Who at Airservices was responsible for undermining the Government NAS decision?
 

I have started a new thread on this issue as it is important.

Some will remember the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) that was set up by John Anderson. One if its high priorities was the development and implementation of airspace reform.

The Aviation Reform Group consisted of Chairman Ken Matthews (Secretary of the Department), John Forsyth (Chairman of Airservices), Ted Anson (Chairman of CASA), Air Marshal Angus Houston, and Dick Smith. The Executive Director was Mike Smith, and the Deputy Executive Director was Group Captain Warrick Paddon of the Royal Australian Air Force.

The National Airspace System (NAS) document was prepared by the various project officers and approved by the Aviation Reform Group. On page 8, it stated very clearly:

The new airspace system became effective on 27 November 2003, and all charts were printed before this time by Airservices, without showing the frequency boundaries – as per the policy, and internationally proven procedures. About three months later, Airservices printed a special chart with the frequency boundaries, and posted it free of charge to each pilot in Australia. The cost must have been staggering.

Of course, it goes without saying it completely undermined the decision of the ARG and the NAS Implementation Group. Amazingly, no education material at all was sent with the chart – but it was a clear message that there was a major change in the policy.

I spoke to the Director of Aviation Safety at CASA at the time, Bruce Byron, and he was absolutely horrified. He said:

As there were no safety incidents reported at the time that were linked to the removal of frequency boundaries, can someone advise who made the decision to print the charts? I have always thought it would have been driven by people in the “iron ring” with concrete minds in CASA, putting pressure on Airservices secretly. Who would have authorised the expenditure to do this?

It certainly stuffed up the whole implementation of NAS, and the education program which was part of the implementation. It is the prime reason why CASA, a number of years ago, demanded that pilots operating at aerodromes not marked on charts use the area ATC frequency when taxiing or in the circuit area. It is also the prime reason they are now proposing gigantic 40 mile across, 5000’ high CTAFs – unlike anything else in the world.

Surely now, some 14 years later, someone must be able to spill the beans on who authorised the expenditure and sending out the charts without any educational material, so the whole of the NAS program was undermined. Surely it must come out one day. I would love to know the true story so I can put it in my memoirs.

Why would education have been required? It's not like pilots had suddenly forgotten what to do with the charts they'd been using only three months earlier.

Nobody cares but you.

Le ping. I can see why you are not game to stand behind your posts with your honest real name.

Possibly the RAPAC members care about the staggering amount of time they have had to waste over the CASA class G issue. Meeting after meeting Letter after letter. Expensive travel costs .
Then what about the millions of industry and taxpayer money CASA has spent on the issue

All caused because CASA said that non marked aerodrome communication must be on the ATC frequency. Only possible because of the reversal.

What education could have been required? Pull the other one. The wind back issue created by this map has not been resolved even today. RAPACs don’t agree with 40 mile ctafs,

Ping. Were you behind this incredibly expensive stuff up?

Dick,
Better still, ask who was responsible for the disgraceful changes to the original Airspace Act. If that hadn't been gutted, and all reference to risk management, defined risks, cost/benefit analysis, and the US NSA being the model for Australia to follow had not been removed, indeed all reference to objective standards (under Albo??) this nonsense (and much else) in matters airspace would not have been possible.
Indeed, if I remember correctly, a version of "promote and foster Australian aviation" was even in there somewhere.
Tootle pip!!

Dick, the chart was just a chart. It didn't enable anything and didn't require education material to use. "Appropriate ATC frequency" can be defined however you want, be it as shown by FIA boundaries on a chart or by using "biscuits" to locate the closet VHF outlet on a chart.

As I've said every time you've trotted out the "honest real name", I'm just a controller with no particular influence on aviation matters. Knowing my name would offer you no extra insight.

Yes, it was me. :E

Dick, once again you are resorting to personal attacks. Are you familiar with the phrase “ad hominem?”

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person") short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You have already had one go at me today now it’s le Pingouin.

Play the ball, not the man.

Don Gorrie.

In Le Ping's defence... Government employees generally aren't allowed to comment on or criticize government departments, particularly the one that you work for. You could lose your job because some losers out there who read and contribute to this forum have nothing better to do than complain to the government about you.

