I agree with
****su’s and 4711’s previous posts.
I also agree, in part, with
Dick Smith
I was previously asked about a “VRA proposition in E areas above terminal areas.” I stated correctly that I did not know what this was referring to. I now understand that VRA stands for “VHF Reporting Area” which is a unique Airservices/Qantas proposal that brings back full position reporting from the 1950s as a mandatory requirement in the Class E airspace to FL180 above Class D towers.
If this is what you refer to as the “Industry Option”, I can assure you that I do not support it. I have had no involvement at all other than a number of incredulous people telling me what was proposed and allegedly supported by Chris Manning of Qantas.
We each oppose it for different reasons ie
Mr Smiths utterances to date indicate complete objection to VFR radio transmissions!
VFR transmissions is better than silence as a stop gap for all the reasons discussed here previously. Is it effective use of resources and good enough longer term?
Apart from the Sports lobby and AUF etc (assume opposition due lack of radio carriage, although it seems pointless in the context of above D's as the transponder carriage requirement would exclude most of them anyhow!), most groups now support the need for VFR to communicate above terminal airspace. It seems reasonable to me that if we assume VFR will be communicating, then that communication should be made as effective as possible.
Which leads into Mike’s (WALLEY2) question:
The issue of what could be put in place that provides the safety levels of the pre-NAS airspace whilst allowing flexibility to VFR is IMHO the following:
(Comment limited to the climb and descent airspace above class D)
Airspace design:
- Class D from SFC to A085AMSL incorporating climb and descent profiles and IAP's. For high elevations, upper limits that incorporate Instrument approach commencement altitudes.
- Large enough laterally to enable sufficient advance warning and planning time for pop-up VFR traffic ie Where the class D is providing Approach and Departures services, a minimum 15nm radius with additional higher base CTA steps with inbound calls at not closer than 10nm for the CTR/A boundary.
- Instrument approaches should be contained within the Tower Terminal airspace otherwise the cost of training Enroute ATC for approach control services will be large. Workload management is also a large issue with Enroute providing TMA services.
- Tower contained IAP’s means simple co-ordination between Enroute and Tower/TMA. If enroute were to have part of the IAF altitudes in their airspace, the complexity of Enroute to tower coordination becomes onerous.
- Class D rules that require VFR communication in so far as establishing a clearance request prior to the airspace boundary.
- VFR MUST receive an acknowledgment ie clearance or standby. In these two examples the VFR can enter class D with or without a clearance. The VFR pilot in this circumstance will be solely responsible for separation and or segregation from other traffic (known or unknown) until ATC provide an airways clearance.
- If the VFR receives no reply or remain clear of class D then they must not enter. This will enable ATC to provide a safety stop gap if the reported position of the VFR was not heard (Comm fail or over-transmitted) or traffic is such that a serious collision risk exists if the VFR were to enter class D immediately. In reality, this would rarely be used except where a VFR called at the boundary (No planning time if a confliction exists) or an expectation existed of delay approaching the boundary. In other words, the traffic conflicting with the VFR will in most circumstances be vertically or laterally clear by the time the VFR reaches the boundary. Any subsequent traffic that might conflict will be processed with the VFR clearance issue in mind ie planned from the initial call.
- Class D rules can be supported well either procedurally and/or by TSAD (Tower situational awareness display, the radar you have when you are not having a radar) augmentation. TSAD is not commissioned for radar services, it can however be use by tower controllers to confirm an aircraft position. Therefore assisting in the provision of D services IFR/VFR where a separation standard need NOT be applied. (This discretion is explained in both the ICAO and MATS definitions of an “Air traffic Control service”, which in short can mean full separation standards through to traffic information or no action necessary’. I can provide the definitions here if people are interested.)
This provides to industry:
- Nil additional cost to the provision of ATS above what was in place prior to 27Nov 2003 and now
- Provides IFR and VFR separation/segregation services
- Service is free to VFR (as it always was)
- IFR will receive separation/segregation rather than guesswork
- VFR may still enter after establishing 2 way communication when not in receipt of an airways clearance (Undesirable but legal)
- IFR are aware that whilst it would be very rare, VFR could enter without clearance. This possibility will heighten the need for IFR and VFR pilots to maintain where ever a good visual scan.
- Provides ATS with the ability to manage traffic most effectively ie All levels are useable again. Separation IFR/IFR will not be inadvertently disrupted (Missed vertical or lateral req) by an unknown VFR target appearing at the last minute requiring IFR deviation.
All needs to be discussed, if accepted, verified to ALARP prior to mapping and mail outs etc
The Enroute above D above A085 I will leave to those who may like to comment further on the appropriate class of airspace for their areas.
I will say this though! D is not smoke and mirrors, it is a very useful set of operating standards that provide ATS with the tools needed to be less restrictive that C (where appropriate) yet flexible enough to preserve safety. As far as I am aware (ICAO), there are no restrictions on where it can be utilised.
Enroute Radar D might be OK? Comments
As far as the MBZ stuff goes:
The same basic principles can apply ie
- MBZ should contain the IAP vertical and lateral dimensions
- Sufficient in size to allow pilots and opportunity to gain SA prior to 15nm inbound etc
It is achievable, and can still be called NAS to appease Canberra
This a brief outline, over to ewe’s for mastication
The Charging regime
The Airspace issue is being driven by the charging issue
The two need to be separated and worked on individually!
Icarus2001
Sharp as a razor as usual
Gaunty
Good to hear your dulcet
key strokes again
Thanks for keeping us informed
