Australian airspace unsafe
 

The rumour is that the presentation I made in Canberra last week, entitled ‘Unsafe Skies’ (see http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/book/) has the Government in quite a turmoil. There have already been questions asked about why Australian airline jets fly without proper radar control and why there are not local radio operators at airports. I suggest all PPRuNers read the presentation if planning to fly in Australia.

Reply to Dick
 

Hi, an interesting post. I fly a large aircraft for an Asian carrier throughout Asia Europe and Australia. Of all the air traffic control systems I fly through, the Australian system is by far the easiest and in my opinion the safest. With data link (CPDLC), ADS and radar combined with the normal ability to use HF or VHF radio, communications and control in Australia are fast and reliable . When you add on board TCAS and GPWS2 and multiple GPS installations. Airline flying with regard to Air Traffic Control has never been safer!

did you do a flight into an MBZ bob, sorry I mean CTAF-R? such as Ayres Rock or Karratha, with a combination of jets and lighties visually seperating themselves?

I suggest PPruners read the threads on this under the D&G forum before they take Dick at face value.

His audience is drying up because they all know he cries wolf to get attention.

The rumour he speaks of is the one going on in his own mind.

Having flown comercially for all but 12months of the last 19.5 years, the only times I have felt unsafe with our airspace is when Dick has been at the helm, or instrumental in making wholesale changes because he believes his new bastardised (the term used to indicate another system modified for Aus conditions and needs) system will be better.

He really doesn't listen to any one, nor does he understand how professional pilots interact with the system they've got, or the minutae of flying a complex high speed machine.

Oh well Dick. Everyone in D & G refuses to play with you so you've decided to take your bat and ball and attempt to start playing your game somewhere else in the world. For everybody's sake just leave him ignored and sulking in a corner somewhere. Spoilt brat as far as I'm concerned.

I suggest that anyone who reads the presentation also reads http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/c...5E3102,00.html for a bit of background as to why the Tower that he specifically refers to is not there.

If you haven’t got time for the presentation – just go straight to the Courier-Mail link above – I haven’t laughed so hard for ages.

Having worked in the Australian aviation sector for close on 30 years in a number of roles including management and federal government, I will say here that I concur with the previous posts.

Further information including much refuting the allegations made in the document and presentation can be found on the D&G forum here.

bob_bowne, I agree in flying in enroute airspace at the flight levels and also into our major airports we have stock standard international airspace. You may not realise that we have 170 passenger jet aircraft flying into uncontrolled airspace where the pilots ‘call in the blind’ to arrange their own separation – even when in radar coverage.

I suggest you have a look at the link to the Unsafe Skies presentation (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/book/) and study it carefully before the Airservices Australia people have this thread deleted.

Many people in Australia don’t want the international community to know just how backward we are when it comes to low level airspace. Bob, I think you would agree that 24 fatalities from professional flight crews in 13 months, all in Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents, is a pretty sad record.

Dick,

Why your obsession with Proserpine?

What about the 150+ seat jets that fly into AYQ (YAYE) without radar?

Radar would be lovely but unlikely. It's quite safe because we have a sound system in place. One where directed traffic is given.

The problems occur when you push your VFR no radio/don't talk system, so that we can't be reasonably sure we know where all the traffic is.

Sheesh. :* :ugh: :{

It is his way or the highway

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/dick2.jpg



and this is what he thinks of those that disagree with him



http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/dh.jpg

My favourite part was when he thought he would point out that Proserpine had no tower but actually presided over the comitee that made it disappear. Nice work.

Dick, I am just watching this is your life.......... dont suppose you stood up for the pilots at QF, who along with the Engineers have made it a fairly good airline.... all I have seen so far is management basking in the Glory of QFs reputation.

Are these the same people responsible for that journo ringing?

Or maybe the Unions are responsible this time.

Do you hear voices too?

Airservices Australia, nor anyone else will not have this thread deleted, that is not how this site runs. We've adopted a deliberate editorial policy to let the debate on Australian airspace reform run in here when it arises as well as in D and G, in parallel if necessary, to raise awareness of the issue amongst pilots the World over.

Lose the personal attacks please, if you must address something Mr Smith has written or spoken about then please do so by addressing the argument only, and keep any references to past issues respectful and relevant. D and G is a bit looser editorially, (it has to be or it would end up like herding cats!) but keep this one on track please.

Squid

Mr Smith claims that 15 people died in a CFIT that could have been prevented with radar. What he doesn't tell you is that the aircraft these poor people were flying in was not covered by radar, like much of the Australian continent.

His claims are based onhalf truths.

http://www.civilair.asn.au/bulletins..._nov_05_pn.gif
[img]

Sick Squid

Thanks for that, :ok: neither has there been nor would there be any attempt by the people at Airservices Australia to apply any influence for or against on the PPRuNe Dunnunda and Godzone Forum either.

Mr Smiths suggestion that they could or would is totally unfounded, untrue, scurrilous, mischievous and would in my Forum be challenged if not deleted and the poster banned.