I really hate the fact that record players are back in vogue... The only saving grace is they still haven't developed the technology to play broken ones...

Presumably this flurry of activity from Dick and his sidekick LeadSled is to ruffle a few feathers and gain the attention of a certain Baaaarnaby. Caaaaarpe Diem and all that!

Maybe we should stop feeding the trolls.

Clap Clap Clap! :D

You do realise that even without the frequency boundaries on the chart that CASA still could have made the "broadcast on area" rule, don't you?

I'd like to know who buggered up the working system we had up until the 90's
??

Yep, maybe Airservices has saved a few bucks by sacking staff, however, perhaps they've also managed to spend that money elsewhere over the years.

Besides the money issue, is aviation in Australia safer since Dick took a torch to it?

I used to work within the bureaucracy and I used to fly a lot. Even with my "inside" knowledge, I find it difficult now to keep up with the rule and airspace changes. It's a lot easier to just stay on the ground.

The old "50s system", as Dick likes to call it, was indeed simple, intuitive and obviously safe. Can we say the same about today's environment?

Why don't you simply do a FOI request?

I would neve get a straight answer and they would charge a fortune .

Much rather give the money to an important concern that helps those less off!

Why the f#ck keep changing the bloody airspace and the damn rules? I have seen countless attempts since 1986 and it was all working ok back then. Why keep changing it? Pilots now have to be bloody lawyers to work this ****e out now. All I want to do is fly aeroplanes!

Yes. It used to be easy.

Controlled Airspace (CTA) and Outside Controlled Airspace (OCTA).
Control zones, GAAP zones and uncontrolled airports.
FULLSAR if you want it, and at larger aerodromes a nice Air Traffic Officer to check your plan, give you the right NOTAMs and see you on your way.

Then some people wanted to fly in CTA without clearance if they were VFR, and not worry about planning if they were OCTA.

So we got:

Class A, and Class G
and Class C and Class D and CTAFs and MTAFs - a bunch of letters that weren't intuitive and no one to help and AVFAX for NOTAMs so that no one knew what they were doing or who they were supposed to talk to, or how much to plan or where - unless they were in the industry (and even then, only in the bit of sky they were flying in).

... and it all got so political and difficult that private pilots left the industry in droves and bought a boat instead. :(

In 1986 all aircraft flying Octa in full radar coverage in the J curve were prohibited by the regulations from talking directly to the person with the radar screen. It was the prime reason the pilot of MDX was not told that he was heading for over 20 minutes at right angles to the correct path . 6 dead!

That was my main driver for the changes.

Now all IFR pilots in all radar covered airspace communicate directly to the person with the radar screen and VFR pilots can request a radar service .

I am proud of these changes and the $1.6 billion saved by the industry since then.

We now need to finish the transition to a modern airspace system.

I understand neither your objection to pilots having a chart so that they are able to see what frequency they should be on, nor making calls on Area at unmarked aerodromes, by the way.

I see the sense in both of those.

If you remove the area frequency boundaries from the charts the frequencies would be displayed in the vicinity of the outlet.
The boundaries do not show coverage which in many locations it is not on the frequency for the area you are in, especially at low level. There is presently no coverage charts for 3000ft for example - only 5 and 10k.

Making calls on the Area Frequency is fine, but the aim is to have all low level traffic on the same frequency. With the existing boundaries there is a choice in some areas of three frequencies to use. Introducing the MULTICOM puts all the low level traffic on the same frequency. If you are low level then there is the chance that you are always "in the vicinity" of somebodies airfield. Having a common freq for low level is simple and makes sense.

And the majority of the responses to the DP supported the MULTICOM proposal.:ok:

Yes - but if you're bowling along above the MILTICOM level - IFR traffic get directed frequency transfers from ATC?

And VFR just hope that they are listening on the appropriate, or just don't bother listening to anything? And that hemispherical separation and a big sky will keep them safe?

And if you want to enter controlled airspace, or upgrade to IFR with plan details - you just call the nearest transmitter and spend some time being shuffled to the correct frequency rather than being able to determine it yourself?

