Transition Levels

[TinPusher]

I understand the transitions levels in NZ will be changing in the next month or so to F140-12,000ft. I understand the decision to do so was driven by Air Nelson preferring 12,000' as the 'optimum' level to fly WN-NS in the SF34's. This will cause a number of problems for ATC with respect to internal procedures, Lids etc and given the SF34's are planned to be replaced at some time in the next year or so..... what's the point?

[Plas Teek]

Nah mate, not quite.
Until recently (like last month), no-one in Air Nelson even knew it was changing.

Maybe you should look towards the gliding frat. or read :

http://www.caa.govt.nz/fulltext/rule_pdf/Pending/Part_091_040705_Amendment_12.pdf

Saabs like FL140/150 better! So it's going to impact on them and Mt Cook, who also scoot about at 140.

Roll on 25 NOV......:eek:

Don't see why myself..... maybe because I don't fly gliders...:confused:

[Eurocap]

On Nov 25th 2004 there will be dramatic airspace changes.

The Transition Altitude will be raised from 11,000ft AMSL to 13,000ft AMSL, the Transition Level will be raised from FL130 to FL150; all controlled airspace will become Transponder Mandatory; most MBZs with frequent Turb-prop services will be Transponder Mandatory above 1500 ft AGL; most Airspace areas ie Low Flying Areas etc., will be renamed Zones.

As I understand it these Transition Layer changes are because of Volcanic Areas being above 11,000ft and also parachute operators operating up to the max non-O2 levels of 13,000. There may be other reasons. I doubt that it was driven by Air Nelson or any other airline, more than likely driven by adventure operators instead.

Most airlines heard about the forthcoming changes earlier in the year.

More info can be obtained on the CAA Airspace website under changes to Rule Part 71.

Euro

[Near Miss]

Transponder Mandatory in a MBZ above 1500' AGL! I'd like to see that in Oz! :}

[Plas Teek]

Eurocap I think the gliders had more to do with it than any Volcano. They are the ones mentioned in the link above. Also since the Volcanos are all below 11 000' anyway.

The point about MOST airlines is also a bit hazy too.

I know for a fact that at least one major T/Prop operator didn't, as well as one Jet operator. ALL other drivers I have recently talked to, also know nothing about the change.

One would've thought it would be in a NOTAM or similar by now.

[Eurocap]

Check out:

www.caa.govt.nz/rules & more/pending & draft rules/
part 91 amendment 12 and part 19 amendment 7
also
www.caa.govt.nz/airspace/airspace review/airspace proposals

Its all there.

Euro
:ok:

[TinPusher]

I am a little surprised that such major changes are yet to filter through to the rest of us. Cheers for the info, 'rumour control' got it wrong again, it wasn't the SF34's. Certainly there's a growth in 'adventure tourism', with skydiving op's and the like so it's probably a good move anyway. Mandatory transponders in CTR a'space includes gliders too!
:ok: TP

[BCF Breath]

Eurpcap, your link no work Bro...?

[Blue Line]

Going to be weird after so many years, requestiong 12,000 and not being able to go FL140

[BCF Breath]

I hope they have got the software all sorted for those techy aeroplanes for 25 NOV !

[deadhead]

The conspiracy theorists have got it wrong again. No industry group pushed for this change - someone in CAA or Airways counted up the numbe of route MSAs over 11,000 feet, decided it was actually quite a few, and thought, quite rightly, that flying at FL130 with an MSA of 11,300ft wasn't a flash idea. That has, is, and will be the only reason for the change.

No marks for the PR department, who are just letting this one sneak up on us. Wonder why ...

[Eurocap]

Back in March or April an Airline Inspector sent a note out to representatives of various NZ airlines warning of the forthcoming change. I can't remember who the recipients were but from memory all airlines were contacted. I may be wrong.

In August the draft information was available on the CAA web-site. This also included changes to NZ airspace.

I guess most pilots do not use the CAA website to find out forthcoming Rule and Airspace changes and expect, as I do, to have the information provided sometime before the changes occur.

I have the feeling the CAA have decided that the website is now the medium for promalgating any changes and I have now become an e-mail addressee for notification of changes to rules and any other info that they put out.

The CAA are using modern communication methods to provide information and to cut costs. This is a responsible financial move but it would appear that there is a breakdown in the communication loop as there are a lot out there that have not caught up with the changes.

Euro

[deadhead]

I think the point has to be made though, that this change is about 8 weeks away now, and an AIP Sup issue is normally done a bit before this ... certainly aren't knocking use of website etc etc but I do have to wonder when an ICAO-style promulgation will take place. I hope not just as the AIRAC amendment pack arrives!

[Eurocap]

October AIP New Zealand Supplement has all the details.

:O :O :O

[Plas Teek]

OK and for those who don't get the supp?

The chaps at Air NZ were just advised last week via an internal safety flyer.

I think CAA could've done it a lot better.
A newspaper bit and check the website, I don't think so.
And who knows where that letter to operators went?
Maybe next time guys, but this time was quite a failure.:ugh:

[splatgothebugs]

Good point plas teek:ok:

I brought this up on another threed a while ago and got shot down.

:{

There is a lack of notification by CAA on this matter, the first I heard was through a rumour which was confirmed by management only a few weeks ago.

Not everybody looks at the CAA website or gets the vector mags, perhaps if they put notices up through crew rooms and airports throughout NZ it may have help spread the news a bit better.

splat:ok:

[belowMDA]

Yeah likewise this is the first I have heard about it. I read vector when it comes out but I don't recall seeing anything there at all! I am still not convinced of the need to change, can anyone really clarify the benefits?

[Cloud Cutter]

Don't think the argument about high MSAs holds much water. The highest I could find was 11,700 (CH-WB) - at FL130 you would be fine untill QNH drops below 970, and of course this level is not available any time below 980 hPa.

I think it's more to do with the number of operators using all of the 13,000 ft available to them for short periods of time - be it meat bombing, or cruising between 11 and 13K in mountain wave conditions on the way to Gissy.

I also think the CAA have been a bit slack on the industry consultation, with many of us apparently having to hear through the grapevine.

[craka]

One reason I can think of for the change is the standardising with ICAO and Aus.

Theoreticlly flight above the transition level will allow you to clear all terrain within the FIR.

So flight at or above FL150 would allow you to avoid Mt Cook by 2000' (Mt Cook is 12,316').

In the US of A their transition level is FL180 (due to the rockies) and in the UK it is above FL030 (3000' as you aint going to hit anything above that)