[Peetwo]

AirservicesAustralia ‏@AirservicesNews 30m30 minutes ago

Ever wondered how an en route radar works? They transmit info to ATC using transponders on the aircraft #avgeek pic.twitter.com/jIIveVLvaX

• Retweets 2
  
• Likes
  

ASA educating the public in 2016? -

It would appear that the ASA twitter guy/girl (above) has been tasked to try to educate the ignoramus public on how the ATC system works and what it is that ASA do - Err..why??

Maybe it is the new 'Creedy approach to PR' but I would have thought that he could of simply regurgitated the old cartoon poster (that "K" can't stand ), as a perfectly good representation on what it is that ASA do:

   


Meanwhile on the other side of the PP (Pacific Pond), where the busiest airport in the World (Chicago's O'Hare international airport) has more, passenger transport aircraft movements annually, than the whole of Australia domestic pax aircraft movements (approx. 900k vs nearly 700k), the head of the FAA made this statement in regards to the FAA priorities for 2016.. :

For the FAA, a year of safety and continued modernization - Jan 4


Posted by Michael Huerta

The dedicated professionals at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made significant progress this year as we continued to modernize and streamline the nation’s air traffic system while also preparing the way for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to safely play a growing role in aviation.


In April, we completed the program to replace the aging computer system that had been the core technology in our network of high-altitude air traffic control centers. The new system, En Route Automation Modernization, or ERAM, is now the backbone for our NextGen Air Transportation System, driving the display screens used by controllers to safely manage and separate aircraft.



ERAM almost doubles the number of flights that can be tracked and displayed to controllers. It was designed to be the operating platform for other NextGen technologies, including:

• Performance Based Navigation (PBN): Controllers are already using ERAM to make use of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures that enable controllers and flight crews to know exactly when to reduce the thrust on aircraft, allowing them to descend from cruising altitude to the runway with the engines set at idle power, saving on flying time and fuel consumption.
  
• Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B):  The FAA is moving steadily toward replacing the old system of ground-based radars to track aircraft with one that relies on satellite-based technologies. ERAM already receives information from aircraft equipped with ADS-B and displays that data on controllers’ screens. This technology has made it possible for controllers to provide radar-like separation to aircraft that previously operated in areas where no radar is available, such as the Gulf of Mexico and large parts of Alaska. ADS-B will replace radar as the primary means of tracking aircraft by 2020.
  
• Data Comm:  To reduce congestion on radio frequencies, the FAA and the aviation industry are developing Data Comm, which will allow controllers and pilots to communicate by direct digital link rather than voice, similar to text messaging. We began deploying Data Comm in the first of more than 50 control towers this year, and we expect it will be in our large en route centers beginning in 2019.
  
  

We’ve also been devoted to making sure that pilots of small unmanned aircraft are able to safely enjoy their pursuits.

On the recreational front, our most high-profile accomplishment was launching a streamlined and user-friendly web-based aircraft registration process for owners of small UAS weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds (approx. 25 kilograms) including payloads such as on-board cameras.

The registration requirement, which went into effect on December 21, is a key opportunity to educate a new generation of airspace users about the rules and regulations they must follow. Registration is free for the first 30 days with a rebate, then $5 after that.

We also have rolled out a broad array of educational initiatives with our government, industry, and model aircraft community partners. This includes the Know Before You Fly campaign, which has grown to include more than 20 member organizations. Visit Know Before You Fly [external link] to get the information and guidance you need to fly your UAS safely.

And, we’re working on a rule that will allow for routine commercial operations of small UAS, and we expect to have that rule finalized in the late spring of 2016. In the meantime, we have been authorizing commercial operations on a case-by-case basis, with more than 2,700 authorized to date.

We’ll continue working with our partners to identify new outreach opportunities to instill the same priority on safety that has been the hallmark of aviation since Wilbur and Orville Wright took to the skies 112 years ago.

In the meantime, always observe these rules when you fly your UAS:

• Fly below 400 feet altitude.
  
• Keep your unmanned aircraft in sight at all times.
  
• Never fly near manned aircraft, especially near airports.
  
• Never fly over groups of people, stadiums or sporting events.
  
• Never fly near emergency response efforts.
  
  

At FAA, everything we do is about making our national airspace as safe as possible. And as hard as we worked in 2015 to do exactly that, we'll be right back at it in 2016.

   
Meanwhile our inward looking, self-flagellating big "R" regulator & ATC service provider, is too busy witch hunting RAPAC members (REPCON: AR201500084); or attempting embuggery of yet another minority group like CVD Pilots; or wasting taxpayer money trying to educate the public on WTF it is they supposedly do - UFB!


MTF..P2  


 

[Gobbledock]

From ASA twotter account;

"Ever wondered how an en route radar works? They transmit info to ATC using transponders on the aircraft #avgeek pic.twitter.com/jIIveVLvaX"

How seriously lame. Almost as ridiculous as Hoody on NYE being interviewed on Ch 9 while tracking Santa and his sleigh. Personally I thought he was either hoping to hook up with the bearded one or tip off CASA so that they could ramp him!

"Safe childish media bollocks for all"

[Kharon]

AirservicesAustralia ‏@AirservicesNews 30m30 minutes ago

Ever wondered how an en route radar works? They transmit info to ATC using transponders on the aircraft #avgeek pic.twitter.com/jIIveVLvaX

• Retweets 2
  
• Likes
  

ASA educating the public in 2016? -

It would appear that the ASA twitter guy/girl (above) has been tasked to try to educate the ignoramus public on how the ATC system works and what it is that ASA do - Err..why??

Maybe it is the new 'Creedy approach to PR' but I would have thought that he could of simply regurgitated the old cartoon poster (that "K" can't stand ), as a perfectly good representation on what it is that ASA do:

   


Meanwhile on the other side of the PP (Pacific Pond), where the busiest airport in the World (Chicago's O'Hare international airport) has more, passenger transport aircraft movements annually, than the whole of Australia domestic pax aircraft movements (approx. 900k vs nearly 700k), the head of the FAA made this statement in regards to the FAA priorities for 2016.. :

For the FAA, a year of safety and continued modernization - Jan 4


Posted by Michael Huerta

The dedicated professionals at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made significant progress this year as we continued to modernize and streamline the nation’s air traffic system while also preparing the way for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to safely play a growing role in aviation.


In April, we completed the program to replace the aging computer system that had been the core technology in our network of high-altitude air traffic control centers. The new system, En Route Automation Modernization, or ERAM, is now the backbone for our NextGen Air Transportation System, driving the display screens used by controllers to safely manage and separate aircraft.



