Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha [Archive]

Dick Smith

24th Nov 2009, 06:05

Howabout

The statement

a number of controllers were quite adamant that Class C is no more resource intensive to run than Class E

is clearly a lie, ie. a mis-truth, a non-fact.

More importantly, what they left out was the fact that in Australia at airports like Albury the Controller who was responsible for the Class D airspace below was also responsible for separating aircraft in the Class C airspace above.

While Class C may have indeed been safer, the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above.

Some of our controllers maintained that they had some type of super-human abilities when compared to controllers in other countries, and they could indeed do this extra workload without any reduction in safety in the airspace where the collision risk was far higher.

To put it simply, Class C airspace is “safer” than Class E if it is properly manned and the proper tools are provided.

Why Controllers would be so foolish as to claim they could give a higher level of service when compared to Controllers in all other countries in the world - ie. Class C without radar and without adequate manning – is quite beyond me.

This only damages the credibility of Controllers when they are claiming that they can accept the extra workload when at the same time they are claiming that there are already not enough staff.

Howabout – the answer to your third paragraph would be as follows:

I didn’t elect to provide an inferior level of service – it was the bosses who refused to provide proper manning and tools (ie. radar) for the Class C – that’s why I insisted that the airspace where I had no evidence of where a VFR aircraft was remained Class E as it is in the rest of the world.

If the airlines or their passengers wanted a Class C service above places like Albury or Broome, I would be quite happy to provide it as long as the service was correctly manned and correctly serviced by radar

twisties

24th Nov 2009, 09:34

As a controller I believe that Class C is much safer than Class E.

I do not understand what is gained with Class E and question the benefits of controlling IFR aircraft (which may include vectoring aircraft) yet have other unidentified aircraft with an unverified level that are not talking to ATS. The big sky theory will continue to work well until the day, which I hope does not come, 2 aircraft come together in Class E.

That said thanks Dick for highlighting the fact that the ATC system should be resourced and staffed with safety in mind. It is about time that CASA and Government instruct Airservices to fix it and increase ATC numbers.

Unfortunately as mentioned in another post Airservices does not seem to acknowledge that staffing numbers must be increased. There seems little hope especially according to the interview with Airservices CEO published in the December 2009 Australian Aviation. This article continues to maintain the position "that it now has enough staff, and that the bigger issue was not the number of controllers, but how they were deployed".

Seems nothing is going to change any time soon (I hope I am mistaken)

le Pingouin

24th Nov 2009, 13:54

Dick, please explain how separating IFR in C is any more resource intensive than separating IFR in E. Both require a controller.

We're not interested in running any sort of airspace without adequate staffing. For the 86 billionth time you are being told it's all about resources. We're not the ones demanding change for the sake of change.

If you're so interested in safety why aren't you asking hard questions of Airservices instead of apparently believing what you're told by them? Ask them why are we continuing down this road instead of consolidating?

The only credibility damaged is yours by calling people liars. Nicely done using the anonymity of the forums to attack posters.

Dick Smith

24th Nov 2009, 18:44

Derr' It's more resource intensive because a controller also has to separate VFR from IFR in C !

Why do you keep saying controllers can provide this upgraded service with the same staffing and equipment as E ?

No wonder you are exploited.

I suggest you talk to a US or Canadian ATC and ask them if they would be happy to convert their E above D to C without extra manpower and radar.

They would say they are not that foolish!

So why are you- or is it just resistance to change?

peuce

24th Nov 2009, 19:27

Dick,

1. Can you please provide the data to support your statement that ...

".....the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above."

That is , on what occasions has there been a safety issue ... or is it just your "best guess"?

2. Your statement ...

"...Derr' It's more resource intensive because a controller also has to separate VFR from IFR in C !"

may sound valid to the uninitiated.. that is, of course, unless you are a Controller and understand that it is quite often safer, easier and quicker to positively separate a VFR from an IFR ... rather than guess where the VFR may go and continuously vector an IFR (hopefully) around him. That is, assuming you have the surveillance capability to know where both aircraft are. And quicker means you can move on to another task.... hence it's less resource intensive.

ferris

24th Nov 2009, 20:52

Im still not sure whether you don't understand what you are talking about, or are self-delusional about YOUR abilities (in that you know better about ATC than actual controllers). the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above You have repeated this lie, this untruth, many times, and had it explained to you before. Some of our controllers maintained that they had some type of super-human abilities when compared to controllers in other countries, and they could indeed do this extra workload without any reduction in safety Another BLATANT lie. Controllers in oz have never said this. They have merely pointed out that if you add VFR workload in oz , it is an enormously small workload compared to if you added VFR workload to towers in the US of A, where there is ****eloads more VFR traffic, and they couldn't do it without many more controllers. Read peuce's post. If there were a very large number of VFRs operating around an airport (like they have in the states) then more resources would be required.

"A lie told a hundred times........" And you certainly like telling them a hundred times, Dick.

Capn Bloggs

24th Nov 2009, 21:39

Dick,
resistance to change
What was the point of the change? Where's the benefit?

Dick Smith

24th Nov 2009, 22:04

Peuce

I’ll try and explain it a little more basically, but please open up your mind.

The airports being talked about in this thread are Broome and Karratha. At the present time, Controllers provide a traffic information service on known traffic to IFR aircraft descending into and climbing out of these airports. In such cases, the Air Traffic Controllers have no idea of what VFR aircraft are present in the link airspace and therefore they do not give traffic on these VFR aircraft nor, in my forty years’ experience in aviation, have I ever heard a Controller claim that there is a safety problem with this.

If we upgrade the link airspace at these two airports to Class E, Controllers then suddenly start raving about VFR aircraft and how they have some type of responsibility to the IFR to give traffic. This is rubbish! If the G link airspace is acceptable to Controllers and pilots at the present time where a VFR traffic information or separation service is not given it is obvious that upgrading it to a Class E can only improve safely.

Simply, Peuce, at the present time at these airports in the link airspace you are not separating IFR from VFR as it’s Class G. There is no reason if it upgrades to Class E that you the have an obligation or a safety reason to separate the IFR from the VFR.

Obviously at these two airports you do not have a “surveillance capability” so you do not have an obligation to give an IFR to VFR traffic or information service – just as you don’t in the Class G airspace at the present time.

Set in concrete in your minds is in the old days before we introduced the ICAO airspace classifications where Controllers separated absolutely everything from each other – or gave no service at all.

Believe it or not, world aviation experts have decided that it’s better to have a graded response with classifications from G to A. The reason for this is that it is a more effective way of allocating finite and limited safety resources.

In relation to where there has been a safety issue in Class D, a simple but slightly different example was the incident at Hamilton Island where a competent Controller nearly put two airline aircraft together. Of course, what was covered up by the ATSB (they would not release the transcript) was that the Controller was also communicating to other aircraft which were unnecessarily increasing the workload.

This is exactly what would happen when Class C airspace exists above and the D Controller in the tower below is also responsible for communicating with VFR aircraft in the link airspace above.

To put it even more simply, you seem to think that you have a different obligation in relation to VFR traffic in Class G to Class E. In fact, you don’t. Get yourself informed. In relation to VFR, Class E and Class G are identical – nowhere are you complaining about Class G into airports with jet traffic such as Ballina and Ayers Rock.

Of course, if the two airlines had hit in that particular incident at Hamilton Island and hundreds of people had been killed, we would have then moved to the proven international procedures where Controllers concentrate where the collision risk is highest, and in the link airspace a lower classification of airspace is wisely provided.

Ferris - you are wrong. At Karratha and Broome the Class E airspace will not add VFR workload to Controllers. As there is no radar coverage in the area, the VFR aircraft in the link airspace above will be invisible and not be a responsibility to the Controller. This is exactly the present position where Class G airspace exists.

Ferris, why don’t you actually ask some Controllers from Canada, the USA or Europe how the system works and why they so strongly support it? They are sensible and professional, and they don’t want to be responsible for airspace that is so far away and where they have no surveillance capability as they cannot provide a proper service – it is obvious.

Dick Smith

24th Nov 2009, 22:09

Bloggsy

Surely you are joking? The change is self-evident. If we upgrade Karratha and Broome to Class D and E from it’s present Class G, we have a safety improvement.

Give me a phone call some time and I’ll try and explain it to you.

mikk_13

24th Nov 2009, 22:40

Hi dick,

I've worked the airspace which you refer to. I know exactly the traffic and where and where it flies. These aerodromes desperately need towers. However, I think the class E situation is probably more work for the controller than you think. I would far prefer to have positive separation between a jet with 150 people than hoping the VFR piper arrow that reported inbound broome to overfly has seen the the jet flying at 250knots descending through clouds above at 1500ft per/min plus. The simple fact is I will have to pass traffic info to the outbound/inbound jet on the reported VFR if he has reported on frequency that he overflying the area and their may possibly be an airprox/collision. I would be in jail if I didn't pass the traffic to the jet on the VFR, even if your procedures said I did the right thing or not.

For me its quite simple. If the clearance to travel trough a class C steps is not available because I don't have a separation standard with departing/inbound jets, the vfr doesn't get a clearance. He has to fly around. Maybe a VFR corridor would be more suitable therefore limiting the area in which VFR aircraft can fly and allow the jet to depart while assuring they are not in conflict with VFR traffic.

In a surveillance area, there is no way in hell I am going to let one of my jets fly into a VFR aircraft. I will not/ cannot give a clearance for a jet to fly into another plane. This is what your class E insists I do. This possibly means I will vector/clear my IFR aircraft so not to give a clearance that will put the IFR aircraft in direct conflict with an VFR aircraft like you insist.

the VFR aircraft in the link airspace above will be invisible and not be a responsibility to the Controller If at any stage the aircraft becomes known to the controller via a radio call, then it is not invisible and I think we are more than obligated to pass the information to the IFR aircraft.

This is exactly what would happen when Class C airspace exists above and the D Controller in the tower below is also responsible for communicating with VFR aircraft in the link airspace above.

I believe the separation in the class C steps would be done by the area controller in the centers. The tower would only have upto 5-6000ish, correct me if I am wrong.

Dick, I don't understand why they just don't make it C airspace. Therefore we know we have separation for the RPT jets. I guess it comes down to what you think is better. Is it better that the student pilot gets to fly over broome as he pleases whether in conflict with RPT jet traffic conflicting or not? Or is it better that the VFR gets denied a clearance once in a while and you can be absolutely sure they won't clean up a Jet on the way in/out?

tobzalp

24th Nov 2009, 23:30

Dick, what is the latest with the letter from the minister at the time dictating C airspace had to have radar coverage?

le Pingouin

25th Nov 2009, 00:58

Why do you keep saying controllers can provide this upgraded service with the same staffing and equipment as E ?

No wonder you are exploited.

I suggest you talk to a US or Canadian ATC and ask them if they would be happy to convert their E above D to C without extra manpower and radar.

They would say they are not that foolish!

So why are you- or is it just resistance to change?We're not the ones pushing for the change without adequate resourcing. Direct your questions elsewhere.

As I keep repeating & repeating & repeating. And you keep failing & failing & failing to listen: anything can be done with the appropriate resources. Give us the resources. Appropriate surveillance, appropriate sectors, appropriate staffing, appropriate equipment. Unfortunately our Dear Leader is on a mission from God (or is it Mammon) & won't listen.

Amygdala1

25th Nov 2009, 01:38

Where would DG&P without all of this airspace, secotorisation workload, confusion, chaos and reduced safety levels. Year after year it continues much to the embarrassment of Australia; the place that had the simplest, most functionally efficient, effective and safest airspace with the added bonus of SERVICE to the industry. A world best standard, admired by many in the USA. CTA and OCTA, FS and ATC, dependant upon complexity, density and type of operation. The Howardism by Dick of sycophantic surrogacy to copy someone elses nightmare. But its not Dicks fault - as often is the case, it is the non-accountable politician that enabled a power base to cause this. But we are slowly slowly getting back to common sense, in different terms of course. So off you all go again and I will continue to read, shake my head and chuckle. :D

The Green Goblin

25th Nov 2009, 01:59

It all went down hill in Australia when two short phrases were coined.

"User pays"

"Affordable safety"

:ugh:

Dick Smith

25th Nov 2009, 03:36

Mikk 13

VFR aircraft that are currently over flying Karratha and Broome in the link airspace are currently not calling Air Traffic Control so you can give them as traffic to the IFR airline aircraft. Why aren’t they doing that? Because it’s not a required procedure and it’s not an effective way of allocating our resources.

Why then would a VFR aircraft have to or want to call you when flying through Class E airspace at the same locations?

In the USA, Canada or indeed Europe, if VFR aircraft called up Air Traffic Control in Class E non-radar and gave a position report, it would tend to bring the system to a halt. In fact, Air Traffic Controllers and regulatory authorities do not allow such position reports, as that’s what Class D or higher airspace is allocated for – not Class E.

You state

If at any stage the aircraft becomes known to the controller via a radio call, then it is not invisible and I think we are more than obligated to pass the information to the IFR aircraft.

I agree with you. That’s why in every other modern aviation country, VFR aircraft are not allowed to make random position reports to ATC in Class E airspace. They can request flight following in radar covered airspace and this is always workload permitting at Controller discretion.

You state,

I believe the separation in the class C steps would be done by the area controller in the centres. The tower would only have up to 5-6000ish, correct me if I am wrong.

I hope you are wrong. That would be a completely unique system that has never been attempted anywhere else in the world.

At the present time, the Centre is responsible for the link airspace above Broome and Karratha and does not provide a separation or even a traffic service to VFR aircraft. Why, then, would we want to provide this unique service with Class E when there is no measurable safety reason for it.

You don’t seem to understand that airspace has to be allocated in relation to an objective criteria. At the present, your student pilot flies over Broome and Karratha without getting a separation or a traffic information service. Why, then, would it need to change because we are going to upgrade the terminal airspace below to Class D?

Tobzalp, the requirement for a terminal radar in all Class C still remains. No Minister will ever remove that requirement whilst it is accepted practice in every other modern aviation country.

I know some Aussie Controllers are prepared to have a cheaper and lower safety service here - where they somehow “guesstimate” - where the VFR aircraft is in non-radar C, but no professional controller anywhere else in the world would be prepared to provide such an amateurish system.

Fortunately, the Minister understands this and the directive remains.

I’m amazed that Civil Air do not come out and support this directive, ie. if Air Traffic Controllers are going to be made responsible for separating IFR and VFR aircraft behind visual range, they must have the tools to do it – radar and proper manning levels.

Green Goblin – yes, I agree with you, the days of unaffordable safety were far better. That was when perpetual motion machines ran amok and Joe Bjelke-Petersen’s water-fuelled car was on the building blocks!

No Further Requirements

25th Nov 2009, 03:53

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the current NAS radio reporting requirements, a VFR in class G should be on the appropriate CTAF frequency if they are in the approach/departure path near an aerodrome. That way if they hear an IFR, say RPT jet, inbound/outbound in confliction they can pipe up and self-announce to organise separation.

In class E, there would be no requirement for them to even be on the frequency nor to make any announcements.

How is this safer?

My understanding may be wrong, and feel free to correct me.

Cheers,

NFR.

Dick Smith

25th Nov 2009, 04:39

no further requirements – you are wrong in relation to Class E. Australia has completely unique radio requirements for VFR aircraft in Class E. No other country in the world has such a requirement.

I have just looked at one of the documents put out by Airservices Australia which states,

VFR pilots operating in Class E airspace should monitor the frequency of the ATS unit responsible for that airspace. When aware of any impending conflict with other traffic, pilots should also alert the ATS unit (or the other pilot, where more appropriate) to their presence.

This is not Class E airspace. Can you imagine Civil Air allowed their Controllers to be put in this invidious position because the airlines wanted to turn E airspace into some type of Class D, but without paying for Class D.

As I said before, I simply can’t believe that the ATC union can so let down their members by having a Class E airspace which clearly makes Air Traffic Controllers responsible for traffic and, in some cases, separation between IFR and VFR aircraft.

If Air Traffic Controllers stood up for their rights they should say that this is not Class E airspace, and they will operate it as Class C but terminal radar and proper staff levels must be provided as per the Minister’s Directive – it is all pretty obvious.

peuce

25th Nov 2009, 05:10

Dick,

In post after post you seem to be encouraging, nay, demanding that VFRs shut up ... so that they can become "invisible" to ATC.

I hate to tell you this, but they are still there ... and they are still jet fodder ... whether they maintain radio silence or not.

Shouldn't we, in the interests of maximum reasonable safety, encourage them to speak up, so the Controller can deal with the situation ... which he couldn't do in Class G, other than provide traffic info ... but can now, because he can budge the Jet?

Yes, perhaps a bit more workload, but geez ... most of us don't think the alternative is too attractive..

ARFOR

25th Nov 2009, 05:27

Thats where your argument fails Mr Smith!

1. VFR self announcing a conflict in E is nothing like D, as the Controller can take no action to separate them, in D they can
2. Is there a cost difference betweenbecause the airlines wanted to turn E airspace into some type of Class D, but without paying for Class D. airlines paying for CTA E or D? I think not!
3. VFR position reporting and separation in C can be based on many things including prominent topographical features
4. Civilair it seems listen to reality from 'actual' ATCO's in Australia. [I]Silly would be to put ATCO's in a postion of having information [surveillance and/or radio] and not giving them the rules [or legislative protection] to effect safe resolution [class E]
5. ICAO does not mandate surveillance for C or E
6. C steps [with or without surveillance] have operated in Australia safely for many years
7. Paired ICAO D and C CTR/A towers work effectively [otherwise where are the incident and accident reports]

Here are a couple of bits and pieces to consider from the US

A. D towers are being promulgated for 90K GA moves P.A. Are you advocating Class D towers at Australian airports with greater than 90K P.A. GA moves?
B. TRSA [radar based VFR opt in ICAO D] are being replaced by C [SFC to Fl's]. Are you advocating C or B in Australia where traffic density and mix is similar to those of US TRSA's [past and present]?

Questions for you to ponder:-

1. Why does Class E play a starring role in the vast majority NMAC and MAC reports in the US? I guess you will find out soon enough [in the airspace over 4 Airports with Passenger Jet Services]!
2. Should the classification of airspace in a given area be determined via legislated Safety and Cost V Benefit process/es?

Amygdala1

25th Nov 2009, 05:30

Reality vs theory, fact vs fantasy.

Every single time I have provided merging traffic info to V to V, never mind V to I in any airspace and offered separation/segregation the pilots have concurred to the service. Every single time.

