The practical application of 2b where E (Tower Non Radar) overlays a paired D CTR below.
Having recently completed 2b training, here is how this little black duck will be operating this circus: -
MATS
requires that “ATC
shall prevent collisions!” (All classes of airspace -G) IMHO this and duty of care/common law/actions of a reasonable person etc will effectively override all options and machinations of segregation, traffic info etc where IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR are concerned.
So in D and as far as practicable in E, “Separation” will be my tool of choice!
After all, if a collision risk exists i.e. A separation standard does not exist, then for mine in the terminal area the aircraft are close enough to warrant a better level of service (Safety) than is minimally required under AusNAS.
Tower Class E over D
Here are some of the practical aspects of AusNAS: -
- Speed restriction of 250kts is no longer optional as speed increases could preclude pilots from being able to “See and Avoid” in E (Restricts sequencing options)
- IFR aircraft may only be assigned IFR levels or the LHALT Soooo, that means higher intermediate levels assignable to RPT above 36t i.e.
Instead of Descent to A045 above known VFR aircraft at A035 inbound it will now be A050.
Or “If” we know about VFR conducting Instrument training overhead at A045 or A055 then A060 or A070 is as good as it will get until we can see both and can apply visual or some other form of separation.
Even if using 500ft was considered for aircraft over 36t (Segregation not separation!) the amount of mutual traffic information that must be broadcast make it impractical and cumbersome particularly when frequency congestion could become a safety issue. AusNAS will create frequency loading in these environments if separation is not regularly applied.
- VFR conducting Instrument training will:- Avoid IFR routes and conform to VFR hemisphericals, so I guess that means as each portion of a DME arc or holding pattern that progresses past 179 or 359 degrees will result in climbing or descending to the appropriate VFR altitude for the hemispherical being flown i.e. 2 level changes each pattern flown. (Most ridiculous anomaly in this fiasco!.)
- VFR over flying aircraft who may or may not be painting on TSAD (Tower Situational Awareness Displays where fringe RADAR coverage may exist) may not be given as Traffic Information as the TSAD is not commissioned for provision of RADAR services nor are these Controllers RADAR rated. Even if TSAD was commissioned for such services where coverage exists the FAA equivalent would generally have a stand alone E Approach RADAR controller and a separate controller for the D zone.
(Reducing costs…………….Bollocks!!!)
So, to facilitate VFR fight without radio and NO cost savings, as VFR currently do not pay anyhow, we are giving up:-
- Class C separation service to IFR and VFR
- Some of the most commonly used tools for the SAFE and EFFICIENT flow of air traffic as discussed above i.e. Speed control etc.
And your reward for “Dickspace reform” will be a much improved system of Eyes, TCAS and of course “Operation lights On”………………........... Brrrriiiiiiiiiiiilliant!!!.
Gone Fishing
Even if you do not use these procedures out of personal preference or company policy but some other wacker in the same bit of airspace decides to use them, then guess what fellas, these new procedures are being applied to you.
True, rest assured I will in the first instance be advising the other IFR affected by one of these 5hit procedures and should they express even the slightess concern I will not be arbitrarily removing anyone’s IFR protection against their will. In reality it would not happen as I indicated above if a separation standard cannot be achieved and a collision risk exists I will not put pilots in a position to have to joust with a “Wacker” whilst airborne.
tobzalp
I also think that the airlines should ask for a waiver on all of the charges that they get with respect to any flight that they have the procedures applied against them. They are not getting the service they are paying for.
Blood Oath! I think the same rationale could be applied to C becoming E, IFR margins are reduced, are they getting the service they are paying for????
Topper
Is most the opposition from the RPT side of town regarding NAS the increased exposure to Class E with the possibility of clobbering a student pilot in a NOCOM C152 ??
Yup, although there are plenty of other issues this one is a biggy!
If this is the case, just how long is a 737 out of Hobart exposed to this risk ?
Would I be right in assuming its only a few minutes between when they leave 4500 (top of 'D') and pass 10,000' (hopefully not many VFR's much above 10)??
I know this is not the point but wouldnt this window of risk be fairly small??
Depends on your definition of “fairly small” none the less it is a risk that currently DOES NOT exist.
The AusNAS system is “LESS SAFE” in this regard for no perceived gain other than VFR’s not having to speak on a radio.
How do RPT climb and descent profiles match up with the C and E airspace around major capital city aerodromes ?
Where C exists today and will be replaced by E over D, the entire profile on descent and climb will be in E.
As I understand it the descent profiles present the biggest problems at the primaries. (Speed control/flow sequencing will enter that debate as well I assume).
OPEN MIC
- 2 dozen aircraft in a CTAF – No problem….!
- CASA did NOT say E was LESS safe than C…..!
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate…………C’mon…………….Really???……:hmm :