ERAM almost doubles the number of flights that can be tracked and displayed to controllers. It was designed to be the operating platform for other NextGen technologies, including:

• Performance Based Navigation (PBN): Controllers are already using ERAM to make use of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures that enable controllers and flight crews to know exactly when to reduce the thrust on aircraft, allowing them to descend from cruising altitude to the runway with the engines set at idle power, saving on flying time and fuel consumption.
  
• Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B):  The FAA is moving steadily toward replacing the old system of ground-based radars to track aircraft with one that relies on satellite-based technologies. ERAM already receives information from aircraft equipped with ADS-B and displays that data on controllers’ screens. This technology has made it possible for controllers to provide radar-like separation to aircraft that previously operated in areas where no radar is available, such as the Gulf of Mexico and large parts of Alaska. ADS-B will replace radar as the primary means of tracking aircraft by 2020.
  
• Data Comm:  To reduce congestion on radio frequencies, the FAA and the aviation industry are developing Data Comm, which will allow controllers and pilots to communicate by direct digital link rather than voice, similar to text messaging. We began deploying Data Comm in the first of more than 50 control towers this year, and we expect it will be in our large en route centers beginning in 2019.
  
  

We’ve also been devoted to making sure that pilots of small unmanned aircraft are able to safely enjoy their pursuits.

On the recreational front, our most high-profile accomplishment was launching a streamlined and user-friendly web-based aircraft registration process for owners of small UAS weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds (approx. 25 kilograms) including payloads such as on-board cameras.

The registration requirement, which went into effect on December 21, is a key opportunity to educate a new generation of airspace users about the rules and regulations they must follow. Registration is free for the first 30 days with a rebate, then $5 after that.

We also have rolled out a broad array of educational initiatives with our government, industry, and model aircraft community partners. This includes the Know Before You Fly campaign, which has grown to include more than 20 member organizations. Visit Know Before You Fly [external link] to get the information and guidance you need to fly your UAS safely.

And, we’re working on a rule that will allow for routine commercial operations of small UAS, and we expect to have that rule finalized in the late spring of 2016. In the meantime, we have been authorizing commercial operations on a case-by-case basis, with more than 2,700 authorized to date.

We’ll continue working with our partners to identify new outreach opportunities to instill the same priority on safety that has been the hallmark of aviation since Wilbur and Orville Wright took to the skies 112 years ago.

In the meantime, always observe these rules when you fly your UAS:

• Fly below 400 feet altitude.
  
• Keep your unmanned aircraft in sight at all times.
  
• Never fly near manned aircraft, especially near airports.
  
• Never fly over groups of people, stadiums or sporting events.
  
• Never fly near emergency response efforts.
  
  

At FAA, everything we do is about making our national airspace as safe as possible. And as hard as we worked in 2015 to do exactly that, we'll be right back at it in 2016.

   
Meanwhile our inward looking, self-flagellating big "R" regulator & ATC service provider, is too busy witch hunting RAPAC members (REPCON: AR201500084); or attempting embuggery of yet another minority group like CVD Pilots; or wasting taxpayer money trying to educate the public on WTF it is they supposedly do - UFB!


MTF..P2  


 

[Kharon]

Vision v Fantasy.

P2 – post, above,  clearly illuminates the differences between the FAA ‘grown up’ approach to getting things done and our kindergarten style of fluff, puff and wool pulling.  Sure the FAA PR machine has been at work, they have to ‘sell’ their quality products to a large, cynical, outspoken audience which has some serious clout.  Even so, we all know that a new systems launch will have teething problems and other unintended problems will emerge as time goes by – it’s just the way these things go, as any project manager will tell you.  The difference is that the FAA will fix those problems.  Should the FAA try a CASA/ASA style obfuscation, justification and denial defence; heads would roll.

The difference between the ASA ‘vision’ poster, (where all roads lead to the Bank) and the FAA graphic which shows what the plan will achieve just about says it all for me.  FAA show the service on offer; ASA see the whole fantasy rolling through a bank.  Which bank? Why theirs of course.

I hope the REPCON keep flowing in – they are starting to build a strong case and paint a picture which is just a little different to the fantasy depicting how ‘match fit’ management want us and the public to see it.

Good job P2 -

[Peetwo]

Dick & Nick still on the warpath?

The QON index for last Estimates were yesterday very belatedly released & in amongst the QON for ASA (pg 28-32) there was some very pointed written questions from Senator Xenophon:

QON ASA 86-89 Xenophon:

Remote Terminal Control Service:

Further to my questions during Estimates on Monday 19th October, can you advise if there is another airport in Australia with anywhere near the same number of RPT movements that Adelaide airport has that uses a remote terminal control service to the surface of the airport (ie no local tower airspace)? 

Further to my questions during Estimates on Monday 19th October, is there another airport anywhere, even internationally, with anywhere near the same number of RPT movements that Adelaide airport has that uses a terminal control service to the surface of the airport (ie no local tower airspace) and that terminal control service is carried out from a location more than 100 nautical miles from the airport to which it provides a service? 

For each similar airport that can be identified, please provide the distance between the airport and its remote terminal control service.

TASWAM:

Further to my questions during Estimates on Monday 19th October on TASWAM, it seems to me that Airservices Australia are distinguishing surveillance technologies (like radar, ADS-B and TASWAM that tell you each aircraft’s position) from how they may be used to manage air traffic and by whom. Similarly, Airservices Australia appear to be talking about OneSky simply as the management tool that integrates the surveillance data and separating it from the provision of the surveillance sensors. Can you please clarify those distinctions and provide details about how the surveillance data is used. What prevents it from being used more widely for separation of aircraft? What determines when the data is used for situational awareness rather than separation? Finally, what updates to surveillance sensors are planned with or without OneSky?  

  
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Sir A's anointed one - UFB!

'That man' is back and in fine fettle, as the ASA 'trough-feeders' ONE-Sky saga continues..  (courtesy the Oz) :  

Warren Truss dismisses Airservices plea over new CEO

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 22, 2016 12:00AM
  

Reporter


Air­services Australia acting cheif executive Jason Harfield.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss has declined bipartisan ­requests to ensure no new chief executive is appointed at Air­services Australia before the findings of an investigation into dealings over the $1.5 billion OneSky air traffic control project are known.

The developments come as Airservices is trying to distance acting chief executive Jason Harfield from a role in OneSky over the ­period under investigation by the Australian National Audit Office.

As revealed by The Australian, ANAO late last year launched an urgent inquiry into contracts awarded by Airservices to consultants associated with an obscure Canberra-based organisation with international military links called the International Centre for Complex Project Management.

ANAO is assessing whether these dealings involved perceived or actual conflicts of interest. It is due to report in the autumn ­session of parliament.

