Would it be possible to get an answer to something that I’ve asked many times before?
The question is simple. The Melbourne Virgin incident and the Brisbane Virgin incident happened in airspace that is equivalent in radar coverage with the radar Class E airspace in the United States at places like Los Angeles and New York.
Qantas flies thousands of Australians through this US airspace every day in perfect safety.
The other incident which received a large amount of publicity is the one at Launceston. It took place in non-radar Class E airspace linking Class A with Class D. This airspace exists in the USA at places like Juneau and Williamsport (only 130 miles to the west of Washington) with Class D non-radar towers. There is an important difference in that at Launceston we have mandatory radio and transponder requirements in Class E airspace below 10,000’, whereas the equivalent non-radar airspace in Juneau and Williamsport has no transponder or radio requirement for VFR.
As the United States has something like 20 times the traffic density in approximately the same land area, and as it is a very wealthy society (and also litigious), why can’t their airspace be used successfully and safely in Australia?
Many air traffic controllers that I know take holidays in the United States. I know controllers that have taken their families to Disneyland, and skiing in Colorado, flying in and out through Class E airspace. I have not met one controller who was concerned about the safety of the US airspace system. Surely they would not take their families to the USA, flying through Class E airspace, if they were. If Australian controllers are happy to fly in the US (with the US airspace system) in both radar and non-radar areas, why do many insist that we cannot have the freedom and efficiency advantages here in Australia?
I believe that Australia should have the same economic and efficiency advantages as the USA – especially in aviation. Don’t you?
A number of years ago, industrial associations insisted that Ansett Boeing 767s be extensively modified from the FAA US airworthiness standards to include a special engineer’s console. It was claimed that this modification (which cost tens of millions of dollars) was necessary for safety. This was shown to be a waste of money, was not necessary for safety, and was one of the contributing reasons that 15,000 people lost their jobs in the Ansett demise.
Could it not be that the US airspace system could operate successfully here and substantial amounts of money could be saved by the aviation industry in the same way that Boeing 767s now operate in Australia using standard US certification without unique Australian changes and costs?
Of course some will say that the US has more radar coverage. This is so, however the incidents in Melbourne and Brisbane were in airspace similar to US radar covered Class E airspace, and the incident in Launceston was in airspace similar to US non-radar covered Class E airspace.
If US pilots can have the freedoms that additional amounts of Class E airspace gives, why can’t Australian pilots have those freedoms?
Please keep the postings positive and productive. If one of the fundamental reasons is that our pilots and controllers have not been trained correctly, tell me. If one of the reasons is that we have a different culture here, I have great difficulty in accepting this, as Qantas pilots have no problems in flying in the US system safely. Have a glance at the colour diagram below – every airline flight in the USA transits Class E airspace!
Notes
Class B airspace
· major airports such as LA and JFK
· typically to 10,000’ with Class E to FL180
Class C airspace
· busy airports such as Reno and Palm Beach
· typically 10 nm radius to 4,000’ AGL with Class E to FL180
Class D airspace
· non-radar towers
· typically 4.3 nm radius to 2,500’ AGL with Class E to FL180