Dick Smith
Fixa24 you state:
Yet daily i see aircraft skirting my airspace at low levels, bumping around the weeds and mountains, but for a simple clearance request they could have been cruising in smooth air.
I’m sure you realise the significance of what you have said. That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).
… I would suspect a lack of familiarity with ATS interaction (AMATS), concern for making a reportable mistake, or pilot consideration of the terminal area where RPT and other arriving climbing and descending traffic perhaps they think it is worth keeping clear of! … if it is not safe to conduct flight at low level VFR around CTA … why would they do it? … and who’s fault is that?
Why do pilots have that perception? I can assure you it is because of practical experience.
.. how exactly can you ‘assure’ us of that, is it your word, or are there statistics that support this notion?
While I am delighted that you have never refused a clearance to VFR aircraft, I can assure you that VFR aircraft are often extensively delayed or diverted because of our procedural separation standards
.. again how can you assure us? With what?
– which probably come from the 1930s.
…. No, current procedural approach standards have been formulated internationally and refined over many years… I happen to have historical copies of AOI and the documents that preceded AOI … our current standards are at best 10-15 years old and tailored (internationally) for procedural approach!
Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.
..we do that all the time through RAPAC and direct involvement with GA …. Perhaps you might stop assisting them into thinking it is a ‘road block’ or some sort of big brother trap that should be avoided!
…. however if you talk to an American controller (or no doubt to Voices of Reason who posted this here) it is obvious that this “distraction” is pretty well a unique Australian problem.
.. where exactly is the incident data that supports this notion that D controllers in Australia are distracted? … you must accept the idea that to be able to say there is a problem requires incident data that supports the case .. where is it? … simple question!
US controllers love Class E airspace. US airline pilots love Class E airspace. So what is the difference?
as has been stated by US controllers, the services they provide are not strictly E, more a hybrid Radar D, along with legal protection if it goes pear shaped!
I reckon it is a complete lack of education and training.
…. education and training in the differences between the US airspace rules and ICAO E?
Could I suggest that Aussie controllers talk to the controllers in the contract towers that Airservices are running in the United States?
…. Already have, August last year in Bowral NSW (annual Tower manger conference)!
I’m sure they will tell you that they love the airspace configuration because they can concentrate in the area where aircraft are most likely to collide.
… perhaps that is right, it also assumes RADAR in the tower, separate radar approach (all paid for by the US Fed gov’t) … in Australia, who would pay for that flash extra stuff when we have a different and arguably more efficient (less resources for a similar outcome) way of skinning the same cat!
You will find that the controllers in the Class D towers (both contract and non-contract) in America are not “distracted” by VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace above.
… Australian controllers are not distracted either …. Prove otherwise!
I have just had this brilliant idea after reading your John Anderson media releases. Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems?
…. We did that, as you would remember, the DoTaRS paid for an FAA controller (at the ARG request as I remember) to come to Australia, and who initially had no contact with actual line controllers rather … NASIG personnel only, this was during the early part of the AusNAS2b odyssey!
…. In August 2004 (just prior to the rollback decision) that same FAA controller met with the Check and Standards Regional D controllers in Canberra (I was present), the issues were discussed, the problems explained, the net safety outcomes discussed, and he understood exactly why we had issues, and that C was demonstrably safer, more efficient and considering the change had not been subject to design aeronautical study .. was in need of assessment for possible rolled-back … It is a matter of record!
Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices?
It is clear this debate will continue forever unless some definitive discoveries are made in the presence of all sides. … the cost of allowing that festering is untenable and unacceptable …. it is not doing anyone or the industry any good!
.
…OK.. further
Discovery
.
… If we are going to send another working groupto the US , it should be ‘Operational’ controllers (I assume you would prefer salaried staff not contractors)! .. the most effective group framework for doing so would be the following:-
.
- 7 experienced Check and Standards controllers
1 National Class D/C Check and Standardisation controller (preferably the one who is working at and checking the other D towers with C approach)
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a regional tower with no surveillance availability
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a regional tower with full surveillance availability
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a tower with partial surveillance availability
2 experienced Enroute Radar (checkie’s) those who would likely be the ones providing the additional approach services (in your model) to look at the Approach radar components
1 experienced Approach Radar (checkie) to compare Approach radar services Aus C v’s US
.