Dog One

25th Nov 2009, 09:33

Having read all the previous posts several times, I cannot see the need for E airspace outside of radar. At the moment, on descent into Broome, ATC advise any IFR traffic and thats it. We self announce our position in relation to Broome leaving F180. We monitor Broome CTAF and call inbound with what traffice we have gleaned from monitoring the CTAF frequency. The balance of the traffic is given by the CAGRO. We then organise our inbound track to advoid the traffice and track to the aerodrome, monitoring our TCAS to ensure that we haven't a foreigner utilising his freedom to fly.

So now what additional safety benefit does E airspace give me and the 100+ pax sitting behind me. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Being IFR, I will be under postive control, ie track via, descend to, call Broome Tower. I cannot vary my tracking without a clearance, but the unknown VFR aircraft can, and unless he/she has very good eyesight, might not see me approaching above a cloud layer. The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on. ( You will be surprised at the amount of VFR traffic that does not show up on TCAS until prompted about their transponder status)

From the above posts, the fundament difference between C & E is VFR either require a clearance or not. It still takes a controller to work the sector, regardless of it being C or E. So where is the benefit? Why is there E airspace between F180 to F245 west of Darwin. What is the advantage of this? Why not C from F180 to F600?

Why change the present system at Broome, their is no benefit to the RPT aircraft and their fare paying passengers.

twisties

25th Nov 2009, 09:48

VFR pilots operating in Class E airspace should monitor the frequency of the ATS unit responsible for that airspace. When aware of any impending conflict with other traffic, pilots should also alert the ATS unit (or the other pilot, where more appropriate) to their presence.

Maybe someone could answer why on an ongoing basis attempts are made to contact silent VFR aircraft on appropriate frequencies and even at times other frequencies such as adjoining agencies with no response received.

Does this mean that VFR pilots operating in Class E airspace should monitor is purely optional or are we trusting safety on the possibility of an inexperienced flyer missing IFR that are under full control.

What is the benefit of Class E?

It has been achieved again.... an ongoing agenda diverting away from the specific thread. Thanks though for the opportunity to get an explanation of what is gained with Class E (link airspace?)

I understand that a CASA airspace review was the driving reason behind Class D ATS Towers to be provided at Broome and Karratha.

How many controller will be required for each tower? And more importantly, where are they going to come from, seeing that there is a shortage of controllers in Australia.

Dog one - great question.

What is being done to address the shortage of ATC?

Awol57

25th Nov 2009, 13:19

I think the GAAP's need about 30ish staff all up. We need about 6.

In reading the arguements, I can't for the life of me see an advantage to pilots if it is E or G. VFR's are invisible to the controller for all intents and purposes in both cases... so what is the actual difference to an IFR pilot? They still get traffic on the other known IFR??

All it will do is slow IFR aircraft down while we separate them on what is most likely a CAVOK day and they can clearly see the other aircraft. At least from what I can garner here.

Dick Smith

25th Nov 2009, 21:58

By the way, let me remind everyone of the informative statement made by Voice of Reason on this site a number of years ago in relation to class E airspace and United States practice.

Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.

peuce

26th Nov 2009, 02:01

Dick,

I guess you're going to keep that quote safely in your hip pocket until they lower you into that big hole ...:)

But seriously, my questions are ( and I'm getting sick of the sound of my own questions, over and over again):

Does our "National Carrier" fly through non-surveillance Class E in the States?
As I've said before, the Yanks have to compromise ... because of their geography, traffic density, aerodrome density, weather etc ... we don't (is that a question?)
If there was no cost difference in providing Class E or Class C above Broome, which would you rather ... and why?

Capn Bloggs

26th Nov 2009, 02:53

If there was no cost difference in providing Class E or Class C above Broome, which would you rather ... and why?

E, because Dick hates being told by others what to do. He'll never ever say so though because of his fundamentalist attitude.

Believe it or not, world aviation experts have decided that it’s better to have a graded response with classifications from G to A. The reason for this is that it is a more effective way of allocating finite and limited safety resources.
No it's not. Alphabet airspace exists ONLY to allow as much freedom as possible to VFR. You know, make them "invisible" (Dick's words) to ATC and therefore IFR. Good system that...:yuk: And don't give me the "I mandated transponders in E" stuff - even you could see that E is such a crazy idea that at least transponders would give some modicum of sensibility - not that you wanted to...

Dick Smith

26th Nov 2009, 03:51

Peuce

It is almost as if you don’t understand the English language. You state

If there was no cost difference in providing Class E or Class C above Broome, which would you rather ... and why?

I will explain it again as I have done before.

If Class C airspace could be provided over Broome without reducing the safety in other airspace I would support it.

Quite clearly, if we have C airspace over the D at Broome, the Controller in the D tower will also be responsible for some of this C. Airservices data shows that the risk of a collision below 5,000 feet is something like one hundred times greater than the risk of a collision above 5,000 feet. This is obvious, as planes get together at lower altitudes and when coming into an airport. Let me explain it again as simply as possible.

If the Controller responsible for the D airspace is also given the responsibility for the C airspace above – but not just with the same classification but with even a more complex and difficult classification to work with, ie. VFR must be separated from IFR not just given traffic – there is a good chance that when the Controller moves his or her attention away from the D airspace close to the aerodrome to concentrate on lower risk aircraft in the C airspace above, that a collision could occur in the airspace close to the aerodrome area because off this diffusion of concentration.

This is the only reason I understand that countries like the US, Canada and Europe have small Class D volumes and larger E volumes in the low risk link airspace above.

No, our national carrier does not fly through non-surveillance Class E in the States because our national carrier only goes to major city airports. However, if our national carrier went to airports equivalent to Broome or Ballina in the USA, it would fly through non-radar airspace. Of course, in the USA they do not allow airlines to operate in G airspace – it’s only Australia and a few countries in Africa that allow this.

Put simply, the airspace in the United States, Canada and Europe is allocated using a scientific criteria. Our airspace tends to be allocated on the history of how we did it in the past and resistance to change.

By the way, why would you want to put C airspace above Broome and D airspace below? Surely the classifications are reversed? The D should be in the link airspace and the C should be in the terminal airspace where the risks are higher if you wanted to use Class C at all.

Jabawocky

26th Nov 2009, 04:03

Bloggs

Maybe the CAO XX whatever it is should be rewritten to include apart from a compass and ASI a radio and Transponder with air or gear switch. :ok:

Dick Smith

26th Nov 2009, 04:08

Capn Bloggs

It’s obvious that your mind is totally set in concrete. I’m amazed that you are not asking to go back onto DC4s because they have four engines, not just two as in the jets you are flying now.

Of course, four engines have a perception of being safer than two, so pilots should rely on perception, not reality.

Bloggsy, it’s exactly the same with Class E – you have a perception that it’s not safe, however that’s not true. You state

E is such a crazy idea

I suggest you read Link #49 again – this was from Voice of Reason that was so widely applauded by professional pilots and air traffic controllers on this website.

I haven’t seen anyone state that the claims in the post on airspace by Voice of Reason are wrong.

le Pingouin

26th Nov 2009, 04:43

Dick

Who is going to carry the workload of providing the E service? You're ignoring the increased workload involved if it's being assigned to an existing sector. Separation is more labour intensive than providing traffic & you can bet there won't be a new sector created.

So you're quite happy with increasing the risk in the overlying sector because by your own argument they may become distracted by the extra workload? Particularly if they're having to provide it down to a very low level.

You aren't reducing risk, you're just transferring it elsewhere.

ARFOR

26th Nov 2009, 04:51

Mr Smith,
I suggest you read Link #49 again – this was from Voice of Reason that was so widely applauded by professional pilots and air traffic controllers on this website. Applauding the sage words on process!
I haven’t seen anyone state that the claims in the post on airspace by Voice of Reason are wrong.
Whay would they? The quotes in context aren't in conflict with comments by others on these threads. Lets look at what the quote says:-EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace[/B]
I say again, most US airports that service Air Carrier [>30pax seats] aircraft are D TRSA, B or C zones SFC up and then from FL180 above. Above A100 is of little use to the vast majority of VFR even if there is a radar covered band of E from A100 through FL180. Fact is ‘most’ aircraft are transponder equipped anyway due surveillance saturation for many years.This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.Outside of Class B Areas, where does the ‘Australian’ national carrier fly through E in the US?
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe. Interactions? Sure, in all US classes of airspace, many of which are B, C, D TRSA which have separation of IFR and VFR, or/and traffic information for Large Air Carrier Operations. So the statement is correct taking account of the relatively small amount of Class E exposure to US domestic Passenger Transport Operations. There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace [B]are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other. Surveillance based clearly!We agree that [B]Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace Above A100? As above? is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means[U]. Radio? Sounds a lot like Aussie G without IFR Sep! then the real news appears[U]That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. As we have been saying, IFR Sep in E creates delays! I again ask, where are the Incident and Accident reports for IFR v IFR Directed Traffic Information and Self Separation in G??
In both examples above, VFR are unknown to ATS and IFR pilots! And, in the case of Class E, IFR are paying for a separation service that addresses the wrong conflict threat IFR v VFRThe airlines accept that mode of operation. Accept? Or Tolerate?NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas. Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect [U]not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past No argument with that! – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business. Doing business?Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it.If only it were that simple. The reality is a better service can be provided given the very different airspace density and infrastructure. Not to mention the different regulatory requirements for ATCO’s and Airspace services.Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years. See previous answerNOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas. Interesting take! What would be more relevant is the amount of ‘reclassification’ that has occurred in recent times!We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve.Generate a ‘safety deficiency’? Is the suggestion that industry not accepting second best change for changes sake, that the decision makers will as a consequence do nothing?
Perhaps this state of affairs has been reached by constant ‘interference’ from less well informed ‘know it all’s’!By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.The change management processes that presumably you support Mr Smith?
Far from supporting a non-radar Class E area above Broome and Karratha, the quote highlights the contextual differences being referred to by many in these [and related] threads!

peuce

26th Nov 2009, 04:59

Okay Dick ... if I am reading correctly, you are saying that C above Broome would "increase the risk" because the Broome Tower Controller would be providing it ...and could get distracted.

So, therefore, you believe that if it was E above Broome, the Broome Tower Controller wouldn't be providing it ... and therefore, wouldn't be distracted.

Is that really the case? Can someone in the know confirm that:

if it is E above, the Sector above will do it
If it is C above, the Broome Tower Controller will do it

I don't think that would be the case Dick ... but I could be wrong.

Capn Bloggs

26th Nov 2009, 05:17

Dick,
Of course, in the USA they do not allow airlines to operate in G airspace – it’s only Australia and a few countries in Africa that allow this.

You know as well as I (well, you should do) that we don't have class G in Australia. You may like to call it that to suit your own selfish ends (and to fool the uneducated pollies in CBR), but it is not G. It's even better than Class F: IFR have full DTI, carriage and use of radio by VFR above 5000ft is mandatory, and carriage and use of transponders above 10,000ft is mandatory and use of a transponder, if fitted is also mandatory. Stop distorting the truth. To liken Australian G to Africa is just plain deceptive. :=

Dog One

26th Nov 2009, 05:59

So, we relieve the Tower controller of seperating anything other than the traffic in his Class D Control Zone. This will have a radius of 15 nm up to 5000'. The jets will call inbound, the unknown VFR will call inbound from many different directions, and need to be postively controlled to either end of the runway where the jets are also heading. So in a matter of a few minutes he/she has to sort out the traffic flow. Missed calls, stepped on calls, repeated intructions, read backs etc will turn the zone into chaos. I don't believe that will work, the Safety Case would blow it out of the water.

Proper use of C over D would give both the sector controller and the tower controller a chance to organise the traffic flow, such as in Hobart, before it reaches the circuit.

And again for Mr Smith's benefit, there is no additional safety for a jet rpt operating in E outside radar coverage over G. In fact E restricts the availability to vary heading or track, as the aircraft is being controlled. If we cant be affored extra safety, leave it as it is.

ferris

26th Nov 2009, 06:06

Excellent post Arfor.

For the pilots out there reading this- Dick constantly tells a lie, over and over, about controllers being "distracted" or some such rubbish, if they have to do more than one task or provide different services simultaneously. See his posts above. He claims it is a key reason for having E instead of C. He goes on to assert that ATCs elsewhere think it is a joke that ATCs in oz would do this.

ATCs in oz do this already (and have done for many years) because they have to (resources). It is not dangerous, the controllers don't get "distracted" or any such BS- often, controllers in oz will simultaneously provide FS (DTI), radar control in various classes of airspace, and procedural control- all simultaneously. A tower controller (with the correct workload), can do many things without becoming dangerously "distracted". Dick's lie that this cannot/shouldn't be done is just ignorant/mischievous. It's true, US controllers find it interesting, and they certainly wouldn't do it themselves over there- because they have ****eloads more traffic, and ****eloads more controllers to deal with that traffic (and FS etc etc). They don't do it over there- not because they think it's dangerous- they just don't need to. They have the resources. Much like the policeman on Norfolk Isl is the customs officer, the post master (and a number of other delegations) being told he can't do that because Dick asked the post master in New York if he thought he could run the customs at JFK as well as the DMV etc. and he laughed and said it wasn't possible.

In short, the only person persisting with this untruth is not an air traffic controller.

Blockla

26th Nov 2009, 09:09

Quite clearly, if we have C airspace over the D at Broome, the Controller in the D tower will also be responsible for some of this C. Why? This is a 'greenfield' why not design it properly?

Blockla

26th Nov 2009, 09:17

Who is going to carry the workload of providing the E service? You're ignoring the increased workload involved if it's being assigned to an existing sector. Separation is more labour intensive than providing traffic & you can bet there won't be a new sector created.

So you're quite happy with increasing the risk in the overlying sector because by your own argument they may become distracted by the extra workload? Particularly if they're having to provide it down to a very low level.

You aren't reducing risk, you're just transferring it elsewhere. IMHO this has been the issue with airspace change from an ATC point of view, the changes have been added on to existing services under a misconception that 'they can cope'. Why hasn't ASA implemented these changes properly and created low level sectors like in the USA, Canada and Europe. RESOURCES and MONEY are the only excuses...

As a controller I would much prefer to work 'procedural C' than radar E any day... It's not about having a closed mind it's about being in charge of my own destiny... If someone is there I know nothing about I'm in the clear, in radar E I am responsible if it goes wrong even if the VFR only painted once and my attention was elsewhere on my scope when it did...

IMHO, all the D towers should give up the 'overlying airspace' but the upper sectors shouldn't be inheriting the airspace as they are, a total review of the sector structure should ensue; wasn't this one of the reasons for SDE, to enable changes in airspace categories and sector alignments much easier?

twisties

26th Nov 2009, 09:28

Owen your dog is astute and hilarious the folly of it all.

ARFOR

26th Nov 2009, 09:50

Here is one example of the industry view of airspace change ‘process’

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/rapac/minutes/wa091030.pdf

6.1. OAR GAAP Update [Page 10]
The WA RAPAC voted “No confidence in the process to instigate Class D zones at GAAP aerodromes”.
(Airservices Australia staff abstained from the vote).
Mr Smith,
- Are you happy with the quality of Airspace Change Process?
- Are you happy with this same quality of Airspace Change Process for Broome and Karratha?
- Are you happy with this same quality of Airspace Change Process for YWLM, YMAV?

The concerns being raised by industry are most valid!

mjbow2

26th Nov 2009, 15:05

Nose Wheel first

Why do they have to go out of their way to make it non standard and different to anywhere else and in this case provide a ring of reduced protection around the class D airspace before hitting C at the higher levels.

Nose Wheel first how can anyone possibly want less protection the closer you fly to a regional airport? This is what we have now with C above D. Extraordinary!

The whole problem with Australia’s airspace currently is that the further away from a regional airport you fly the more ATC services are provided. If the collision risk in Broome is determined as such to require the risk mitigation of Class D airspace then how can any cost benefit analysis objectively support having Class C airspace at 5 or 6000ft and 10 or 20 miles away where the collision risk is so small?

Dog One You say

The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on.

Dog One surely you realise that descending out of a cloud layer in Class G now, represents the exact same potential collision (however remote) that you claim is likely to happen in Class E. The same potential for this collision exists now in Class G.
Making Class E airway corridors into Broome is not going to change that.

Blocka

The reason for the airspace role back was due to lack of risk assessment turning C into E above D; ie the risk was/may have been raised without evidence of the cost benefit analysis being positive. ie you can increase risk if the cost of doing so is achieved or bettered...
So turning G into E is a safety improvement... therefore, you do not need the CBA. So it will be perfectly acceptable to have E over D where G currently exists; cause it's G now, E = safer than G... But just because you can doesn't mean you should. Surveillance makes E so much simpler.

This is totally absurd. You do need a CBA. Regardless, by your logic then Broome should be turned into Class B without a CBA because its safer than a CTAF.

You say

IMHO, all the D towers should give up the 'overlying airspace'

Are all you controllers in agreement on this? Scurvy D Dog in Launceston is adamant that its safer and more efficient if he provides procedural separation services for an area up to 60nm in diameter. God forbid it gets really busy in MLT!

Blocka you say ‘why not design it properly’. What design should the airspace above Class D be?

Howabout

Why would anyone knowingly do this when a whole lot of expert witnesses, I imagine, would be lined up to testify that a higher level of safety could have been provided, but they were directed by the Regulator to provide less safety than they were capable of offering?

You have a good imagination Howabout. By your logic we should make all airspace class A. Better yet, all airspace should be Restricted or closed to all traffic. Surely that is the safest option?

ARFOR

TRSA [radar based VFR opt in ICAO D] are being replaced by C [SFC to Fl's].

ARFOR, you are wrong. Class C does not extend to the flight levels in the US. It stops at 4000ft AGL.

Interactions? Sure, in all US classes of airspace, many of which are B, C, D TRSA which have separation of IFR and VFR, or/and traffic information for Large Air Carrier Operations. So the statement is correct taking account of the relatively small amount of Class E exposure to US domestic Passenger Transport Operations…
Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!

ARFOR you clearly have no experience whatsoever with US NAS. Class D airspace is not TRSA. Class D is not a radar controlled airspace classification. The class E surrounding some class D airports has terminal radar available. VFR separation is not provided in Class E TRSA and VFR participation is voluntary.

You have no idea what you are talking about ARFOR. Every single day thousands of airliners fly through Class E below A100 around Boston, Detroit, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Miami and New York, just to name a few big Class B airports where arriving and departing traffic fly through class E <A100.

There are literally hundreds of regional and secondary airports like Colorado Springs, Aspen, Fort Lauderdale Chicago Midway where jets of all sizes fly through class E. There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day that fly through Class E non radar airspace.

