NAS E+ and AV

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hey people! This NAS issue isn't over yet! E+ at AV!

Granted, there is far more surveillance in place to help detect and identify VFR flying around the patch. Broadcast situation still needs looking at. How can you have a "Broadcast" if it is directed at the TWR? Who is responsible if VFR enters E+ without a broadcast? Is a VFR pilot legally bound to follow instructions from ATC in E+?It may say under CAR100 but what part of CAR100 refers to VFR and E+?

Anyone had problems transitting AV using E+?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AV Class E changes (http://www.airservices.gov.au/flying/safety/bulletins/docs/20100528_Avalon_Class_E_Changes.pdf)

Says follow instructions...but what if you do not. You do not need a clearance to be there. Like G, ATC can only advise..so how can you be legally bound to follow an ATC instruction in effectively G airspace.

So- CAR 100.1
The pilot in command of an aircraft must comply with air
traffic control instructions.

So that means everywhere..not just controlled airspace? After coping the abuse of VFR being free to do whatever they like in E and seeing the issues with Launy and MCY..it would have been easier for ATC to say to VFR on frequency..YYY Maintain current altitude until clear of XXX...would have been so much easier...however, is it in the spirit of VFR in E

CAR100.1 has serious implications then for all operations in E not just E+...does an ATC have the authority to direct a VFR in E or E+?

[Dangly Bits]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Get over it! Move on! Please.

DB

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Not your problem up there on the Gold Coast...not yet, anyway DB. It's catching people out down here!

[Capn Bloggs]

Dangly bits,
Get over it! Move on! Please.

So you agree with this hotch potch, legally dubious and confusing setup over Avalon?

[Dangly Bits]

Bloggsy,

Airservices had 12 months to get staff and training, however they chose to bury their heads and now we have to pay for it? Adapt, Overcome and Thrive.

[fixa24]

Airservices had 12 months to get staff and training, however they chose to bury their heads and now we have to pay for it? Adapt, Overcome and Thrive

I call bullsh@@.

[The Chaser]

Dangly Bits

Do try to keep up :hmm: ...... its about the E (that is not) airspace change (that replaced class C) on the 3rd of June, which I might add, is nothing to do with Airservices, nor the staff, nor the training. :=

Howbout' you .... adapt, overcome, and thrive by .... paying attention, understanding, and doing something about it before it is rolled out by CASA at a collision point near you. :suspect:

[Dangly Bits]

Fixa wins!

So let me get this straight. There is E over D for what, 2000 feet or so? Then into C? If you are a jet jockey then you would certainly have your work cut out for you but then you do have 2 in the cockpit.

CASA made a mandatory call and txpdr for VFR which goes against ICAO? Why would we need to go against ICAO?

Actually why do we need E over D anyway?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Interesting re "Broadcast" A question to ATC. If I forget to broadcast approaching E+ and I enter that airspace..do I get a VCA notice?

[Dangly Bits]

Welcome to CASA's brave new airspace classification world: Non ICAO, Non (God Bless America) US NAS, Non whatever the f@ck it is?

That my friend is what GAAP was!

I still can't work out why Australia NEEDS to be different to the rest of the world? :ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Interesting point re-ATC instructions in E+...if I do not follow an instruction in E+..will I be the recipient of an ESIR?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK...a general warning wrt class E+ around AV...DO NOT PROCEED WITHOUT CONTACTING AND RECEIVING ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM TOWER...it would appear that this so called free airspace for VFR has a very serious sting.

Smelling more like a higher class of controlled airspace.

This is not a problem as long as everyone is clear about the issue. Getting a VCA for very grey procedure is not a very nice way of educating operators. Answers from the OAR would be a start.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Note: This is not a clearance, as VFR aircraft do not require a clearance to operate in Class E airspace.

It would appear this is not the case. If it is NOT a clearance, how can you get a VCA?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

2.5 Pilots of VFR aircraft intending to enter the Avalon Class E CTA
Broadcast Area:
a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions; and
c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.

From AIP SUP H30/10

Where does it say you will be breached for not complying. Where does it say you CANNOT PROCEED without making contact. One thing to declare a temporary broadcast zone...but an entire another situation if there is a serious legal issue..especially if you do not need a clearance and yet you do?

Serious issue needs clarification...pilots are getting breached!

