What the CEO said.

[Guest Qwerty]

From what I've seen, its all academic anyway. McCormic will do what he wants, RAAus will do what they want, and the rest of us just try and get our aeroplanes on the gound gently enough that we can use them again.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Is there an inconsitency here:-

 

...... According to the regulations, you are required only to keep a listening watch on the appropriate frequency. So unless you intend to clutter the frequency with un-neccessary, random, usless position /intention reports to no=one in particular, poor Ozzie won't hear a thing.........:thumb_up:

Summary:- Radio doesnt add anything to SA, because if its being used correctly nobody transmits..... (true enough of RAA aircraft transiting class G airspace)

 

There will be a tendancy to rely more and more on the radio as a primary source of situational information and less and less on actually looking out the window. This is not what I think, this is what I know.

But hang on, the top post inferred that because nobody transmits then you only have see and be seen to rely on....

 

I suggest that the "Hang on Im coming post" wasnt talking about just transiting class G but rather going into a CTAF, something that would change to a CTAFR if radio became manditory. I still believe that "hear and comprehend" will lead to greater SA than "see and be seen", though I have nothing but gut instinct to back that belief. especially when you realise that it doesnt have to be one OR the other but could be both. Yes I understand that you believe human nature will make it OR not AND. What I would like to know is how effective is "see and be seen" has there ever been any published material that identifies if only 50% of all aircraft present are actually seen, or is it as foolproof as some would suggest?

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Andy

 

Go for a fly at Caboolture on a busy day. If the congestion doesn't convince you that radios are not "the answer" the idiot cowboy glider pilots will.

 

Cheers, Qwerty

 

 

[dazza 38]

Thank you VERY much Wags, and Jenifer, for going into bat for us. For all the other fellows-where has all the love gone? ha ha

 

 

[wags]

Other things set for review.

 

On the night he made it very clear that he was only going to talk about GA and RAAus and not the airlines. He had a few comments in fact about that side of the industry (airlines) that got a few good laughs. The man has a good sense of humour.

 

I’ll say here on this forum that since hearing the guy speak on Saturday my initial opinion of him has changed 180º. Reputations are easily made but very hard to loose. John McCormick really does appear on the face of it to have our well being at heart. He faces a very difficult job as not many things have been decided over the past 10 years with some matters lying in the CASA “In-tray” for 5 years or more. He is determined to get “his house in order”, but he is faced with a severe staff shortage and little or no extra finance coming their way in the foreseeable future. That is the main reason that both 760 kgs and CTA will lie around for a year or so before being addressed. But he promised they will be addressed - eventually.

 

He said at one point that he has had an uphill battle and has fought to stop other Government Departments mandating and/or imposing charges on aviation and aviators… things like aircraft registration on a yearly basis, licencing fees other than the actual cost of issuing the licence etc. He is very much aware that the industry (GA and RAAus operators) runs on about a 3% profit margin (or less!). He gave examples of some of the fees and charges that outsiders wanted to impose and it wouldn’t take very long to eat up that small margin.

 

Radio carriage is going to be mandatory very shortly - from memory he said April 2010, and most CTAF’s will become CTAF® when the regulations are changed. That will not stop people who fly basic aircraft (and I’m not trying to be rude) flying around their paddocks or property without their radio turned on. What it will do is ensure when they want to go to other places, such as Temora next Easter, they will be able to do so and have the equipment and knowledge of how to use it properly to make the skies safe for everybody. I can see the reasoning behind this regulation change and I have to say I agree with it 100%.

 

He made it very clear that by reviewing regulations it would let everyone know where they stood. His intention is that if you walk into a CASA office in Darwin or Melbourne the decision or advice you receive will be exactly the same at both offices; and we all know that is not the case now. In short he is “cleaning the place up”. I certainly wouldn’t want the job.