Eagle Colorado for example not only does not have radar due to the mountainous terrain but it has Class E over D and is used by jets up to the size of 757s.

Outside of Class B Areas, where does the ‘Australian’ national carrier fly through E [below A100] in the US?

Since you asked. Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Peuce

I hate to tell you this, but they are still there ... and they are still jet fodder ... whether they maintain radio silence or not.

You make no sense whatsoever. We currently have at Broome, uncontrolled airspace with unknown VFR aircraft. Yet if we turn a few airway corridors into class E then suddenly they are a problem? This defies any logic.

Blockla

26th Nov 2009, 20:23

This is totally absurd. You do need a CBA. Regardless, by your logic then Broome should be turned into Class B without a CBA because its safer than a CTAF. You don't need a CBA to reduce risk, you do to increase it.

You can make Broome a Class B if you wish without a CBA; but you can't make Sydney class D without a positive CBA outcome. In risk management, under ALARP, you can always improve risk outcomes without needing to justify why you are paying more than you need too; however you cannot increase risk and be compliant with ALARP without a supportive/improving CBA.

What design should the airspace above Class D be? Well you're always pushing the US model; it might be a fair start. Single low level sectors supporting each D zone, with tops at the base of A. ie low level sectors that aren't solely responsible for multiple aerodromes. I suspect you are thinking airspace design / I'm talking about which ATC is responsible etc.

But to be fair, almost all Class D's have sectors with radars feeding them and except for a handful or so the towers have the full radar feed too and are trained to use them to separate, not just as a situational awareness tool.

peuce

26th Nov 2009, 20:28

mjbow2,

Firstly, we seem to be getting contradictory statements from yourself and Dick about what happens in the US.

Dick said:

"Of course, in the USA they do not allow airlines to operate in G airspace – it’s only Australia and a few countries in Africa that allow this"

You said:

"There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day "

So, no wonder we are confused. Maybe your Jets exclude RPT. If so, well that's not comparing apples with apples.

On your last point. It may defy your logic, but the point being made by me, and many others, is exactly that. There is no real increased safety by having Class E rather than Class G ...VFRs are still invisible(but there) and some even suggest that Class G is safer .. as the Pilot can maneuver, at will, to avoid VFRs. In Class E, any avoidance is delayed by first obtaining an amended clearance.

The question has to be asked ... what risk are the Regulators trying to mitigate by creating Class E down to the Zone?

Is it the chance of an IFR hitting a VFR? ... if so, forget Class E, it has to be Class C

Is it the chance of an IFR hitting an IFR? .. if so, then Class E is a possible option. But if this is the case ... show me the figures? Where are all the near misses that have brought this on?

My guess is, it's neither ... it's to make the Tower Controllers life easier ... by helping with sequencing. If so, can't they just make the Zone bigger?

le Pingouin

26th Nov 2009, 20:53

Scurvy D Dog in Launceston is adamant that its safer and more efficient if he provides procedural separation services for an area up to 60nm in diameter. God forbid it gets really busy in MLT!
mjbow2

And where would the workload be if the airspace was a tiny D tower? With the overlying sector controller who can already get very busy with the current airspace arrangement. God forbid it gets really busy in the overlying TAS sector!

Will you or Dick answer me that? You seem to think that the workload & risk just evaporates if the D tower doesn't have it. Well, overlying sectors will not be restructured at such short notice so that's exactly where it will go, regardless of capability of the overlying sector to cope.

Dog One

26th Nov 2009, 21:43

Dog One You say

Quote:
The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on.

Dog One surely you realise that descending out of a cloud layer in Class G now, represents the exact same potential collision (however remote) that you claim is likely to happen in Class E. The same potential for this collision exists now in Class G.
Making Class E airway corridors into Broome is not going to change that.

Mjbow2

Thank you for your confirmation that E airspace does not provide any improved safety. In fact G is safer from your observations because all traffic is at least on a common frequency and seperation can beachieved without a third party (ATC) being involved to delay tracking changes. The local VFR operators are very well aware of the problems and work together with us to ensure we all have seperation approaching the aerodrome.

I must also compliment you, Mjbow2, on your very well written and edited response, although a lot of your statements are worded very similar to another poster here who uses his real name. Perhaps you use the same computer!

This whole project sounds it will be another badly managed Airservices fiasco.

CharlieLimaX-Ray

27th Nov 2009, 01:15

Class E airspace another fiasco brought to you by the forward thinking, master's of spin and highly paid clowns at Airservice Australia, a few political medlers, would be could be's and everyones mate!

Class E another great industry debacle paid for by the industry.

ARFOR

27th Nov 2009, 01:15

You have no idea what you are talking about ARFOR. Every single day thousands of airliners fly through Class E below A100 around Boston, Detroit, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Miami and New York, just to name a few big Class B airports where arriving and departing traffic fly through class E <A100.Mr/Mrs MJBOW2. Apples with apples. You remind me of Mr Smith with selective supply of information.

Not flown in the USA ? Well Mr Smith certainly has, and it was only recently he stated on here he had never heard of “implied clearances” on the ground. You know them, surely – they are another of the “freedoms to carry a gun and kill people” the FAA is removing. But my point is that “flown in the USA ” does not seem to make some people knowledgeable about the facts. You claim USA experience and likewise your knowledge in your comparisons falls apart under scrutiny.

For Broome and Karratha we are talking E over D, without radar.

Of those locations in the US you quote, Colorado Springs , Fort Lauderdale , and Chicago Midway are E over C, not E over D. Aspen is certainly a D – with prior permission required.

Fact is the USA protects RPT with Class C terminals. You might remember that about two months ago Mr Smith was going to consult his FAA mate and tell us how many of the USA D airports (around 380) actually carry SCHEDULED air carrier traffic greater than 30 pax. Still waiting!

PS – re TRSA etc – try the current USA AOPA Magazine - pages 83 to 86. Wonder if the author has flown in the USA. :E

That aside, let’s explore some of your examples:-

Boston [Logan Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-433-2-5101-1651)

- Class B SFC to A070
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 3 App, 1 Dep, 2 ATIS, & 7 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 196,502 , Total Operations through the associated airspace 199,556
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s

Detroit [Wayne County] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-110-2-2807-1552)

- Class B SFC to A080
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 5 App, 5 Dep, 1 ATIS, & 8 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 241,144, Total operations through the associated airspace 462,529
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s

Kansas [Kansas City Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-112-2-2815-1944)

- Class B SFC to A080
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 1 App, 2 Dep, 1 ATIS, & 3 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 120,336 Total Operations through the associated airspace 176,717
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s

Las Vegas [Mc Carran Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-113-2-2249-1773)

- Class B SFC to A090
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- Note the VFR transition requirements
- ATS 1 App, 1 Dep, 1 ATIS, & 5 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 388,653. Total Operations through the associated airspace 578,946
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s

Miami [Miami Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-116-2-2578-2343)

- Class B SFC to A070
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 3 App, 2 Dep, 2 ATIS, & 6 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 297,111. Total Operations through the associated airspace 371,519
- Note the Class B and C CTA above the satellite Class D and C airports

New York [La Guardia, Newark and JFK] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-119-2-3157-1370)

- Class B SFC to A070
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm of the trio airports
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- NY ATS App, 5 Dep,
- JFK ATS 4 ATIS, & 6 tower freq’s
- JFK Air Carrier movements 2008 - 355,075. Total Operations through the associated airspace 446,968
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D airports
- Note the special procedures and requirements in the New York area

For the Class B examples you cite, the services actually provided by ATC above the designated B is at the very least a hybrid surveillance based D when taking account of the requirements placed on VFR, and the extensive B areas below. Or are you maintaining that VFR operate over these Class B airports without a service to both IFR and VFR? Of course not, Apples and Apples. The E in climb and Descent areas being discussed in Australia is just not the same for all the reasons posters have raised including surveillance, sector sizes, ATCO resources, user pays charging, the list goes on and on.

Class C
Class C does not extend to the flight levels in the US. It stops at 4000ft AGL.
I did not say that C extended to flight levels. I said:-most US airports that service Air Carrier [>30pax seats] aircraft are D TRSA, B or C zones SFC up and then from FL180 above. Above A100 is of little use to the vast majority of VFR even if there is a radar covered band of E from A100 through FL180.
True! American C generally is SFC to 4,000ftAGL, it is scurrilous to suggest that the same type of E over C or D service is to be provided in Australia.

A Class C example

Grand Rapids [Gerald R Ford Int'l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-13-2-7315-1917)

- Class C SFC to A048
- Full surveillance environment
- ATS 3 App/Dep [Chicago and Grand Rapids], 1 ATIS, & 3 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 15,826. Total Operations through the associated airspace 97,644

A Class D TRSA example

Harrisburg [Harrisburg Int'l ] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-15-2-919-4704)

- Class D TRSA SFC to A060 (VFR opt in for separation services as opposed to traffic information only)
- Full surveillance environment
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 11,529. Total Operations through the associated airspace 67,912

The crux of the comparison

Pick a couple of locations in Australia, and look at the movement and mix comparison for 2008

Canberra – IFR >7t - 43,438 - Total movements 90,296
Rockhampton – IFR >7t - 16,604 - Total movements 39,906
Hobart – IFR >7t - 14,880 - Total movements 45,414
Launceston – IFR >7t - 11,416 - Total Movements 20,972
Maroochydore – IFR>7t - 9,532 - Total Movements 89,748

Compare the mix and totals to the US examples above. Then consider that all of the above fit within Part139 Class 1 [Air Carrier >30pax seat] Licensed Airports. In other words, the US Class D airports that are not servicing scheduled large Passenger aircraft under Part 139 are not relevant to these comparisons.
Class D airspace is not TRSA. Class D is not a radar controlled airspace classification. The class E surrounding some class D airports has terminal radar available. VFR separation is not provided in Class E TRSA and VFR participation is voluntary.
Class D zones are contained within the TRSA service areas. The fact remains that in a TRSA area, IFR and VFR receive a hybrid surveillance based D service which is the closest the US get to ICAO D rule sets.

It is also a fact that TRSA areas are being phased out and replaced with either Class C or Class B!
Eagle Colorado for example not only does not have radar due to the mountainous terrain but it has Class E over D and is used by jets up to the size of 757s.
Colorado [Eagle County] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-18-2-4496-564)

- Class D SFC [6,548ftAMSL to A091
- ATS 1 App/Dep [Denver], 1 ATIS, & 3 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 3,352 Total Operations 42,415

EGE - Eagle County Regional Airport (http://skyvector.com/airport/EGE/Eagle-County-Regional-Airport)

Airport Remarks
- CLOSED to unscheduled Air Carrier operations with more than 30 passenger seats except prior permission required
- High unmarked terrain all quadrants. Critical acft are Category D IV, B757–200 equivalent and lower. Ngt ops discouraged to pilots unfamiliar with arpt.

A good airport to highlight the points of difference being made! Thankyou!

Re: where does the ‘Australian’ national carrier fly through E [below A100] in the US?. To conclude, you saidSince you asked. Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Not quite!

LA is class B up to A100 Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-114-2-3474-1411)

- With VERY strict VFR Route requirements [equivalent to hybrid D or TRSA]

San Fran is also Class B up to A100 Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-127-2-2797-1473)

As with any technical discussion, facts are what is important, not who is right or wrong!
You make no sense whatsoever. We currently have at Broome, uncontrolled airspace with unknown VFR aircraft. Yet if we turn a few airway corridors into class E then suddenly they are a problem? This defies any logic.
I don’t think anyone is saying Class F with a twist [which is what it is] is the problem, rather if a change is going to be made that will cost money, then the change should provide additional service and safety where an addressable flight threat exists i.e. un-alerted VFR!

I might also add, the CASA is driving these airspace processes, Airservices will impliment what the CASA decree. Direct your venom at the correct agency!

mjbow2

27th Nov 2009, 02:35

Blockla,

You don't need a CBA to reduce risk, you do to increase it.
In risk management, under ALARP, you can always improve risk outcomes without needing to justify why you are paying more than you need too

Firstly Blockla you do need a CBA when allocating finite resources to mitigate varying risks. Otherwise we would not need to justify billions of dollars installing TARs at every tower and CTAF in the country. This is an obvious waste of resources. Your logic is completely flawed.

Class C in the enroute environment is another wasted resource we have that would never stand up to an objective CBA when Class D is used below it where the risk is even greater.

There is no possible way an objective CBA can allocate high risk airspace (airports), a lower level of risk mitigation (class D) than the low risk enroute and link airspace surrounding it. No scientific CBA= C over D airspace. If anything it should be reversed!

Peuce

"There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day "

So, no wonder we are confused. Maybe your Jets exclude RPT. If so, well that's not comparing apples with apples.

CTAF airports that have instrument approaches (class E to surface and 700ft AGL surrounding the approach paths) are uncontrolled airports. ie VFR aircraft are uncontrolled! Do you understand this?

You ask

The question has to be asked ... what risk are the Regulators trying to mitigate by creating Class E down to the Zone?

So we do not have the repeat of the Orange incident where and RPT and another IFR aircraft nearly collided in IMC. Simple as that.

In relation to deviating from track to ensure separation from VFR in Class E let me give you my experience. Extremely rarely did I ever have to alter my course in both radar and non radar covered class E due to VFR aircraft in the US. Rarely.

Australia set upon regulatory reform some 15 years ago, or more. Had that reform been allowed to progress unabated we would probably be allowed to make visual approaches without the ridiculous altitude, tracking and DME requirements we have now.

The FAA allows a pilot to track however they want with respect to altitude and heading when making a visual approach.

I suspect that were we able to make visual approached like they are allowed in the US it would alleviate some concerns expressed by Capn Bloggs and indeed yourself.

Is it the chance of an IFR hitting an IFR? .. if so, then Class E is a possible option...

My guess is, it's neither ... it's to make the Tower Controllers life easier ... by helping with sequencing. If so, can't they just make the Zone bigger?

Peuce my support for class E airways has been expressed many times before in that it positively separates IFR aircraft in IMC conditions.

I do not support however making any class D tower controllers area of responsibility any bigger. From my experience flying the jet into Queenstown New Zealand regularly, the huge area of responsibility of the class D controller (non radar assisted 90nm across) is a disaster waiting to happen.

On clear weather days, getting timely descent clearances and timely traffic information was sometimes near impossible. The controller was so busy talking to such huge volume of VFR and IFR traffic at the same time that in my view Queenstown Class D is an accident waiting to happen. I hope we can avoid that here by reducing the area of responsibility of all class D towers before the traffic volumes increase to an intolerable level.

Dog One

In fact G is safer from your observations because all traffic is at least on a common frequency and seperation can beachieved without a third party (ATC) being involved to delay tracking changes.

I have never stated that IFR/VFR separation is better in E than in G. That is not what E is designed for. E is designed for positive separation for IFR aircraft.

Dog One, I have no idea where you get the idea that VFR is guaranteed to be on the same frequency as an IFR in class G.

Thank you for the compliment. I am flattered.

mjbow2

27th Nov 2009, 03:46

ARFOR

You post an impressive amount of information. I have no idea what point you are trying to make with it all.

Read your own posts again ARFOR, I was correcting your wildly inaccurate statements

Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!

This is simply not true. They are widely exposed to class E including below 10,000ft even at LAX. Put your impressive research abilities to work and you will see that to the west and south of LAX, large jets are vectored as low as 6000ft AGL as close as 20nm from LAX in class E. Not B

twodogsflying

27th Nov 2009, 03:51

Yes Class "E" airspace is very good for separating IFR aircraft in IMC.

Having flown into both Broome and Karratha a few hundred times I can count on less than 1 hand how many times it has been proper IMC and I have only once started an instrument approach and became visual well above minima!

The Problem with Class "E" in these areas is when the weather gets bad, its usually TX and constant track diversions to stay clear!

How the hell is Class "E" going to be safer when EVERYONE is heading for the same gap.

Its going to be less safe due to the fact that everyone is heading for the same gap and IFR cannot make adjustments without a clearance!

Putting Northern hemisphere airspace that spends half the year in FOG and Snow has no place in Australia.

ARFOR

27th Nov 2009, 04:32

Mr/Mrs mjbow2

You have lost me with your claim regarding KLAX

If you look at the sectional [might need to zoom it out a couple of clicks] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/#55-114-2-3474-1411)

1. The Airport is a parallel, east west arrangement [no crossing north south runways].
2. Class B east and west of the runways [approach and departures tracks] is Class B SFC to A100 out to >10nm from the runways [extended centrelines and tollerances.
3. A parallel operation [irrespective of landings and take-offs to the east or west], arriving and departing traffic will flow vector in circuits south and north of the airport.
4. A vector for a 'downwind' type leg prior to vectors for final intercept would not require below A050 on a wide circuit + approach descent profile.
5. In support of point 4 above. It can be seen that stepped CTA bases [A020 East, West, A025 North East, with progressive protection of the centreline profile] occur in the 'vector for final' type wide base areas!

I'd be guessing when I say, they probably do not permit close visual circuits at KLAX!

An Aircraft would have to go very wide, long and very low in either of the the contra-vectored parallel runway traffic flows [against normal profile] to depart Class B protection!

Dog One

27th Nov 2009, 07:12

Mjbow2

Your comment

"I have never stated that IFR/VFR separation is better in E than in G. That is not what E is designed for. E is designed for positive separation for IFR aircraft."

Then what is the use of E? We are given IFR/IFR traffic in G. VFR traffic is only a problem below A100, but if they are local pilots, they communicate and seperation is sorted. You have shown us that E does not provide any real service, and certainly is less safe than G airspace.

IFR seperation in IMC, whether aircraft to aircraft or, controller to aircraft is not the worry. In E airspace it would be the scud running VFR who does not have announce their present on the ATC frequency.

Having operated jets into these and other areas of Australia for the past 40+ years, this classification of airspace would be the most dangerous. By the way, my mind is not "set in concrete", I wouldn't be where I am now if it was. But, as one who is continually operating in and out of this area, I certainly will not accept anything less than an increase in safety, which E cannot give.

tobzalp

27th Nov 2009, 09:53

http://blog.mrhacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/oh-snap-chart.jpg

Blockla

27th Nov 2009, 18:18

Firstly Blockla you do need a CBA when allocating finite resources to mitigate varying risks. Otherwise we would not need to justify billions of dollars installing TARs at every tower and CTAF in the country. This is an obvious waste of resources. Your logic is completely flawed.
me old sausage you are confusing a business case with a CBA.