[mcgrath50]

I understand your outrage Oz, but in my reading of Air Law (correct if I am wrong), 'must' means a legal requirement so if you don't broadcast or follow instructions you are breaking a law. Am I misreading?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Agree mcgrath50. The airspace is still the same...it is the broadcast issue that appears to attract the VCA...it can only be under CAR100. Thats what it says in the SUP.

The bulletin states that the tower will acknowledge but nothing about not proceeding if you do not receive same. A broadcast is a broadcast...you do not expect a reply....unless...it isn't really a broadcast but a request for authorization to continue...:ugh:

[Dangly Bits]

Must, Should, may, can, will, won't, one day the lawyers WILL sort it all out..... Bwaaaaaahhaaaaaa! :}

[Chief galah]

The original NAS alphabet airspace was sold as international airspace that was standardized so anyone from anywhere knew what rules were being applied in that particular piece of airspace.

CASA have screwed up the AV airpace so much that no-one has any idea about what is required by anyone who uses it.

By decreeing "... must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100 if such instructions are issued", CASA is changing E airspace into D airspace. This is contrary to the basis of E where VFR are not operating on clearances. I would put it that VFR have no legal requirement to comply with any ATC instructions in E airspace. There cannot be any legal basis for applying CAR 100 in the AV case.

No controller in his right mind should be issuing direct instructions to VFR aircraft in E airspace most especially in the unsurveilled portions of AV.

It is criminal that radar is not being used by ML Centre (where coverage is down to below 500') in the most critical areas that IFR flights go through.

Whoever signed off the AV airspace design should feel very uneasy about the absolute cock up and unnecessary confusion that they have perpetrated on the regular users of this area.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Chief Galah:ok: Amen, Amen!

[Chief galah]

Have a look at the link at #2.

The airspace design is just guaranteed to attract VCA's and airprox's.

The airspace is under the administration of AV Tower who don't have the resources to provide the best available service.

It is the worst outcome imaginable.

What gets me is the gutless influence of our representatives in RAPAC and CivilAir. How CivilAir could allow it's members to be exposed to such on-going risk, is beyond me.

Whoever is in charge of this circus has a lot to answer for.

Why aren't you pilots out there kicking up about this? Or don't you
really know what you've been lumbered with?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

P-Dubby...what you do is get your finger out and say what is wrong. This experiment is going to roll out over every D in the country if it is without any issues...and there are heaps of them. Procedures required and education of same leaves a lot to be desired is just a start...A broadcast doesn't need a reply yet you do in E+...VFR, not bound by clearance MUST obey ATC instructions...and ATC that must give VFR instructions in E????

Chief Galah...those that DO care in RAPAC, the questions are being put and requests for VCA incidences are being asked.:ok:

The answer for AV is the exact same as for Broome and Karratha....Class D procedures until full radar coverage is assured and then back to C...........
simple:ugh:

[Chief galah]

AV is different to all the other stand alone towers. The surveillance equipment is available now and has been for years. ASA management, and there are some in the system who don't and never will hold the appropriate ratings, have not got the initiative to implement the best for all involved.
AV has a TSAD. With a little extra it could be used as a RADAR, just like EN.
And we all know how well the system can work there.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

AV DOES have a TSAD?...CG, how good is the reception down on the peninsula south of the field? If it is good to 1500ft then use of present airspace is not required. Why not C? Or, at the minimum, D?

Bl@@dy experimenters...:mad:

[max1]

I'm with P-Dubby, CivilAir put in a highly researched and well articulated submission to CASA about E+ airspace and CivilAirs' concerns are along the lines of what is being said here.

Civilair have also asked ASA for their submission.

As I have stated elsewhere on pprune, if a controller refused to work the airspace, under which Courts jurisdiction would this be heard.
Civilair took the lead in the last NASdebate.
Would any pilots care to refuse to fly in the airspace? It is not up to the individual to martyr themselves, but for CASA and ASA to get it right without the political interference we have seen.

The OAR came about because it was seen that ASA would have a conflict of interest in being the designer and user of airspace. Is this new system any better?

[Chief galah]

The late and great Dave Bromley wouldn't have had a bar of it.

By going E+, we have once again created a unique
Australian model that's even harder to get one's head around
than the simple version that preceded it.

The AIP Supp refers to "controlled airspace" which in itself is
misleading. There is no way E airspace can be regarded as
controlled when VFR's can be in there amongst controlled IFR
traffic. How do IFR aircraft comply with clearances and be expected
to take avoiding action at the same time?

