But why is it an ASA proposal? Who are trying to appease or please, or was it a ruse so that they could approve RIS. (we wanted to use our surplus ATCs to change the airspace architecture but the Industry torpedoed that, now what to do with the surplus ATCs, = RIS)

triadic,

tragedies and especially aviation accidents have many parents.

You are probably quite right re radio procedures and communications.

Miscommunication and human error can be subtle, I mean look at this forum’s posters!

I guess we will have to wait for the ATSB report or not?

All I know is that AsA brought in a whole lot of safety nets with TAAATS in 1998.

23 years later we were all told how good all this extra ADSB surveillance was going to improve safety...hmmm

Quite clearly the ground based safety net failed in this case...I hope ATSB tells us why!

missy
It is quite likely that ASA have proposed this as they perhaps see some writing on the wall in relation to MNG. Their handling of this E proposal in such a poor manner reflects on pressure being applied either by the Minister or the ASA Board, or both. Does ASA really have many or even any surplus ATCs these days after so many staff were shown the door over the past few years?

Hey Mr GF,

What 'safety nets' did AsA actually introduce in 1998 please?

Genuine question.
Thanks

The Airservices Act 1985 predates 1995 when the Civil Aviation Authority split into Airservices Australia, CASA and the Federal Airports Corporation.

At that time Airservices Australia retained airspace regulatory authority. In 2007 that authority was transferred to CASA, and the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulations 2007 came into being.

Which is a long way of saying some wording in the Airservices Act 1985 needs to be interpreted with respect to their current responsibilities i.e. ATSP, ANSP and airspace regulatory responsibility with CASA per the above Act and Regulations.

Thanks Captain Midnight, but the error is in my typing - those quotes are from the AA Act of 1995 and are still valid
- https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00769

Thus AA have a discretion about provision of their services which does not appear to fit neatly with the CASA OAR responsibility.
- Not that CASA is showing any sign of doing the job of providing airspace categorisation as per its Act and Ministerial Direction.

With the introduction of TAAATS Eurocat...

STCA, MSAW, DAIW, RAM, CLAM ...thank you Ma’am...

23 years ago there were are probably a few more, my demented mind only remembers the last 5 things!

OK I didn't spot the year difference.

I do recall in 2007 that when airspace regulatory moved from Airservices to CASA that the parties directly involved wanted minimal regulatory changes e.g. where "Airservices" was stated change to "CASA" etc. so they could say it was a simple transfer.

As regards discretion re provision of services, the Act provision means Airservices can provide additional or higher level services if they wish and are able (e.g. Class E at Alice Springs, SAFRA etc.) rather than be tied to what CASA has decreed as the minimum.

Subject to safety & cost-benefit assessment, consultation and agreement by the parties affected and CASA assessment and approval of course :)

Re your last very true remark:
Wouldn't it be a huge step forward if the Minister directed both CASA and Airservices that Australia's default position would be to follow the USA on all regulation, practices and procedures provided only that the USA was in accordance with ICAO.
So for example the carriage of radio and transponders in Class E airspace requirement would be as per the USA
BUT the US non ICAO 978 MHz transponder would not be OK - their 1020 MHz transponder just fine.

THAT really would make all our lives a lot simpler and save a huge amount of "reinventing the wheel" in both organisations - especially as their new wheels are invariably triangular at best.

"........... If you want to **** an ATS system up, leave it to Australia.[/QUOTE]"
The above comment goes with anything Australia does at any Govt level! We are not known to be clever despite the tag!

We put **** on other countries, one in particular for being insular, ignorant and arrogant. The same crap that comes out of this country, particularly in regards to aviation. I used to believe all of that crap when I was a young whipper-snapper. There is no excuse for this rot when you're older and have been around a bit. Grab yourself a camp chair and esky, sit on the grass along Runway 27 on the Sunday before the show at OSH and listen to ATC. Not just the controlling, but at the busiest airport in the world for the day there's still 'have a good day'

If GA doesn't rock your boat, head to The Proud Bird in LA, have dinner so you can see the lights of the constant vectoring and processing of aircraft onto base and final. You won't see a prettier thing. Then get yourself into a Seneca or VLJ and fly into and out of a corporate airport up to the sticks in Minnesota and experience the controlling into a non-towered E-Base 1200ft. Oh yeah, how about being able to own a hangar on an international airport and park your RV in it. Even fly in and out of that airport amongst 73's, 777's etc and the controllers get just as big a kick out of it as you.

There's a big aviation world out there where Australia is very definitely not the best.

Of all the countries in the world, one of the most non-compliant is the USA.
Check their list of differences.

If you want that, then there needs to be a sh*t load more ATC in Australia. The US has 1 ATC per approx 14 aircraft, AUS has 1 ATC per approx 22. On average, per head basis, AUS ATC control more aircraft each per day than a US ATC does.
If you want the US system, then you have to have the US system (and its 11 Billion price tag).

TIEW,

The sources of.your numbers / ratios please?

why do you need a 11 billion / annum price tag when 1 billion pays for all the controllers at the moment and can still affford an alleged 3 billlion ONESKY system that no one seems to be able to show the benefits?

22/14 x 1 billion does not equal 11 billion.

To many your figure will seem silly...unless you’ve included massive pay increases for all controllers for being less productive?

I am just being curious not judgemental. Sources please?

thank you

Gf

If you read my explanation here on 23rd Feb at 1039 you will realise why your statement is wrong and as GF says, does not match up with the US true figures. I look forward to seeing the details you reply to him/her with.

Hey Mr Advance,

A 'Favour' per favor.....
Being in ATC, I wonder if you could please decipher the acronyms mentioned in post #268 by Mr 'GF'??

I can only relate to those 'OCTA' ones... ....you know......the .'Controlled Restricted Airspace Program'....or the acronym for it .......

I rekon he's havin' a 'loan' of me.... And, I can only remember the 'BAM BLAM' thankyou etc etc.......

Cheeerrrsss...and Thanks in advance....(Pun intended...)

FAA - Air Traffic by the Numbers
211200 + approx 7600 Commercial Aircraft = 218800 divided by 14000 ATC = 15.6 aircraft per US ATC
BITRE report
22265 aircraft in Aus divided by 1000 ATC = 22.3 aircraft per AUS ATC
FAA- Air Traffic by the Numbers
16405000 flights a year = 45000 flights per day divided by 14000 ATC = 3.2 flights per US ATC per day
Airservices - by the numbers
4000000 flights a year = 11000 flights per day divided by 1000 ATC = 11 flights per AUS ATC per day
FAA Budget requests 2021
FAA Operations $11 Billion USD.(Air Traffic $8.2 Billion USD)

This is where the argument falls down. That "proven safe US system" needs 14 times more ATC and a ton of money to make it work. It's utter BS that our system can be like theirs for "no cost".

You say that like it's a badge of honour. How is it more efficient if it's not more efficient? Airport movement rates alone blow your 'argument' out of the water. Your argument couldn't more utter bull**** than if a 12 year old in vege maths came up with it.

It's not a badge of honour. It's a fact. Sorry you don't like it.

Dude, despite the fact that most will get on here and read (incorrect) tone into anything posted, and the need to read 'outrage' into anything posted, it's not that 'I don't like like' what you've written, you're just wrong, and your 'facts' are incorrect, simple as that. ;)