He skates on very thin ice.

I would also draw PPRuNers attention to the Air Safety Alert by the Voices of Reason, published here which provides a proper balance to the matters involved.

I have also posted a warning in regard to the following of links in general from PPRuNe.

Australian Airspace is NOT unsafe.

It may have had the potential to be so, had not the industry and airspace experts with some encouragement from PPRuNers, not acted to directly mitigate and divert the latest planned 2c implementation based on dodgy ideology and a spurious safety case driven by Mr Smith and his cohort.
The changes refferred to above took the form of a 52 page AIP Supplement H51/05 to correct and clarify the originally published and disseminated documents.

Cheers
Woomera

Run a poll on here and see how many Australian PROFESSIONAL pilots believe that Australian Airspace is dangerous.

Generally speaking it is safe, its just unfortunate that noise control at major airports takes priority over safety and common sense, and that at MBZ/CTAF(R)s we have big jets mixing it with bug smashers with no appropriate radar.

Radar will be implemented at these various locations after a media beat up with a near miss or actual mid-air. Its the only way it will occur, this was demonstrated in Launceston. The blatantly obvious accidents to be, are only acted upon as an after event.

I am not sure if its Dicks doing, but he certainly doesnt appear to be campaigning for radar implementation or possibly the next best thing ADS-B.

"Blue: did you do a flight into an MBZ bob, sorry I mean CTAF-R? such as Ayres Rock or Karratha, with a combination of jets and lighties visually seperating themselves?"

Yes i have behind a 717 and 737 makes for an interesting flight let me tell you that, having done a go around just last week in a 172!!
cheers

It would help us in the UK to understand the problem if you told us what class of airspace you have around these non-radar airports.
In the UK we have many IFR airports both with and without radar in Class G airspace, whilst in the US, I understand all IFR airports get 5nm radius class D.

Chevvron, the system changed last week and I've only looked at the bits I'm using at present but, we have Class A from either F180 or F245 and above depending on radar availability I think.

Below A, is usually Class C leading into Class D or Class C control zones with E underlying the C and G underlying that; or Class E leading into G

Leading into non-towered Class G aerodromes is usually a layer of Class E from F245 to F180.

Along the J Curve (Cairns down the east coast to Adelaide) there's Class E below C down to about A085 (8500' AMSL [our flight levels start at F110]).

To give some examples; Mackay (YBMK) is a Class D towered aerodrome 22125-1100z daily. Outside these hours the tower closes and airspace up to A045 is reclassified Class G. BN centre has one on radar from about circuit height.

Alice Springs (YBAS) has no radar within cooee (a bloody long way). It has Class C steps with E underlying, running into a Class D tower zone, which gets reclassified Class G when the tower is closed at night. It is possible to avoid Class E (non radar) and descend wholly in A/C/D.

Ayers Rock (YAYE), has Class G Airspace to F180, E from F180 to F245 then A. It also has a CAGRO, Certified Air Ground Radio Operator, who provides known traffic info, weather at the field, and the like. S/He doesn't provide a separation service, it's info only.

Chevvron, you ask

Quote:

---

It would help us in the UK to understand the problem if you told us what class of airspace you have around these non-radar airports.

---

That is exactly what my presentation explains. Here is a link to the book http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/book/ We have jet airline aircraft in good radar coverage using a ‘do it yourself’ separation system when in cloud and not being able to make use of the radar.

The Government decided to go ahead with the US NAS system, which is one of the best airspace systems in the world, but for some extraordinary reason the air traffic controllers’ union (Civil Air) have run a campaign against this.

The claim is that we do not have as much radar in Australia. That is obvious, but why not use the radar properly where we have it? That is between Tasmania and Cairns – i.e. the same distance as from London to Istanbul.

I ask all professional pilots to have an open mind and read the presentation, then possibly give some advice to Australian professional pilots on how the airspace could be better utilised to prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents.

I do agree that in the UK you have a lot of uncontrolled airspace, however you use the radar correctly when IFR aircraft are in cloud.

Note how my opponents attack me personally but do not comment on my ‘Unsafe Skies’ presentation – even when professional pilots inadvertently killed 24 people in Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents in a 13 month period.

Dick Smith, could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response.

Dick Smith said:

Wasn't it your system introducing Class E that could potentially put a passenger loaded 737 and a Cessna 172 in the same piece of sky without being seperated by ATC?:confused:

BTW, other people have some good ideas (that are different from yours) about how to do things.

Cheers,

Chips

ThrillHouse, you ask:

Quote:

---

could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response.

---

The British pilots who read my presentation (Chapter 14 Cape York crash – 15 dead – local radio operator hijacked.
You will not believe we have airline aircraft operating into airports completely calling in the blind with no radio operator on the ground. I understand that in the UK an airline aircraft cannot operate unless there is either a tower or a Certified Air/Ground Operator at the airport. This is just commonsense.

The book clearly covers the serious Qantas incident, where 87 people went to within a hair’s breadth of losing their lives because the radar was not used properly.