This lunacy is not necessary. The tough old guys of Civilair (now retired)
are who you need right now. They may not have been "articulate"
but they knew how to look after their members.

[peuce]

Well, I've been on hols for a few weeks ... and I see that a degree of common sense has been applied at BRM/KTA ... for the moment.

Avalon, and the expansion of its unique procedures appears to be still a problem child.

My real problem is with this CAR100 stick. It is unnecessarily introducing more ambiguity into the system ... and isn't a system supposed to provide a standardised, unambiguous method for dealing with a process?

The greatest introduced ambiguity is a Controller's Authority to direct all aircraft in all environments ... as CASA's Avalon literature appears to imply.

By introducing that alleged stick, CASA will now put a question mark into every VFR's mind when they are contemplating a command decision.. even in Class G airspace.

"Was that controller advising or suggesting a course of action, or am I required to follow it ?"

It doesn't even have to be a tracking instruction either.

As an example ... when I was doing solo training OCTA close to a Flight Service manned aerodrome (yes, a long time ago), the FSO advised that the wx was deteriorating and that I should consider returning to the aerodrome. I considered the FSO to be a GOD and quickly headed back ( from my 8 oktas of blue training area) to the aerodrome which was now below minimas. I entered cloud. Luckily I didn't panic (too much) and headed east over the water until I found a way out of the mess and landed, as they say, without further incident.

My point being, by introducing (or intimating that) Controllers instructions must be followed ... everywhere, we would be adding another possible whole in the swiss cheese.

CASA .... please make a decision (either way) and provide your interpretation of CAR100 as it pertains to aircraft ... in Uncontrolled Airspace.

CASA ... please provide your interpretation on whether Class E Airspace is Controlled or not ... as it pertains to VFR aircraft.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This is what McCormick had to say-
Overall, operations at Class D and non-towered aerodromes have been running smoothly, with the majority of pilots successfully following the new procedures. Naturally, some pilots have still been on a learning curve and may have missed a radio call or failed to get a required clearance

Hope that makes the guys who got a VCA feel a little bit more loved:yuk:

Mr McCormick, if you guys would actually articulated the precise procedure then maybe there would be even less missed calls. Right now there is a grey area of legality. You do not need a clearance VFR in E+. However, you must "broadcast" and receive acknowledgement from TWR (??? funny, everywhere else you broadcast you do not get a reply except the beepback unit..nor do you expect one!) If you do not receive acknowledgment and you proceed you have "Violated Controlled Airspace"????
If you do not call and proceed as per E you have violated controlled airspace.

If ATC gives instructions and VFR fails to follow instructions...what happens if ATC fails to give instructions and VFR has a RA..who is responsible? Mr McCormick your wishes have made for an impossible situation. Whilst the majority do the right thing as per airmanship standards...it only takes one to make a serious incident.

Broome and Karratha have changed...if there is viable radar coverage to the south of AV..then bl@@dy well use it! C over D! E+ experiments do not belong. You have created exactly what you intended to eliminate...Unique Australian Airspace.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Comments to the Director (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100169)

John McCormick thinks that just under half of respondents likes whats happening with his airspace changes.....

There must be at least 71 posters who think otherwise on this subject!

If you do not like what is happening with airspace around Avalon...then tell him what you think!

[ozineurope]

And if one of those who may have missed a radio call or failed to get a required clearance had hit someone?

C over D, airspace for safety not ideology.

[CaptainMidnight]

Where does it say you will be breached for not complying. CAR 99A.

In summary, CAR 99A says:

CASA may designate airspace within defined horizontal and vertical limits as an area in which broadcast requirements apply
CASA may give directions specifying the broadcast requirements that apply
If CASA gives a direction, it must publish a notice setting out the details of the direction in AIP or NOTAMS
A pilot in command of an aircraft that is operating in an area so designated must not contravene a direction that applies to that aerodrome or area.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
CASA ... please provide your interpretation on whether Class E Airspace is Controlled or not ... as it pertains to VFR aircraft.I'm not CASA, but ....... Class E is controlled airspace - see various AIP references. VFR aircraft do not require an ATC clearance to enter, providing they comply with the various requirements that apply to VFR ops in Class E, their particular type and exemptions (e.g. CAO Part 95).

If a volume of Class E airspace has been declared as a broadcast area, then the directions that apply to the area override the basic Class E conditions of access.

:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Captain Midnight...I thought the same thing (http://www.pprune.org/5720700-post1128.html)

and this was the answer I got (http://www.pprune.org/5721471-post1129.html)

Seeing as ARFOR works that stuff..I defer:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Capt Midnight

Ask CASA :ugh:

In one of my replies to the OAR, they seemed to think it was not controlled airspace for VFR........ you can buzz on through with just an RAAus licence according to them.

Go figure :confused:

[CitationJet]

Has anybody actually been pinged for a VCA in Avalon E, and under what circumstances?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Citation Jet...yes. I persoanlly know of one pilot who has been done for failing to "Broadcast" in E+. If I know one, then it stands to reason there are plenty more.

[peuce]

Okay ... what if I, as a VFR, don't get a reply to my 'broadcast' to AV Tower? Am I precluded from entering the airspace?

And what is a "broadcast"?

A transmission of information relating to air navigation that is not addressed to a specific station or stations (ICAO).

And why are we required to use correct terminology and phraseologiy ... and CASA is not?

[CaptainMidnight]

With respect to not receiving a reply from the TWR and proceeding into the broadcast area anyway, maybe there is a CAR clause somewhere that allows being pinged for reckless/unsafe/behaving like a peanut conduct :)

Jabawocky

In one of my replies to the OAR, they seemed to think it was not controlled airspace for VFR........ you can buzz on through with just an RAAus licence according to them."Normal" Class E is indeed classed as controlled airspace and the access conditions I outlined for VFR access apply.

However the Class E over AV is Class E+ because of the declared broadcast area i.e. mandatory radio & transponder.

So we are talking about two different types of Class E :)

[peuce]

With respect to not receiving a reply from the TWR and proceeding into the broadcast area anyway, maybe there is a CAR clause somewhere that allows being pinged for reckless/unsafe/behaving like a peanut conduct

Yes ... but my point is that they are asking us to 'broadcast' to a station and wait for a response before proceeding ... a radio procedure, which by definition, doesn't exist nor require a response.

All that is needed is the change of one word .... 'contact' instead of 'broadcast'.

Why won't they use that word? Because that would make it Class D ... and that would not appease those that need appeasing.

CASA ... If Class E, without appropriate surveillance, does not provide the required safety outcomes at Avalon at the moment, bite the bullet and make it Class D ... untill the surveillance is available.

This is starting to sound very familiar ...

If they bit the bullet at BRM/KTA ... why won't they at Avalon? Why is it different?

There must be some very strong political forces at play here ...

Edit: God, I'm starting to sound like Dick Smith :}

[Chief galah]

P-Dubby

I've been out of the system a while but my interest in this goes back a long way.

I started the thread "NAS apathy" years ago which elicited a lot of
responses, and showed a lot of ignorance and confusion about
airspace and who/how it is administered.

I may be wrong but OAR implement changes after consultation
with all stakeholders. They may, however, have political pressure to
follow certain policies. If the stakeholders voice, and AsA and the
airlines must be the heavies here, is strong enough, then a better outcome should have occurred with AV.

I see you're from BN. You must have a beef with how some airspace is
set up. Haven't you thought the "regular" users should get a better
break, and how your life would be easier if things were different?

The AV airspace should cater for full separation for RPT and IFR,
and separation from all other traffic. After all they pay AsA dearly
for a separation service, whereas VFR don't pay a cent.
There is a considerable amount of this traffic going to and transitting
AV airspace. There also are considerable periods when VFR in C
can come and go with clearances and traffic. Very simple.

I sat in a busy radar GA tower (not GAAP) for years, and our daily routine
was to remind pilots of their transponder faults, their navigation errors
and their poor coms. When AsA insisted on full incident reporting on transponders for purely statistical
purposes, everyone lost heart.

We sent these pilots to MB and PC and towards AV knowing full well
there was trouble coming their way.

The AV airspace set up exposes controllers to considerable
risk for a life time in court. It equally exposes the flying public
to a risk they are unaware of, all because of a small band
of people who think they have a free right to be there.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CM, Peuce is correct. In the case of AV there IS radar surveillance. If there IS surveillance then E or E+ is a lower standard of service than what is required for a busy aerodrome that should be class C.

Broome and Karratha where changed from E to E+ to facilitate DTI...(What a very old concept!)out of a non-surveillance tower. OAR, rightly, changed this airspace to D over D to enable positive control from the tower...which now places us at a busier metropolitan aerodrome. The procedures are screwed up and as Peuce points out a change of a word and we got D airspace...go figure!