At a hearing in August, members of the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee grilled Mr Harfield and other Airservices executives, claiming the arrangements with ICCPM were conflicted.

The committee heard that ICCPM managing director Deborah Hein is the wife of Steve Hein, who worked for ICCPM until hired by Airservices in a senior managerial role. One contract Airservices struck with ICCPM was processed by Mr Hein.

Airservices hired an ICCPM consultant, Harry Bradford, to negotiate on its behalf with the prime contractor on the OneSky project, aerospace group Thales Australia, when the managing director of Thales, Chris Jenkins, was also the chairman of ICCPM.

The committee chairman, Liberal Bill Heffernan, told the hearing the dealings would “not pass the public test … it sounds dodgy”.

Mr Bradford, who has been paid more than $1 million by Airservices, is a former RAAF officer, and has since replaced Mr Jenkins as ICCPM chairman.

Insiders in the aviation community suggest Mr Harfield, a former air traffic controller with 26 years at Airservices, is favoured by the board to become CEO, and that a commissioned executive search by a headhunter group could be ignored.

“It is such an incestuous setup that the board will probably say, ‘Oh, we will get one of our own ­little pet cats in there’,’’ - Luv it  Senator Heffernan said at a committee hearing last year.

Asked whether Mr Truss — whose transport portfolio covers government-owned Airservices — would guarantee no CEO appointment would be made until the ANAO report is tabled, his spokesman said Airservices chairman Angus Houston had “comprehensively addressed those issues” {P2 - don't you mean comprehensively chucked everyone under the bus} at a Senate committee hearing last year.

But Senator Heffernan and the deputy chair of the committee, Labor’s Glenn Sterle, both told The Australian this week they would prefer no appointment were made before the ANAO report is brought down.

“I would have thought given the vagaries of what went on, they should do the audit office the courtesy of receiving its ­report before making the Airservices appointment,” Senator Heffernan said. “That is in no way to imply anything against any individual.”

An Airservices spokesperson said it would be “misleading” to suggest Mr Harfield had previously been the executive at Airservices with prime responsibility for the introduction of OneSky, which is designed to integrate civilian and military radar and air traffic control systems, saying “no one person within Airservices” had prime responsibility.

In his LinkedIn resume, Mr Harfield says he was executive general manager for future service delivery from July 2013 to ­August 2015: “In this senior executive role I have the accountability for the leadership, acquisition and delivery of Airservices’ next generation services and harmonised Australian Air Traffic Management system with the Department of Defence.

“This role also has the responsibility of the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the purposes of managing the portfolio and ­program complexity associated with delivery of the new Air ­Traffic Management system.”

 Come on miniscule get with the times, 'Captain's call' is so 2015..

In the news

Tony Abbott's lexical legacy: Captain's call is 2015 Word of the Year

Sydney Morning Herald‎ - 1 day ago
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year 2015, committee picks: wombat gate: noun, a swing ...

The sheer arrogance of this mob Sir A, Harf-wit, Creepy (who I assume is the spokesperson), beggars belief - Fuck'in Fat Cats...
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

All that glistens.

The committee chairman, Liberal Bill Heffernan, told the hearing the dealings would “not pass the public test … it sounds dodgy”

Looks like, smells like, feels like, tastes like; so glad I didn’t step in it.  

Asked whether Mr Truss — whose transport portfolio covers government-owned Airservices — would guarantee no CEO appointment would be made until the ANAO report is tabled, his spokesman said Airservices chairman Angus Houston had “comprehensively addressed those issues” {P2 - don't you mean comprehensively chucked everyone under the bus} at a Senate committee hearing last year.

The questions may well have been comprehensively “addressed”, but did the answers satisfy the examiners?  Clearly not.  A classic demonstration of departmental duck shoving followed by a comprehensive exhibition of the ‘bus stop’ game, covered by and endless stream of spinning rhetoric simply does not mean that ASA is off the hook.  Heff quite rightly suggests that the audit, when complete will provide a much safer, less jaded set of answers.  Hopefully, from that audit the truth may be winnowed.  ‘We’ may never see the implications raised by that audit but we may follow the breadcrumb trail from the Senate and departmental actions.  ASA is in a world of trouble and there are some hard, astute eyes watching.  Perhaps Halfwit should have taken Heff's advice and shuffled off to new pastures rather than attend keep fit classes.

Toot toot.

[thorn bird]

Why not elect board members?

These Autonomous government corporations love calling the industry "Stake Holders" which is pretty much what the industry has become, everyone holding a stake waiting for an opportunity to stick it in their hearts.

To my feeble mind Stake holder is akin to shareholder, do not shareholders of corporations elect their board?

CAsA and ASA are after all allegedly corporation's and monopolies with no oversight of their performance by anyone who understands the "Mystic of safety" or airspace management.

CAsA alone has pissed away half a billion dollars on reg. reform which doesn't work, destroyed their "Brand" and decimated their customer base. In a real corporation heads would roll, in CAsA they get promoted.

Much the same has occurred within ASA with dodgy expense accounts and suspected nepotism in the engagement of consultants. An all new "One Sky" warm and fuzzy traffic management plan more about managing senior managers bonuses than anything Aeronautical.

The Murky Mandarin gets the "Captains Pick" for the entire boards, as well as the CEO's.
I imagine Murky's brief to both is "Protect the minister at all costs and under no account actually "direct" anything, thats my job".

The industry perceives the board as a bunch of political appointees with their noses in the trough doing absolutely nothing but fill out their super funds.

The public is blissfully unaware that their money is being fraudulently wasted as long there's no 30,000 Feet death plunges or Mount Erebus events.

If the industry elected the boards, from a list of suitable candidates, maybe a start could be made on true reform and these warm and fuzzy press releases by CAsA and ASA could actually start to be factual.

[Peetwo]

ATSB with very little spin & bugger all horse-pooh??

Have you ever noticed how the ATSB gets very short, sharp & to the point, when there is the potential for political fallout from a reported serious incident - No?? Well here is a classic example, that at this stage the whole of the MSM has totally missed and that had the potential for raining metal on middle suburbia Melbourne:

Loss of separation involving Boeing 737, VH-YFN and VH-VZV and Robinson R44, VH-WYR near Essendon Airport, Victoria, on 26 January 2016

 
Investigation number: AO-2016-005
Investigation status: Active
 

General details
Date:
26 Jan 2016
 
Investigation status:
Active
 
Time:
07:01 ESuT
 
Investigation type:
Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map):
Essendon Airport west 5 km
 
Occurrence type:
Breakdown of co-ordination
 
State:
VIC
 
Occurrence class:
Airspace
 
Occurrence category:
Incident
 
Report status:
Pending
 
Highest injury level:
None
 
Expected completion:
Sep 2016 

 


Last update 27 January 2016

See what I mean, such economy of words is pure genius i.e. 'nothing to see here move along'
However this supposedly 'non-event' did not get past the scrutiny of Ben Sandilands...