 

One important thing I almost forgot… he is also reviewing the bi-annual flight test requirement. There will be a test of some description but it will be more practical from what he said. “We already know you can fly or you wouldn’t be holding a Certificate”. Can’t elaborate more on that but from the way he is addressing other matters we can look forward to something very practical one would assume. Instructor relevance and competency to the aircraft they are checking you in was also on the agenda for future review. Think I’ve exhausted the details now.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Thanks Wags, I really appreciate what you have achieved and the info you have provided. I also appreciate your take on McCormic, I don't feel so much on edge about him now. It was impossible for me to attend the dinner from Tas however much I wanted to.

 

BTW I love you setup at Gympie, I picked up an a/c from there a few weeks ago, nice spot.

 

Cheers, Qwerty

 

 

[wags]

Appreciate the thanks Qwerty, but anyone keen to see safe skies would do the same... that's why we set up the night with McCormick.

 

BUT.... WHAT ABOUT THE GLIDERS AT CABOOLTURE?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I have been considering a radio for some time but only for when i venture away from the 'back paddock' which is pretty rare. the main reason being is that the traffic in the area is increasing in number each year. But unless everyone gets one and uses it then it is pretty useless. I find now that my rear view mirror gives better warning as to who is racing up behind me. The main reason i want a radio is to listen in to find out if the drop zone is operating so i can go out for a jump. As for the Lazair transmitting will just be a bunch of ignition static. so you better do the talking and i'll do the dodging. My mandatory compass is just there for looks and compliance as well. (well it was untill it fell off) open left engine it spins right open right engine it spins left. full power on both and it went nuts. the only thing that i carry that makes any sense is my PLB and cell phone, and why aren't they (PLBs) mandatory for all. don't figure. Sounds like the guy in WA this morning would have benifited more from mandatory ELB/PLB rather than carrying a radio. But then i should just stop complaining and put my faith in the CEO and the RAAus board as they know what i want and really need.

 

Ozzie, getting ready to put hand in pocket gain.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Do I detect the just the slightest sarcasm there???? I am begining to come round to your way of thinking Ozzie, I think I would be better to keep my head down, my mouth shut and maybe they won't notice me.

 

 

[Admin]

Hi All

 

I have moved the posts about Gliders at Caboolture to its own thread in General Discussion:

 

Gliders at Caboolture

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So, I went looking to see if I could find out how good was the "see and be seen" approach. Low and behold there is an ATSB document, that was hosted on the old AUF website that addressed exactly this question. Ironically what caused the ATSB to commision such a document, was a see and be seen problem that led to a collision at Coolangata. I havent yet read the entire document but will do so shortly

 

Its here if your interested http://www.auf.asn.au/safety/limit_see_avoid.pdf

 

Andy

 

 

[Ultralights]

as far as im concerned, a Radio should be Mandatory! simply for safety reasons alone, imagine having engine difficulties, or becoming lost, and NOT having a radio? and i dont believe that for 1 second, increased radio use will result in less eyes out the window, for me, its usually more, i hear traffic calling inbound, the first thing i do is try to sight it! even in a CTA environment.

 

if an aircraft is inbound without a radio, then i have NO idea where he is, if he is even there, so where and when do you start looking? other than only in front of you?

 

eg, if i call downwind, i will only be looking ahead of me for immediate traffic, and the runways, as for scanning, in reality, it will be a quick glance, as you dont expect to see anything, so even you do see something, it might not even register. Just ask someone who has almost hit a motorcyclist! "oh, i didnt see you!" even in plain view. its simply because the car driver wasnt looking for a motorcycle. same applies in the air, if you hear Nothing, then looking for another aircraft from an unusual angle will not demand much, if any attention, especially if you have PAX. yet if you KNOW and hear another aircraft is nearby, or approaching, then looking for it becomes part of your immediate attention and you actively look for that aircraft.

 

if i call downwind, and another calls inbound 5 miles west, and another on a straight in approach, i know immediatly, where to Look, what to look for! (cessna, piper, trike, twin) How many aircraft are in the immediate airspace, and their intentions, and hence, will attract a lot more attention from me.

