Rumour has it that at a meeting on 14 September 2006 in Parliament House, Warren Truss told the industry that he had been approached by the Airservices Board to remove the Class C radar direction.
…. Do you suppose Minister Truss was putting the ‘reasonable request’ to industry reps because it is justifiable and reasonable?
This direction was given by Minister John Anderson on 31 August 2004 to ensure that Airservices complied with the Government’s NAS policy
… ensure …. why is that I wonder …. Lets see, a cost benefit analysis would then only have the option of non-radar E or installation of million dollar radars for C …. Whatdya know, that might force change an analysis outcome when procedural C is artificially excluded …… odd thing is though that ICAO airspace classifications increase safety outcomes from G through to A … at no point does ICAO stipulate radar (Prim and/or SSR) for E, D or C …… perhaps the directive has no basis or legitimacy from an airspace architecture point of view ….. so why would it have been done at CoB on the evening before the Gov’t went into caretaker mode …. Surely the cost of radar would be enormous for a struggling regional industry????? …….. clumsy!
The NAS policy requires terminal radar for Class C airspace.
…. Why?
This is for obvious safety and cost reasons.
… could you explain those reasons?? .. and whilst you are at it explain why radar is required for C terminals yet is not for E terminals … when clearly C procedural is acceptably safe (as both VFR and IFR are subject to an ‘air traffic control service’) as all traffic is known ….. yet, in E only IFR (50% of the traffic is subject to an air traffic control service’) and without radar VFR would
not be known
Yes, you can operate Class C terminal airspace without radar, but you can only do this by often delaying, and therefore adding to costs for VFR aircraft.
glad to see you accept that Procedural C works, if fact it has worked successfully for years in regional areas …. Please provide your data to support the delay costs for VFR (as well as IFR) in C
Imagine a scenario of an IFR aircraft (whether it is a Dash 8 or a Cessna 172) coming in from the south into Albury in VMC conditions whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east.
… imagine …. I guess that is how airspace decisions are made …. Imagine ….. lets not imagine, lets use facts! The MATS sets out the myriad of standards (such as vertical, lateral, visual, pilot visual etc) that may be used to resolve any number of conflicts. In your scenario (in any D/C TWR) the conflict might be resolved (dependant on actual weather) using prominent topographical features, DME/GPS distances (+ tolerances) from topo points, vert until the IFR or VFR can see the other 1000ft above or below and apply pilot visual separation for descent/climb through and the list goes on …. You know this because it has all been said before (here and elsewhere)
What normally happens is that the VFR aircraft is extensively diverted or told to “remain OCTA.”
… support this with factual data!
Of course, once the tower goes home, or at places such as Ballina, Ayers Rock and Broome, there is no similar “road block”
… road block …. No … an air traffic control service to prevent high speed aluminium welding at altitude …. What would you prefer???
– so it is obvious that it is not required for safety reasons.
…. No …the Draft CASR Part 71 sets out the thresholds for services, design aeronautical studies determine the appropriate service level …… why is Part 71 still only draft Mr Smith??
Most pilots I know flight plan around this Class C non-radar “road block” airspace and take the extra costs (which sometimes can be the “straw that breaks the Camel’s back” to make their business unviable) rather than end up holding or diverting.
… do they plan around it because you tell them they will be diverted or delayed?? …. Or is it because they are not use to and therefore not comfortable with complying with an airways clearance designed to keep them, their passengers and other airspace users alive???
No wonder GA is going broke.
…. What is really sending marginal (financially) operators broke?? …. ATS … or all the other much larger user pays charges? …. Who championed those??
Of course, there are those who believe there is no need for Class C and terminal radar, as Class E airspace is suitable in link airspace above Class D. Have a look at this to see the Voices of Reason support for Class E airspace in these situations and the “dangerously naïve” statements made in Australia.
… shall we quote some of the other VoR quotes relevant to AusNAS?? … such as C being demonstrably safer than E or that C over D towers cost exactly the same (or less) than E over D!
Remember, our Class E airspace is even safer because we have a unique mandatory transponder requirement for all VFR aircraft
… of what use is that without ATS surveillance and/or TCAS …. Cause that is all that will augment UNALERTED SEE-AND-HOPE TO AVOID
– there is no similar requirement in North America.
…. and they have ‘almost’ blanket PRIM and SSR coverage …. and where they do not VFR are REQUIRED to broadcast … as well as a number of Class E collision each year….. it is still demonstrably less safe than what we have! FACT
That is the whole point I am making - the policy hasn’t been changed. In fact, it is far more than policy, it is a legal direction given by the Minister in writing to Airservices.
…. Our Fed Gov’t (and the advisors) are not silly enough to force another cost onto industry for unnecessary and costly radars OR reduce safety levels to non-radar E …. Because it is clear who would carry the can for that given the Minister has taken responsibility (on your advice NAS/ARG) for the radar C decision! …. They are not always stupid!
I understand that they haven’t even ordered the required radars. Note that the directive says the radar should be put in place “At the earliest time it can be supplied and installed.”
… see previous …. Is the penny dropping yet?
Perhaps Creampuff can comment on the risk to the Airservices Board members from not complying with this legal direction for over two years?
… Airservices do as the Minister says … who is carrying the Risk??
Surely you are joking? No, the direction has not been rescinded. In fact, the Government has recently confirmed NAS policy.
… The Name is a bit like a fashion label (subject to change at a moments notice)
Yes, it would be necessary to make it public! That is required by legislation – surely you know this. John Anderson made the direction because it was stated Government policy. That is, Class C airspace requires terminal radar.
