I wonder if the people who are doing this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”.
Dick of course the people looking at this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”
There are huge areas of Class E airspace in many countries in the world without radar coverage
Dick Australia would be a fine example.
It is obvious that you and others at Airservices must believe that it is safe for the airlines to provide their own separation in IMC in Class G (i.e. the present airspace below FL180) but such a separation standard used by air traffic controllers would not be acceptably safe.
No that is not my view at all, but if you wish to replace the incumbent system (which works), make it better not worse. Holding multiple IFR aircraft at FL145 (due to workload limitations and lack of VHF) is not a plausible (or good) solution.
What you are saying is if we classify it Class E it will not work satisfactorily.
Yes due to workload! Separation is more difficult than assessing and passing traffic; if you want segregation this is another story. Lowering the base in the boonies decreases the controller’s ability to plan and implement that plan, for a myriad of reasons. I’m afraid that you still carry the misconception that not transmitting is not working… This is scary if true.
That can only mean that the separation standard which is used by the airlines at the present time when in IMC in Class G does not provide an acceptable safety level.
Are you suggesting that controllers are able to use anything less than a prescribed separation standard? IFR to IFR in G often ‘separate themselves’ by less than a control standard does that mean it is inherently dangerous, probably not, but in any case a controller has no choice to use less than a prescribed standard.
If that is not so it must mean that the standard air traffic controllers need to apply for separation in Class E is too onerous. Do you see what I am getting at?
This is probably your most poignant point to date, are procedural standards appropriate with recent advances in technology… But how does that relate to NAS… If we had more time to devote to improving standards instead of fighting to keep up with airspace reform perhaps we could be making recommendations to ICAO about changing standards, or spending a fraction of our change budgets to help industry update their equipment?
The United States has a vast amount of Class E airspace without VHF radio coverage. Much of this is in the terminal area, where radio for separation is even more important.
Does that make it worlds best practice? We have the opportunity of doing it right when we do it, why rush it through and do it wrong? You need to understand that their must be positive benefit in change, cost/service/safety etc. You are suggesting a change that has huge cost implications of negligible safety benefit. How many ‘incidents’ in G IFR to IFR have there been above FL145, where is the safety deficiency, if it’s identifiable why has CASA and co. not addressed it?
What you are in fact saying is that we cannot have a bit of extra safer Class E airspace between FL180 and FL145 without spending more money. I do not agree. I believe you should get some Canadian controllers down here and they will very quickly show you how the system can work very satisfactorily in low density airspace – which we have.
I would love to see that, I simply don’t believe that it can be done without additional costs; each control position has a finite amount of tasks that it can perform, perhaps our low density sectors which you describe are already at maximum capacity in peak periods (due to their geographic size), more workload equals more delays and potentially a reduction in safety (as your stacking them in G in a smaller band of levels) etc.
Yes, when IMC exists it is one aircraft at one location at one altitude, however as I have stated in other threads, that is what any prudent pilot would normally insist on when in IMC in Class G airspace.
Given our airspace structure it is too simple to look at each single situation as a one in one out scenario; (would E corridors be better?) many of our tracks in WA Goldfields area are in conflict in normal conditions (lets not mention weather diversions) a one in one out implies to and from an aerodrome… We know this would not be the case, as multiple destinations/departure aerodromes tracking tolerances overlap.
I think those who are looking at this safety improvement (the Class E to FL145) have fixed in their minds that “controlled airspace” will only work where there are VHF coms. This is simply not true.
This is not true (although it significantly helps), we’ve been doing oceanic (and other procedural sectors) outside VHF for decades. There are limitations to service outside VHF, increased standards etc… increased delays in a moderate to high workload environment. It is not practicable to have aircraft in and out side E awaiting clearances to climb or descend based on their ability to talk directly with the controller. Fact: the better the VHF the better the service.
Most importantly, LAMP brought the Class E down to FL125 and the LAMP proponents at Airservices were convinced that this was OK. Can I ask what is the difference? LAMP is OK to FL125, however NAS is not OK to FL145.
Did I mention LLAMP? I was aware that the LLAMP proposal had an increase in sectors and VHF outlets in the areas to which I’m thinking. I’m sure it did, but willing to concede this point.
You will also note that many frequencies have been decommissioned in the last 12-18 months in these areas, due to TAAATS limitations more than anything; perhaps these were the resources/facilities needed to help out the lowering of E from FL200 to FL125.
Whilst this is your particular bee in your bonnet at present I’m not convinced in anyway that any significant benefit in safety would occur by lowering the base from FL180 to FL145, yet I am totally convinced that it will require substantive ATC training, potentially new consoles and definitely new VHF outlets… Far cheaper to wait for ADS-B which is coming and do it then, without the need for all the extras. ADS-B will significantly reduce the workload in the peaks, thus enabling more use of the existing staff and consoles. You simply fit more in without changing the existing structure when you have increased surveillance.
Dick, why must you look for the consipracy in every decision which is not consistent with your own, perhaps we do have valid reasons for doing what we do. Civil Air is wrapped that you think they are rattling the cage on this... You've got the wrong target there. They are noisy but none the less management almost always does the opposite of what the union wants (it is a traditional workplace afterall)... Perhaps Civil Air should get on board the NAS train, that could be the last nail in the coffin...
Bottle of Rum