difference is, I know exactly what happened, blow by blow, I would love to be able to spell it out, but I can't afford the possible legal costs of a defo. action. Sadly, truth is not an absolute defense, despite reforms of recent years.

Somewhere in my files, I/AOPA have the wash-up of all the monitoring that was done over the 12 months "trial" that informed the decision that the NAS 2b system would continue as permanent, and the NAS would move to the next phase. In the first few months, results and "incident" reports were investigated almost in "real time", there was 100% "sampling" for the whole 12 months, the industry/AsA/CASA team were most thorough.

The decision was made, and then virtually unilaterally reversed at the last moment ---- and it had nought to do with "safety".

Tootle pip!!

Leadsled, clearly I wasn't in as exalted position as yourself during that time, but I can tell you from a coal face participant that our concern was entirely about safety and our ongoing ability to stay alive and NOT industrial.

Who manipulated what to achieve what end was not visible to the mere mortals but it achieved what we had hoped it would achieve, which was to put a stop to a change that we felt was reckless and stupid in the extreme.

I have popped out of cloud in a dash 8 to have the windscreen literally filled with an unannounced Pitts special flown by a now deceased "legend" of aviation who was doing a bit of VFR don't ask and don't tell aviating and it frightened the crap out of me with the rapidity with which it occurred and the impact (both literally and figuratively) that it would have had if we were no more than 5-10 seconds earlier or maybe 2-3 knots faster, because you would have had 36 pax plus 3 crew plus the legend in a Pitts spread across the landscape.

Not saying that NAS did or didn't have anything to do with that but it occurred at the same time and demonstrated to me how quickly things can evolve, particularly in weather that isn't 8/8 blue.

All done and dusted these days of course and we are just arguing like Statler and Waldorf from the muppets, but please don't dismiss any contrary view as simply being a reflection of a presupposed industrial agenda and not founded in a good faith belief that the proposed system was fundamentally flawed, regardless of its pedigree.

Snake. How about a few more details. What altitude did this incident take place and at what location.?

Are you suggesting that with the pre 1990 system such incidents did not place?

A few more details please. Also what year was this?

"Are you suggesting that with the pre 1990 system such incidents did not place?"

Of course they did Dick.
I recall a Bathurst race day, the regulator used to install a temporary Tower at Bathurst with its own frequency. One of those crappy weather days. One operator elected to go to orange and Bus to Bathurst rather than face the delays. Shot the approach at orange completely unaware that another aircraft had diverted from Bathurst and was doing the same approach at the same time, except he was still on Bathurst tower frequency. In those days we had flight service, they were unaware of the aircraft from Bathurst as well.

I would say that in the "pre 1990 system" the Pitts would probably have advised FS that FYI he was conducting AWK/aerobatics NOSAR - or possibly asked for skeds - but either way the Dash 8 would then be informed re the presence of the Pitts.

VFR weren't entitled to a TFC info service outside an AFIZ, but the Pitts would probably been given by FS a "For info, ABC a Dash 8 inbound ..".

These days because VFR particularly NOSAR have been scared off - indeed actively discouraged by certain parties - from talking to ATC or broadcasting on area frequencies, the self-announcement may not happen.

Hi Dick,

Actually I don't think that this particular incident was NAS related other than I would expect to see more of those types of things happening in a NAS unalerted see and avoid environment.

Can't remember the dates but it would have been somewhere between 92-94.

Altitude would have been 5-6000 and we were probably 15 or so miles from a reasonable sized regional airport. As I say it is a few years ago now and the only vivid thing is a very big yellow Pitts flashing right to left right before our very eyes (which because a Pitts ISNT a very big aeroplane meant he was very close). We had made all the appropriate calls on the appropriate frequencies and nada heard from our now dead intrepid aviator.

At the end of the day Dick, Leadsled and whomever else cares, my view is that any heads up on things that can hurt you is a good thing. Alerted see and avoid is better than unalerted see and avoid.