If (for example) Qantas wants to ramp up it's maintanance program 4000% it can they don't need regulatory oversight or insurance approval, proving it in the business case to shareholders is a different thing. If they want to reduce it by 5% they must do a CBA to justify their changes to their insurers and their regulator.

Same is true of airspace changes; why was NAS2b rolled back... find out sunshine, no visible CBA but definitely visible change in risk.

A Comfy Chair

27th Nov 2009, 21:55

It somewhat surprises me we hold the US up as the shining beacon of Airspace Design. It is not.

When flying into LAX and SFO you spend more time with your eyes out the window than flying the aircraft, knowing there is unknown VFR traffic often in close proximity. Knowing that if you go around from 3000ft you must descend because of that same traffic.

I've only ever had two RA's... one in each SFO and LAX.

The point here is not whether the airspace works in the USA. The point is IS IT SUITABLE FOR USE IN AUSTRALIA. We should be striving to have the best air traffic control and airport system in the world, not just meeting the cheapest justifiable. We must protect all heavy metal on RPT ops... to do otherwise is just penny pinching.

Get some resources into the system NOW, and all of this becomes redundant.

mjbow2

27th Nov 2009, 22:33

AFROR

You have lost me with your claim regarding KLAX

I am not claiming anything. You made the claim that

Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!

This is patently false and the KLAX airspace, including hundreds of other class B, C and D airports with E above and surrounding them, proves it.

To the north of KLAX class B extends only about 15nm. Class E beyond that. Can you see the arrival and departure routes depicted with the silhouetted 4 engined jet and dashed arrows? Class E ARFOR.

It even has the range of altitudes depicted. A040-A080 for North West departures From KLAX. The Sadde 6 arrival for example from the north west over Ventura VOR has traffic sequenced as low as A050 in Class E!

Surely you can see that KLAX is also not the only airport that jets are being sequenced to? Van Nuys, Burbank, Chino, Ontaria, Santa Ana and Riverside also. All surrounded with Class E above.

Your claim that airliners are not widely exposed to Class E below A100 in America is patently untrue ARFOR. Untrue! So why make such claims if not to muddy the waters when it comes to Australian pilots properly understanding the use and benefits of class E, both radar and non radar.

If you cannot accept that Class E below A100 in America is used every day by ALL airlines AFROR then ok, keep your eyes shut. Keep resisting the inevitable but I am sure the readers can see otherwise.

tobzalp

27th Nov 2009, 23:09

The USA is also somethiing like 16 Trillion Dollars in debt so how about we start taking notice of countries that do not suck.

boree3

27th Nov 2009, 23:33

The point here is not whether the airspace works in the USA. The point is IS IT SUITABLE FOR USE IN AUSTRALIA. We should be striving to have the best air traffic control and airport system in the world, not just meeting the cheapest justifiable. We must protect all heavy metal on RPT ops... to do otherwise is just penny pinching.

Hallelujah! Some words of common sense!:D

If you would allow me to change the word 'best' to 'safest' then we would have the 'best'.

When my wife and kids go flying without me i want them home safely. Every time. Period.:ok:

ARFOR

27th Nov 2009, 23:47

Mr/Mrs mjbow2

Interested readers will have looked at the IFR arrival and departures procedures [also available at the previous links] and when applied to expected profiles, 'normal' turbo-jet arrivals and departures are not exposed to Class E below A100 at LA [VFR overflight routes are not Class E].

If your argument held, then Jets in D or C airspace [above CTA steps] climbing and descending into Australian Class D airports would be flying through Class G [Class F] simply because this category of airspace exist below the outer elevated D or C steps. A patently ridiculous statement to attempt to sustain!

- Van Nuys - is [U]Closed to Scheduled Air Carrier
- Burbank - is full radar Class C
- Chino is D below C and B steps - FAA hold no data for Scheduled Air Carrier
- Ontaria - is full radar class C
- Santa Ana - is full radar class C
- Riverside - Class D below C and E steps - FAA hold no data for Scheduled Air Carrier

The airports you cite above are all serviced by the SOCAL [Southern California] Tracon. Multiple Approach and Departues sectors [very small sectors by comparison to Australian Sectors]. Even with Class B, C protection around the busier Torbo-jets serviced airports, the fact remains Air Carrier aircraft [>30 pax seat capacity] have very limited exposure to Class E Below A100 in the US, and overwhelmingly within surveillance coverage.

Again thankyou for citing locations to use as examples. Far from having my eyes shut [or mind closed], these discussion prove the points being made by many, I feel certain I am not alone in understanding the points being made!

The facts speak for themselves!

mjbow2

28th Nov 2009, 01:11

I wonder what position MjBow comes from - what is his interest? What does he do in Aviation

I am an airline pilot. I have flown and worked on 4 continents including several years in the United States.

I have flown in SOCAL airspace. I wonder when the last time ARFOR flew in SOCAL airspace or any US airspace for that matter? I speak from experience. ARFOR and some others on Pprune unfortunately rely on Internet explorer for forming their opinion on US NAS.

My interest in this matter is to see Australia emerge from the 1950s rules and procedures we currently use to a far superior, more user friendly and safer aviation environment.

ferris

28th Nov 2009, 01:59

I have flown in SOCAL airspace. If only you had worked the SOCAL airspace!
see Australia emerge from the 1950s rules and procedures Good for you. Perhaps you will stop pushing this old US airspace design and help the struggle against Dick- a modern design using modern technologies is the way to go (great idea about remote ADSB towers earlier). Not this dirt road, old technology US airspace.

peuce

28th Nov 2009, 02:12

MJBOW2,

I think we all have the same wish ... that is, a safe and efficient Air Traffic System for Australia.

Certainly, we all have differing ideas on how that might be achieved. Some even believe that our 1950s system may have been the most ideal ... you're either in, or you're out.

I would not claim "someone who has flown the airspace" to be an expert, as, from my experience, half the jockeys flying in a particular piece of airspace don't really understand what is going on within it.

Just as Intellectuals, Proceduralists, Managers, Googleists and ATCers aren't necessarily experts either ... as they also, don't always have the whole picture ... especially from a Pilots POV.

In this particular scenario (Broome/Karratha), I tend to take more heed of those who regularly use that airspace. I hope the Regulators have also taken notice of their arguments ... and proceed accordingly.

LeadSled

28th Nov 2009, 03:34

Folks,
MJBOW is right, and with all due respect, ARFOR, you are not.

QF aircraft operate extensively in Class E airspace, and not only in the US, including KJFK, as well as KLAX and KSFO --- and my experience goes right back to origins of the present ICAO "alphabet soup", when what is now called E in US, was controlled airspace, but notated "VFR Exempt".

The low and wide STARs at KLAX guarantee operation in E. In normal airline operation in the US, it is impossible not to operate in E.

Not commonly known, but all heavy departures to the west of KLAX will probably also operate in G outside the US continental boundary, where ICAO rules take over from FAA (12 mile rule, depicted on all relevant Jep. charts, if you know how to read them.)

ARFOR, have a look at some of the E, F and G QF operates through between Singapore and London, you might be very surprised. Mostly NON-radar.

As for Broome and Karratha, given the traffic levels, and ICAO airspace design standards, E above D is compliant, there is no technical (ie "safety") justification for C.

Given the prominence legal butt-covering gets in CASA decision making, if there was the slightest justification for C, it would have been C.

My heart bleeds for the poor chap who finds he has to look out the window, going in and out of KLAX, I do hope he looks out the window in Australian airspace, in accordance with Australian regulated requirements.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled

28th Nov 2009, 03:48

A Comfy Chair,

m'poor darling, what a well chosen name, maybe you should retire to one.

I have had my share of of RA's, the two worst, of many (actual possibility of a hit) both being in the YSSY CTA's, so what does that or your experience prove, the answer is nothing ---- except that TCAS II is a wonderful "last ditch" device for picking up (mostly) ATC stuffups.

You really should have a good look at Australian collisions, airprox. and loss of separation stats., you are looking at ATC capabilities through rose coloured glasses.

That is why the major Australian airlines fitted the original TCAS, years before it became a regulated requirement, very sensible management decisions.

Guess what, looking out the window is all part of the job, it is party of "flying the aeroplane".

Tootle pip!!

ARFOR

28th Nov 2009, 11:04

Folks,
MJBOW is right, and with all due respect, ARFOR, you are not.
Fair the well then, explain to us mere mortals why?
QF aircraft operate extensively in Class E airspace, and not only in the US, including KJFK, as well as KLAX and KSFO
Explain with a ‘Sectional’ where and why you [retired] and your B744 would enter class E on descent or climb out of KLAX or KSFO? Motherhood’s don’t count when so much counts! :=
--- and my experience goes right back to origins of the present ICAO "alphabet soup", when what is now called E in US, was controlled airspace, but notated "VFR Exempt". Good point! How much ‘reclassification’ has occurred since then? and why? [The NTSB database might be a start]!
The low and wide STARs at KLAX guarantee operation in E. In normal airline operation in the US, it is impossible not to operate in E. Crappola! For LAX that statement is not supportable below A100! Prove otherwise with specific examples!
Not commonly known, but all heavy departures to the west of KLAX will [B]probably also operate in G outside the US continental boundary, where ICAO rules take over from FAA (12 mile rule, depicted on all relevant Jep. charts, if you know how to read them.)
Which means what? Class B service as per the charts?? So you confirm, that an aircraft [multi-engined turbo-jet] will not leave Class B unless low- wide and rooted anyway?
ARFOR, have a look at some of the E, F and G QF operates through between Singapore and London, you might be very surprised. Mostly NON-radar. NO, Really? Above A100, High Flight Levels. Where exactly?
As for Broome and Karratha, given the traffic levels, and ICAO airspace design standards, E above D is compliant Says who based on what criteria?, there is no technical (ie "safety") justification for C. Perhaps your assumption applies in all cases!? When and where is that going to be properly tested in an airspace Aerostudy [Aeronautical Study] assessment? Or like GAAP changes, are you happy for change without process? [as long as it suits your agenda of course]
Given the prominence legal butt-covering gets in CASA decision making, if there was the slightest justification for C, it would have been C. Garbage! A recent Class C P.I.R was pulled at less than 24 hours notice! Why? The D.A.S! Why? One could be forgiven for wondering about political agendas!!??
My heart bleeds for the poor chap who finds he has to look out the window, going in and out of KLAX, I do hope he looks out the window in Australian airspace, in accordance with Australian regulated requirements.
That about sums up the expectation as opposed to the reality! You dinosours are happy to enforce un-alerted see and avoid with 100's of fare paying passengers! I have had my share of of RA's, the two worst, of many (actual possibility of a hit) both being in the YSSY CTA's, ESIR [or previous 225] where, when?, document numbers cause I don't believe you!
so what does that or your experience prove, the answer is nothing ---- except that TCAS II is a wonderful "last ditch" device for picking up (mostly) ATC stuffups.
Can’t help yourselves can you? ACAS of any version has alerted far more otherwise ‘unalerted’ conflicts than ATCO errors!! In fact. If one was not being an anti-ATCO pratt! You could safely assume that thousands/millions of aircraft conflicts in CTA/R had been resolved without the assistance of ACAS RA!
You really should have a good look at Australian collisions, airprox. and loss of separation stats., you are looking at ATC capabilities through rose coloured glasses. Pot calls Kettle Black! Be real!!

OCTA traffic data in Australia is not accurate [no capture]! [B]YOU know there have been more fatalities [ALL] OCTA/unalerted than compared to ATC positive separation CTA incidents!
That is why the major Australian airlines fitted the original TCAS, years before it became a regulated requirement, very sensible management decisions. Sensible in the context of what is being argued!
Guess what, looking out the window is all part of the job, it is party of "flying the aeroplane". And your 100-300+ passengers [before you retired] relying on you to see the VFR target with less than 10 sec’s [often un-alerted] before impact is IMHO just plain Walter Mitty Crap!

LeadSled

29th Nov 2009, 01:14

Folks,
Never let it be said that those so resolutely opposed to ICAO Risk Management based CNS/ATM, in favour of "Australian unique" procedures, ever let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

ARFOR, get yourself some Jepp. or equivalent for all the routes QF flies, and have a look at the airspace classification. As I have previously said, you may be surprised, but I will not be the least bit surprised if you don't, but prefer to hide behind specious debating tactics.

Re. departures to the west of KLAX, it is normal to climb through the W areas outside the US continental boundary, for which the ICAO rules are G.

No matter how many times you rattle on with accusation to the contrary, my record is quite clear, I have NEVER advocated "un-alerted see and avoid" over "alerted see and avoid", see my above comment about specious debating tactics.

OWEN STANLEY, regardless of your personal opinions, at least I am working from a basis of demonstrable technical knowledge and actual experience in the airspace. And I do hope you are aware of Australian regulations requiring you to look out the window.

Tootle pip!!

P51D

29th Nov 2009, 03:38

So, after all the pontificating and crapola that goes on, where this thread drift off to the US etc, class D towers for Broome and Karratha, where E is on top of D and G in the surrounds and out of hours goes back to CTAF(R) with a 30nm boundary is OK then? Keep smilin lads!

Dog One

29th Nov 2009, 07:11

So after reading the previous posters view, it very plain that IFR traffice get sweet all extra service, but the real possibility of taking out a VFR aircraft exercising his freedom to fly.

So why put it in place. Why not put a 30 nm Class D zone at Broome and Karratha, sfc to 10,000. That will give the controller time to sequence inbound traffic, we will enter on descent at 30nm, about 5 mins out.

We can look after ourselves, (as we have been doing for decades) in G airspace from FL180 to 10000. This is a workable proposition, normally their is no VFR aircraft above A100, except the odd survey flight.

That means there is no additional industry charges for the implementation of another sector.

hongkongfooey

29th Nov 2009, 12:11

For anyone who thinks the US airspace system is so great, please explain to me why they have had so many mid air collisions over the years :confused:

According to Wiki, 11 " notable " mid airs in the US in the last 50 years, with the loss of some 500 lives, the most recent in August this year.
The only thing their airspace seems to be good at is keeping the population of Yanks down :eek:

Interestingly not one in Oz..........................yet :suspect:

ARFOR

29th Nov 2009, 20:25

Dog One’s idea is the answer IMHO.

Class D SFC – A100 [With range steps similar to other CTA/R that contain RPT profiles]

Above A100 to the existing CTA base is the interesting bit.

I agree that it need not be positive ‘control’ for IFR from a safety standpoint. From a traffic management point of view, it gets a little messy as IFR climbing out of the Class D to OCTA G then back into CTA above that would technically have to be issued a clearance to leave and re-enter CTA.

The choices are two:-

1. Make it C or E above A100 [Centre controlled]

Being above A100, it may prove to be a manageable addition to existing CTA given the Centre controller will not have all the A100 and below DTI to manage [now a D tower], which then has the advantage of contiguous CTA, which subject to separation requirements, means ATC can issue climb from D into C [less frequency complexity for both pilots and ATC]

2. Make it G [Oz F] above A100

Presumably, The tower would co-ordinate departures with centre [S.A.R purposes]. The tower would clear the aircraft to leave CTA climbing, transfer to centre, the aircraft would then have to be separately issued an onwards clearance into the high level CTA if a previous ‘leave and re-enter clearance had not been co-ordinated. Also, assuming situations will occur where 2 departing aircraft on same or similar tracks are being separated by the tower [Timed departure standard 2 or 5 mins etc], contiguous CTA is helpful, otherwise sector have to separately set up step climb or other form of separation autonomously. Contiguous CTA is better for arrivals management as well.

Either option would be workable!

If the workload of C down to A100 was manageable for existing sectors, then I would be fairly sure there would be no additional ‘enroute IFR charge’. Someone more in the know on this might like to chime in!

Dick Smith

29th Nov 2009, 21:48

ARFOR

Your last post (#99) is the most convoluted I’ve ever read. You want to go into a unique, complex airspace design in any way you can think as long as it’s not following a proven system from overseas.

You may be interested in knowing, but the expression “cleared out of and into controlled airspace” does not exist anywhere in the world. It’s a unique Australian invention – no doubt because before 1991 we had a completely separate organisation operating with full position reporting in Class G airspace.

By the way, our Australian Class G has no similarity with ICAO Class F despite the many claims saying it is so. Australian Class G is totally obsessed with VFR having mandatory radio procedures. ICAO Class F has no requirement for VFR to have radio at all.

ARFOR

29th Nov 2009, 22:09

Mr Smith,

The lets ‘compare to a reference system’ [FAA] approach does not take account of two very relevant differences that exist right from the outset:-

1. The societal acceptance, and regulatory foundations
2. The vastly different geographical, infrastructure and traffic mix and densities

If the reference system is not built within sufficiently similar foundations, its compatibility and relevance is diminished.
our Australian Class G has no similarity with ICAO Class F despite the many claims saying it is so. Australian Class G is totally obsessed with VFR having mandatory radio procedures. ICAO Class F has no requirement for VFR to have radio at all.
Keh??

Dog One

30th Nov 2009, 09:50

In East Timor, the zone at Dili is 15 - 25 nm radius, sfc to 11,000' You departed Dili with a clearance tp FL230, which gave you ample time to get BN on HF and get a clearance above FL245.

The same practice would work at Broome and Karatha. If the zones were about 30 nm and sfc to A100, their would be plenty of time to contact BN Center on VHF for a clearance. I would imagine that the twr controller would forward the departure details etc direct to BN.

G airspace above A100 does not pose problems as little VFR traffic operates above A100. The same would apply on descent.

We don't need E outside of radar airspace, it doesn't help anyone, and the implementation costs would far outweigh its usefulness.

tobzalp

30th Nov 2009, 17:58

That is how YPTN runs when just the zone. 30nm A100 then G up to F180. Never seen a problem.

ARFOR

30th Nov 2009, 22:14

There we go :D :ok:

No Further Requirements

1st Dec 2009, 02:41

Dick, you said:

You may be interested in knowing, but the expression “cleared out of and into controlled airspace” does not exist anywhere in the world. It’s a unique Australian invention

What is the relevance of this? It is a clear ATC instruction that save RT time, which you are all for. I have used it many times as an area controller so the aircraft doesn't have to waste time asking for a clearance on the way back into CTA. Also used it as a tower controller for VFT aircraft going from ath CTR inot a VFR lane OCT briefly (Parafield) then into another CTR (Adelaide). The lane was onlt 3 or 4 miles wide so it saved lots of RT to have the clearance to re-enter all ready to go. Why is this an issue?

Could you please tell me what the problem is with the phrase? It is a simple combination of phrases from the ICAO Doc 9432 which works. Who cares if it unique? Your American buddies use such great stuff as 'Taxi to position and hold' but no one seems to care.