Traffic chopper, Qantas, Virgin 737s get too close over Melbourne

Ben Sandilands | Jan 27, 2016 10:07PM |

A company photo of a Robinson R44

Australia Day could have started (and ended) badly for two passenger jets with more than 300 seats and a traffic chopper near Melbourne airport on Tuesday.

According to the ATSB notification, a Qantas and a Virgin Australia 737 and the Robinson 44 helicopter were involved in a ‘loss of separation’ and a ‘breakdown of coordination’  while ‘near Essendon Airport’ at one minute past seven am on the morning of the special national day of celebration.

Not only that, but the very brief ATSB entry describes the location as five kilometres west of Essendon Airport, which is very close to the big one, Melbourne Airport, which even the most obtuse bureaucrats fearful of causing public alarm would know was the facility 99.99 percent most likely to be being used by two Australian airliners with a total body seat and crew count of around 350 people if full.

Putting aside the skills of the ATSB in attempting to say almost nothing that will excite media attention ever about anything, this is a curious incident to say the least.

The helicopter in question is on the aircraft register in Australia as one of four of the type operated by The Australian Traffic Network Pty Ltd, which according to its website claims “100 percent  of metro commercial radio stations” in the nation, as well as having a high presence on TV networks.

Which will be news to those of us who though the gripping live accounts of gridlock from the ‘Channel X news chopper, brought to you by X law firm specialising in workplace injury claims’ or whatever, was actually their helicopter. But we may be missing something.

The main thing, without prejudice to any party, is that helicopters getting too close to passenger jets, or vice versa,  over any part of suburban Australia is of even bigger concern than a truck breaking down in a critical part of a motorway at peak hour and by a huge margin.

It might even be sufficiently newsworthy to be reported by one of the commercial radio or TV networks, especially if the  ‘traffic news helicopter’ or Boeing 737, is brought down on a highway, or housing estate, near you, courtesy of whomever.

This sounds like another exciting ATSB report in the making, if we are patient and vigilant.

 
Pure gold Ben - Luv it
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ATSB with very little spin & bugger all horse-pooh - Part II

Have you ever noticed how the ATSB gets very short, sharp & to the point, when there is the potential for political fallout from a reported serious incident - No?? Well here is a classic example, that at this stage the whole of the MSM has totally missed and that had the potential for raining metal on middle suburbia Melbourne:

Loss of separation involving Boeing 737, VH-YFN and VH-VZV and Robinson R44, VH-WYR near Essendon Airport, Victoria, on 26 January 2016

 
Investigation number: AO-2016-005
Investigation status: Active
 

General details
Date:
26 Jan 2016
 
Investigation status:
Active
 
Time:
07:01 ESuT
 
Investigation type:
Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map):
Essendon Airport west 5 km
 
Occurrence type:
Breakdown of co-ordination
 
State:
VIC
 
Occurrence class:
Airspace
 
Occurrence category:
Incident
 
Report status:
Pending
 
Highest injury level:
None
 
Expected completion:
Sep 2016 

 


Last update 27 January 2016

See what I mean, such economy of words is pure genius i.e. 'nothing to see here move along'

However this supposedly 'non-event' did not get past the scrutiny of Ben Sandilands...

Traffic chopper, Qantas, Virgin 737s get too close over Melbourne

Ben Sandilands | Jan 27, 2016 10:07PM |

A company photo of a Robinson R44

Australia Day could have started (and ended) badly for two passenger jets with more than 300 seats and a traffic chopper near Melbourne airport on Tuesday.

According to the ATSB notification, a Qantas and a Virgin Australia 737 and the Robinson 44 helicopter were involved in a ‘loss of separation’ and a ‘breakdown of coordination’  while ‘near Essendon Airport’ at one minute past seven am on the morning of the special national day of celebration.

Not only that, but the very brief ATSB entry describes the location as five kilometres west of Essendon Airport, which is very close to the big one, Melbourne Airport, which even the most obtuse bureaucrats fearful of causing public alarm would know was the facility 99.99 percent most likely to be being used by two Australian airliners with a total body seat and crew count of around 350 people if full.

Putting aside the skills of the ATSB in attempting to say almost nothing that will excite media attention ever about anything, this is a curious incident to say the least.

The helicopter in question is on the aircraft register in Australia as one of four of the type operated by The Australian Traffic Network Pty Ltd, which according to its website claims “100 percent  of metro commercial radio stations” in the nation, as well as having a high presence on TV networks.

Which will be news to those of us who though the gripping live accounts of gridlock from the ‘Channel X news chopper, brought to you by X law firm specialising in workplace injury claims’ or whatever, was actually their helicopter. But we may be missing something.

The main thing, without prejudice to any party, is that helicopters getting too close to passenger jets, or vice versa,  over any part of suburban Australia is of even bigger concern than a truck breaking down in a critical part of a motorway at peak hour and by a huge margin.

It might even be sufficiently newsworthy to be reported by one of the commercial radio or TV networks, especially if the  ‘traffic news helicopter’ or Boeing 737, is brought down on a highway, or housing estate, near you, courtesy of whomever.

This sounds like another exciting ATSB report in the making, if we are patient and vigilant.

 

Update:  Why the ATSB has been extremely minimalist with their summary of the 26 Jan LOS 'incident' is 'passing strange'. I know that they are only required to provide a basic  notification on deciding to investigate an incident but that summary usually has much more flesh & bones. 

By default however, I did discover some additional information from off the ATSB home page - here - under latest investigations:

On 26 January 2016, flight operations at Melbourne Airport, Victoria, changed from utilising runway 16 for arriving aircraft and runway 27 for departures, to all operations on runway 16.

Although different runways the issue of ATCO runway allocations at Melbourne and in conjunction with LAHSO was perhaps contributory to an incident that occurred on 5 July 2015 - http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investig...5-084.aspx:

..Updated: 8 December 2015


On 5 July 2015, shortly after another aircraft commenced its take-off, two aircraft conducted simultaneous missed approach/go-arounds at Melbourne Airport, Victoria, during Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO) at night. There was no loss of separation between any of the aircraft.



The aircraft involved in the occurrence included a Boeing:

• 737-800, registered VH-VXS (VXS), operating a scheduled passenger flight from Sydney, New South Wales, to Melbourne
  
  
• 737-800, registered VH-VYE (VYE), operating a scheduled passenger flight from Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, to Melbourne
  
  
• 777-31HER (777), registered A6-EBU, operating a scheduled passenger flight from Melbourne to Singapore...
  