 

far better for SA IMO.

 

 

[wags]

One thing I forgot....

 

Turboplanner (in another thread on Gliders at Caboolture) just reminded me of one other thing covered last Saturday night and not reported here by me… shame.

 

John McCormick said that the number of 6 in a circuit under one controller at GAAP was worked out by taking the average sized circuit (he also commented on some people doing x-country style circuits – just as well there’s not a fuel shortage) and working out the theoretical gap between each aircraft. Airservices arrived at the figure of 6 based on 1 mile separation between each aircraft.

 

McCormick then told a story of an instructor relating to him the fact that he turned base at Bankstown one day and 7 aircraft were ahead of him… 5 for the circuit and runway he was on plus 2 who were slightly out in lining up for runway right! John McCormick commented… “See it works!’ He acknowledged they have to look closely at what is currently going on and review the situation.

 

Maybe we will see a lot of this – put in place, see how it works and then refine it. At least they are attempting to find remedies and are willing to admit if it is wrong… most of the time.

 

 

[Tracktop]

Ozzie !

 

you have gone techo - your back paddock has gained a windsock

 

It'll be a radio next

 

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Wow, interesting document, Some of the paragraphs from the conclusion at the end of the document include:-

 

The see-and-avoid principle in the absence of traffic alerts is subject to serious limitations. It is likely that the historically small number of mid-air collisions has been in a large part due to low traffic density and chance as much as the successful operation of see-and-avoid.

 

Unalerted see-and-avoid has a limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds but is not sufficiently reliable to warrant a greater role in the air traffic system. BASI considers that see-and-avoid is completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services.

 

Pilots and ATS personnel should be made aware of the limitations of the see-and-avoid procedure, particularly the psychological factors which can reduce a pilot’s effective visual field. Pilots may be trained to scan more effectively and to accommodate to an appropriate distance when searching for traffic. Simply ensuring that the windscreen is clean and uncrazed will greatly increase the chance of sighting traffic.

 

The most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace.

 

Now, all that said, you need to read the full document to better understand the snippets of the conclusion I have added above. While this goes part way to telling me about see and be seen it still doesnt tell me if hear and comprehend is better or worse...

 

But I dont think anyone will convince me that both together are worse than one alone

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turboplanner (in another thread on Gliders at Caboolture) just reminded me of one other thing covered last Saturday night and not reported here by me… shame.John McCormick said that the number of 6 in a circuit under one controller at GAAP was worked out by taking the average sized circuit (he also commented on some people doing x-country style circuits – just as well there’s not a fuel shortage) and working out the theoretical gap between each aircraft. Airservices arrived at the figure of 6 based on 1 mile separation between each aircraft.

 

McCormick then told a story of an instructor relating to him the fact that he turned base at Bankstown one day and 7 aircraft were ahead of him… 5 for the circuit and runway he was on plus 2 who were slightly out in lining up for runway right! John McCormick commented… “See it works!’ He acknowledged they have to look closely at what is currently going on and review the situation.

 

Maybe we will see a lot of this – put in place, see how it works and then refine it. At least they are attempting to find remedies and are willing to admit if it is wrong… most of the time.

It seems hypocritical to me that he is pushing aircraft out of places like Bankstown where there are operating Towers by limiting traffic to 6 per circuit (I can remember when 5 on final wasn't unheard of, and we opertated safely) on the grounds of safety, and these pilots are accumulating at airfields with no Towers and more that 6 per circuit fending for themselves.

 

This then leaves the big airports to allow factory developent on the grounds that the lower volume of aircraft are not viable.

 

 

[Guest becky1]

Hi Everyone,

 

Wags has done a great job relaying to you all what was said on Saturday night and there is not a lot I can add except to say I believe after Listening to John McCormick speak,we as an organization should be quite pleased that he is at the helm of CASA,he is interested in RAA and GA,he has no wish to curtail anything we are doing now,he is happy for us to exceed the 5000 ft limit when it comes through,but what I found most interesting was there has never been any document signed, seen or agreed on except for written proposals from the RAA that we would get CTA or a weight increase to 750 or 760 by CASA.