Cheers,

NFR.

PS The phraseology is actually: LEAVE AND RE-ENTER CONTROLLED AIRSPACE

CharlieLimaX-Ray

1st Dec 2009, 04:59

Dick, what is the problem with the "cleared to leave and re-enter controlled airspace?".

Airspace in Ozstralia used to be so simple you were either OCTA or CTA.

Dick Smith

1st Dec 2009, 06:26

Because I want to stay in controlled airspace when in IMC on descent in a radar environment - that's what I am paying for and that's what I get in other leading aviation countries.

ie ; from WATLE I want a descent service from ATC which keeps a plane in IMC from hitting the mountains.

Why give zero control service when it's most needed?

I know- that's what we did before radar existed and we must resist change in every way!

ARFOR

1st Dec 2009, 06:33

There is no radar at Broome or Karratha, and there are no mountains to hit above A100 anywhere in Australia!

Dick Smith

1st Dec 2009, 07:26

That's a great reason not to have controlled airspace where we do have mountains and where we do have radar!

ARFOR

1st Dec 2009, 08:22

Who said anything about not having CTA/R where mountains and radar exist?

Are you aware of any locations without radar and CTA/R [with RPT traffic] that you consider should be radar equipped CTA/R?

Have you asked the CASA to assess these locations for Aerostudy and related processes? What did happen to CASR Part 71?

You know why I'm asking, because a properly conducted aerostudy would assess real traffic, topography, and all other complexities as per regulated procedure, and then apply the classification that addresses the risks to an acceptable level in that location.

Dog One

1st Dec 2009, 08:30

If you are descending IFR in E without radar, how can you be sure that there is not a VFR aircraft cruising in between cloud layers? Bit hard to keeping looking out the window in reduced visibility for traffic, especially if they are on a different frequency and the IFR aircraft doesn't have TCAS.

It would appear that resistance to change is evident on both sides of the argument!

werbil

1st Dec 2009, 08:47

ARFOR - How about Proserpine?

Dog One

1st Dec 2009, 09:05

Kununurra has terrain surrounding the airfield and most RPT operators have special departure procedures to maintain terrain clearance in the event of an engine out.

This aerodrome is in G airsspace with a CTAFR.

One wonders if the money wasted over the years on airspace changes that didn't happen, had been spent on extending radar coverage. We would have by now had a large area of radar surveillance.

Then and only then could we have E airspace where IFR aircraft would be able to sing "God Bless America" and descend in complete safety relying on ATC to ensure you didn't descend below the LSA or fly into a mountain.

ARFOR

1st Dec 2009, 09:11

Werbil

If it were up to me, same answer as before. Do a 'proper' aerostudy, consult 'properly' with those who use the facility. Sure, if a location shows a higher level of service is desireable, then a CTR/A tower/app service well and good.

Some of the things I would ask:-

Is the IFR & VFR traffic density at Proserpine sufficent to warrant CTA/R?

Beyond traffic density, is approach complexity, topography, Wx, etc going to raise an elevated consideration for third party clearance services?

How extensive [if at all] is the track record of CFIT or related incidents and accidents [that could have be averted by having ATC at PSP] ? Is there justification?

Obviously we cannot have radar ATC holding the hands of IFR at every possible airport they might use! So where are the lines in the sand?

Come to think of it, are any other IFR operators requesting CTA D, E, C at G locations for CFIT protection?

werbil

1st Dec 2009, 10:22

Warning - RANT

Why do most people appear unconcerned about IFR/IFR segregation?

Try looking at it from the big picture - outside the circuit an IFR/IFR pair has a much higher collision probability than an IFR/VFR pair.

1 - IFR aircraft on approach to the same airport will probably be using the same approach with the same vertical profile, with quite large variations in speeds. VFR aircraft on the other hand will be approaching from random directions and altitudes.
2 - When an IFR aircraft has to go around due to not being visual they generally head to the same hold where any other IFR aircraft will be holding. VFR aircraft will be holding in random locations or diverting elsewhere.
3 - A 100 hour private pilot can have an instrument rating. The 'do it yourself' system results in the segregation being dependent on his/her understanding of the traffic situation. In IMC there is no visual last defense option. Do you trust this guy/gal - you WILL be flying through EXACTLY the same piece of sky.

As much as anyone wants to discount it, the big sky theory is a risk mitigator. It is the predictability of the random decay of a radioactive isotope (ie statistics) that gives atomic clocks the accuracy that allows GPS to work. Likewise it is the predictably of the random nature of material science (statistics again) that allows maintenance systems to use an inspection program to determine airworthiness. The only requirement for using statistics for separation is that it has to be done on a sound scientifically defendable basis (which is the crux of the problem).

Now for those that argue that G is safer than E with the way it is implemented in Australia - you've got to be :mad: joking.
1 - Outside a CTAF there is EXACTLY the same communication patterns - in both cases the IFR aircraft is talking to Centre (ATC) and the VFR aircraft is supposedly monitoring that frequency and announcing if in conflict - there is absolutely no difference there.
2 - Just about all VFR aircraft in E are required to have a transponder fitted AND operating mode C - in G they are only required to have it operating mode C if it is fitted. In any radar environment you can bet your arse that the controller is going to advise of any VFR aircraft as traffic even with an unverified altitude. If it's not and it's a large IFR jet it will have ACAS (I know ICAO doesn't recognize it as a safety mitigator for airspace design but it does add a level of safety). Yes I acknowledge that both of these defenses will work in both E & G, however the required transponder fitment is the difference.
3 - The weather doesn't change because the airspace is E rather than G.
4 - If we actually used ICAO G in Australia the differences would be far more significant. IMHO Australian G is really ICAO E without positive separation between IFR.

As to these ideas of making the zone bigger than Ben Hur - I have to concede that I agree with Dick on this one - you are going to take the focus away from the highest risk area for collisions which is the circuit. The other week I operated in D airspace that was quite busy at the time - almost constant radio traffic. Start including areas 30 miles away and you'll end up with restrictions and delays like they're experiencing at GAAPs at the moment. At Hamilton Island when the tower closes focus deteriorates as a result of the dozen or so aircraft operating between 6 and 25nm that are not conflicting airport traffic that are now broadcasting on the same frequency (and anyone says that they should shut up has rocks in their heads).

/RANT

werbil

1st Dec 2009, 10:33

ARFOR,

As for YBPN I wasn't talking about terrain avoidance - see my last post. Dick's the one that argues that ICAO states that the best mitigator against CFITs is ATC with Radar.

Now let me get this straight.

On one hand you argue for using C rather than E because the cost is minimal.

Yet you don't want to use E rather than G because??? OK there are display, monitoring and staffing issues. In AUS G you (ie ATC) have to assess whether to pass aircraft as traffic - I assume you use the same standards you would use for separation in Class C. Yes it would add some workload to actually separate the aircraft, and it would certainly add delays.

But then what would I know - with over a couple of thousand hours of charter logged I still don't have either an instrument or twin rating.

werbil

1st Dec 2009, 10:38

Dog One,

Or could have fitted ADSB-OUT to the entire fleet on the AUS register and had surveillance coverage at even more locations again. :ok:

Dog One

1st Dec 2009, 10:47

Good idea Werbil, make the zone 5 miles radius, thats 90 secs at 210 kts, which is the lowest clean speed we can maintain, and bear in mind all the instrument approaches at Broome are 10 miles plus the holding pattern. By having a Ben Hur size CTR, at least the controller has time to get a reasonable traffic flow worked out between jets and VFR charter aircraft. Incidentally, the current CTAFR at Brome is 30 miles.

ARFOR

1st Dec 2009, 12:10

:} I like to see folks getting passionate about this stuff :ok:

I agree with many of the points made in your first [of three] post above.

G [Oz F] above A100

1. The treatment of IFR/IFR in climb/descent/cruise above A100 is less of a concern than below A100, due minimal VFR, TXPDR use, and IFR not being in the early departure or late arrival phase of flight. As you suggest quite rightly that the situational awareness may not be as sharp or as comprehensive below A100. [Traffic density, pilot workload]
2. I would argue that IFR/IFR are a lower chance of mid-air intimacy as they know about each other [DTI] from ToD and Taxi throughout [Traffic density, pilot workload]
3. Lower time IFR may be less prepared for complex traffic senarios [traffic density], two or three IFR twins in to somewhere like YSDU might be pushing it, most would have a bit of an idea of the various performance envelopes, is this not part of IFR training? if not, wouldn't you wait a minute or two? pick a different outbound track [granted re-brief involved]? All that aside the regulator should be engaged in regular sampling of traffic density [IFR/IFR data is obviously available] and incident data to watch for hot spots!

I agree, E is technically safer than G - Because of the formalisation of IFR 'separation' by a third party. How much safer for the relatively large cost of establishing an IFR separation service [additional CTA]?

Here is the thing, if ATC have surveillance of G, they issue DTI, they can then monitor the proximities of IFR from IFR, is this so much worse than separating them if it were E? Not if the if delays are lengthy!

If an area of G or CTAF G is showing data that indicates an additional service is necessary, then do the process with industry

Re: D Again I agree. The key here of course is to provide the right number of ATC positions within the tower to manage the traffic in that particular location. RPT with modest traffic might be single frequency, RPT with moderate to busy might be 2 or three frequencies [Aerod, SMC, CLDel]. It is pointless providing X,Y or Z ATS if it is not set up to manage the environment.

Re your second above - Neither was I, regional 'terrain avoidance services' are not being asked for by industry as far as I am aware. I assumed as it followed Mr Smiths terrain comments you were asking the same. Appologies.
On one hand you argue for using C rather than E because the cost is minimal.
In climb and descent Approach and Departures areas [C over D up to A100 or; D SFC up to A100] where traffic dictates a tower service below. Little difference between C or D except of course additional flexibility in D for VFR/VFR and VFR/IFR pairs
Yet you don't want to use E rather than G because??? OK there are display, monitoring and staffing issues. In AUS G you (ie ATC) have to assess whether to pass aircraft as traffic - I assume you use the same standards you would use for separation in Class C. Yes it would add some workload to actually separate the aircraft, and it would certainly add delays. Pretty well my understanding. If IFR need separation to low level [below A050], the delays are minimised by eyes in a tower and tower applicable separation standards. Remote Surveillance ATC must build in the bigger, less well pickable what ifs' - Wx, Missed App's, departure manouvering, procedural until radar identification [if surveillance exists].

Bottom line, if the safety of the facility requires improvement beyond IFR/IFR DTI, then factoring delay costs [remote ATC verses onsite], surveillance cost and availability [might not be any until ADS-B rocks along], the classification that adds most value [safety and expedition ] for the money is local D not remote E.

Until reaching a need for D [where both IFR and VFR are serviced] what is the point of Class E? as there is in effect little difference with G except the cost!

No argument on ADS-B, the sooner the better :ok:

Dog One

1st Dec 2009, 20:39

Werbil

Good idea to have alook at he ICAO migators, Mr Smith only pushes one migator, and this has been proved incorrect on this forum numerous times. Its a problem when dealing with some one who's mind is set in concrete and shows a reluctance to change.

Briefly, the#1 migator is the Captain or PIC. Strange that, but ICAO understand the concept that the command of the flight remains in the cockpit. A proper crew briefing covering the descent and approach, MAP and the visual segment from MDA to the runway. Included in this briefing is the terrain advoidance requirements. ATC have a share of the Captain's responsibility by ensuring that in the approach environment that the aircraft is seperated from both other traffic. Each level assignment below 10,000 is cross checked in the cockpit to ensure compliance with the lowest safe altitudes. In a nutshell, its called situational awareness and the five P's.

A Comfy Chair

1st Dec 2009, 23:11

My heart bleeds for the poor chap who finds he has to look out the window, going in and out of KLAX, I do hope he looks out the window in Australian airspace, in accordance with Australian regulated requirements.

I do look out the window going into LAX, and every other airport I operate too. My point is that my separation should not be predacated on it. My Mark I eyeball should be used as a backup to safety (like TCAS), it should not be the PRIMARY method of separation for an RPT operation (like is often the case in LAX when you have unidentified light aircraft operating at the same level as you.) I too can name many breakdowns in Australia... maybe thats the key that we haven't got it right yet.

My point is simply that the US airspace isn't perfect, and I'm a bit disapointed that so many blindly say our airspace should just resemble the US airspace which has more than its fair share of floors. Instead it should be designed to be the safest in the world.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

1st Dec 2009, 23:15

In my opinion, IT USED TO BE!!!.............:}:}:}

Dick Smith

1st Dec 2009, 23:28

ARFOR, I know it must get you all really mad, but the system you are flying in now that you are so desperately trying to defend is the system I was responsible for introducing in 1991 when I was Chairman of CAA. It’s just that it was only the first stage of a number of stages – including upgrading to E in certain locations – that have not been completed.

I love it – you desperately hang on to the status quo and resist change in every way you can.

The vast amount of money that has been wasted in airspace change is because of the reversals. The reversals, in all cases, have come because there are people with a fundamentalist view who do not understand science.

In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents. I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen – probably wishful thinking when there are so many people in Australian aviation who are totally opposed to looking at what happens overseas or, indeed, anywhere else.

ARFOR

1st Dec 2009, 23:48

Who is getting mad? :E

No one as far as I can see is 'trying to hang on to the Status Quo', rather arguning that where change is desirable, that change that actually 'improves safety and efficiency' be considered.
The reversals, in all cases, have come because there are people with a fundamentalist view who do not understand science.
:ok: Yes, sadly much money has been wasted on flawed change process. You would think political and agency masters would recongise the problem after the first few attempts!
In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents.
Thats what happens when monitoring and change processes are 'dicked around'.
I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen
Agree. What is your take on Class E [below A100] accidents and incidents in the US?
probably wishful thinking when there are so many people in Australian aviation who are totally opposed to looking at what happens overseas or, indeed, anywhere else.
Totally opposed? No, smart enough to recognise when a square peg is being unsucessfully rammed into round hole!

Capn Bloggs

2nd Dec 2009, 00:58

Dick Smith said:
In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents. I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen
Ya joking aren't you? To my knowledge, the only country in the world that has an airspace system that has killed innocent jet RPT passengers in midairs with VFRs is the USA.:yuk::=

peuce

2nd Dec 2009, 03:52

Dick,perhaps we should be looking at this in the way Malcolm Turnbull suggests we look at Climate Change ....

... take the safest option (eg Class C) until it's proven that a more lenient approach (eg Class E) is warranted ...

We obviously have strong competing opinions within the Industry. Perhaps you are right and the many others are wrong ... but until that is proven ( and "I believe" is not proof) then we should take a more softly, softly, conservative approach ... what's wrong with that?

Dick Smith

2nd Dec 2009, 04:09

Peuce

You state

... take the safest option (eg Class C)

Class C is only the safest option if it is adequately manned.

The Aussie system of using a Class D Controller who sometimes is very busy to also be responsible for vast amounts of Class C airspace is clearly an accident waiting to happen.

You only have to see what happened at Hamilton Island where a Controller nearly put two RPT jets into each other, and hidden in the safety incident report was the fact that there are other people communicating. I also understand from locals that there were aircraft being held outside the zone.

I believe this is a clear example that if you load a Class D Controller with too much workload, errors can take place which reduce the safety in the D even though you have lulled yourself into a false complacency because we have lots of C above!

Capn Bloggs

2nd Dec 2009, 05:41

Dick,
Class C is only the safest option if it is adequately manned.

The Aussie system of using a Class D Controller who sometimes is very busy to also be responsible for vast amounts of Class C airspace is clearly an accident waiting to happen.

You only have to see what happened at Hamilton Island where a Controller nearly put two RPT jets into each other, and hidden in the safety incident report was the fact that there are other people communicating. I also understand from locals that there were aircraft being held outside the zone.

I believe this is a clear example that if you load a Class D Controller with too much workload, errors can take place which reduce the safety in the D even though you have lulled yourself into a false complacency because we have lots of C above!
It's got nothing to do with the type of airspace. For goodness sake, the aeroplanes are still there, and what's worse, if it was E, the RPT would probably have to clog up the ATC airwaves self segregating with the VFRs buzzing about the place just outside the zone.

Have a go at AsA's airspace management; don't use this as a excuse to justify your beloved E. Make the C controller not release aircraft into the zone until the tower is ready for them.

You obviously think that E will magically make the VFR traffic go away. Well it won't, and how do you expect me to keep clear of it? Look out the window like some of the clowns above suggest? I really do not understand how people (they can't be pilots) honestly think that See and Avoid is still an option for RPT jets these days.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

2nd Dec 2009, 06:41

Gee Dick..........

"In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents. I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen"..........

Isn't THAT precisely HOW good ole' Air Traffic Services (ATC & FS) in OZ was EVOLVED?????

We all agree - I think - that some of the more 'bureaucratic' impositions were just that - impositions.
But, in my opinion, it was all a waaay lot better - and safer - than now.

Now I can fly in "E" and don't talk to anybody...just turn on the tranny and hope its working and doing its job OK.....and try and look behind me when I'm changing level. (For o/taking tfc....)

That's ONE of the reasons I decline to use "E".......
WHOOOOSH!!! :}:}

tobzalp

2nd Dec 2009, 06:46

This thread seems to be turning into discusssion about C over D v E over D. Let us go back to the specific airports. Obviously the ones in question have met the requirement for D Towers. I see absoolutely no need for anything other than G over the top of them. The E discusssion especially from Mr Smith's position is purely from a fundamental stand point of wanting E all the way down to any approach anywhere. Now THAT is something this country neither needs or wants.

ARFOR

2nd Dec 2009, 07:09

Mr Smith,

Emotive headlines such as The Aussie system of using a Class D Controller who sometimes is very busy to also be responsible for vast amounts of Class C airspace is clearly an accident waiting to happen.

Will not change airspace. Aerostudies will.