  

...Ongoing investigation


The investigation is continuing and will include examination and analysis of:

• available occurrence data for similar occurrences
  
  
• LAHSO procedures, approvals, associated operational risk assessments and risk controls
  
  
• compromised separation recovery training for Airservices’ Aerodrome Controllers
  
  
• operational command authority
  
  
• On-the-Job Training Instructor training and guidelines
  
  
• team resource management for Airservices’ controllers...
  

 
It should be remembered that this incident (5 July) almost slipped through the cracks until it was brought to Senator Xenophon's attention presumably by either the flight crews or ATCOs  involved. NX brought it to public attention in the ASA Performance Inquiry...

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Hood, are you aware of what happened at Melbourne airport around 6.15pm on Sunday, 5 July?


Mr Hood : Yes, I am. There was a double go-around on runway 2-7 and 3-4.

Senator XENOPHON: It was a close call, wasn't it?

Mr Hood : It was a double go-around, and the ATSB are investigating that—

Senator XENOPHON: It is pretty serious incident.

Mr Hood : It is a serious incident.

CHAIR: What was the separation?

Mr Hood : Visual separation—and that is in that circumstance when you have a double go-around both in sight of the tower. Both aircraft were alerted to the position of the other.

Senator XENOPHON: So, three days after I get a letter clarifying some issues on LAHSOs, we have a very close call.

Mr Hood : We have a double go-around.

Senator XENOPHON: Double go-arounds are pretty bad, aren't they?

Mr Hood : Certainly. Not something I like to see.

Senator XENOPHON: How close were the two aircraft?

Mr Hood : I would have to take that on notice. I have the—

Senator XENOPHON: How many seconds away were they away from a collision in terms of the separation?

Mr Hood : I am not sure they were headed towards a collision at all, but the ATSB will verify the facts.

..and subsequently forced the ATSB's hand to actually investigate.

Senator XENOPHON: That is on notice. The other one on notice relates to the double go-around on 5 July. Can you tell us where the ATSB is at on that in relation to that double go-around?


Mr Dolan : We are currently undertaking an investigation of that double go-around.

Senator XENOPHON: So, it might take several weeks or months before there is a report?

Mr Dolan : Months more than weeks.

Senator XENOPHON: Thank you.  (also QON 118 & 119)

And in ASA QON 82 last Estimates:

Senator XENOPHON: Finally, in relation to the issue involving the separation between Essendon and Tullamarine, and also the issue of the double go-around on 5 July this year, can you give us an update as to whether there have been any changes in procedure for both incidents that caused a lot of concern amongst people in the aviation community I speak to?

Mr Harfield: I will pass to Mr Hood to provide some detail on that.


Mr Hood: In relation to the Essendon issue that we discussed, there were changes in the Melbourne terminal area procedures, so we have made some changes in that space.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide those details on notice?

Mr Hood: Certainly; we would be delighted to. In relation to LAHSO, we have had a number of meetings in relation to land and hold short operations. I consider that the land and hold short procedure in Melbourne continues to remain safe. However, we are considering further enhancements to the procedure.

Senator XENOPHON: If you can provide details on that as well, that would be very welcome.

Mr Hood: Will do, Senator.  

Definitely be MTF on this I reckon...P2

[Gobbledock]

This is not a pretty incident whatsoever, you're dealing with some very serious shit.

Dear Beaker and friends;
You muppets can duck, weave, spin, obsfucate, play ostrich and protect the Miniscule as much as you want, but the longer you keep playing this high stakes game of covering over everything the worse the eventual outcome is going to be. Every day that these bureaucratic fools refuse to change is a day closer to that giant smoking hole we have been talking about for some time.

Tick tock dickheads

[Peetwo]

Finally the MSM is onto it?

P666 - This is not a pretty incident whatsoever, you're dealing with some very serious shit.

  
I thought so to?  However yet again another serious incident in and around the YMML CTA traffic zone; & related to AirServices ATC procedures gets added to the growing list - UFB!

P666 - Every day that these bureaucratic fools refuse to change is a day closer to that giant smoking hole we have been talking about for some time.

  
Well at least the MSM have finally taken note of this 'serious incident' that the ATSB has attempted to paper over & minimalise.
By Mitchell Bingemann courtesy the Oz:

Helicopter strays into jets’ airspace in Melbourne

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• January 29, 2016 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney



Australia’s national transport safety investigator and the air services regulator have opened investigations into a potential breach that occurred on Australia Day when a road traffic report helicopter ventured into the airspace of two passenger jets operated by Qantas and Virgin.

The ATSB opened an investigation into the incident, which occurred at 7.01 on the morning of Australia Day 5km west of Essendon Airport. Airservices Australia has also opened an internal investigation into the matter.

According to a notification issued by ATSB, the three aircraft — Qantas and Virgin Boeing 737s and a Robinson 44 helicopter — were involved in a “loss of separation” and a “breakdown of co-ordination” near the airport.

A loss of separation occurs when an aircraft breaches the minimum distance that aircraft are required to keep from each other to reduce the risk of collisions and wake turbulence.

In Australia and when in controlled en route airspace, the horizontal separation standard between aircraft flying at the same altitude is 5 nm (9260m).

In terminal area airspace, the minimum separation is 3 nm (5500m). Within the confines of an airport control zone, the separation can be as close as practicable as long as the aircraft remain separated.

The ATSB said that on the day of the incident, flight operations at Melbourne airport changed from using runway 16 for arriving aircraft and runway 27 for departures, to all flights on runway 16.

The Australian understands the incident occurred as a Virgin jet was taking off from Melbourne airport and that “the loss of separation” was triggered by a breakdown in communication between Essendon air traffic control and Melbourne airport traffic control, which allowed the helicopter into restricted airspace.

The Robinson R44 helicopter’s registration number — VH-WYR — shows that it belongs to the Australia Traffic Network. The network provides road traffic reports for radio, television and online platforms.

The investigation is expected to conclude in September.

  
Hmm...this bit..
"...was triggered by a breakdown in communication between Essendon air traffic control and Melbourne airport traffic control, which allowed the helicopter into restricted airspace..."

...sounds very familiar??

Reference from 06:30 here:

    Can someone start joining the dots here, it's not rocket science - FFS!


MTF..P2  

[Gobbledock]

I like young Mitchell Bingemann, a good young IOS member in the making. Plus he looks like a young Dick Smith, now I really like him!

From the article;

"...was triggered by a breakdown in communication between Essendon air traffic control and Melbourne airport traffic control, which allowed the helicopter into restricted airspace..."