 

So what that means in my mind nothing was cancelled by John McCormick when he came into office in regard to us because nothing extra had been approved.If anything we should be asking where did the RAA get the idea we were getting CTA and weight increases from anyway and why were they publishing the fact that we were.

 

As a matter of fact he mentioned a lot of things that the RAA had requested along with these other items which included night VFR and IMC and he was shaking his head in disbelief and rightly so, that would be even asked for especially as they are opposed to mandatory radio.

 

I think we have a lot to gain if we are happy to keep proving to CASA that we are responsible and safety conscious and lets get enthusiastic about mandatory radio.

 

Jennifer

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Do I detect the just the slightest sarcasm there???? I am begining to come round to your way of thinking Ozzie, I think I would be better to keep my head down, my mouth shut and maybe they won't notice me.

it's the digital age, someone always notices.

 

 

[wags]

Development for other than aviation services.

 

Must have a bad memory. Thanks for reminding me again Turboplanner.

 

John McCormick stated that the Rudd Government was most concerned at the shutdown of Hoxton Park and that they (the Gov't) were monitoring other sites very closely. Hope they keep an eye on Evans Head etc. He indicated the Federal Gov't would step in to stop development for developments sake as this was outside the charter entered into when the airfields were handed over to local Councils. The Federal Gov't can only enforce the agreement made under the Charter but can't stop individual runway closures etc.

 

He also clarified the situation with respect to CASA involvement saying it was not considered a safety issue if a runway was closed - as they have at Bankstown. Without listening to the recording I made of his speech again I seem to remember him saying it was something that came under the State Governments now the airfields are owned by local Councils. Would someone correct me here if I am wrong in saying whose responsibility it now is?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Jennifer, it's always good to get broader versions of what's going on.

 

Perhaps its another little reminder to keep trying to get RA Aus administration a little bit less secretive.

 

I realised going back over the pro/con radio posts, which really just matched the arguments that raged a few months ago, that many people just hadn't had a heavy radio/heavy traffic experience and so were just imagining the outcomes.

 

I flew for years at Moorabbin where everything had a radio and there were tower operators who didn't hold back if you got your phraseology wrong. Coupled with this was heavy traffic (well above what CASA now considers to be safe)

 

We lifted wings on turns, we lowered the nose every 500' on climb out, we were taught to scan every degree of available vision along with confirming verbal positioning advice from other aircraft.

 

We didn't know any different, we just lifted ourselves to a state of awareness which was switched on.

 

So if anyone's feeling a little panicy, relax you'll pick it up very quickly.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

As I said before, Wags has done a great job here. i do have some additional comments I wish to make........

 

(1) What about the recent midair at Bankstown....both had, and were using radios.

 

(2) The guy that you might hit, is the guy on the wrong frequency, or who is talking and not listening, or has turned down the radio because of too much chatter...it happens. He is the one who screams across in front of you, when according to the radio..nobody is around.

 

(3) Obviosly the one that hits you is the one you didn't SEE...............

 

(4) It sounds to me like Mr McCormick does have some plan to sort of turn us eventually into a GA style operation, at least in the flying sense. IE: his remark in regards the bi-annual flight checks...shouldn't that be something we as members, and our board decide ?.

 

(5) I do feel if we don't want to become GA, we really need to decide, all 10,000 of us, to dig in our heels as, and when required, to maintain our hard won current freedoms............

 

 

[wags]

Maj, to be honest I think he wants to see RAAus lift their performance just a little if we are going to get CTA etc. For instance, I came across a guy the other day who now holds a NAV ticket on his RAAus licence but hadn't even heard of or been told about the "VFR Guide". My comment to him was that it was like being a Christian without knowing there was a Bible in existence! There are some things that are purely and simply required knowledge and there appears to be a few shortcomings for one reason or another in our current system if this fails to be communicated (no radios?).