I think the director should butt out and let OAR actually do what they have been directed to do..design airspace APPROPRIATE for the conditions and facilities. AV C over D, or, D over D as a minimum but should really be C all round!

[CitationJet]

Thanks OzBD.

In the case you wrote about, did the person simply not broadcast (anything), or did they broadcast and not get an acknowledgement before entering E?

[Jabawocky]

Capt12am

You wish that was what CASA thought.....I did too:ooh:. But when pushed I have been told in writing that E is not all that it would seem.....Some rules apply to some and not others.:ugh:

What more can I say.:rolleyes:

[CaptainMidnight]

Peuce

I agree that the broadcast rather than contact requirement struck me as odd, and CASA could have easily made it a requirement to direct the call to ATC in the Instrument for the BA. I came to the same conclusion as you - they were being clever to get around something :)

Jaba

Thanks for the PM. Different CASA offices and individuals have different interpretations on just about everything, as we know. Any RAA type wondering about generic Class E access should thoroughly read the CAO Part 95 exemptions that apply to their aircraft type. Most grant access to Class E in VMC below 10,000. Then check the transponder reg. situation ("engine driven system capable of powering" etc.). Despite AIP saying in a couple of places (the airspace classification tables) a transponder is mandatory for Class E, the engine driven bit clearly provides an exemption. Clearly many types can't power one, so they can and currently do operate in Class E. Radio is also not mandatory.

Where these broadcast areas are declared, they change the situation though.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Capn Midnight...another CAR that was quoted back at me...CAR165
CASA may, in respect of any specified aerodrome, temporarily suspend, either wholly or in part, the application of the rules contained in this Division

[Jabawocky]

Capt Midnight

You missed the point. You need to call me so I can explain this better, but you said E is Controlled Airspace, and I would agree, but apparently E is controlled airspace ONLY for IFR.

RAA aircraft if they meet the equipment regs can fly in CTA...no trouble at all, just as a C172 with a PPL (Nil airspace restrictions) or higher pilot. However same suitable a/c with a RAA ticket only pilot...not so. Now come to Class E, RAA only pilots are allowed in their a/c that meet the requirements.

Now....is Class E CTA for VFR or not?????

This came from the OAR and the sports aviation fellow at CASA and they sought advice from their legal folk.

Now go figure??? :confused:

Unless you can help me prove otherwise.... E is CTA for IFR only.

J:ok:

[peuce]

Try to find a definition of controlled airspace and you will get confused ... many conflicting statements, even amongst ANSPs.

However, the gist of most definitions is that an airspace is controlled if control services are available ... not necessarily given.

From the ASA Website:

Four of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) controlled airspace classes are used in Australia: A, C, D and E.

Uncontrolled Airspace (no separation service is provided by ATC ) is Class G.

Uses of each type of airspace:
Class A
High level enroute airspace. Well suited for modern passenger jets.

Class C
Surrounds major city airports starting at ground level.

Class D
This airspace is often used at smaller regional airports.
The upper boundary of Class D is usually 4500 feet (1368 m).

Class E
Australian Class E is mid-level enroute ‘controlled’ airspace. Its base is at 8500 feet (2584 m) within enroute secondary surveillance radar coverage.

Class G
Uncontrolled airspace. Flight Information Service and Traffic Information Service only..

From CASA website:

Controlled airspace has the same meaning as defined in ICAO Annex 11, viz. an airspace of controlled dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Note: Controlled airspace is a generic term which covers airspace Classes A, B, C, D, and E.

So, I think we can safely accept that Class E in Australia is Controlled Airspace.
HOWEVER, that doesn't necessarily mean that your operation is being controlled in it ... viz a viz VFRs.

That brings up the next question .... when are you considered to be 'subject to control' ?

Which in turn, leads to the question .... does CAR100 apply to me if I am not 'subject to control' ?

Which in turn leads to the question ... if CASA believes I am 'subject to control' ( as a VFR) then ... is it still Class E airspace ?

No, and a difference should be filed with ICAO.