Oops, here we go again! You've got some explaining to do Sir An(g)us. Doesn't appear that 'root cause' has been mitigated yet does it? And Hoody, are you preparing for the inbound pineapple? And Beaker, dear Beaker, will you be sanctioning yet another piss-weak 'nothing to see here' report champ? C'mon Miniscule and Pumpkin Head, better get ready to break out your never ending supply of Taubmans white-wash!

Can't wait for the Senate scrutiny over yet another serious Australian aviation incident!

Tick tock boys, I can feel that smoking hole in my bones!

[Kharon]

GD – “I like young Mitchell Bingemann, a good young IOS member in the making. Plus he looks like a young Dick Smith, now I really like him!”

I’d say well done ‘The Australian’.  Since the departure of the obsequious Creedy, the quality of reporting matters aeronautical has greatly improved, to the point where I can look forward to reading the paper again, without cringing or vowing never to buy the thing again.  ‘Iggins and now Bingemann along with the bright spark in Tas (??) are actually openly acknowledging and discussing some of the problems created by the government departments.  Publicly funded self styled ‘safety’ agencies which not only have the potential to be causal to the event of a serious accident, but will go to extraordinary lengths to minimise the chances of the public finding out ‘why’ their loved ones perished.  

Mind you it’s about time; the MSM constantly trivialise, sensationalise or ignore aviation related stories, to the point where there is only one line worth reading; that there was an incident when, and where, after that ‘reports’ become farcical.  Bravo ‘the Oz’.

[Peetwo]

GD – “I like young Mitchell Bingemann, a good young IOS member in the making. Plus he looks like a young Dick Smith, now I really like him!”

I’d say well done ‘The Australian’.  Since the departure of the obsequious Creedy, the quality of reporting matters aeronautical has greatly improved, to the point where I can look forward to reading the paper again, without cringing or vowing never to buy the thing again.  ‘Iggins and now Bingemann along with the bright spark in Tas (??) are actually openly acknowledging and discussing some of the problems created by the government departments.  Publicly funded self styled ‘safety’ agencies which not only have the potential to be causal to the event of a serious accident, but will go to extraordinary lengths to minimise the chances of the public finding out ‘why’ their loved ones perished.  

Mind you it’s about time; the MSM constantly trivialise, sensationalise or ignore aviation related stories, to the point where there is only one line worth reading; that there was an incident when, and where, after that ‘reports’ become farcical.  Bravo ‘the Oz’.

2nd the Mitch (give-'em-hell) Bingemann sentiment, maybe the Oz has finally unearthed the next Aviation Editor, if nothing else MB certainly is busy. Today he has teamed with 'that man' Higgins - here - & on his own on a series of MH370 latest update articles: 

Chinese search vessel set to join MH370 hunt by end of February

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• January 29, 2016 2:20PM
  

Reporter
Sydney
Mitchell Bingemann has spent the past decade reporting on the happenings of the technology and telecommunications sectors in Australia. He joined the Australian in July 2008 as part of the paper's award winning IT section before taking up the business telecommunications round in 2009. He was awarded the best news journalist of 2010 at the Microsoft IT Journalism Awards for a series of articles detailing movements in the telecommunications sector and investigations into the National Broadband Network.


The Chinese government has finally joined the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, sending a search vessel that will join in the underwater search by the end of February.

China promised in November to send a search vessel to join the hunt for the missing Boeing 777 which disappeared in March 2014 on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board.

But it has taken more than two months to mobilise a crew and vessel to join the search operations currently being undertaken in the southern Indian Ocean.

The addition of the Chinese ship, the Dong Hai Jiu 101, is part of a $20m commitment from the Chinese government to find the missing flight.

• More: Ignoring ‘overwhelming’ evidence
  
  

Australia has committed $60m to the cost of the search.

The ship has been refitted and will be equipped with the ProSAS-60 — a 6,000 metre depth-rated synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) towed system to be used in search operations.

“The ProSAS-60 will be operated by Phoenix International Holdings and Hydrospheric Solutions; both companies have experience in the search for MH370 having previously operated on the search vessel GO Phoenix,” Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss said.

“The ship is currently in Singapore for mobilisation and is expected to depart for Australia on Sunday (31 January). It will commence operations in the search area towards the end of February.”

The search is being carried out by the Dutch Fugro survey group, using three vessels: the Fugro Discovery; the Fugro Equator and Havila Harmony.

The search has been hampered by recent damage to two of the vessels.

The Havila Harmony sustained damage to its HiPaP pole — which is lowered through the hull and carries an acoustic transceiver used to control the autonomous search vehicles — when it was snagged on fishing nets this week.

The vessel is expected to be back in the search area early next week after repairs in Fremantle.

Earlier this week, the $1 million ‘towfish”, while being towed underwater by the Fugro Discovery, sank after it struck a mud volcano rising about 2200m above the sea floor in the southern Indian Ocean. The Fugro Equator continues the search.

Australia, Malaysia and China have committed to searching 120,000sq km for the missing aircraft. More than 85,000sq km of the sea floor have been searched so far
It is anticipated that the search of the agreed area will be completed around the middle of the year. Should no credible new information leading to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft be uncovered, the governments have agreed to not expand the search area.

The search has blown out in cost, and has not been helped by the failure of Malaysia to send a promised survey vessel.

The addition of the Chinese search vessel comes as local media in Malaysia report that a metal object, believed to be plane wreckage, washed up on the Malaysian east coast, prompting speculation for the second time in a week that debris from MH370 may have surfaced.

Local media reported that the object, which was white and measured two metres long, was spotted floating in the waters near the town of Besut in the eastern state of Terengganu on Wednesday.

The object was found along the same coastline facing the South China Sea as the Nakhon Si Thammarat province in Thailand, where suspected plane debris was found on Saturday.

Officials have said that debris did not belong to MH370.

A Malaysian Transport Ministry spokesman said officials from the Department of Civil Aviation were looking into the latest finding.

“The DCA has been informed by the police and will investigate,” the spokesman told Reuters in a text message.

-- with wires

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Finally the MSM is onto it?

P666 - This is not a pretty incident whatsoever, you're dealing with some very serious shit.

  
I thought so to?  However yet again another serious incident in and around the YMML CTA traffic zone; & related to AirServices ATC procedures gets added to the growing list - UFB!

P666 - Every day that these bureaucratic fools refuse to change is a day closer to that giant smoking hole we have been talking about for some time.

  
Well at least the MSM have finally taken note of this 'serious incident' that the ATSB has attempted to paper over & minimalise.
By Mitchell Bingemann courtesy the Oz:

Helicopter strays into jets’ airspace in Melbourne

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• January 29, 2016 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney



Australia’s national transport safety investigator and the air services regulator have opened investigations into a potential breach that occurred on Australia Day when a road traffic report helicopter ventured into the airspace of two passenger jets operated by Qantas and Virgin.