 

I don't know the answer to this and it is probably readily available somewhere... like in the VFR Guide or on the RAAus website perhaps... but once an instructor with RAAus is given accreditation as an instructor, what follow up is there to see if he/she is performing their duties efficiently and/or correctly? I suspect none.

 

In my day as an instructor we all had to fly with the CFI regularly and he got stuck into anyone who couldn't demonstrate a circuit almost precisely regardless of conditions and didn't know their "stuff" (like answers to questions about Air Legislation etc). If you had a student who was not sent solo by 10 hrs, it wasn't the student who had a problem, it was YOU... the instructor.

 

Some of these old values are just as applicable today and I guess that is where McCormick is heading... maybe? If the CFI at your RAAus flying school is checked by CASA (or their designated person) the flow-on is going to ensure higher standards across the board. Perhaps this is what he was referring to when he mentioned instructors being up to speed when they check people. If you as a pilot are licensed and are doing regular flying you can obviously fly... so why have a 1 1/2 hr x-country just to prove that - for GA that is. Haven't done a bi-annual with RAAus yet, but I will very shortly and I believe these comments apply just as much to the RAAus scenario as they do to GA.

 

Increased standards make for safer skies and if we want or expect CTA we will probably have to accept an increase in standards. But it will certainly cost us all.

 

 

[Mazda]

Thanks very much Wags!!

 

I do think John McCormick has our interests at heart, I've always thought that. I think we are lucky to have him.

 

A few comments though. Firstly, on the ATSB Limitations of the See and Avoid Principle document. What they DON'T mention is that there was a revision made to that a long time ago. There was a comment made by CASA some time ago, to the ATSB, which was "Closed - Accepted", amending the original comment that see and avoid should never be the sole means of separation. Before quoting the original document, you might want to have a look at that amendment.

 

On radios, from what has been said here it is again about airspace. Did McCormick say radios would be compulsory, or that they would be mandated FOR LICENSED CTAFs? There's a BIG difference there. The proposal he's put forward on CTAFs has a way of operating in and out WITHOUT a radio, so I can't see how it can be mandated outside of a CTAF in Class G.

 

Of course the problem is when radios fail and everyone thinks everyone else has a radio (Thanks Qwerty). There IS a phenomenon of people relying on controllers. It's not fiction, the study wasn't done by an unknown consultant, it was done by NASA. The phenomenon is called "Diffusion of responsibility", and it is real. For those that like statistics, the majority of collisions occur on or near and airport - that's where the traffic is - and the majority of collisions do occur in controlled airspace.

 

There is no such thing as a "CTAF®" as an airport category. People just can't let go of the MTAF, MBZ. No other country in the world has two these different types of uncontrolled airports. MBZs were removed so we only had CTAFs, and some CTAFs were to require radio, it was just going to be a small ® next to the frequency in ERSA. But of course people love labels and suddenly it was a new type of airport.

 

Airports won't be CTAF®s, they will just be CTAFs - whether radio is required or not.

 

 

[wags]

Mazda, let's make it simple and keep it simple.

 

McCormick said radios will be mandatory for all aircraft and that all licenced airports will be CTAF® and radio will be required to operate into them.

 

End of story... the application of that is unless you have a valid reason for operating into a licenced airport without a radio (eg exception to go in to get your radio fixed etc) you will not be able to fly into that airport legally.

 

The question is will he include all airstrips (both licenced and unlicenced) in that context? My bet is he will. That only leaves Ozzies back paddock where we can operate legally without a working radio onboard.

 

 

[Al B]

Personally, I'd rather keep CASA busy trying to force us to use radios, then have CASA busy trying to force us to have medicals, compulsory use of LAMEs, GA instruments etc.

 

Once we lose a freedom it's almost impossible to get it back. I hope the RAA doesn't squander any based on promises (which could fall through at any moment).