Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
There's no radar coverage, VFR don't have ADS-B so no "surveillance", and Dick Smith can't stand inter-pilot talking on the Class E freq because we should be "Seeing and Avoiding". It's a conundrum, isn't it?
Class E is transponder airspace. Ergo, if a VFR is in there without ADS-B, they are not supposed to be there.
I don't think anyone is saying that class E should be done with no surveillance. What a lot of people are saying is that, by design (and given historical precedent for ADS-B implementation), ADS-B should be sufficient for class E to be implemented, and for proper ATC control of IFR.
Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
I'm in a 100+ pax jet. Could somebody explain to me why, without my agreement, I should be faced with somebody coming at me, who is going to be so close that ATC can't give him a clearance? And so the segregation radio chatter commences... Was that on the CTAF or the ATC freq?
In your scenario, your clearance would be limited to an altitude at which the conditions are 100% IFR (because, remember, you're actually getting clearances until you're out, or on your way out of, E). Again, as others have mentioned, it works in other countries (that conflicting traffic will be given an instruction to remain clear of class E, or to remain VFR).
Notably, how is your scenario any different than what happens right now? With class E, you will have a) ATC notice of departing traffic, and b) clearances, in addition to all the tools you have today in case those fail.
(Also, RE: CTAF/ATC frequencies - this is where the airspace design comes in. At busier fields, have E down to 0 AGL. At quiet ones? You could probably get away with 3000' AGL, plenty to make your inbound calls, coordinate with traffic, and get the hand-off from ATC.)