What the CEO said.

[turboplanner]

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.

This is what absolutely sends me berserk about CASA.

 

You notice something when out flying or at an aircraft. You want to check to make sure you/they were doing the righth thing, or find out what the correct procedure is BUT:

 

You are usually in for several hours work iof you want to get a definitive answer

 

There's no simple central index, or search facility

 

The search often brings up multiple and confusing answers from several different documents

 

There are "pidgin" documents which are different to the ACT.

 

And when you've found the information, there are often many amendments which make understanding the original intent impossible.

 

In these days of computer databases and word processors, that system, which is intrinsically unsafe for all except perhaps thoise who fly every day, is just plain negligent.

 

 

[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. 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, so I dropped it.

Moorabbin has a runway closed also due to buildings. Closing a runway IS a safety problem at these big airports where the majority of the population are "into-wind" pilots and the runway is selected by the Tower.

 

Without being too specific there appears to be some networking going on with similar things happening in different regions, resulting in flying operations being squeezed and more industrial/retail development on sites which once had plenty of forced landing areas on the field. (Outside the boundary it would have been smart Planning to make golf/sports/park precincts off the ends of the runways, but that's another story)

 

This trend is continuing unchecked in spite of what John McCormick said (remember he is safety director, and while this subject includes safety, the bigger picture of loss of aviation infrastructure is involved.)

 

A few months ago I offered to use my contacts and make a project of it if there was enough support from forum members (Politicians always like to ask how many people are involved), but only a couple responded and I assumed there wasn't much interest here in reversing the situation at the major centres (Archerfield, Bankstown, Moorabbin/Essendon, Parafield, Jandakot.

 

 

[Yenn]

You have to realise that John McCormick and CASA have only one thing to worry about. That is safety, and the easiest way to make the skies safe is to stop flying. They consuder that recreational flying is non essential and would love to stop it altogether. The situation in the USA is completely different. The FAA charter is to encourage and promote aviation. That would go down very badly with CASA and our Australian Governments.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You have to realise that John McCormick and CASA have only one thing to worry about. That is safety, and the easiest way to make the skies safe is to stop flying. They consuder that recreational flying is non essential and would love to stop it altogether. The situation in the USA is completely different. The FAA charter is to encourage and promote aviation. That would go down very badly with CASA and our Australian Governments.

Don't frighten them now Yenn, even though they are doing an appalling job.

 

On the other hand what have we participants done in recent years to show what a vital part of infrastructure we are. (In this case "we" includes the bunch of turkeys doing charter work who recently publicly derided their passengers, their income base on another forum)

 

 

[Guest becky1]

Yenn,Haven't you read the reports that Wags has submitted re the results of the dinner with John McCormick nothing was said or insinuated by him any thing like you are suggesting,so why are you still trying to paint him as the bad guy.

 

I was there so I could hear the facts and I wish you could have been there as well as that was the whole idea of this dinner so everyone would know that wanted to listen what he feels about RAA and your assumptions are completely wrong about him wanting us to stop flying for any reason.

 

Jennifer

 

 

[Mazda]

Wags it is interesting if he said radios will be mandatory for all aircraft in all airspace when the new CTAF proposals have clearly defined procedures for entry for non-radio aircraft. If they can enter a licensed CTAF without a radio, they must have come from somewhere - like Class G airspace operating from an ALA. If that is the case, if it is legal for them to operate into a CTAF without a radio under certain circumstances, they must be operating without a radio outside of the CTAF.

 

I'm not anti-radio at all. I think everyone really SHOULD have a radio. My concern is more about radio failure and instantly breaking the regulations.

 

I'm sure John McCormick has pressure from the airlines to make sure bugsmashers have radios.

 

Of course CASA has the responsibility for aircraft safety. But Yenn, not so long ago the CASA mission statement included a comment about encouraging "participation in aviation", it was NOT their plan to stop people flying. However someone (Toller? Byron?) removed that aim. I do think John McCormick wants to encourage aviation. He's one of us. Maybe he'll put that bit about participation in aviation back one day.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Actions are louder than words

 

 

[Yenn]

I stand corrected Becky1, but I was only going on what I have seen and heard over 40 years of flying. My experience is that there are a lot of people around who say one thing and think another, and I am not saying John McCormick is that way inclined. A few years ago I sat in on a lecture by a CASA person and it was a load of rubbish, he said what CASA had told its employees not to say and then tried to make it look as if he was joking. I prefer to judge them by their actions.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

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

 

G,day Maj.

 

Re the above mid air collision. I am of the opion that the collision occured at the reporting point as the two aircraft converged at this spot. The point I raise is imagine if you have the reporting point in your GPS, both planes would be at the same spot. A radio call saying that you are X minutes from overhead reporting point X would minimise the risk somewhat.

 

Not being GA, perhaps there is a proceedure for this in place, if not then there should be action taken to fix this dangerous situation, more reporting points? Mandatory radio waypoint arrival time?

 

Phil.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

pdut, There is a standard approach mechanism that covers this pretty well. That is to call "approacing" a VFR navigation point. I do this all the time in Launceston. clean, safe and simple. I did the same thing approaching "The Towers", a VFR nav point south of Archerfield and was told by ATC to call "AT" the point. STUPID SYSTEM.

 

I have made my thoughts known in no uncertain terms to CASA and asked them to review the procedure when the GAAPs change to Class D.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That would be a good question for John McCormick to explain Qwerty.