The ATSB opened an investigation into the incident, which occurred at 7.01 on the morning of Australia Day 5km west of Essendon Airport. Airservices Australia has also opened an internal investigation into the matter.

According to a notification issued by ATSB, the three aircraft — Qantas and Virgin Boeing 737s and a Robinson 44 helicopter — were involved in a “loss of separation” and a “breakdown of co-ordination” near the airport.

A loss of separation occurs when an aircraft breaches the minimum distance that aircraft are required to keep from each other to reduce the risk of collisions and wake turbulence.

In Australia and when in controlled en route airspace, the horizontal separation standard between aircraft flying at the same altitude is 5 nm (9260m).

In terminal area airspace, the minimum separation is 3 nm (5500m). Within the confines of an airport control zone, the separation can be as close as practicable as long as the aircraft remain separated.

The ATSB said that on the day of the incident, flight operations at Melbourne airport changed from using runway 16 for arriving aircraft and runway 27 for departures, to all flights on runway 16.

The Australian understands the incident occurred as a Virgin jet was taking off from Melbourne airport and that “the loss of separation” was triggered by a breakdown in communication between Essendon air traffic control and Melbourne airport traffic control, which allowed the helicopter into restricted airspace.

The Robinson R44 helicopter’s registration number — VH-WYR — shows that it belongs to the Australia Traffic Network. The network provides road traffic reports for radio, television and online platforms.

The investigation is expected to conclude in September.

  
Hmm...this bit..
"...was triggered by a breakdown in communication between Essendon air traffic control and Melbourne airport traffic control, which allowed the helicopter into restricted airspace..."

...sounds very familiar??

Reference from 06:30 here:

    Can someone start joining the dots here, it's not rocket science - FFS!

Update:  For some strange reason late on Friday the ATSB updated their summary etc. for this incident..

Summary

On 26 January 2016, flight operations at Melbourne Airport, Victoria, changed from utilising runway 16 for arriving aircraft and runway 27 for departures, to all operations on runway 16. Coordination of this change with Essendon Airport air traffic control, as was required due to the proximity of the two airports, did not occur.

At the time of the Melbourne Airport runway changes, a Robinson R44 helicopter, registered VH-WYR, was operating overhead Essendon Airport not above 1,500 ft. Shortly after 0700 Eastern Daylight-saving Time, two Boeing 737 aircraft, registered VH-YFN and VH-VZV, departed Melbourne and, while in cloud, came within 3 NM (5.6 km) of the helicopter.

The investigation is continuing.
 
General details
Date:
26 Jan 2016
 
Investigation status:
Active
 
Time:
07:01 ESuT
 
Investigation type:
Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map):
Essendon Airport west 5 km
 
Occurrence type:
Breakdown of co-ordination
 
State:
VIC
 
Occurrence class:
Airspace
 


 
Occurrence category:
Incident
 
Report status:
Pending
 
Highest injury level:
None
 
Expected completion:
Sep 2016
 


 
 
Aircraft 1 details
Aircraft manufacturer:
Robinson Helicopter Co
 
Aircraft model:
R44 II
 
Aircraft registration:
VH-WYR
 
Serial number:
10085
 
Type of operation:
Aerial Work
 
Sector:
Helicopter
 
Damage to aircraft:
Nil
 
Departure point:
Essendon, Vic.
Aircraft 2 details
Aircraft manufacturer:
The Boeing Company
 
Aircraft model:
737-8FE
 
Aircraft registration:
VH-YFN
 
Serial number:
41009
 
Operator:
Virgin Australia
 
Type of operation:
Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector:
Jet
 
Damage to aircraft:
Nil
 
Departure point:
Melbourne, Vic.
Aircraft 3 details
Aircraft manufacturer:
The Boeing Company
 
Aircraft model:
737-838
 
Aircraft registration:
VH-VZV
 
Serial number:
34189
 
Operator:
Qantas Airways
 
Type of operation:
Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector:
Jet
 
Damage to aircraft:
Nil
 
Departure point:
Melbourne, Vic
 
 
 


Last update 29 January 2016

 
Given the part in red I'm not exactly sure why the ATSB are yet to classify this as a 'serious incident'


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

“Oh, I am fortune's fool!”

Did you ever explain to friends, relatives or passengers ‘closing speed’?  On occasion (thankfully rare) I have done so and the response is always the same; surprise.  When you expand the math involved and do some basic ‘Newton’ (F=Ma) and explain (in lay terms) the very small amount of time involved for two aircraft to cover 3 Nms and the forces involved in a collision, the little light comes on and they understand why we are always concerned about ‘Traffic’.  It is possible to up the scare factor when they realise how it can be very difficult to ‘see’ another aircraft; haze, cloud, glare, cockpit visibility, glare shield height, flight attitude and the blind area created ahead and below, etc.  

Aviation traffic control and the legislation acknowledge this risk and more besides.  Millions, probably billions are expend to ensure that, in primus, aircraft do not get into a ‘close proximity’ situation without prior knowledge of traffic and positive separation.  More money again is spent to make the system ‘efficient’ and delays are minimised, while retaining a safe zone around individual aircraft.  The reason for expenditure is simple enough; the speed at which ‘things’ happen when it all goes pear shaped is truly frightening.  

When a ‘good’ system fails – once – the reason why is examined and, where required, a patch or a ‘fix’ is initiated at high speed; for a repeat of a systematic breakdown which led to a ‘mid-air’ collision or even a close call is unpardonable.  When any systematic error is repeated and there are consequences, it’s time to stop pretending ‘all is well’: clearly it’s not.

Australia relies too heavily on luck, the skill of the ATCO, has a propensity to treat the ATCO as cannon fodder and the legal system is far too easily manipulated to allow the offering of an individual to the sacrifice, rather than own up to systematic flaws.

Halfwit has been involved in the development of these systems and a ‘match-fit’ product of it.   There are some serious systematic problems which need be addressed.  We have indeed been a lucky country, thus far.  Lady Luck is, if nothing else fickle.

Aye, as M. Henry has it, “None so deaf as those that will not hear.  Non so blind as those who will not see”.  Tick tock indeed; I fear it’s not a matter of if, only when.  

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Very good point Ferryman;

"Did you ever explain to friends, relatives or passengers ‘closing speed’?"

Even better, try explaining the aftermath and what an Investigator gets to do - sift through what was once human bodies. Fragments of bones, human pulp, the odd partial limb (sometimes burnt), other bits like a shoe with some human mash in it. Sometimes the remains of an entire family could fit into a tea cup. Wonderful stuff!