British professional pilots will be amazed that every time I say we should use the radar coverage we’ve got to maximise safety, some Aussie pilot comes up and says, “But because we have areas without radar, that means we shouldn’t use it anywhere!”

I have to agree.

It is amazing.

I am absolutely dumbfounded.

At the hypocrisy.

Of Dick Smith.

Dick Smith could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response. I await your answer as you quoted my words but did not respond.

Supplementary question, how exactly is a CAGRO responsible for terrain clearance and what part of the GPS approach do they monitor and using what equipment? Exactly in what way would a CAGRO have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response.

For our overseas readers, I will try to clarify this "calling in the blind" smokescreen.

In Australia the class of airspace and thus service provided in the vicinity of an aerodrome is dictated by the level of traffic movements.

• Light traffic = class G airspace, may or may not have a UNICOM staffed part-time by possibly a baggie or refueller.
• higher traffic = class G & Certified Air Ground Radio Service (full traffic information and WX service provided by a trained officer; a significantly higher service than UNICOM)
• higher again = class D airspace and ATC Tower
• highest = class C airspace and ATC Tower

The much-quoted Proserpine has 4 RPT movements/day (normally the same aircraft going in & out), and few if any locally based traffic. Therefore it and a number of other similar locations do not justify an ATC tower or a higher class of airspace, and if they were unsafe the airlines concerned would not operate in there.

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Smith was Chairman of the Board of the then Civil Aviation Authority, when a review of ATC Towers was ordered, and as a result closed Proserpine tower. Mention is also made in the presentation of the tower cab secretly hidden from view in the bush. The fact is that sometime after the tower closed in the early 1990's, it was dismantled and donated to the local motorcross club for their use - so that is why it is away in the bush :D

Also in enroute class G airspace IFR are given a traffic service by ATC, separated within overlying class E airspace, and given traffic on observed VFR. Thus the calling in the blind and being left to their own devices is a furphy.

The impracticality of ATC closely monitoring flight path adherance of all aircraft in their airspace conducting instrument approaches to remote aerodromes while continuing to provide a service to the rest of their aircraft is lost on the gent, unfortunately.

Service to non towered fields
 

I'm a little lost in this debate but to clarify one point.
In the US there is scheduled service into non towered fields and some of these fields have are out of center radar coverage.
Massena New York, (MSS) is a case in point. You can legally have a plane, in IMC, executing the ILS while you have local traffic -legal in the pattern. Boston center radar will not get you below 2500. The only "service" so to speak is pilots on the UNICOM.
Most US fields and canadian fields do not have UNICOM operators providing information in my experience. (Only come across this once, the local air cadets at Lachute)
Also - there are a lot of towerd fields where the tower has no radar. We had a mid air at KCDW, night VMC, a few years back when the tower was operating.
20driver

Don't worry 20driver.

Dick will gloss over those finer points - he is only interested in exclamation points.

ThrillHouse, you ask:

Quote:

---

could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River?

---

As my Unsafe Skies presentation clearly shows, there is no radar at Lockhart River. That is not the issue here. The chapter on the Lockhart River crash clearly shows how a UNICOM on the ground may have prevented the accident.

Supplementary question, how exactly is a CAGRO responsible for terrain clearance and what part of the GPS approach do they monitor and using what equipment? Exactly in what way would a CAGRO have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response.

Dick Smith said: As you were told previously when you stated this, it was reported that the AD operator called the aircraft repeatedly without contact. Keep trotting out the same old furphys to a new audience.

GPWS or EGPWS are somewhat more likely to prevent CFIT than a UNICOM.

Considering the geography and dimensions of the UK in the context of the amount of airline air traffic at any given time, I think that Dick is yet again comparing apples with oranges. This debate should be about the Australian situation, the geography, the dimensions and the mix of traffic that occurs away from the J-curve. It's a different world.

Why the hell is anyone talking about adding more radar ? ADS-B is the way of the future, particularly in remote areas of Australia. The sooner some of the old radar sites are dismantled and the money put into ADS-B the better off we will all be.

20driver - we are only just getting ILS installed at our major airports, even places like Melbourne still dont have ILS on all runways, and to have a CAT 2 or CAT 3 is a pipe dream indeed (although to be fair conditions rarely occur such that CAT2/3 is needed). There is no chance of an ILS at smaller non-towered aerodromes. In fact there is a good chance the only navaid is an ancient NDB. Its a little bit behind the times in certain places, and the government only spends money after an accident occurs.

How about ignoring this petulant egotist?
With nobody to argue with or to harangue he will hopefully disappear into a well deserved oblivion.

Im very surprised Dick is still on this one. You have got to hand it to him, he is not discouraged easily, but i would have thought he would have given in by now.

Fair suck of the sauce bottle Dick, geez your like a little kid jumping up and down screaming for attention when anyone with half a brain and no common sense is completely ignoring you and your ignorance.

I suggest everyone else, read the Dick thread's merged in dununda to get a more informed factual opinion of this guy before coming to any final conclusions.

4S