Not that I condone using emotive threat lines, but why are you not also saying something like The Aussie system of using a High Level Enroute Sector Controller who sometimes is very busy to also be responsible for vast amounts of Class E airspace including lower level arrival and departures airspace is clearly an accident waiting to happen.
I be guessing but I suspect version B is more likely to occur!
You only have to see what happened at Hamilton Island where a Controller nearly put two RPT jets into each other, and hidden in the safety incident report was the fact that there are other people communicating.
Second time you have used this example. Were phraseologies, experience, interpretations of the traffic disposition part of this 'thing' at YBHM? who knows, where is the report? Or is it more sensational commentary like your assessment of the 2RN collision? That report is released, the causal factors are telling and arguably not related to airspace or ATC procedures.
I believe this is a clear example that if you load a Class D Controller with too much workload, errors can take place which reduce the safety in the D even though you have lulled yourself into a false complacency because we have lots of C above!
Your sensational unsupported claims regarding overloaded D controllers takes no account of the fact that over many years at many locations errors and/or misunderstandings very rarely occur. When they do, it comes under that often used phrase - '**** happens'! No system is going to be 100% effective 100% of the time. Thankfully rarely used 'last line' mitigators [such as ACAS] save the day when all else fails. Far better to have a back-up last line of defence sitting in reserve, than expecting a 'last line back-up defence' to be the ONLY defence i.e. EVERY VFR/VFR and IFR/VFR pair in non-radar Class E!

tobzalp Agreed! I've had my 2c on that, so will take my leave on his fundamentalist side issue/s!

CaptainMidnight

2nd Dec 2009, 21:13

Obviously the ones in question have met the requirement for D Towers. I see absolutely no need for anything other than G over the top of them. Exactly. The problems at the specific locations are at and in the vicinity of the airodromes, hence the need for Class D zones. I'm yet to see any justification to apply more restrictive airspace above them. The Aussie system of using a Class D Controller who sometimes is very busy to also be responsible for vast amounts of Class C airspace is clearly an accident waiting to happen.The people qualified to comment re ATC workload and whether such airspace management is unsafe are ATCs, not pilots. Over the many years of such operation, I'm yet to hear any ATCs comment that the current practices at places like LT HB AY etc. are unworkable and unsafe.

Dick Smith

2nd Dec 2009, 21:30

Why then were we not told about the problems at Hamilton Island before the serious incident occurred.

ARFOR

2nd Dec 2009, 23:46

200402648 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/aair/aair200402648.aspx#tab_5)

- No ACAS RA
- Pilot to Pilot Vis Sep [read the part regarding phraseologies and ATC assignment of Pilot Vis Sep]
- 4 aircraft on frequency [including the 2 jets]

Other contributors

- Phraseologies
- Newly rated Controller on duty

Read the report Mr Smith, it is vastly different to your 'interpretation' as you put above! :=

TrafficTraffic

3rd Dec 2009, 00:26

Dick Smith - you should be ashamed of yourself

a Controller nearly put two RPT jets into each other

I suggest that people like you would know better than to say something like this.

That is a totally unfounded statement and I would think could be considered libellous at best if not offensive.

TT

Moderators?

Dick Smith

3rd Dec 2009, 03:17

ARFOR

Note the blatant dishonesty in the ATSB Report you have given us a link to.

If you look at Appendix A, you will notice in relation to radio transmissions it says, “only radio transmissions pertinent to the occurrence are included”.

This entirely depends on the subjective judgement of what is “pertinent to the occurrence”.

I, and many other people, believe that additional calls which have been deleted from this log do have an effect on loading the Air Traffic Controller. That’s the reason non-radar tower airspace has small dimensions in countries such as the UK, France, New Zealand, America and Canada – so the Controller does not have a barrage of transmissions that are not relevant in the particular case.

Showa Cho

3rd Dec 2009, 03:24

I have heard that propellars are old technology and that a Cessna Caravan had an accident once. Going to sell the Caravan based on that Dick? Sydney TMA had a breakdown of separation between two RPT aircraft a while back - let's make it Class E then?

Horses for courses. One incident in one tower does not mean a trend.

Arigato,

Showa Cho.

ARFOR

3rd Dec 2009, 03:54

Mr Smith,

This really is of concern. You say
Note the blatant dishonesty in the ATSB Report you have given us a link to.
That is a very serious allegation! :=

The italics above the ‘incident transcript’? will only include the ‘pertinent [to the incident] RT’ in that table!

If you read the ‘Factual Information’ it clearly says:-
At the time of the occurrence, the ADC was managing the two jets and two other light aircraft operating remote from the Hamilton Island Airport area.
Are you suggesting investigators did not review the tapes? Or are you accusing them of something else?
I, and many other people, believe that additional calls which have been deleted from this log do have an effect on loading the Air Traffic Controller.
4 Aircraft on frequency?

Back on the thread topic. What safety work has been done on the airspace classifications and design for Broome and Karratha?

Dog One

3rd Dec 2009, 09:41

The design of the zones will be interesting. If the controller has to be shielded from C airspace and no doubt E airspace as well so that he can concentrate on the circuit traffic so that they do not collide, what happens when the jets arrive, sometimes three arrivals in 5 mins, the C208 floatplanes are coming home to roost, and other VFR aircraft arriving at the same time, plus the odd helicopter, all calling up inbound at around 10 miles inbound. Because its E airspace above and around the zone, there will not be flight plans for the VFR aircraft, Centre would probably be able to help with the jet eta's and any other IFR traffic, but I can see lots of problems at certain times of the day, especially in the middle of the dry. BRM CTAF is currently 30nm and this allows time for the CAGRO to give the traffice information and for the inbound jet crew to assess the traffic. It would be interesting to watch all this work in a zone the size of Hamilton Island.

werbil

3rd Dec 2009, 11:39

DogOne,

Are you seriously suggesting that ATC should control VFR traffic 29nm away from Broome at 1,000 feet?

Class D steps make for more sense. The million dollar question is what you put above the Class D, and at what height you put the boundary.

At Hammo 98% of the arriving VFR traffic would call with inbound / transit details a couple of miles before the boundary. If ATC is busy you either have to hold outside the zone or if with a bit of altitude descend below the steps whilst waiting for a clearance.

Dick Smith

3rd Dec 2009, 15:18

CASA and AsA have agreed that it will be E over the D. The boundary will be at 2500'

That upgrades the link airspace from G, so how could anyone claim that safety would not be improved?

Yes , I know , a small number of ATC's including ARFOR want to provide class C as they want to take on more responsibility and liability without any extra income for AsA. They are actually charitable workers and don't really want their salaries linked in any way with the actual income they produce for their employer!

The cargo cult is alive and well.

See post no. 25!

peuce

3rd Dec 2009, 20:05

Dick,

Oh dear ... I give up ... :ugh:

BTW, CASA(OAR) regulates Airspace Classification, ASA is not in a position to "agree", or otherwise, with airspace matters.

Dick Smith

3rd Dec 2009, 21:13

Rubbish! CASA can tell AsA what type of airspace is required and AsA can agree to put it in.

peuce

3rd Dec 2009, 21:18

Rubbish back atcha ...

So, are you saying that ASA can say .. "No, we won't put it in" ?

Dog One

3rd Dec 2009, 21:39

If you think that E is a safety improvement over G for RPT jets then you must believe in Santa Claus too. No one on this forum has yet to come up with any real data to prove the claim that E is safer than G in this area.

With the amount of traffic mix involved, I can see a "Launceston" happening and hopefully only a near miss will occur. The whole context of having Safety Management Systems is blown out the window when the safety of 180 pax and crew is all down to TCAS!

ARFOR

3rd Dec 2009, 22:24

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/papers/broome_may09.pdf

Very interesting!

Have a look at the 'options', then look at the errrmm basis for the 'decision'! There are some assumptions made in there that are questionable!

Dog One, your concerns are valid!

le Pingouin

3rd Dec 2009, 23:43

Here to Help

4th Dec 2009, 02:23

From the Wikipedia entry on Cargo Cults:
From time to time, the term "cargo cult" is invoked as an English language idiom to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance. The error of logic made by the islanders consisted of mistaking a necessary condition (i.e., building airstrips, control towers, etc.) for cargo to come flying in, for a sufficient condition for cargo to come flying in, thereby reversing the causation. On a lower level, they repeated the same error by e.g. mistaking the necessary condition (i.e. build something that looks like a control tower) for building a control tower, for a sufficient condition for building a control tower.

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult)

CharlieLimaX-Ray

4th Dec 2009, 03:43

Now Dick, please explain to me how that will improve safety at Broome?

Lets see a hypothetical case of B737-800(180 people) inbound from the south east and due to other IFR traffic will have to commence a holding pattern and approach due to low cloud, yet a VFR Cessna will be able transit overhead Broome in E airspace with no radio call required, with no radar at Broome and with good old see and avoid used for seperation!

If this E airspace is the go, why don't we put it over the top of Sydney?

Capn Bloggs

4th Dec 2009, 03:48

Dick (Chief Pilot of Cargo Cult Airways),
Yes , I know , a small number of ATC's including ARFOR want to provide class C as they want to take on more responsibility and liability without any extra income for AsA. They are actually charitable workers and don't really want their salaries linked in any way with the actual income they produce for their employer!
Yes, ARFOR et al actually see the benefit in not having to put up with IFRs, like self, telling them that I'm doing this and that to self-segregate from VFR KFF coming from PBO or KFQ from Pannawonica, dodging DON parachuting over Whickham at 10,000ft when I'm inbound from YPPD. Apart from not messing up his traffic sequence, there will be a lot less jibber on the frequency if it were C. :ok:

As I have said before (ignored by you, naturally), having E does not mean VFR aircraft go away. They just become invisible (your words) to the controller. They are actually a bigger threat to me then because not only do I have to do what ATC tells me to, I also have to make sure I do not bang into one of them! :=

Dick Smith

4th Dec 2009, 05:14

Heathrow has class A. That's what we need at Broome. Won't cost AsA any more money and will keep those annoying VFR's out of the way.

Dog One

4th Dec 2009, 05:16

Ha, your mind is not set in concrete after all!

Capn Bloggs

4th Dec 2009, 05:37

Heathrow has class A. That's what we need at Broome. ... will keep those annoying VFR's out of the way.
No it won't. They will always be welcome as airspace users, just like any road user. They will also be under the same rules as the other airspace users, just like any road user.

ARFOR

4th Dec 2009, 06:56

Alice Springs has 'tower' managed D and C [operating safely for decades].

That is what is needed for busy regional airports that include fare paying passengers [lots of em]. :ok:

If you need additional flexibility above A050, then consider D up to A100.

EASY, SAFE, LOWEST COST!

It also relieves some of the exisitng volume with the overlying High Sectors [during tower hours], and reverts to G [Oz F with ADS-B] o/nite ;)

werbil

4th Dec 2009, 11:09

If the procedures are as I expect:

Scenario 1:
D/E or G boundary @ A025
IFR Jet ready at Broome for departure.
VFR aircraft is overflying @ A025 so operates to E or G procedures.

VFR is monitoring the centre frequency and announces if in conflict.
Departing jet has to give a departure report on tower frequency to receive instructions to change to centre frequency.
By this time jet contacts centre it is already though the VFR aircraft's level.
Collision avoidance is therefore reliant on MK 1 eyeball and ACAS.

Scenario 2:
IFR Jet inbound to Broome.
VFR aircraft is overflying @ A025 so operates to E procedures.
VFR aircraft hears descent transmissions for jet and announces if in conflict.

Scenario 3:
D/E boundary @ A025
IFR jet ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040.

Tower cordinates clearance with centre. Departing jet is held on ground until piston twin has landed. Some delay.

Scenario 4:
D/G boundary @ A025
IFR ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040

Each aircraft is given traffic on the other, but they are on two different frequencies. One aircraft is climbing, one is descending. WTF happens now?

Personally I think A025 is too low for the boundary between D & either E or G because (a) it doesn't give VFR aircraft to assess whether they are in conflict and respond and (b) aircraft B050 do not have to maintain hemispherical (or is it quadrantle) altitudes. To me it seems an A050 boundary seems more logical providing the size of the zone encompasses the airspace normally used by instrument approach and departure procedures.

DogOne:
1: E vs G VMC minima:
In E 1500m horizontally, 1000 feet from of cloud.
In G below A030 or 1000AGL in reduced VMC allows operations clear of cloud providing monitoring appropriate frequencies.
Do you really want a VFR aircraft legally scud running at A025 through the middle of your instrument approach?

2: E vs G radio carriage requirements
In E VHF radio with appropriate frequencies required by all aircraft
In G NO RADIO REQUIRED by aircraft B050 in normal VMC (I can't see a CTAF being introduced around the D let alone CTAF(R) - defeats the purpose of the tower in the first place).

3: Transponder required to be fitted and operating in E, only required to be operating if fitted in G. (I know this is relying on ACAS)

4: My scenario 3 vs 4.

My understanding is that procedures are identical for VFR in E & G. Given the above four points how is it possible for G to be safer than E?

ARFOR

4th Dec 2009, 12:01

werbil

I agree with your points made except to say in scenarios 1 and 2:-

- VFR often do not self announce
- VFR often do not understand IFR tracking and position reports [particularly if an IFR non-runway aligned procedure is being flown]
- VFR sometimes omit activating transponders

Class D clearances and separation [where necessary] addresses all of the above! Which as I read your other points, supports a higher level boundary split which solves these deficiencies.
Scenario 3:
D/E boundary @ A025
IFR jet ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040.
Tower cordinates clearance with centre. Departing jet is held on ground until piston twin has landed. Some delay.
Negative, the tower will separate the two, even if still in conflict whilst still in the overlying adjoining CTA. It happens everyday in every D tower. It is part and parcel of their separation co-operation at and around the adjoining Centre airspace boundary!
The tower will achieve the separation any number of ways depending on cloudbase, approach being flown, and its orientation to the runway in use etc etc. In your example above, there is virtually NO chance the IFR jet will not be airborne before the twin lands. This of course applies irrespective of the height of the split between TWR and Enroute CTA! Conversely, if the separation confict is a long way out, sector will separate these!

Where delays occur, is when tower applicable separation is not available, but a separation standard is still technically required i.e. close in to the aerodrome whilst in class E [below A100, and most certainly below A050], with G CTAF below.

werbil

5th Dec 2009, 06:38

ARFOR,

Over the last twenty years I've seen more and more discouragment for VFR aircraft to talk on centre frequencies, and as for that matter the CTAF as well. The AIP also reads in a manner that discourages responding with your details and intentions when when you hear conflicting traffic on a CTAF.

Over the last four years 99% of my flying has been in CTAF(R) or Class D airspace and find it very unerving when in ordinary G listening and generally saying nothing. I also find that sector retransmission deteriorates situational awareness (I don't know if this is still done to the same extent as it used to be), particularly where a lot of the comunications relate to aircraft at the other end of the state.

VFR often do not understand IFR tracking and position reports [particularly if an IFR non-runway aligned procedure is being flown] Like it or lump it, communications need to be in a form that the least experienced can understand. This means that either IFR pilots need to use cardinal directions and distances in their broadcasts or VFR pilots need to be trained in instrument approach terminology.

CaptainMidnight

5th Dec 2009, 07:43

Well, we know the cause of discouraging VFR to communicate, particularly on FIA & E freqs.

And leaving it up to VFR in overlying E over D to interpret IFR communications and decide if they are going to conflict or not is leaving the decision to (in many instances) the lowest common denominator.

That's assuming the VFR is even radio equipped. As I've said before on this forum, transponders are not mandatory for VFR ops in E for those sports aviation types not capable of powering them.

Dog One

5th Dec 2009, 09:26

Werbil says

"Given the above four points how is it possible for G to be safer than E?"

One could ask if E is safer than G for IFR RPT, given the VFR pilot is the lowest common denominator, we are dependant on his transponder being servicable, or switched on, their knowledge of the area and the IFR tracks. The fact that they are only required to maintain 1500m horizonontly and 1000' vertically gives a lot of time to avoid them. 1500 m = .8 nm (@ 250 Kts = a few seconds) Less time than what you are allowed for a TCAS RA.

Again the size of the zone will be interesting, to contain the instrument approaches the zone will need to be at least 15nm, others say it will be between 6 - 10 nm. It will really become a dog's breakfast if the approaches aren't contained. The report on Broome operations outlined the reason for the non standard CTAF of 30nm radius as being due to the traffic mix, and to give all the traffic time to assimilate the traffic.

Jet departures are nominally around a climb rate of 3000' fpm, which means it will be out of the D upper limit in 1 minute. So VFR aircraft operating in E around A050 - A100 on the IFR routes will get some nice close ups of the jet traffic as it hopefully passes by.

Inbound, the D controller will have the details of the IFR traffic inbound, but won't know about VFR traffic until they call up. With the number of VFR aircraft I have seen and heard in the BRM CTAF, all inbound within a few minutes of each other, the tower frequency will become easily congested, creating delays, which will further deflect the controllers role of stopping mid -airs on base or final. They can happen outside the zone) If would appear that there will need to be more than one controller on duty, which means the establishment will need many controllers. One wonders were they will come from.

tobzalp

5th Dec 2009, 10:23

In summary, I don't know why Dick keeps pushing the focus onto ATC. CASA maketh the rulz. All the professional ATCs will employ process and direction as per the latest regulations. The ball has now moved well and truly into the court of the airlines. If two planes hit, the only dude who does not die is the ATC. With the current liabilty laws, it is wasted bandwidth for Dick to keep on wiith his 'small number of ATCs' crap.

Inshallah

divingduck

5th Dec 2009, 17:33

bite the bl00dy bullet and put a radar in...primary as well as SSR...then everyone (ATC's) can see who is who and where everyone is...if they won't put that in...wait until someone goes bang and watch the fallout.:ugh:

Surely then full radar coverage will give Dick his wet dream of being just like the good ole USA:rolleyes:

Dick Smith

5th Dec 2009, 22:56

TOBZALP and others, the safety at Broome will increase with D and E above.

From your posts it is clear you do not understand how the FAA NAS procedures work.

Then how would you , CASA does not have an expert in these procedures on staff.

I suggest you ask a FAA Class D controller to explain how the system works , both in a radar and non radar environment.

The Airservices controllers employed in the USA do not want to change the current airspace dimensions or classifications in the Class D environment.

Why not ask your boss for a briefing from them!

CaptainMidnight

5th Dec 2009, 22:57

ADS-B out would have helped to generate a picture ..........

mikk_13

5th Dec 2009, 23:09

From your posts it is clear you do not understand how the FAA NAS procedures work

From your posts, dick, you clearly aren't a controller. When you get your en route ATC licence, you will be more than welcome to comment on how we do our business. Until then, you are clearly not qualified to comment on Air Traffic Management.

Dick Smith

6th Dec 2009, 01:30

mikk Why then are you so supportive of the airspace system that I introduced when I was Chairman of CAA in 1991?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

6th Dec 2009, 04:15

Who said ANYBODY is...????

:}:}

A 'GOOD' system removed...and the 'replacement' still to be arrived at....in 2009!

$$$$'s and 'Freedom To Operate', ain't everything in 'safety'......