I fly for a living and don't have any issues with VFR traffic getting in the way of my radio calls, I am often a hundred miles (maybe more) east of Perth and hear traffic broken hill, Dubbo, etc etc etc, whether I get in the way of theirs because I can't hear them and inadvertently over transmit them I don't know, but I have VHF 2 tuned to 121.5 as well so would hope to hear something on that frequency if someone close enough was in strife.

All I would ask is that in your grail like quest for airspace change you don't dismiss the legitimate views of aviation professionals (note that word), some of whom have many many years of management experience at high levels in big aviation enterprises, as mere industrial manipulation and not real safety concerns.

And Leadsled, thanks for suggesting that I need more Valium, but how about playing the issue not the man.

Snakecharma,
The core issue of my last several posts is straight forward fact.

The review and evaluation of the NAS 2b "trial" was extensive and thorough, both because it should have been, and because it was so controversial, with most (but not all) of the controversy generated by the AFAP.

AIPA was notably and sensibly very restrained on the matter, with no concerns about E, and Qantas management, the DFO of the day, was supportive.

On the east coast, in early days of the trial, there were independent observers on selected flight decks.

Every "incident" filed was considered, one of the first considerations was: Is this something caused by the new procedures, or would it have happened anyway, under the old system.

For example, on the first morning, a light aircraft downwind at Port Macquarie, making "normal" radio calls was rejected as an "air miss" because it had nothing to do with the NAS 2b, and had a perfect right to be there. Likewise, an "air miss" that was opposite direction traffic at the correct level VFR was nothing to do with NAS 2b.

In the first few weeks, most of the "incidents" attributed to NAS 2b would have been funny, if it hadn't been a serious example of the unbalanced attitude of many of the reporters.

During this time, the AFAP pushed very hard the concept that "a perception of a safety problem" should be addresses as if it was a "real" safety problem, that even if many of the reported "incidents" were not "real", they should be treated as "real". Apparently, the idea of a crew worrying about a non-existent problem was just as much a threat to air safety as a real threat.

Can you really mitigate a perception?? Would an episode of MythBusters done the trick.

In other words, NAS should be canned, on the basis of a perception of a problem, even when it was comprehensively demonstrated to not be a problem. The idea of evidence based evaluation was rejected, out of hand, by self-confessed professionals. Both the NAS implementation team and review team were highly experienced and qualified.

At times, some of the meetings I attended descended to low farce.

It was not just me, QF staff pilots and AIPA pilots, as well as others present, involved in the continuous evaluation of the trial, would shake their heads in wonder at the intellectual level of the objections of some of those opposed, regardless of the facts staring them in the face.

To quote one prominent AFAP identity of the day: "I don't care how safe the FAA system is, compared to Australia, or how safe NAS 2b is, we are not going to have Dickspace in Australia".

I have already explained that I would love to be able to say what really happened, in the end, but have explained why I cannot. Just that it was "industrial" and not safety, and only involved Ansett, not Qantas or any of its subsidiaries (despite a couple of individuals in QLink absolutely opposed), or the other smaller airlines of the day, such as Flight West.

The final report of the NAS 2b trial contained NOTHING that suggested that the NAS should be "wound back".

Tootle pip!!

PS: In some ways a bit like the matter of owner drivers and road safety. Despite the lack of any statistical causal relation between owner drivers and truck accident rates in Australia, the TWU position is that owner driver are the problem, not TWU member drivers. A self- serving "perception", if there ever was one.

Snakecharmer. Under NAS 2 b there was a clear recommendation to monitor the CTAF if flying in the approach and departure airspace of an airport. In that case the Pitts would have heard your CTAF calls.

Recently I was at 9500' about 25 miles from Mildura. I monitored the Mildura CTAF and heard a departing aircraft. I was also monitoring he area frequency but for some reason did not hear a call on that frequency.

Was the departing aircraft VFR or IFR?

I am flying from a class G aerodrome, very busy and going to VFR it with others to a unmarked station strip…….what do I do?

I will come back IFR…..what will I do?

Change fatigue……… :-/

SURVEILLANCE REPORT
 

Michael,
Got a copy of that report from a mutual contact. Guess I cannot redistribute but it should be let loose.