All very tedious, but if I was a current Controller at Avalon or if I was flying VFR though the area .... I'd want to know the answers to these questions... although, I suspect many don't really care.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Peuce, agree! Once again it comes down to a vagueness of responsibility. If the procedures are class D then call the airspace class D and everyone will treat it exactly as advertised.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Chief Galah... Haven't you thought the "regular" users should get a better break,

By comparison with certain special departures that place you over or under traffic into ML...AV E+ puts you right THROUGH the glideslope...A risk?

Still feel privilaged:ok: First time I got one of those special clearances, I felt like a regular...made tripple sure not to **** up and ruin it for everyone.

Thats what it's all about, isn't it CG? You guys actually trust us to do the task without being wetnursed. So, things do not go pearshaped. Because, from that position, things go bad for everyone real fast...and you guys cop all the blame.

The AV airspace set up exposes controllers to considerable
risk for a life time in court. It equally exposes the flying public
to a risk they are unaware of, all because of a small band
of people who think they have a free right to be there.

That's why Broome went D over D..Tower responsibility for airspace. Why is AV so different?

[CaptainMidnight]

No, we're all talking about the same thing. Peuce put the situation better than I did. The quote from the CASA website is virtually word for word from ICAO Annex 11. Class E is controlled airspace, within which IFR get a different level of service from VFR.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Captain Midnight...In E VFR get NO SERVICES nor are the submitted to control. For VFR E is the exact same G...E+ is exactly the same as D.
AS peuce points out..change a word and the airspace is revealed!

[CaptainMidnight]

In E VFR get NO SERVICES I'm aware of that - I said they get a different level of service from IFR. Which they do - none :)

[Jabawocky]

So is it controlled airspace??

Why is any RAAus pilot allowed into it if its CTA.

A volume of airspace is categorised in its type....so how do you have a it sort of CTA :confused:.

J:ok:

[Chief galah]

The ATC people at AV strongly advised CASA against setting up
the airspace in it's current form.

Deathly silence.

The ATC people at AV have repeatedly asked CASA how to they
are supposed operate the airspace as it is depicted in the
documentation provided.

Deathly silence

The ATC people at AV appear to treat E as D when necessary to
the extent of instructing VFR aircraft to vacate the area when
things get tight.

The ATC people at AV have been told it is not good enough to provide
traffic in E and D airspace. If aircraft collide, then, despite all their efforts
to abide by the rules pertaining to that airspace, they will be
responsible. When CASA is advised of this

Deathly silence.

It is patently obvious that the political agenda prevails even though it is
totally blind to common sense. CASA will be in court, but they do not
have to face the liabilities that ATC at AV have to endure.

So despite all the overwhelming operational evidence that the
AV architecture is inherently dangerous, CASA are too spineless
and blatantly ignorant to make a stand.

The move to have a separate OAR has been the most hazardous
and reckless decision affecting air safety in this country.

P-Dubby This is why I'm critical of Civilair. Their members
are under real risk and little seems to be done about it.

[max1]

Chief Galah

Help Civilair out here. Exactly in which Court do you expect Civilair to fight this battle.
Do Civilair instruct their members to not work the procedures that ASA (the employer), and CASA (the Regulator) have come up with. Off we go to Fair Work Australia who will say that if ASA and CASA are happy you must work to your employers direction.
Do Civilair report ASA to CASA for a ruling on CASAs Frankenstein? Do Civilair report CASA to ummm.... CASA?

It shows where we are now at in Aviation governance in Australia, when you are saying the only ones left with any credibility for what is right is the Association of the ATCs. Civilair has been contributing through the only channels it can to the debate. Civilair has a small and dedicated office staff, and hardworking VOLUNTEER committee members.

Seriously though, what more do you expect Civilair to do? Mount a High Court challenge?

[Chief galah]

Sounds like a good idea.

[peuce]

Silk: "Well son, why did you allow that to happen?"
ATC: "My boss said it was safe to do"
Silk: "Well, did you think it was safe to do?"
ATC: "Well, no ..."
Silk: "Did your Union believe it was safe to do?"
ATC: "Well, no ..."
Silk: "So, you're saying that you knowingly used an unsafe procedure and the only defense you have is that your boss said it was safe?"
ATC: " ... "
Silk: "Son, if your boss said it was safe to drive on the right hand side of the road,and knowing what you know about road rules and the activities of other road users, would you?"
ATC: "Of course not ..."
Silk: "No further questions Your Honour"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I know, nothings ever black and white ... it's mostly grey, but that's the way I would look at it ... if there was ever an issue that was concerning enough.
This may not be it. But I do think you have the ability .... ney, responsibility ... to draw the line ... when appropriate.

