rhysmcc

Don't worry I sometimes forget the chair I'm in too :)

 

Your correct, squawk ident makes your return flash pink on our radar display, easiest way to make sure we have the right 1200 code when giving traffic/info too, not sure what extra info is sent to the system, nothing we see other then the colour change

 

 

Enroute don't see the callsign unless you also have ADSB out capability. I believe the system still receives all the mode s information, it just doesn't show on the screen for us. However, I believe the systems supervisor does have the ability to access the 24 bit mode s return from the raw feed if necessary. That is starting to really get into the technical aspects of the eurocat system and beyond my knowledge and most controllers knowledge.I believe the mode s data becomes more important at certain towered aerodromes when they use a system known as A-SMGCS for ground movements, and I believe this system is largely reliant on mode s information, hence the requirement for mode s at places like Sydney and Brisbane. Having the correct mode s callsign would be critical here. Not being a tower controller, my knowledge on this system is very small, perhaps Rhys can elaborate a bit on that one.

Indeed the Surface Movement Radar at places like Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne displays your Mode S callsign, we often get error messages if the callsign and the code assigned to your flight plan don't match.

 

Yeah I've heard guys called on taxi and asked to recheck their flight # ID.

Yeah, we will ask you to check the callsign in your FMS or if you are squaring the wrong code you'll get a reminder of the correct code. It happens a few times a day with the airlines often having to change callsigns or forgetting to put in the new code.

 

 

I've never seen Rego from transponder on my screens and don't have access to ADSB read outs other than on the ground. Not sure what the Enroute guys get to see.

 

 

Unverified just means the controller hasn't got an altitude report from the aircraft and cross checked the Mode C altitude from the transponder. This is usually done on first contact with a radar controller

 

 

Thanks for the update Don, from the boards view what is reasoning behind separating the members charter from the constitution?

 

 

Rocky Approach is actually the tower during tower operating hours (the class D). At night an approach service is provided by Brisbane Centre to the base of controlled airspace.

 

So to answer your question, the Class C is Brisbane Centre, the Class D is Rocky Tower

 

 

Class C normally be BN Centre, they will pass you into Rocky Tower by direct transmission. If you are unsure have a look at DAH, it's lists all the controlled airspace and who owns it.

 

 

I find it strange they want ASA privatised, how does that encourage General Aviation (a private company would have little interest in the non revenue making GA aircraft)?

 

 

No we can issue any altitudes, VFR will often get levels in the 500s (i.e. 2500), it all comes down to what the pilot requests and what ATC can separate.

 

 

Is there something around that specifies that C LL 8500 is G or E class? Because I read it as C class lowest Limit is 8500, ie the C starts at 8500. You got me going back to my text books. From how I read it, I would have thought 8499 is the highest for the G or E class. Maybe the people at CASA give a little lee way to those skimming right on the level. I would still be 50-100ft lower, just for that error margin.

The airspace only begins above the stated lower level, sorry I don't have a reference.

 

 

The lower level is actually class G airspace (unless another airspace level is stated), Class C airspace is above that level. So in this example C LL 8500, At 8500ft you are in class G, at 8501 you are in class C. ATC will usually only issue you a clearance at least 500ft above the LL, to keep you clear of aircraft flying at the boundary.

 

If for example your airspace has 2 levels

 

C LL 8500

 

E LL 4500

 

Then at 4500ft you are in class G, between 4501ft and 8500ft you are in E and above 8500ft you are in C.

 

 

It should read "C LL 8500" (note the LL rather then FL). That's the highest level you could fly before you enter C airspace, IE you can fly at 8500 in that step. The airspace then drops down to 5500, you would need to be at that level prior to the airspace boundary to remain outside C airspace. (assuming there isn't D airspace under the C step as I don't have a copy of the VTC with me).

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/navigation/airspace.html has a good guide, but I would suggest going over with your instructor.

 

 

Bite sized pieces. Not everyone of our 10,000 members are as tuned in or as interested as you are . If it was all dumped in one go most would drown under the volume and it would all get the tldr (too long didn't read) response and be counter-productive.

Splitting up the constitution into bite size pieces make sense, so why not at the end of each "piece" include a short survey asking the members what options they consider important for them and their association. An example could be regional vs national representation.

 

Members have been given the opportunity to voice opposition and none that I am aware of has been voiced to RAAus.

I find this impossible, from reading this forum as well as my own emails, I know of at least 5 members who have voiced opposition to the constitution in it's current form. Another reason why "emailing the CEO" isn't the best way for the Board to represent the members. Section 14B (iii) provides the perfect avenue for the Board to canvas the opinion of the membership on matter of policy (which is what this draft is).

 

They were advertised well in advance and typically, very informal gatherings, sitting around in a tent where ordinary members could feel comfortable asking questions and expressing views. No secretarial staff were present and they were not held as formal meetings. I flew at my own cost to Evans Head and attended the meeting there with Mick Monck and Michael Linke - it went very well.

That's great, I was at Evans Heads but sadly had to drive back to Brisbane before the meeting. I did watch the video of an informal meeting following last years AGM, some useful information shame such recordings haven't been made from other meetings.

How many of our 10,000 odd members have been represented at these meetings, or was it so informal a check of membership wasn't recorded?