I can see why someone on the RRAT committee wants to talk to you on the record. Good luck if that occurs. Is it a senator? Z?

That risk model has application wider than airspace. How did you get to that model? Why not expunge that and let it be used - surely that would not offed your standards.

Dick will like a lot of what you said but will nor like some of the the other parts. Has he asked for a copy?

PM sent.

GNE

Easy Jabba: Mike Sierra Uniform is the SOP these days. :ok:

Lead. It was an IFR airline aircraft that was departing

GNE. If it copies from other leading aviation countries the most efficient and lowest cost ways of operating airspace I will be a strong supporter.

I am a bit suspicious that it has been kept secret. Why?

FAA budget. 15.3 billion. Airservices budget 920 million.

FAA's budget covers a huuuuge number of FSDOs & ATC facilities required by the ginormously larger amount of aviation here in the US - that Oz doesn't have or need. The FAA's budget is approximately 16x bigger than AirNoServices, covering a population about 14 x bigger, over an area about 30% bigger, but includes equivalent functions to CASA as well.

From memory part of the justification to roll back NAS 2B – specifically E over D - was an Air Services (AsA) Airspace modelling report based upon Albury and the D/E airspace design under the 2B changes. The report used the AsA software program, which calculated the various collision pairs, level of safety etc. This was based on various inputs including aircraft numbers, flight category, mistakes rates of pilots, controllers etc. I’m sure someone reading this knows more about the actual system than I, please feel free to expand on this description. The report demonstrated that the risk level in E over D was marginally higher that the accepted ALARP level.

The problem was AsA intentionally manipulated the inputs to achieve the required outcome, specifically the VFR pilot mistake levels were artificially inflated to make them appear to pose a greater risk than they actually were. Several industry groups wrote to AsA formally complaining about this assumed incompetence of VFR pilots. And the controller/IFR pilot mistake levels were artificially lowered so that IFR/IFR conflicts would never enter the equation, and that controllers were able to administer the large area of airspace at Albury. I'm an IFR pilot with 20+years of experience,. The rate of mistakes AsA allowed for IFR pilots almost made me fall off my chair when I saw how incredibly brilliant AsA considered me to be!!

Problem was the VFR rate couldn’t be inflated too high because then the risk in the Class D airspace would also become intolerable.. So it had to relate only to VFR aircraft overflying Albury and remaining in Class E. But the problem was there wasn’t enough VFR only flights overflying Albury and remaining in Class E. The number of aircraft initially used was based on factual data, historical figures ie facts.

No problem here, AsA decided off their own back that VFR overflight of a Class D was a new procedure that must be taught, therefore the numbers of aircraft in that airspace must surely increase. Note that this training requirement was never identified by the NAS team, or CASA, it was never published in any syllabus of training for any licence. AsA decided to increase the numbers off their own back, until – guess what – the ALARP level was exceeded. Oh dear, we will have to reverse the airspace.

Oh by the way, during all of this 2B rollback, did you know that AsA was awarded a contract by the FAA to run several class D towers in the USA? Utilising the same airspace model they claimed was unsafe in Australia? And no, class D towers in the US don’t have radar, their tower controllers aren’t required to be radar rated, they administer the airspace within about 5NM of the aerodrome. And yes, they are a damn sight busier than Australian Class D, with 121/135 and 91 operations.
So in all reality the rollback was never based on safety, it was purely industrial.

The US contract was for remote Pacific Island towers, not the mainland. Three in Hawaii, one in Guam and one in Saipan. Not busy airports as claimed. In March this year, Guam was averaging 196 movements per day (FAA figures). US airspace and US contracted controllers. It was a bit like privatising Coffs Harbour and keeping the staff.

Nice try, Vref+5...

Bloggs, to the contrary. Hawaii is hardly a remote island. Lots of VFR scenic flights around there. But my point is that why would AsA claim the airspace model is unsafe, and then go and operate towers in that very model? Surely their risk assessment would have highlighted that additional services would have been required, like C over D? Which is what we have here.

During the rollback I also recall AsA claiming that they could provide the C airspace that would replace the E airsapce at no extra cost. I wonder if they made that offer to the FAA?