It’s the unique frequency boundaries on charts that has led us to the giant 40 mile 5000’ CTAFs

Under the government approved NAS it particularly stated that a major change was removing the frequency boundaries. That was so pilots could concentrate on monitoring the aerodrome frequency if flying in the arrival and departure area of that aerodrome . And it worked! The frequency boundaries were put back on by those who’s minds are clearly set in concrete

Triadic. Most of Australia is flat and as vhf is line of site the nearest ground outlet will give you the maximum range. That’s why any good aviation GPS has a nearest ATC / FS function.

Check board Now with ADSB most IFR pilots do not give full position reports on atc frequencies. How then does a VFR pilot know when to respond?

Or they are professional pilots flying above 5000' rather than private pilots on a local jolly below 5000' and as such see, and are concerned about, a different risk.

People like me - who don't apreciate being called concrete-headed when they have a decent amount of experience and legitimate concerns based on that experience. You win no arguments by insulting those you are trying to convince, Dick. It's in that book about winning friends and infuencing people.

And as you well know, that's exactly what the RAPACs complained about, requesting the FIA boundaries be reintroduced.andCorrect x 2

I fail to see the problem with the introduction of MULTICOM applying below 5000 coexisting with published FIA boundaries.

• If operating below 5000, use MULTICOM or CTAF as applicable (and if dual VHF consider also monitoring the FIA);
• if operating at or above 5000, use FIA.

The 5000’ is rediculous. Just a hangover from the 1960s Full position flight service union demarcation days.

It’s clearly not based on any objective safety case. No other country uses 5000’ as a demarcation line- just trying to go back to what was set in concrete with a small number of older pilots!

Why does a VFR aircraft flying en route at a VFR 500’ level above 5000’ need to monitor ATC? Like driving your car on a weekend with your family and being forced to monitor the truck channel on your CB.

Now that would be relaxing. No wonder GA flight hours are down and Aussie’s being sacked

Umm - for useful things e.g. to get a SIS, hear Hazard Alerts and other broadcasts relating to operational information and activation of Restricted Areas, hear position reports from IFR climbing/descending who may conflict, hear themselves being given by ATC as possible traffic to IFR, high likelihood of getting an immediate response from an ATC responsible for the area in the event of an emergency etc.

Captain. No other country has such a system. Why do you believe we need to be different?

On a flight from Bankstown to The Kimberly and back in my caravan I monitored over 1000 calls while VFR en route in G and not one was of any significance to my flight. Would you consider that a bit of a “cry wolf “ problem ?

Remember before I was responsible for the AMATS changes in 1991 it was a directed traffic service as IFR and VFR flew at the same levels when above 5000’. What was the use of changing to the ICAO semi circular rule if the old system was to remain?

Everyone. Have you noticed I want to make the system simpler and lowest cost while many who post anonymously on this site want the opposite!

I wonder if most are on the gravy plane?

Prescriptive huge 5000’ 40 nm CTAFs are complete madness. That’s why casa didn’t dare discuss them in the proposal.

Are these people well meaning? Or do they have a programme to destroy our once viable GA industry?

I'll answer this one: don't know, don't care. Captain Midnight's explanation makes pretty good sense to me; unique to Oz or not.

Yeah, about that...

I remember the last time you made this claim, and I did some arithmetic.

My little bugsmasher can get to the Kimberley and back in about 20 hours. Your Caravan is a bit quicker, but let's give you a bit of slack and use the same number.

That means you heard an irrelevant call, on average, every minute and 12 seconds, nonstop from when you left to when you got back. That doesn't include the ones that were relevant, as you must presumably at some stage have conversed with someone using the same airport.

And I just don't believe it.

Even if true, you must have been a bundle of fun on that holiday: teeth clenched and temples gently throbbing as you logged every call in order to substantiate your later claims.

When someone tells whoppers in order to bolster their position, it's a pretty frank admission that said position is untenable. Even if the true number were a fraction of your claim, the fact is that aircraft radio is a party line. We all learn to filter out those calls not important to us, and accept that they matter to someone else.

Perhaps, to separate IFR and VFR, while allowing for the possibility that they might coincide when one of them was climbing or descending. Or that a controller, out of the goodness of his heart, might inform 2 VFR aircraft that they were getting uncomfortably close. Yes, I have personally encountered both situations, and not always above 5000'. Being on an ATC frequency might have saved my bacon, or it might not, but it sure didn't hurt.