I would love to take Beaker, Harfwit, the Miniscule, Sir An(g)us and a host of other Can'tberra based fu#kwits who live in la la land to a crash site, to one of those 'closing speed + impact moments'? Give them some hands on training, you know 'up to the elbows, getting their hands dirty' etc. What do you call that again, oh yes, 'a day in the life' program - where they can do some investigation work while we sit in a Can'tberra restaurant, eating caviar and fine wine paid for by the taxpayer, earning vast salaries and 16% super while figuring out how to hide the next corrupt brown paper bag deal c/o some land developer or business corporation, and how to twist, spin and manipulate the truth!

P_666

[ventus45]

On the subject of "closing speed" ?

You want to talk about closing speed - as in near misses ................... ?

Try this on.


Confession time ................ gulp.


See figure 12 in
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4050593/se..._print.pdf

Then read:

(1) https://groups.google.com/d/msg/aus.avia..._hPLAJN_gJ
posted 8/12/2003
See the graphic on http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editoria...avoid2.cfm and replace the single III-O with 4 x A4's.  It is very scary, I can assure you !






(2) https://groups.google.com/d/msg/aus.avia...8i1FptDNkJ
posted 10/12/2003

Not easy to chase down toilet paper, but A4's can hit you.  We were doing 50, they 350 approx, so 400 approx closure.  It was a thursday or friday, eleven fifty bright something,  back in the 70's.

I was up in a blanik pre-solo, they were tracking over Camden below CTA step (4,000 back then) into Sydney for a practice Navy Day fly past down the harbour.  It had been in the Notams etc, we all knew it.  In fact, it was me that was detailed that morning to go to the tower to get the printout off the old teleprinter.  I brought it back, both instructors and the tug pilot all read it, including me.

We were supposed to remain below 2000 between 11am and them passing overhead, but as Mr Murphy decrees, stuff ups occur.  I will not go into the details, but we were well above 2,000.  We had about 5 seconds in fact from visual on them as just black dots head to head closing fast, to the pass.  We rocked wings, praying for a sun glint.  Leader jinked left, then the others rippled over, quick smart, except the last guy, probably the new boy, slow.  Miss distance on him was 200 ft lateral, 50 ft below to our right.  As they passed we rolled left and dived.

A "once is enough" experience.

What worries me about E and see and avoid is relative speed, and relative manoeuvre capability.

Relative speed has been done to death, but there is not much comfort in seeing if you can't do anything worth the effort.  We had next to no effective manoeuvre capability, even rocking the wings was a full stick deal and not much roll rate at 50 in a blanik.  We could not miss them.  If they didn't see us, we probably may have hit, if not, it would have been bloody close, they were a few feet below us, I think.  A4's do roll a hell of a lot quicker than a blanik.  I wonder what the roll rate of a Dash-8 is on autopilot.

---

Present Day -
It still pops into my head every now and then.
It is still scary !
The most lingering memory is "the noise".
You don't just hear it, you feel it !
Talk about shattering the serenity of the day !

[Peetwo]

ASA AQON & Hoodlum spruiking bulldust -


Sorry to change the subject for it is a great topic, maybe we could take it up somewhere else, Pilot tales perhaps?

Anyway apparently the 'Hooded One' came out with a MR the other day, reference courtesy Oz Flying:

An ADS-B ground station in Broome, WA. (Airservices Australia)



Airservices thanks ADS-B Operators
04 Feb 2016

Airservices Australia Executive General Manager Greg Hood has thanked operators who fitted their aircraft with ADS-B ahead of the 2 February 2017 mandate.

In a statement released today, Hood thanked operators for what he said was their commitment to ADS-B technology.

“ADS-B is the future of air traffic surveillance in Australia and around the world,” he said.

“I would like to congratulate and thank all operators that have already fitted their aircraft with ADS-B and remind every IFR operator to make sure they get fitted before 2 February 2017.”

Airservices says there are around 1300 aircraft not yet fitted as well as about 60% of Australia’s IFR helicopter fleet.

IFR aircraft flying at or above FL290 have had to be ADS-B capable since 12 December 2013. The mandate in February next year extends that to all altitudes.

VFR aircraft do not need ADS-B to operate provided they remain in Class D or G airspace below 10,000 feet AMSL. A Mode S ADS-B capable transponder is already required for VFR flight in Class E airspace.

 
Hmm...wonder if old mate Harf-wit put him up to that..


Here was Eyrie's response.. :

Eyrie • 2 days ago

So he should. How big was his bonus?
  

And yesterday here was the Hitch opinion on the ASA scuttlebutt :

Airservices' Greg Hood has thanked the operators who have already adopted ADS-B prior to the mandate, which is now less than a year away. The press release sent out made it sound very much like it is a technological step forward that the industry will make together. Sadly, this is not the case. The reality, ignored by both Airservices and CASA, is that private general aviation owners are shelling out substantial amounts of money so Airservices can introduce this technology. It still rankles many in the industry that the initial plan was for ADS-B to relieve Airservices of the costs of replacing old en route radars. That saved money was to go back to GA in the form of subsidies for fitting equipment. What we got was both ADS-B and the new radars all without the subsidies. It would be hard to imagine a worse outcome for private GA.

Guys due to the hot-spell CF's are now in the fridge..


Moving on here is the AQON for ASA at Supp Estimates - see HERE

In light of this comment from the ATSB in their 'updated' summary of the Australia Day Loss Of Separation event (post #255)...

"...Coordination of this change with Essendon Airport air traffic control, as was required due to the proximity of the two airports, did not occur..." 

I wonder if the 'Hooded One' would now like to revisit his answer to this part of QON 82.. :

Senator XENOPHON: Finally, in relation to the issue involving the separation between Essendon and Tullamarine, and also the issue of the double go-around on 5 July this year, can you give us an update as to whether there have been any changes in procedure for both incidents that caused a lot of concern amongst people in the aviation community I speak to?

Answer:

Essendon

Airservices has reviewed coordination procedures and in July 2014 implemented the following actions:

− Melbourne tower is required to be kept informed of the status of Essendon, increasing the shared knowledge and understanding of the current state of Melbourne operations.

− Melbourne tower is advised of aircraft conducting instrument approaches for RWY 26 at Essendon. This increases Melbourne tower’s awareness of potential conflictions when they are operating on Runway 16 for departures.

In addition, an interim system enhancement has been implemented which involves a visual prompt that presents the approach controllers with the status of Essendon tower to provide visual separation.

Either way I would be mildly surprised if Senator X were to leave the above answer unchallenged..



MTF..P2