….. nice little catch 22 that eh, in the poo if they do, in the poo if they do not …. perhaps they might have to provide a sacrificial lamb!
Howard Hughes, you don’t seem to understand how our airspace charging system works. There is no charge for VFR aircraft to transit through Class C airspace.
… ironic seeing as that was one of the reasons you said AusNAS was to save VFR ….. and it was already free!
The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile.
…. Yup, and what they are doing IFR and VFR amounts to RADAR D .
…. Again, we suggested using D below A100 in regionals …. You did not listen!
Imagine the difference! 30 miles separation compared to 1 mile.
… huge …. If that’s is what it was …. Regional D/C do not use 10mins/30nm FACT …. Please stop intentionally misleading readers!
I agree that there are some circumstances where the separation in procedural non-radar Class C can be reduced, but often this does not happen.
.. that is not what you said in the previous sentence …. And where is the supporting evidence of the claim
but often this does not happen … no basis in fact!
My vision follows the NAS policy.
…. Your vision … do any of us silent majority that operate in the system count??
Chimbu chuckles, if you have never been delayed or re-routed when transiting non-radar Class C, you have been extremely lucky.
…. Extremely lucky .. or is that the norm???
However that is not the main issue at stake here.
not what you said above
What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities.
… no, coordination with centre for approach management when the airspace split is low (just above circuit height) is what causes aerodrome controller distraction …. Class D/C App/Twr controllers have been operating these airspaces safely and in the most efficient fashion for years …. If you move the function to the centre, the delays increase as does the cost of training separate App controllers …. Why have industry pay more for less?? … why do you want that???
I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.
…. Be careful Mr Smith … the argument is getting very loose bordering on reportable! Airspace architecture is not often the issue … it is ATS resources … more often than not, Runway incursions occur at primary aerodromes with separate Approach units …. Your argument does not hold water in the context of regional D/C App/Twr’s
You don’t seem to understand that the chance of two planes colliding on a runway, on final, or in the circuit area is many times greater than two planes colliding above 4,500 feet. That is indeed why we have an airspace system with different classifications providing different services as the potential risk increases.
.. and as has been explained to you repeatedly, D is for visual range, C is for beyond visual range …. That is why the rules are different … that is why with RADAR/ADS-B available to the Twr/App controller D services could be provided up to A100 or perhaps higher FL125 … that is where the TWR/APP Centre split should be .. not lower!!
Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive.
…more expensive by a huge amount (including radar installation) … safer, very marginally above what we already have! … HUGE COST INCREASE >> MARGINAL SAFETY ENHNASEMENT ….. remind us of your vision again! ….. oh yeh .. let’s settle for non-radar E .. NO COST SAVING >> SAFETY REDUCTION
At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.
… and how exactly is an enroute controller expected to zoom into a range suitable to monitor terrain clearance …. Do they ignore the other aircraft now out of view??? ….. IF you cannot competently fly your aircraft into sparsely traffic'd regionals in IMC without the assistance of ATC … should you be flying IFR??
I have never said that private enterprise can do things better when it comes to airspace design. I have similar views to you. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with copying the best from around the world.
… the best from around the world …. That would be where exactly?? … and please save us the US rhetoric! NTSB data says it ain’t true!
I also point out that the stated reasons for the NAS reversal by Airservices Australia was because they did not follow the correct procedures in introducing the airspace.
… it all went across your desk, you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes … the ARG and NAS was yours .. you have said it so many times
It had nothing to do with me.
I suggest you talk to the people at Airservices.
…. Very principled!
The only time I have had legislative responsibility for airspace changes was when I was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I was responsible for the introduction of the AMATS changes, which were competently introduced and were probably the most substantial changes that have ever taken place. Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position” and fly at IFR levels at a cost of about $100 million per year. Since then, about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out by the industry and safety has continued to improve.
…. Cost savings and improved safety …. OK
By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy,
.. that would be Dick Smiths AusNAS policy adopted by the government
never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts?
.. debate the facts .. exactly what we are and have been doing for years
Could it be that you have a vested interest in the status quo?
…. What.. staying alive!
In relation to you personally attacking me because of my age, at 62 I still have plenty of energy. After all, Nelson Mandela got out of prison and became the President of South Africa in his 70s.
… there we are … President Dick …. I guess you compare yourself to Mr Mandela for the work you have done for the people then?
Also, why is it that no one comes on from Airservices in an official capacity to explain their view on NAS?
.. you are joking right
Is it because most controllers would prefer to go to the professional NAS system? It is far more an ATC orientated system
… seems we have the interests of the industry at heart rather than self interest as you have repeatedly accused us of
– whereas our present system is still “flight service procedure” based in the lower levels. NAS is a disciplined system which provides very clear responsibilities for air traffic controllers.
… no that was the problem with E, it was explained then and since
That is why it is so professional and why it is Government policy.
… yup OK
Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?
… if you artificially inflate normal traffic in the terminal area of AY by deliberately adding complexity and densities well above normal whilst trying to create delay scenarios or errors … be it on your head
…. It is quite clear to anyone regularly operating into or out of towered regionals what the traffic levels normally are …. I say again, if you deliberately overload the controller at AY in some attempt to be able to grab attention and say “OH I was delayed by 2-3-4 mins” or “Oh my, he made a mistake because of the traffic levels”, I hope you are charged with reckless endangerment
….never heard anything so pathetic … if you want real data on delays etc ask for data collection of normal traffic over a period …. Come to think of it, if this is such an issue for you, why have you not asked for this information earlier
….. I suspect because it will not support your assertions!