 

I guess the Board takes the view that they were elected by the members to do a job and they are getting on with it. The draft has been and is being put to the members with explanations and opportunities for comments and questions. I think you may be overstating the interest of members other than yourself and a few on here to make an unsupported contribution. Consider the typical "turnout" at elections for the Board. I believe the vast majority of members want their Board to work this way - they look to the Board for leadership.

Costs nothing (minimal) to ask the membership via electronic survey. But hey, you've been elected to the board so I guess that means your opinion now represents the membership.

 

I must be missing something. Where in the draft constitution does it say "removal of elected board members in favor of appointed board"? As far as I can see only the Members can remove a Director.

You're correct, that was my mistake. It was on a previous draft constitution and I didn't notice the change on the latest release. I'm happy to own the mistake although it's hard to notice the revisions when no change bars or version numbers are listed.

 

 

Frank, that's basically the issue I'm having, some changes I agree with (in favor of 7 board members), others I find a deal breaker (board appointed by the board). I believe the more needs to be done to ascertain what the members want, saying for us all to email the CEO just doesn't cut it, and the board shouldn't be relying on the CEO to represent the members views, that is the function of the board and the board then directs the CEO.

 

The CEO appears to have done a great job in bringing various options to the board, now we just need the board to survey the members and then direct the CEO to piece it together. However it appears the board still wishes to skip the step on asking the members.

 

 

Why over 7 weeks, are we making it up as we go? Are we expected to get the final version on week 7?

 

What surveys (other then a show of hands in the hangar) has the board requested to actually see what direction the members want (re my last post on the other thread).

 

Has there been any minutes conducted from any of these "consulting airport visits"?

 

I haven't seen any evidence that the board has made any attempt in seeking what the 10,000 odd members want from their association. Our current constitution gives the board the power to conduct a plebsite of the membership, so why not send out a 5-10 question electronic survey and actually find out what the want?

 

I for one won't be supporting the removal of elected board members in favor of appointed board, currently it's the only time a member has any say in their own association

 

 

If you scrap the RPC you remove the reason for having the RAA, its a good idea. Have the SAAA take control of the RAA and let CASA take over control of registering all GA aircraft.

I think it should be the other way around, let CASA take over the licensing and RAA/SAAA control the registering of expertimal and sport aircraft. (Factory and home built).

 

 

it is not easy to rewrite a constitution at the meeting 2010 persons warned that it would take time so bloody well read it and plug the holes in it before the red draft sign is removed from itnot everyone will be happy when it is put to the vote as it can and will bite at some time the cost to fix it later is enormous neil

This is an issue that I've tried to raise before, they are trying to change too much without even asking members if that's the direction they want to go. Why not poll the members on what they want then design the constitution around it.

 

Association vs Company

 

Size of the Board

 

Regional vs National representation

 

Elected vs Appointed Board

 

The members have not been consulted on any of these issues, the latest newsletter is another example of poor management on this issue

 

 

So the link in the last newsletter is still to the old version and not the one we are actually meant to vote for in May?

 

 

Redcliffe Aero Club have just started to offer VET-FEE courses too, hopefully they don't end up in the same trouble.

 

 

Sorry RAAus board members reading this but you lot need sacking

Will you be putting forward a resolution to that effect?

 

 

I don't know why we are going through with this still when they have a cheap and easy way to poll the members and see what they actually want before trying to design a new company and come up with the rules to support it.

 

 

From my observations Airservices Australia need focus more on delivering "services" and less on "control". I cannot help but think the vectoring practices around capital city airports is about job security and the ATS belief that pilots are idiots trying to run into each other.Surely arriving / departing aircraft can be separated laterally via correctly designed SIDs and STARs?

Sydney airspace will be interesting in about 9 years time, when Badgey's Creek is operational.

I think you'll find it's more about trying to make the best use of the airspace and runway to maximize use.

 

SIDS and STARS are designed with separation in mind, but it's not set and forget. At some point the tracks need to cross as aircraft travel in all directions. May I suggest talking to your airline if there is a segment your not happy with, industry are heavily involved these days in the redesign of airspace procedures.

 

 

Do you maintain the level?

 

I know at places I've worked (not Sydney) it wouldn't work as outbound and inbound tracks cross and as ATC we can't use "profile" as a standard, so we use levels until a radar standard can be assured. I can't recall seeing a jet actually be kept at the stop level.

 

The whole idea behind vectoring to final is to tighten up the sequence, aircraft can hit their fix time but very rarely does the fix time sequence reflect the landing time sequence (space between aircraft). With vectoring you can run downwind for extra space (for a departure) or close downwind if the gap is opening up too much.

 

 

Why can't we have STAR's that terminate at the runway threshold in Sydney? And why can't departing aircraft have unlimited climb at capital city airports? A climbing aircraft will always out climb an aircraft on a three degree profile!

I'm not approach rated but I believe the radar vectoring used at Sydney allow for a tighter sequence thus more movements. Brisbane may be going to same way when the new runway and airspace changes come in.

 

As for the stop gap on climb, that's for separation assurance with other aircraft operating within the terminal area, same as you don't get given unrestricted decent either.

 

 

I would think the cost of carrying the extra load (fuel) would out way any price difference.