Best Regards To All!

Chief galah

6th Dec 2009, 06:33

The whole selling point of NAS and the ALPHABET airspace was to enable any pilot from any country to come to Australia and fly or learn to fly in standardized global airspace.

This was supposed to lead to the grand saving of millions of dollars, and be the savior of the aviation industry in Australia.

This is what the traveling Dick and Mick Smith, John and Martha King circus was pushing at the forums. Nobody, at those forums or elsewhere for that matter, could fathom how the savings were to be achieved.

Now we're supposed to embrace "FAA Class D", whatever that is. Apparently it is different to ICAO D.

So much for the rubbish that was being sold then, and so much for the ill informed operational opinion we are getting now.

Dog One

6th Dec 2009, 07:36

Have to agree with you ex-FSO Griffo!

werbil

6th Dec 2009, 09:46

DogOne,

You still haven't answered my question of how CTAF G can be safer than E for IFR traffic. There are three things each of which should make it safer for VFR/IFR collision risk pairs as per my earlier post - E vs G VMC minima, E vs G radio carriage requirements and E vs G transponder requirements.

Apart from the three points I've listed above, VFR procedures are IDENTICAL in G (outside of a CTAF of course) to E. I've yet to see a single factor that can help control the risk of a collision between VFR/IFR pairs any better in G than E.

Remember, if it is G above D with a A025 boundary there is 500 feet of airspace where VMC critera is 5000m vis and clear of cloud.

...

PS I don't see any reason why an aircraft without an engine powered electrical system should be exempt from radio or transponder requirements. If a tiger moth can have both powered by a small battery, any aircraft can.

Dog One

6th Dec 2009, 10:32

Hi Werbil, my previous response from #160

Werbil says

"Given the above four points how is it possible for G to be safer than E?"

One could ask if E is safer than G for IFR RPT, given the VFR pilot is the lowest common denominator, we are dependant on his transponder being servicable, or switched on, their knowledge of the area and the IFR tracks. The fact that they are only required to maintain 1500m horizonontly and 1000' vertically gives a lot of time to avoid them. 1500 m = .8 nm (@ 250 Kts = a few seconds) Less time than what you are allowed for a TCAS RA.

The point really is that neither is any safer than the other. Both E & G really rely on TCAS to avoid close encounters of the metal bending type. Remember the good old USA leads us on these types of encounters

If E required all aircraft to have a clearance to enter, then safety would be enhanced. VFR aircraft have to have radios and transponders, so what is the problem for the VFR aircraft to obtain a clearance?

werbil

6th Dec 2009, 11:09

In G below A030/1000AGL clear of cloud equals a fraction of a second to visually aquire an aircraft - IE absolutely zero chance of being able to take avoiding action.

I've spotted numerous aircraft that I haven't heard about on the radio (and a significant number of those have been conflicting traffic in D) - but then I keep my eyes outside the aircraft as much as possible. Given that amphibs are slow I'm also at the disadvantage that the faster jet can hit me from behind. :{

E (particularly at lower levels) has a number of additional defences that G in Australia doesn't have - hence safer.

mikk_13

6th Dec 2009, 13:37

Why then are you so supportive of the airspace system that I introduced when I was Chairman of CAA in 1991

The airspace that allows for IFR self sepparation in non radar class G? Who said I supported it. I just think you shouldn't make it any worse.

In Europe, IFR is not permitted in class G. They have class E down to low levels approx 4000". They have 100% radar. For low use Ads they have class F I believe, which means a temp zone activates and only one IFR jet in the area at a time. All other AD's are class D or C. For very low use ADs, Acft must go VFR below class E.

The main difference is the radar coverage. Its all great to say class E works in EU and the states, but they mostly have radar. its down to tcas and the student pilot in his c152 to stop the disaster when it come to broome.

If your going to push this, then

we need adsb and all aircraft equipped with the gear
Or.
We keep it as is, make the class d/c steps in and out of places like broome

Aeroméxico Flight 498 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498)

this is a bit of info on the mid air in the states. All it would take in AUS is a student pilot to accidently sqwauk mode A only, over fly a class D zone in Class E, no radio contact, no radar, A080, flying parallel to broome, then clean up the ozwest jet inbound as it decends through a cloud layer. They don't see each other since the angles, the ozwest jet casn't see below very well, the piper arrow has no vision to the high left. No vision, No TCAS, No radio, No hope.
dramatic? well you explain how it is not possible?

this is your system. Are you familiar with the simple theory of the holes in the cheese? Well you are pushing to remove as many cheeses as you can, so now there is only a few cheeses where there used to be many.

Capn Bloggs

6th Dec 2009, 14:11

Werbil,

To take up a few of your points:

1: E vs G VMC minima:
In E 1500m horizontally, 1000 feet from of cloud.

I think we should totally ignore unalerted See and Avoid. The VMC rules are irrelevant to this argument. In my jet, it is simply impossible to do a practical lookout that would count towards mitigating against a midair.

E vs G radio carriage requirements
In E VHF radio with appropriate frequencies required by all aircraft
In G NO RADIO REQUIRED by aircraft B050 in normal VMC
In E, VFR only “should” monitor the ATC freq (good thing they are now on the charts!) Jepp ATC Series 800 section 2.1.4, as opposed to G, where radio carriage and use 5,000ft and above is mandatory (Jepp ATC Radio Comms (series 900) section 1.1.1. Note that although the table says VFR in E “requires” VHF, there are no mandatory reports or broadcasts for VFR.
G/5000ft was the reason MBZs went up to 5000ft, thereby providing a mandatory radio requirement for VFR (with, I might add, a requirement to reply if a conflict existed) all of which was thrown out the window by Dick and his NAS mates.

There are currently no requirements for IFR to make broadcasts prior to or during descent into E (or indeed prior to entering D): all we do is talk our stuff with ATC, hardly enough information for a "normal" VFR to base self-separation on.

Transponder required to be fitted and operating in E, only required to be operating if fitted in G.
Not strictly correct. ALL aircraft in any airspace at or above 10,000ft in Australia must carry and operate a Transponder (unless it’s too gutless to power one). Jepp ATC series 500 section 5.15.1.1 refers. E only confers a benefit below 10,000ft (and as you rightly point out, shouldn't’t be used as a mitigator).

So in summary, all E does over G for VFR/IFR conflicts is provide a transponder requirement below 10k (TCAS shouldn't be considered a slice of cheese and which is not tested or checked on the day for operability) and a radio "requirement" between 5,000ft and the ground (which is of course covered at least at Broome by the CASA-mandated VHF comms requirements with the CAGRO published in ERSA (we are at around 8000ft at 30nm so are still adequately covered by the Class G rule).

Of course this really did used to be so simple before Dick got his clutches on the pollies.

ozineurope

7th Dec 2009, 09:31

DNS couldn't agree more! But one last little thing...

I worked Hedland Tower when there was traffic there, 3-4000 a month. We had CTR/CTA in the old wedding cake design up to FL250 and around 120 miles, our CTR was 30nm and we had the pilot station choppers and VFR training and the Doc and the sundry others who wanted to fly. I cannot remember anyone being delayed more than a few minutes due ATC procedures/separation except in IMC.

Why go cheap? Casue it is politically correct. A controller costs $X to man the tower whether controlling A, B, C, D, E or G. So why do we insist on tying their hands by giving them half baked airspace and procedures?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

7th Dec 2009, 12:26

Sorry OZ, I have to disagree with you a little here.......(Slight Drift..)

Back in 'dem good ole' days when I was flying for 'Murchison Air Services' in PD in 1970, We used to get weally weally peed off with 'Remain South of the H'way' NOT above 3000' or whatever - whenever the FK.28 of the time was inbound from KA, and THERE was this little speckin the sky....waaay up theree.... and we were having to divert or interrupt a type conversion trng flt, just because.......

We could hardly 'admire' the 'procedurals' of the times......

:ok::ok:

I know...it weren't your fault.....:ok:

ozineurope

7th Dec 2009, 12:33

Griffo - nuh weren't me. Early 80s when we had worked out that the coast was actually east/west and that the AWA Fokker could see the ground above A100 to help us out!!

Dog One

7th Dec 2009, 20:52

ozineurope

Why go cheap? Casue it is politically correct. A controller costs $X to man the tower whether controlling A, B, C, D, E or G. So why do we insist on tying their hands by giving them half baked airspace and procedures?

Couldn't agree more. E airspace still requires a controller, are they paid less than their colleagues for only working E. If not, there can't be any saving, so why use it?

Notice the same question early on in the thread, but to date, no responses

ozineurope

8th Dec 2009, 05:22

D1 - unless things have changed in the 7 months since I left - all controllers who have reached the same stage of their careers are paid the same money. Some get expedited advancement but the salary scales for GAAP, TMA, and radar towers are the same. Outstation towers may be slightly less but not a whole lot of less.

So if you were a PH TWR controller who was sent to Broome to only do D/E airspace you would not lose dollars, only that sense of well being that comes from being able to afford the rent!!

Dog One

8th Dec 2009, 08:40

Thanks Ozineurope,

So now what is the cost difference between C and E airspace. It would appear that C corridors to both Broome and Karratha would cost no more than E airspace, but provide a lot more safety to RPT passengers. It certainly would not ruin any GA operator's budget and provide them also with a mantle of safety from RPT traffic!

Dick Smith

8th Dec 2009, 08:54

Dog, come to think of it , An A corridor would cost no more than E and be about the same for VFR pilots , as with C procedural they would most often be told " clearance not available" That's what happens in much of the non radar C now!

And those Americans and Canadians must be dumb- they could have C in place of all their E without any extra costs!

No wonder you do not put your real name on your posts!

Dog One

8th Dec 2009, 09:34

Thank you Mr Smith, yes I am really dumb. Of course VFR aircraft are more important than than the safety of 200 passengers in a jet. How stupid of me to think that VFR aircraft would be delayed entering C airspace, but not D airspace.

Dick Smith

8th Dec 2009, 09:45

Yes, because in C VFR are separated from IFR, most often using 1930's procedural standards.

In D they are given traffic.

Dog One

8th Dec 2009, 10:28

Well why have a tower? If they are only going to give traffic, and landing clearances. The CAGRO gives traffic now and we have that traffic information at 30 miles which gives us time to fit in. Just another waste of the public purse!

ozineurope

8th Dec 2009, 11:40

Maybe Dick is talking about the US? No wait they did not have ATC before WW2 either, maybe Europe? Nope not there either.

Oh well must be as inciteful as all the other posts regarding ATC and the delays we embugger the VFR industry with made by Dick.

Why is it that someone who is obviously such a good business man has so little understanding of what the majority of controllers do? Cause it would not fit with the greater scheme. ATC control aircraft to stop them hitting each other, except this is not a good enough reason to deny the 172 a clearance into the same bit of airspace as the 738 or for that matter the E190 as far as Mr Smith is concerned.

If the system of priorities that applied in the US (1st come 1st served) applied in Oz then the lighty would have the same rights as the IFR RPT. I believe this is one of the things that Dick misses everytime in his shots at the airspace and the controllers. we can not give priority to a VFR over the IFR RPT, change that rule and the whole game changes. But - Dick you go sell it to the bigger part of industry who earn a lot of dollars for Australia.

QF 6 follow the Cherokee downwind, expect late landing clearance..........

peuce

8th Dec 2009, 19:26

At least the real issue (which we all knew anyway) is out in the open now ...

C above Broome will delay VFRs
E above Broome will not delay VFRs

Assuming that is correct ....

If there are bugger all VFRs above Broome, then delays are unlikely
If there's a hornet's nest of VFRs above Broome, then they NEED to be separated
As was pointed out earlier, what is more important ... VFRs not hitting RPTs, or VFRs not getting delayed?

Come to think of it ... do you know what would work nicely above Broome? ... Class F :E

Chief galah

8th Dec 2009, 19:33

...... An A corridor would cost no more than E and be about the same for VFR pilots ,.....

Class A airspace - VFR not permitted

WTF?

Capn Bloggs

8th Dec 2009, 22:27

Puece, stop it, you fundamentalist.

KeepItRolling

8th Dec 2009, 23:03

Class C, D, E, whatever is seperate from a fundamental question:

Staffed how?

Towers and sectors will need more staff. The system is barely coping as it is.:hmm:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

8th Dec 2009, 23:35

Regarding Broome............

I think I'll either get a float plane or land on the racecourse - remaining well clear of the ad. and not tell anyone.......and stay below 500'.

There.....that should be OK....:}:}

Dick Smith

9th Dec 2009, 00:50

Oz, I support the present system of priorities, and I alway's give RPT priority in a CTAF .

Peuce, class F has no radio requirement for VFR and as most of you are obsessed with mandatory radio requirements it would not be a suitable airspace classification

CharlieLimaX-Ray

9th Dec 2009, 05:59

Didn't a DJ737 and a Tobago go head to head when they had E airspace over the top of YMLT or YMHB a few year's back?

Didn't Slaters and Gordon offer to take class action against ASA on behalf of the B737 passengers?

CaptainMidnight

9th Dec 2009, 06:50

It is CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation's responsibility to determine the class of airspace at Broome, including what overlies the CTR.

While they would be aware that ASA can provide Class C services for the same cost as E as has been the case elsewhere, presumably the OAR safety analysis for Broome has indicated that Class E is sufficient.

Naturally that safety analysis would be subject to close scrutiny in the event of an incident :)

CharlieLimaX-Ray

9th Dec 2009, 06:55

What makes Dick Smith an expert on airspace design anyway?

Does the gentleman hold any formal qualifications that are recognised by the airspace regulators in this country?

xxgoldxx

9th Dec 2009, 11:14

"As was pointed out earlier, what is more important ... VFRs not hitting RPTs, or VFRs not getting delayed?"

Surely if these guys are such kamikazee's just leave it as a CTAF and they should crash each other out of existence..

you RPT guys must all be ex fighter pilots to keep getting in and out alive..!!

peuce

9th Dec 2009, 19:16

Dick,

Peuce, class F has no radio requirement for VFR and as most of you are obsessed with mandatory radio requirements it would not be a suitable airspace classification

You got me, but I was being a bit facetious .... we already, in effect, have Class F (no way it's Class G)

89 steps to heaven

9th Dec 2009, 20:11

The obvious solution is class D.

At the moment OAR only use class D airspace for regional Towers, but there is no reason why Class D steps, administered from the centres up to the base of Class C cannot be used. This would give the safety for RPT's and flexibility for VFR's.

Non surveillance Class E, not so good.

CaptainMidnight

10th Dec 2009, 07:05

The obvious solution is class D. I don't believe D is suitable for other than TWR ops. and I think (I could be wrong) that it is only used for that purpose elsewhere.

I don't have the books handy, but doesn't it use in part separation involving VFR by reference to visual features i.e. "track north of the xxx Highway"? Something difficult for an enroute centre to handle, and another class of airspace (in addition to A/C/E/G) for them to manage.

89 steps to heaven

10th Dec 2009, 10:42

Class D airspace ( minimum provided)

Separation IFR - IFR; IFR - Special VFR; Special VFR - Special VFR if vis < VMC

Traffic info VFR - VFR; IFR - VFR, separation not required.

Could work in en-route steps I think.

willadvise

18th Dec 2009, 20:02

Latest info I have from my source in that part of the world is that the proposed steps are Class D up to A045 controlled by the tower. Above A045 Class E controlled by ML/BN centres and these will be active H24 instead of reverting to G when the tower controller goes home as they do at YBAS. Everyone needs to brush up on there class E procedures or there is going to be a lot of "clearance not available" when the tower goes home. I feel for you guys left on West Proc and Tops. The world's largest ATC sector now gets a procedural approach function and the guys on Tops get to do procedural approach without a VOR.

Capn Bloggs

18th Dec 2009, 23:51

Everyone needs to brush up on there class E procedures or there is going to be a lot of "clearance not available" when the tower goes home.
That's the irony of the whole stupid idea. No clearance? Just go IFR Pickup like we used to in G but without coordinating with the other aircraft or indeed with his permission. The asylum run by loonies. I cannot believe anybody who has half a brain would advocate such a system, risk management quack quack or not. :yuk:

AerocatS2A

18th Dec 2009, 23:57

A045? So there could be a VFR transiting over the top of the zone and not talking to anyone? That doesn't happen at present, this would be a backward step in some ways.

Dog One

19th Dec 2009, 08:52

Class E Airspace outside of radar coverage is a very big backward step fullstop!

Dog One

23rd Feb 2010, 09:53

CASA have just released the Airspace Change Proposal Form detailing the airspace changes.

The airspace design will be

Class D CTR surface to 2600' (2500' AGL)
Class E airspace steps shall contain the 2.5 degree descent profile from existing Class E airspace (currently F180) down to 3000' then 3.0 degrees to touchdown
The Class E airspace steps shall contain the RNAV holds
Lowest Class E airspace base at 700' AGL
The steps beyond approx 30 nm shall be laterally limited to contain published ATS routes with applicable navigation tolerances

Interesting statement
The Class E under the jurisdiction of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by BN CEN (and may be the TWR frequency - the Class D CTR).

Oh what fun, multiple frequency changes close to the ground whilst trying to conduct an approach, maintain seperation from the unknown VFR traffic, which could be on any one of three frequencies.

Understand there was a meeting between operators and Airservices last week in Broome. Any one care to comment?

1224

23rd Feb 2010, 12:10

So when is this happening? Will it be done at the same time the GAAPs change?

Awol57

23rd Feb 2010, 15:29

November this year is the plan

Stationair8

23rd Feb 2010, 20:28

Could time to contact Mr Albenese's office and express one's concern.

Sounds like a bigger cockup than the bald ones roof insulation scheme.

E Airspace!!!!!

Capn Bloggs

23rd Feb 2010, 21:51

So, the ideologues who still live in the dark ages have got their way (for the moment).

The steps beyond approx 30 nm shall be laterally limited to contain published ATS routes with applicable navigation tolerances
That won't work, Dick. :=

Dog, do you have a link to the ACP?

CharlieLimaX-Ray

23rd Feb 2010, 22:55

What about deviations for weather or manouevring for IFR approaches?

E for exciting airspace.

Dog One

24th Feb 2010, 08:37

Sorry Capt, but no I have only a faxed copy which has the email address unreadable. search around the CASA website, and goto the OAR site. You should be able to get them to email you a copy.

89 steps to heaven

24th Feb 2010, 19:42

Stationair8 I think you are correct. Watch the Broome airspace model be extended Australia wide. Back to the NAS2b errors, unnecessary & unsubstantiated change.

