|
Originally Posted by havick
(Post 10621389)
BlackPanther;
Everyone is in agreement that the system is broken |
Everyone who is not RPT jet crew. |
It really has to be reiterated that denying clearance is not necessarily as a result of conflicting traffic. The ATC may have complex procedures that they need to go through to allow your airways clearance. There may be coordination, route requirements, local instructions, etc etc, that all need to be sorted before a clearance can be given. Not to mention systems issues with a rapidly aging ATC system. Plus, they may not just be controlling your particular part of the world. They may be getting pumped in another section of their airspace. Plus, because of the staffing pressure that airservices is currently experiencing (due to funding pressure from industry and government), these areas of jurisdiction are getting ever larger. I am led to believe that you can fly all the way from Archerfield to Bankstown talking to a single controller (excluding a few minutes with the Approach guys). That's a huge area to deal with, considering some of the aviation hotspots in that particular corridor. Please don't see me as an ATC apologist. I just don't like people in this thread that are blaming ATC, when instead it's the system and culture created by industry that might be worth looking at. But I'll tell ya a couple of things, controllers are constantly told (by their employer) they are amongst the best in the world, really? They are told they have the best airspace system in the world, really? Despite this, ASA is petrified of liability, the arseguarding is world's best practice. There is also a deep culture of 'f@ck VFR, we don't make money out of them, piss off OCTA' |
100% without exception been advised/informed/told to be OCTA if I'm not doing the RNAV. One day, ASA will be held to account for this unprofessional practice. I'd suggest you tell them that you require the protection of controlled airspace. |
@Porter...
I think we are getting to the same point but from different paths. The entire system (I mean the Australian Industry, not TAAATS) is broken. ASA definitely believes they are the best, but I reckon that most of their ATC's don't think that. They certainly try the best, but they are stymied by bureaucracy. Making a profit is the reason for the funding pressures. They sacked so many safety and project staff in the clean out that they can't perform basic functions now. They are creating a profit at the expense of safety. The aging of TAAATS and the reduced staffing are all as a result of trying to run Airservices commercially.
Originally Posted by The name is Porter
(Post 10621596)
One day, ASA will be held to account for this unprofessional practice.
|
Black Panther, I used to be counselled for 'helping VFR out too much'. The airspace and infrastructure is an absolute joke. ASA looks shiny and new on the outside, like a showbag really, big, fat and full of ****.
|
Can someone tell me the point of fitting ADSB - out to a VFR aircraft if, as has been suggested, ASA has no interest in affording any services whatsoever to VFR aircraft? If I wanted to be churlish, I’d be asking why the #### should we be making their job any easier? |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10622158)
Can someone tell me the point of fitting ADSB - out to a VFR aircraft if, as has been suggested, ASA has no interest in affording any services whatsoever to VFR aircraft? |
Originally Posted by The name is Porter
(Post 10621596)
I'd suggest you tell them that you require the protection of controlled airspace.
|
Haha. We all know I’d just be put in the hold at Bindook over tiger country for some indeterminate amount of time. When conducting these checks, you may discover that you would be landing at your original planned destination without sufficient fuel, that is, your fixed fuel reserve remaining. If this occurs, make an alternate plan to land safely with sufficient fuel at a different location than you had originally planned. Your new safe landing location will depend on your aircraft capabilities and the conditions. However, if a safe landing location is not an option and you are landing with less than your fixed fuel reserve, then you must declare Mayday Fuel. Preserving fixed fuel reserve is the foundation for in-flight fuel decision making which leads to safer operations. That doesn't mean that in all instances preserving your fixed fuel reserve is the highest priority. There may be occasions where it is more important to exercise your judgement to determine the safest outcome, which may include landing with less than fixed fuel reserve. Why declare Mayday Fuel?The Mayday Fuel declaration aims to increase safety. It alerts other airspace users to a potential fuel problem facing an aircraft in their vicinity and ensures priority is given to that aircraft to reduce the chances of an accident.The declaration is an internationally recognised standard aligning Australia with the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization that are designed to assist in the management of aviation safety risks. Mayday Fuel is not aimed at setting conditions to prosecute pilots or operators and a declaration does not automatically mean that emergency services will be mobilised |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10622158)
Can someone tell me the point of fitting ADSB - out to a VFR aircraft if, as has been suggested, ASA has no interest in affording any services whatsoever to VFR aircraft? If I wanted to be churlish, I’d be asking why the #### should we be making their job any easier? In saying that, I have ADS-B in my RV and am quite happy to do so. I've had directed traffic information from Center (not just "aircraft 5 miles north Singleton...") several times, and the KRviatrix can track me when I'm airborne, above and beyond what Google Maps and OzRunways offer. |
Can someone tell me the point of fitting ADSB - out to a VFR aircraft if, as has been suggested, ASA has no interest in affording any services whatsoever to VFR aircraft? ADSB was to benefit the airlines, reduce AsA's capital costs of radar installations and allow AsA executives to big note themselves at ICAO meetings by being an early adopter. |
Originally Posted by Old Akro
(Post 10622937)
Ditto IFR really. Especially with the woeful cover outside the J curve and below 5,000 ft.
ADSB was to benefit the airlines, reduce AsA's capital costs of radar installations and allow AsA executives to big note themselves at ICAO meetings by being an early adopter. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10622158)
Can someone tell me the point of fitting ADSB - out to a VFR aircraft if, as has been suggested, ASA has no interest in affording any services whatsoever to VFR aircraft? If I wanted to be churlish, I’d be asking why the #### should we be making their job any easier? |
Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc
(Post 10625756)
I'm an ATCO in another part of the world so cannot comment on Oz specific issues, but it's being said that Aireon Alert were able to provide data to OZ SAR via space based ADSB that narrowed the crash site to within 1 square NM. In an accident where there are survivors, this could be the difference between life and death, so there is a benefit there.
|
The ATSB final report has been released on the Mooney crash with two fatalities west of Coffs Harbour on 20 September 2019. Here is a link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577925...-052-final.pdf
I believe the ATSB is deficient in this report because they don’t mention that the only way to operate Class C airspace satisfactorily in the terminal environment is to use an approach radar facility. The Minister’s directive of 2004 made this quite clear. It is all very well to blame the air traffic controller and pilot, but to ignore a Minister’s directive with no explanation, and then not even cover it in the ATSB report, shows that something is going on here. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10970864)
The ATSB final report has been released on the Mooney crash with two fatalities west of Coffs Harbour on 20 September 2019. Here is a link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577925...-052-final.pdf
I believe the ATSB is deficient in this report because they don’t mention that the only way to operate Class C airspace satisfactorily in the terminal environment is to use an approach radar facility. The Minister’s directive of 2004 made this quite clear. It is all very well to blame the air traffic controller and pilot, but to ignore a Minister’s directive with no explanation, and then not even cover it in the ATSB report, shows that something is going on here. And I just knew you'd be here today beating your drum. |
Originally Posted by iron_jayeh
(Post 10970922)
And I just knew you'd be here today beating your drum. |
Originally Posted by iron_jayeh
(Post 10970922)
The atsb is not there to comment on ministerial directions. They report on the facts of the case, their opinion on the cause and recommendations.
|
Before we play the normal "pile on Dick" game. I think the point he is making is that there is a pre-existing directive from the Minister about use of approach radar in the airspace of the accident. If there is a Ministerial directive as Dick asserts and if AsA has not complied with this directive then subsequently there has been an accident that could have been avoided if AsA complied with the Minister's directive, then Dick is absolutely correct in suggesting that the ATSB has been deficient in its investigation.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.