 

Thety moved the congestion point from the airport, where the Tower was able to provide additional eyes and radio communication to smooth things out, to uncontrolled spots, usually above high density people.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Pduthoit, How about a look out the window ?....When I flew and trained in GA in the States reporting points like VORs NDBs, passes through hills etc. were referred to as 'bandit country'. It ment get your head on a swivel, and get the traffic visual........radios are only half the trick !........it's survival really, midairs are often fatal......the people at Bankstown had probabily made the required calls, and may have been assuming radar had them, and would keep them apart ....................

 

 

[Mazda]

Pduthoit, an approach call for an approach call?? That airspace and radio frequencies are busy enough as it is. The problem is actually having approach points in the first place. Why on earth do we funnel low time (and sometimes foreign) solo students together at the same location and altitude in very busy airspace while they are trying to manage flying, radio and looking out of the window.

 

Having a call x minutes from an inbound point is even worse, low time pilots will be head in trying to work out times (and they might get it wrong), and the further away they call, the harder it will be for ATC to see them. The call is already made well outside the zone.

 

I do hope the change to Class D will result in standard procedures, such as calling "x miles to the west inbound."

 

The changes are supposed to make things simpler, not more complex as complexity will lead to errors.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

The approach point that I use most often is Tamar Island in the middle of the Tamar River (actually it is an estuary but that is an argument for a different day) just north of the city of Launceston. I call "approaching Tamar Island" from basically anywhere (not quite) in the Tamar Valley, I get my clearance, usually track direct or track visual. done and dusted, easy and everyone doesnt have to fly to the same poit. It is simply a convienient way of describing my position and getting the ATC ball rolling it works well. But as Mazda says, calling "15 miles east,2500, inbound" is probably even better.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The controllers like to use 'reporting points' as it organizes traffic flow, and acts to funnels traffic onto final. It also lets them know exactly where you are. Most reporting points are features that are easily visable from the air, IE: shopping centers, dams, water tanks etc. These are 'heads up" areas, where one must expect to encounter other traffic.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

What Mazda and I are suggesting is a change that doesn't require ALL a/c to converge on EXACTLY the same point in the sky. With a Garmin and with points such as the blasted towers at Archerfield anyone I can fly to within 6 feet of a specific location with ease. This I feel is as good a recipe for mid-airs as a buerocracy could possibly muster. IDIOTS.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

What Mazda and I are suggesting is a change that doesn't require ALL a/c to converge on EXACTLY the same point in the sky. With a Garmin and with points such as the blasted towers at Archerfield anyone I can fly to within 6 feet of a specific location with ease. This I feel is as good a recipe for mid-airs as a buerocracy could possibly muster. IDIOTS.

Actually the accuracy of GPS's is a real issue with this, most new Autopilots that tie into GPS routes now have an offset function where you program an error such as 300 ft horizontally to the left. the logic being that where multiple of these are in use to fly between 2 points on the GPS that unless an offset is added then the aircraft are likey to occupy exactly the same piece of airspace. Of course this became much more of an issue when the USAF turned off the inbuilt software location error that was originally in commercial GPS but could be unlocked with a code in military GPS's (Irronically its acronym was also SA I believe, selective availability). In theory SA affects all GPS's exactly teh same but in reality it didnt exactly work out that way.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Why on earth do we funnel low time (and sometimes foreign) solo students together at the same location and altitude in very busy airspace while they are trying to manage flying, radio and looking out of the window.

Because the people responsible for our safety have been grossly negligent.

 

It's going to be very interesting when the first criminal criminal charges are laid against all the people responsible for it, following a fatality.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

.......GPS routes now have an offset function where you program an error such as 300 ft horizontally to the left. ..........Andy

Should the offset not be to the RIGHT?????

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Turbo, When the fatality does occur, as they have in the past, they will use the same ol' get out of jail line..."It is the responsibility of the pilot to maintain a 'see and be seen' watch and to maintain visual separation at all times, with other aircraft.

 

It's the same as if someone in front of your vehical slams on his brakes, and you go up his/her arxe. No getting out of it. "drove without due care and attention".................................

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, When the fatality does occur, as they have in the past, they will use the same ol' get out of jail line..."It is the responsibility of the pilot to maintain a 'see and be seen' watch and to maintain visual separation at all times, with other aircraft.It's the same as if someone in front of your vehical slams on his brakes, and you go up his/her arxe. No getting out of it. "drove without due care and attention".................................

I would like to see Slater and Gordon or Maurice Blackburn on to it.

 

The way I see it, a change was made by certain people and approved by certain people without widespread consultation which could have thrown up flaws, and without any clear evidence of professional research, at a time when traffic numbers were substantially down from past peaks.

 

A byproduct of the change was that visual supervision by the Tower was lost and replaced by the hope that all inbound aircraft had radios and knew where they were.

 

I would liken it to the management of a company taking the guard off a saw because it was too slow.

 

They would argue that you knew there was a risk without the guard, so you needed to ensure you didn't come into contact with it, and they would lose the case.

 

The good thing about public servants facing criminal charges is they loose all their indemnities and are treated just the same as us.

 

Just reading on this forum the complicated radio situation in Sydney where traffic has been forced out of Bankstown into multiple and overlapping smaller airfields looks to me like the clock is ticking towards an accident.