[Jabawocky]

Take a leaf out of Dick's book..........

Off to the High Court and take on the Federal Government.

Get lots of TV coverage.....in particular a program sponsored by an airline that flies into Avalon perhaps.

J:ok:

[peuce]

An interesting excerpt from:

CASA
Notice of Proposed Rule Making
NPRM 9701RP
Airspace Designation and Standards
1997


The cost benefit methodology (that was previously developed by the CAA, now used by Airservices, and accepted by CASA) shall be used to determine the requirement for the establishment and disestablishment
of control towers.

Where an aerodrome/approach control service is provided from the tower, a minimum of Class D must be designated for the control zone and associated airspace below A045.

The airspace associated with aerodrome/approach control service between A045 and the base of Class C must be a minimum of Class E. A radar service must be provided in this Class E airspace unless a safety/risk analysis based on aircraft mix and density has been undertaken and approved by CASA.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Gadzooks, Peuce! Interesting! When checking the pedigree of that NPRM, I find-

CASA also considered the Airspace 2000 proposal of Mr Dick Smith, but deferred it for a year, following lengthy aviation industry objections, even though ASA had approved it on 4 April for implementation on 4 December.


Well, well, well! One wonders what happened to E after that...1998 and the Airspace2000 class E disaster.

Note to OAR..learn your history, guys. This guy has been a cronic meddler for decades.

[max1]

Silk: "Son, if your boss said it was safe to drive on the right hand side of the road,and knowing what you know about road rules and the activities of other road users, would you?"
ATC: "Of course not ..."

Actually he/she would have to because the regulator and employer says it is in line with the current regulations, up until it isn't, and the poor bastard doesn't have a choice.

[peuce]

Actually he/she would have to because the regulator and employer says it is in line with the current regulations, up until it isn't, and the poor bastard doesn't have a choice.

No he doesn't ... in theory.

But my point is that there may be a time when, even though a practice may be 'legal' ... your personal opinion is that it's ... unsafe. That's when a real moral dilema kicks in.


Do you acknowledge that your boss must know better than you ... and carry on?
Do you admit to yourself that the boss has stuffed up, but that's someone else's problem and I have a family to feed?
Do you try and change the bosses's mind ... and if that fails, say, well, I've done what I could ... and carry on?
Do you take the moral high ground, bite the bullet and leave ... or, at least, refuse to take the particular actions.?


Tricky situation, tricky options ...

However, no matter how tricky, the options do exist.

So, my opinion is that I don't think we (anyone in any role) can morally hide behind the ... well, it's legal and my boss told me to do it defense when the proverbial hits the fan.... especially if we believe the actions to be dangerous/unsafe/whatever.

Whether my opinion is also valid in a legal arena, I don't know.

And, reiterating, I'm not necessarily saying that Avalon is one of those situations.

[Jabawocky]

I can see the ATC's concerned taking a conservative line, treating it all as Class D and .....well having an increased workload. All despite the fact Dick says this allows them to focus on the runway area. :ugh:

I would if it was my ar$e on the line. :uhoh:

[Super Cecil]

So, my opinion is that I don't think we (anyone in any role) can morally hide behind the ... well, it's legal and my boss told me to do it defense when the proverbial hits the fan.... especially if we believe the actions to be dangerous/unsafe/whatever.

AND it's in print stating that, lawyers and duty of care come to mind.

[KittyKatKaper]

If 'duty of care' is the underlying legal standard, then as I see it there can only be only 2 levels of ATC service, ie
totally controlled (where ATC actually knows about, or can see all the traffic), and
totally uncontrolled for the GAFA.

[Jabawocky]

Sounds a lot like ScurvyDDog Space or Chuckspace...........dig back thru the threads I am sure they have written the rules for it before. :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Naaaahh...It's GriffoSpace:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

As of Nov19 the world is right again....well as right as can be within the nas

AV has reverted to E over D including regular radio procedures. One must ask why this wasn't looked at 6 months ago instead of persisting with E+.

AIP SUP (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/PUBLICATIONS/current/sup/s10-h83.pdf)

Previous broadcast area requirements are no longer applicable.

Appols if I have dug this up again just got my internet back full time

[Frank Arouet]

AV has reverted to E over D

Is that like E over C? /and isn't that a good thing also?

Just asking.:oh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

C over C would be better:E