If we want more flexibility in airspace, Class D zones and Class D steps and en-route would be worth a look. Class E over Class D, no radar or in busy areas cannot be supported by any safety case.

Talk to the pollies.

Capn Bloggs

24th Feb 2010, 21:33

Dick's original child, Airspace 2000 (in the 90's) had E corridors everywhere. Then in the mid 2000s the LLAMP group looked extensively at E corridors and concluded they were unworkable.

Dizzy Llama

24th Feb 2010, 21:53

Watch the Broome airspace model be extended Australia wide

I wonder if that's why some people changed their tune about new towers? The Trojan horse for E airspace. Probably hoping ASA said sorry no staff - can't do it, and a new ATS provider got a foot in the door as well.

Sounds like someone's plan all along.

It will be interesting to see how "E" goes as "high performance" VFR becomes more prevalent. I believe their is already a light business jet operating that likes to zip around VFR occasionally.

Capn Bloggs

25th Feb 2010, 07:10

Justice Gibbs quoted in the CASA Alice Airspace study Jan2010:

Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.

E over D? Definitely not, your ona!

peuce

26th Feb 2010, 00:18

Playing Devil's advocate ....

Could you not say that the current Airspace (Class G) above Broome will be made safer by installing Class E ... in that IFRs will be seperated from themselves?

Now with White hat back on ...

Could you then not say that, for a small, if any, increase in cost ... it could be made Class C above Broome and remove most of the residual risk?

AerocatS2A

26th Feb 2010, 00:28

Playing Devil's advocate ....

Could you not say that the current Airspace (Class G) above Broome will be made safer by installing Class E ... in that IFRs will be seperated from themselves?
No. In my opinion, separation from IFRs is not the main problem, the main problem is separation from VFRs*. With the present G airspace, it is effectively a mandatory broadcast zone, all traffic within 30nm of YBRM must listen and broadcast on the CTAF. If it is E above A045 then there will be no requirement for VFR to broadcast until they are entering the D airspace, therefore the volume of airspace we receive traffic information on VFR aircraft will be much smaller, so we will have less time to detect threat aircraft visually and to work out a separation plan.

*Edit: That's not quite true, I mean that separation from IFR and VFR is both problematic, but the safety concern relating to the lack of VFR information in the new airspace will not be offset by the increased safety provided by the IFR to IFR separation.

CaptainMidnight

26th Feb 2010, 01:18

And a point I've made many times, Class E can - and does - have many no radio no transponder types operating therein, completely unknown to all.

AerocatS2A

26th Feb 2010, 03:31

And a point I've made many times, Class E can - and does - have many no radio no transponder types operating therein, completely unknown to all.

Yep, if you're trying to reduce the collision risk at an airport with a lot of VFR traffic, why would you implement airspace that allows VFR aircraft to be invisible?

Howabout

26th Feb 2010, 04:41

Bloggs and AerocatS2A,

You may be interested in this little gem from the 2008 Avalon Aeronautical Study (original study on Avalon). The quote is direct from the Executive Summary under 'Findings' (elaborated on in the body of the study). If you tie this up with the previous quote you posted here Bloggs, from Justice Gibbs regarding negligence, one has to wonder why.

Anyone can access this stuff and the quote appears to have been made without any qualification. Here it is, and make of it what you will, when read in conjunction with the Gibbs' statement. Maybe there's some logic at work here, but it's outside my orbit.

1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service
provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport
aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D
and Class E.

CaptainMidnight

27th Feb 2010, 05:21

Justice Gibbs quoted in the CASA Alice Airspace study Jan2010:

Quote:
Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.and Quote re Avalon airspace:
1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service
provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport
aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D
and Class E.

In view of the comments by Justice Gibbs and their own determination re Avalon airspace, one would assume that CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation would have first run their proposals re Broome and Karratha for E over D instead of C over D past their Office of Legal Counsel before making their determination .........

peuce

28th Feb 2010, 02:36

So, considering those findings on face value, and in the context given, if they go ahead with E over D ... it would be fair to assume that there must be some other very significant forces or issues at play ... that we aren't privy to ....

AerocatS2A

28th Feb 2010, 03:52

1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service
provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport
aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D
and Class E.
The above quote may be true for Avalon, but Broome does not have a radar anywhere near by, so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E. Class C would be great but isn't likely given the existing infrastructure. I think Class D up to A100 with E on top would be an ok compromise.

CaptainMidnight

28th Feb 2010, 04:09

so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E.No, the cost is the same because ATC can provide Class C services or E, with no additional equipment.

Radar is not an issue. Alice does not have radar C, along with other places. C clearly provides greater protection than E, hence the findings and quotes.

Capn Bloggs

28th Feb 2010, 04:36

but Broome does not have a radar anywhere near by, so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E.
This is the ideological block that Dick Smith has - "C must have radar". Poppycock. Just because they do that in the USA doesn't mean it has to be everywhere else.

All the radar in C does is increase capacity over non-radar C. Given capacity isn't an issue and KTA and BME, the C cost will be the same as E.

Think outside the square, Dick. :=

AerocatS2A

28th Feb 2010, 05:53

Yes that's true. My thinking has been coloured a little by an IRT question I was once asked, "What's the difference between Class C and Class D airspace?" I rattled off the differences in separation services provided and was told, "No, Class C is Radar and Class D isn't." I knew that this was technically wrong, but couldn't be bothered arguing the point.

Sure, if CASA will put non radar Class C in place, that would be best. And as more and more aircraft get ADSB, the radar-like services will come.

werbil

28th Feb 2010, 10:05

The big difference between C & D is capacity in VMC.

In C VFR must be positively separated from IFR. This means a technical separation standard must be applied by ATC (can an ATC help me here) - which I believe effectively means no other aircraft in the circuit area whilst an IFR aircraft is taking off or landing.

In D the ATC has a lot more options to segregate traffic (including sight and follow, hold in circuit).

Whilst radar is not essential in C, it does reduce the separation standards drastically and therefore increases capacity.

Where an aircraft is operating to SVFR procedures it has to be separated from IFR aircraft irrespective of whether it is Class C or D.

cbradio

28th Feb 2010, 10:21

Sorry werbil - not even close! :)

Ill let a current Class C Procedural controller go into detail - it's been awhile -but quite often a procedural standard is less restrictive than radar - lateral, visual, etc.
Nowhere near one at a time.

5miles

28th Feb 2010, 11:24

In C VFR must be positively separated from IFR. This means a technical separation standard must be applied by ATC (can an ATC help me here) - which I believe effectively means no other aircraft in the circuit area whilst an IFR aircraft is taking off or landing.

Not sure what the difference between a technical separation standard and a plain old everyday separation standard is, but class C towers can run VFR in the circuit with IFR departures so long as the ADC can maintain visual separation, or apply a number of other techniques. We even run IFR circuits with IFR/VFR departures.

In D the ATC has a lot more options to segregate traffic (including sight and follow, hold in circuit).

If the aircraft are required to be separated, the same standards can be applied. Sight and follow is simply pilot assigned responsibility for separation, and is not specific to any class of airspace.

Whilst radar is not essential in C, it does reduce the separation standards drastically and therefore increases capacity.

Correct - most of the time; and in a radar approach controlled environment, we can run similar types 3nm apart. However, an ADC can run them even closer once in sight, regardless of radar coverage.

CaptainMidnight

28th Feb 2010, 20:12

To clarify, what we are saying is more appropriate and safer is Class C instead of Class E overlying the Class D ............

I don't know anyone who has a problem with Class D SFC-4500.

It is the overlying airspace that is the problem.

Dog One

28th Feb 2010, 20:34

The proposed Class D upper limit is 2500' The holding altitude for the NDB is currently 2200' - 300' below the upper limit of Class D. Both RNAV approaches start outside the zone. Does this mean you could be holding in IMC at 2200' and have a unnown VFR overfly you in VMC with less than a 1000' seperation?

AerocatS2A

28th Feb 2010, 20:43

Dog One, yup! Less than 500' separation more importantly (we get around all the time with 500' between VFR and IFR.) There are two proposals, one from CASA and one from ASA, the ASA one has a much bigger Class D area (22nm and A045 I think.)

Dog One

28th Feb 2010, 21:24

500' sepration doesn't worry me, its the unknown aspect of the the VFR traffic that does. A missed approach would put out the top of the D airspace in around 30 secs, not much time to arrange seperation from unknown VFR traffic.

ARFOR

3rd Mar 2010, 01:13

Have the CTR and CTA step distances been 'proclaimed' yet?

Dog One

3rd Mar 2010, 09:53

The ACP gives the following airspace details

The airspace design will be

Class D CTR surface to 2600 ft

Class E Airspace steps shall contain the 2.5 degree descent profile from existing Class E airspace (currently F180) down to 3000 ft then 3 degrees to touchdown
Lowest Class E airspace base at 700 AGL
The steps beyond approx 30 nm shall be laterally limited to contain published ATS routes with applicable navigation tolerances.
Class D is only active during ATC hours
The Class E airspace under the jurisdictionl of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by BN Centre(and may be the tower frequency - the Class D CTR)

The design of the Class D is suitable for light aircraft, but certainly not RPT jet aircraft.

Half the RNAV approaches and holding patterns are outside the Class D CTR. The tower will be controlling both the Class D and surrounding E, possibly on difference frequencies.

I would suggest they forget the idea and stay with the present system, its simpler and safer at the moment. If paying passengers realised how unsafe the proposal is, the ensuing bad publicity will make interesting reading!

ARFOR

3rd Mar 2010, 10:32

Thanks Dog
The Class E airspace under the jurisdictionl of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by BN Centre(and may be the tower frequency - the Class D CTR)
:eek:
Have the OAR decided on the height of the split between Tower and Centre airspace? A045?

Irrespective, if the split is below A100 [the lower it is the worse it is]

- VFR on descent and on climb out will have to monitor 2 E frequencies to have any idea of the adjoining/conflicting IFR traffic? How many comm's do VFR's generally have?
- IFR on descent and climb out will have to monitor 2 ATC frequencies for mostly silent VFR who could be on either, or in the process of changing freq!

Are the surrounding G [F] frequencies to be 'paired' with the Centre CTA E frequency?

How is the CTAF going to work outside tower hours?

Centre E down to 700agl

- Is the CTAF going to be a different frequency to the Centre Class E?

[it would have to be a separate frequency due the additional chatter loading on the 'huge' overlying sector]

- VFR and NVFR will [maybe] broadcast on the CTAF!
- IFR will have to 'actively' interact with both frequencies during high workload!
- IFR will have to 'cancel' with ATC below circuit height on approach [more likely after landing]! One in one out Centre based procedural control in the meantime!?

Who is designing this garbage? :ugh:

Jabawocky

3rd Mar 2010, 10:41

WOT was all that :confused:...........OMG!!!

Class C or G sounds like the Go!

ohh hang on that was Chuckspace or Scurvy D Dog Space.....CTA/OCTA........

What are you talking about Jaba! :ugh:

peuce

4th Mar 2010, 00:59

Next year will be the 20th Anniverary of the commencement of the many unsuccessful attempts to change the "you're either in, or you're either out" airspace ... into something betterer ....

Talk about 20 years in the Aviation Hall of Doom ....:}

Stationair8

4th Mar 2010, 02:58

Twenty years of reforms to airspace or watching people sell their souls?

Could tell a lovely little story about an individual flogging his viewpoint on the need for airspace reform, and the arguement he picked with a number of pilots and how it went downhill from there....!

ARFOR

4th Mar 2010, 03:18

I cannot imagine who you would be talking about :E

Back to airspace at Broome and Karratha, maybe the message is getting through to OAR and the Skull :ok:

;)

Howabout

4th Mar 2010, 05:47

Should be a very interesting WA RAPAC tomorrow I imagine. Given the assertions of YPJT operators on 'lack of consultation' regarding GAAP to E over D and some of the statements in a few recent aeronautical studies, I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

I am wondering if that shy, retiring 'shrinking violet,' aka Bloggs, might not have a few polite questions to put to the OAR reps regarding proposed airspace classifications in the NW.

It seems to me that history is repeating itself, particularly regarding GAAP: we never seem to learn. Under NAS, I don't think anyone ever convincingly identified a problem that needed solving. In this case I believe that we have a 'solution' looking for a problem.

There's a big difference between opinion and fact. NAS, from my perspective, was opinion-driven, not facts-driven. Regrettably, I perceive the same error being repeated and, for the life of me, cannot understand the rationale.

A famous philosopher once said 'Beware of preconceived goals and the attempt to use selective evidence to justify those goals. If thou pursuest that course, thou art condemned to failure' - Aerodonicus, 23BC.

Actually, that's BS; I made it up. But, IMHO, that's where we're at.

CaptainMidnight

4th Mar 2010, 07:19

Should be a very interesting WA RAPAC tomorrow I imagine.I hope people have the courage to say something.

My experience has been while there has been much huff and puff leading up to RAPAC meetings about issues, on the day people have sat there meekly saying nothing ...........

CharlieLimaX-Ray

4th Mar 2010, 07:50

You always find a lot of gunnas and big talkers, put them in a meeting and they suddenly sit their fat, dumb and happy.

ARFOR

4th Mar 2010, 08:20

It is difficult to disagree with your thoughts Howabout :ok:. The GAAP to D fiasco will only bare its true impact after the horses are in the new paddock :ooh:

Re: Broome and Karratha, at the very least CASA through RAPAC are asking for [and saying a bit] regarding the airspace split. That is a good [if not late] start :D

I have a feeling that besides the good work already done by those who will operate through this airspace, there might be 'other interested' cavalry riding in to the discussions ;) with a similarly aligned view. All concerned need to continue communicating their views to each other :) strength in numbers and all that.

Keep up the good work all!

Howabout

4th Mar 2010, 09:40

CLX and CM,

Here's a real, not made up, one. If we could operate with this philosophy on airspace, how much better off would we be?

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. ~Winston Churchill
I'll leave it there.

AerocatS2A

4th Mar 2010, 10:04

In principle I am keen to see YBRM become a controlled aerodrome, but it needs to be done properly.

ARFOR

4th Mar 2010, 10:10

Amen Aerocat AMEN! :ok:

Hempy

4th Mar 2010, 10:54

How Ayers Rock missed out is beyond me...

ARFOR

8th Mar 2010, 01:18

Any news from the W.A RAPAC?

Howabout

8th Mar 2010, 04:40

Regrettably, ARFOR, it seems to be not much.

I had hoped that there would have been a few questions asked; some hard ones. However, we got warned by others that pre-RAPAC chest-beating doesn't always translate to action.

I wasn't there, it's not my region, so I don't know. I just thought that there was an opportunity to ask.

Maybe that happened, maybe it didn't. I don't know.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

8th Mar 2010, 07:16

Hey Mr Peuce......How goes it?

You talkin' about 12/12/'91??

'Hated' and 'fought against' it for 9 yrs.....then got redundo because of it - Dec 2000.....

Got to 'like it' then, as 'it' was by then, a lost cause, and time 'to go'....:{:{

p.s. Thanks again Dick for the 'redundo'.......a 'new' life now.....but
Aviation is all the poorer because of your changes - whatever the motivation........IMHO....!!:yuk::yuk:

MANY new careers began quite successfully because of Dick, so, t'ain't all sad!
Except for those still in the industry....

(Aviation Hall Of Doom.....INDEED!!)

:ok:

Sorry guys/gals....slight drift....but 'Peuce' made a good point....20 years on......and wot 'ave we got???.......:ugh::ugh::ugh::sad::sad:

Capn Bloggs

8th Mar 2010, 10:35

CASA was made aware of the inappropriateness of E at KTA and BME, loud and clear, by the "terrier of the west". CASA was not saying much, but did distribute the Airspace Change Proposal:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100008/consult-airspace-change-broome-karratha.pdf

Fortunately, AsA has recommended against the E airways, proposing a upside-down wedding cake with a big chunk missing to the north of KTA.

Unfortunately, there was hardly any jet-industry at the meeting (a cynic might suggest that CASA deliberately sprung it on RAPAC at the last minute) so there was no opportunity to have a meaningful discussion or come to a industry policy position.

However, we have until the 31st of March to reply to the ACP, and the chart cutoff date is June; time to put the case.

Watch this space. ;)

89 steps to heaven

8th Mar 2010, 23:54

Just in case anyone is unsure:

E over D is an unnecessary escalation risk factor. We do not need it and we have not got the same aviation culture or training as other countries.

D steps up to C is the most efficient way to go, compatible with our current training and culture.

Cost:

No more than E over D, so why insist on a sub standard system? :confused:

OverRun

9th Mar 2010, 02:12

So NAS lives on.

In accordance with CASA policy the ultimate model should emulate identified best practice in the United States National Airspace System design

Looking at the Airspace Change Proposal (thanks Capn Bloggs for the link), the airspace redesign elements for Karratha and Broome are:

smaller than the normal Australian control zone. With a D boundary @ A025, that'll make the zone about a 8NM radius. It is a lot smaller than the A045 and 22NM radius found at regional control towers elsewhere in Australia.
E over D airspace
no surveillance radar at some locations

Reading back through the thread, there is:

no cost saving with the small control zone
a big backward step to unalerted see-and-avoid as the only line of defence in the zone between the current 30nm radius CAGR/S at Broome and the proposed 8nm radius zone for the control tower at Broome.

This is a DOUBLE Airspace Change Proposal – the "new" NAS airspace has been hidden (or should that be buried?) in the Airspace Change Proposal to put towers at Karratha and Broome. The tower issue was generally accepted by all. But this NAS Airspace Change Proposal is something else again. There is no safety case, no modelling, no justification, no cost saving.

What I could find was in the minutes of the industry consultation at Broome last month which have just come out.
asked for each chief pilot present to advise which option for the size of control area they considered safer. While the Chief Pilots raised other issues, they, when asked in turn, advised that a control area of 8nm and 2500’ at Broome was inadequate, and was less safe than 22nm and 4500’ option for class D. All stated that the CASA model would not work at Broome due to communication traffic, it was not safe, and would cause delays.

CASA have asked for wider industry comments, so here is everyone's chance:
The OAR is sympathetic to this view, but input from the wider aviation community is sought before the final airspace structure at these locations is decided upon by CASA. Stakeholders are therefore requested to provide feedback on this issue
The details and email address are here at CASA (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100008/consult-airspace-change-broome-karratha.pdf) and closing date is 31st March 2010.

This has broad implications for RPT operations in regional airspace as well. I will post a short summary in DG&P Reporting Points as the sneaky way that these changes are being tried on will have kept them from view of many.