Spodman, in relation to the official NAS document which has been approved by Cabinet, you state:
is now lining cat boxes around the country
This may be what you hope for, but it is official Government policy and it is a damn good document.
The implementation characteristics you are talking about I believe come from an Airservices Discussion paper V1.4. Do you understand that Airservices has a commercial vested interest in not supporting the Government approved NAS policy? Why else would Minister Truss have made the decision to move the legislative responsibility for airspace away from Airservices to CASA?
The reason is simple. There is a conflict of interest in having the people in charge of the legislation also being able to profit personally from the decisions they make. It would be the equivalent of having the executives of a toll road company, who get a bonus on the profits of the organisation, having the legislative responsibility of where toll roads should go – obviously a conflict of interest.
You state:
Why not make a clear statement about increased risk for E over C?
I have covered this consistently. You cannot just separate the Class E airspace away from the Class D airspace controller who has to spread his or her workload. What is the use of changing Class E to Class C to make it “safer” whilst decreasing the safety of the Class D below where the collision risk is far higher? That is why we have different airspace categories. It is to give the same level of safety (as far as possible) at each location.
Surely it is obvious to you that the risk of collision below 4,500 feet is greater than the risk in the link airspace above? Why then are you supporting Class D airspace where the risk is greater and Class C airspace where the risk is obviously less? This is a classic example of “upside down” airspace. It’s like designing an airline aircraft with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part connected to the fuselage.
Albizia, I did not change the scenario at Albury at all. On the initial example I did not give a distance. It was you who decided to pick a distance south of Albury for the flight to make it as convenient as possible. The distance I picked (20 miles) is a typical example of what happens when someone is flying in that airspace.
Creampuff, you state:
The government could sack those troublesome Airservices neddies in a trice for not implementing the direction
You will find, if you check, that all of the Board members have been replaced since the direction was given, so obviously you are correct.
Scurvy.D.Dog, unfortunately I just don’t have the staying power to answer every one of your points. Or why don’t you organise a bit of a casual meeting in Launy where we can debate the issues and people can decide for themselves which is the best outcome for Australian aviation?
I can answer a few small points. You state:
why is Part 71 still only draft Mr Smith??
I’ve answered this one on PPRuNe before. There is a mythical claim that I have somehow stopped Part 71 from being completed. Once again, a great compliment, but simply not correct. I have never been asked by a Minister, or anyone else who has the decision making ability, about Part 71.
I did note that Part 71 is written in a way to keep the status quo. That is, the hurdle rates for establishing Class D and Class C airspace are so high that the status quo will remain. It is a classic example of “over consultation” with the industry which has a profit advantage in making sure that there are no Class D towers at places like Ayers Rock and Avalon.
I love your comment:
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!!
Talk about resistance to change! I thought FL125 was where it was a number of years ago. Yes, this maximises the number of tower controllers and gives them a staggering amount of airspace. However my belief is that we follow what Airservices are doing in the United States, where the tower airspace is as small as possible (2,500 ft AGL and 4.3 miles) allowing the controller to concentrate where the collisions are likely to occur – in the circuit area, on the approach to the runway, or on the runway itself.
If you have one tower controller at a place like Albury or Coffs Harbour being responsible for the close-in traffic, as well as traffic to FL125 (including all overflying traffic), this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility. Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision.
… and how exactly is an enroute controller expected to zoom into a range suitable to monitor terrain clearance ….
Scurvy.D.Dog, there is no need to. The minimum safe altitude alarm (or equivalent) in the TAAATS system would be enabled, and is only disabled when the aircraft reports that it is visual or on the approach. This works in other countries so you would think it would work here and it may save a few lives – Benalla is an example.
You state:
you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes …
Yes, because commonsense said that by looking at a reference system we could get very good data on how safe the resultant airspace would be. The aeronautical study way (as used in the Class E above Class D Airservices safety case) can end up with manipulated data to support the status quo. This is what happened. If we can accept Boeing 747 previous safety history for certification, why not do the same with airspace?
Lodown, you state:
Roll on the efforts for regional tower privatisation.
I don’t necessarily like the idea of privatisation – that could end up like the airports – but I can’t see what is wrong with what Airservices is doing in the USA. That is, giving a competitive quote to the FAA to operate small towers at a very much lower price, without the huge overheads of a federal organisation. The same thing could happen here. I have been contacted by air traffic controllers who would like to operate their own towers on a competitive basis. All air traffic controllers insist on competition in just about everything else they purchase – why can’t pilots benefit from a little bit of competition when it comes to purchasing air traffic services?