Really Dick? Not one of those transmissions was relevant to you? I call bull****!

Secondly, you have not presented a problem, only a solution....which is why no one understands the reasoning behind your proposal.

So in simple to understand terms and without relating to anything historical and with out mentioning the words 'half wound back' explain what you understand to be the problem. Keep it simple. Dont present a solution, just state the problem

Bet you can't.

"Le ping. I can see why you are not game to stand behind your posts with your honest real name."

Probably for the same reason as Caroline Thulip - remember her, you know, the one you were going to sue because she made comments you didn't agree with?

Also, I remember on another website you specifically stating that you understood why pilots wished to remain anonymous with their posts - so which is it?

VH-MLE

Agra. Completely factual. From Tennant Ck to Birdsville I had to listen to traffic at Horn Island north of Cape York. Near Griffith I was listening to traffic in Tasmania .

When flying in WA I spent a lot of time looking at the chart to attempt to work out where sme locations were. Hopeless system

Did I once hear up to thirty old low level sectors can now be operated on retransmit?

Yes. I mark down the calls to see if the present system works better than when I fly VFR en route in Canada , USA or the UK. It clearly doesn’t and it is one of the reasons that some GA pilots have stopped flying. They have told me it is just too complicated !

VH. What rubbish. I have never ever threatened to sue someone for making comments I don’t agree with. I like such comments .

But fabricate lies and post them anonymously while you are a CASA employee and I will expose who you are. What could be fairer!

Alpha. The situation is simple. CASA put out a direction that forced pilots at non marked airports to communicate on the ATC frequency.

Every RAPAC violently disagreed.

Why did CASA issue the direction? So the could attempt to get the 51% wound back system to work. But it will never work. Copy the simple safe US system for VFR procedures and it will be fantastic

Agra. The US NAS does not stop you from being on an ATC frequency. You can call up and get flight following or other safety related info. Our NAS was to be the same. The ATC frequency outlets were shown on the chart. At their ground locations. The system worked incredibly well until AsA sent out a chart to undermine the internationally proven simple procedures.

Remember under ICAO there is no radio required for VFR in class G and E. That’s not accidental- if you need VFR traffic info it’s called class D

But by removing the atc boundaries, wont CASA then require you to broadcast on the nearest 'biscuit' freq. So what changes?

Do you know what casa thinks is the problem that getting unmarked airfield ops to broadcast on area is solving? (Genuine question)

Removing atc boundaries sounds like a solution to a problem implemented by another solutiom with no defined problem. Im not sure removing atc boundaries wont cause some other problems.

Honestly not taking a pot shot here, but you seem to fail to realise that the current system is ungrained in us all. Its how we have all been taught. I dont think there is a natural resistance to change, i just think we are all so change fatigued we now look for explanations before accepting change.

Is this really a problem that needs a solution?

Biscuits or boundaries, im not sure i see whole lot of difference. So why the need for change?

On your flight to the Kimberley, you would have been listening to the nearest biscuit, and people would have been broadcasting on the nearest bbiscuit. You still would have heard 11000 irrelevant broadcasts

Alpha. Re the genuine question. The CASA groupthink was that aircraft flying en route and monitoring the ATC frequency could run into an aircraft in the circuit of an aerodrome not marked on the chart .

That was the sole reason they wanted pilots at these airports to give a calls on the ATC frequency.

It’s an attempt to turn ICAO class G into something else!

I'm not suggesting that radio is, or should be, a requirement in G. But if you have it, it's bordering on insanity not to be on a frequency where it can do you some good. That would presumably be the same one everyone else is on; IFR included.

And I still don't believe the numbers of calls you are asserting, because I've been there too. It's simply not that busy.

If the call is referring to some place nowhere near you, then mentally dismiss it. Or take a bit of casual interest in someone else's adventures, which I find to be more enjoyable than foaming at the mouth because they interrupted my reverie.

Exactly alphac, Dick is just annoyed because it doesn't exactly match his vision, not because it makes any difference. It's why he's obsessed with it.

Not true. It was all the RAPACs that went berserk. Not me