... Visit US towers as follows:-
.
- An AsA contract tower in Hawaii (class D equivalent) 3 days
- A regional US FAA D tower with separate radar App 3 days
- A regional US D Tower that provides the E terminal airspace also 3 days
.
.. with travel (no mucking about) probably a fortnight!
.
.. as part of the process, a report to be published setting out:-
.
- Legislative differences and similarities
- Operations differences and similarities
- Infrastructure differences and similarities
- Industry cost and charging differences and similarities
- remedial actions that might facilitate similar services against ALARP requirements
.
The 'unedited' final report to be published to the Secretary of the DoTaRS, The Transport Minister, RAPAC and here on PPRuNe.
.
… the exercise funded at nil cost to industry through the Minister by DoTaRs (I am sure you would assist finacially, however that would be a conflict for both parties)
.
… staff secondment from AsA to DoTaRS for the 2 weeks (assuming we can be released from the operational rosters), perhaps around Mid January!
.
… over to you!
.
Re other:-
Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels,
… I keep harping back to the fact that they have what they accept as high safety levels, as I am sure you would accept though, they also have IFR/VFR mid-airs in E, comparatively, how many have we had any in our terminal C
surely we could learn from this.
…. I have an open mind (believe it or not) …. Remember your visit to Tamworth Tower! … remember the conversation (we sure as hell do) …. and the piece of paper you signed that day …. Do you still believe you had a full grasp on exactly what ICAO E really was?!
.
MJ
.
... depending on the response to the above proposition, I might just contact him!
Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. Shame on all of you!
.. easier to say that rather than debate the technical … come on, tell us why we are wrong!
As with Chris Higgins, I have experienced airspace and controllers on 4 continents including in the US for 7 years. I am not an airspace administrator, designer, statistician, or any other professional that considers and designs airspace but I am the consumer of these services and as such I have considerable experience as a consumer of the Australian product over several others.
… don’t you like CA/GRS? .. that was Mr Smiths baby!
As a user of Australian airspace and ATC services, it does not come close to the system in place in the US.
… and are you going to explain why?
Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere,
… the same controllers that were called ‘basically criminal’ for operating AusNAS class E as it was required by law and by ICAO
its just that they are using an antiquated and busted system with band aids stuck all over it from years on neglect.
…. That would be 10-15+ years?
Once again, CONTROLLERS are rubbishing the system and dreaming up every conceivable reason not to improve to a better system and I seriously doubt, by the vitriol peddled in these pages that any change in airspace design would be accepted.
.. dreamed up … not improve … better system … vitriol … Come on MJ … no dreams just facts … we want to improve not go backwards … we can have a better system (than the US) …. Vitriol is an easy accusation if you have no technical counter arguments!
I can tell you that I have flown, many hundreds of times at an uncontrolled airport that had daily aircraft movements right on the trigger point of class D (FAA trigger point, not Aus) using the mandatory and recommended radio procedures. That airport just recieved its tower last year!
… how many airprox’s and midairs occur in US CTAF’s? … it is easy to find it on the NTSB site …. shall you or I?
You seem convinced that pilots cannot use common sense in a CTAF.
.. tis not offen the pilots not using common sense, rather the procedures that are at issue ... RAPAC meetings asked the same question … what was the safety advantage of US CTAF over Aus MBZ? …… you can guess the answer!
.
Chris Higgins
The Australian Airspace System has always frowned upon the grass-roots employers, enthusiasts and small capacity RPT. Unfortunately with the geography of Australia and the sparse population, the very agency that is set up in the name of public service-has not done any public service.
… how exactly do you reconcile that? … don’t those agencies follow Political direction and Lobby group consultation … who do you suppose has been at that game since you stopped plying the skies over Port?
G/A is dead, the system you support is management top-heavy, you don't have a clear line of communication within your own industry and training has suffered from all of the changes and the ensuing confusion.
.. who do you suppose is responsible for that?
Whether I fly around Port Macquarie in a Cessna 152 or into MIlan Italy in a Citation X, a cursory observation tells me that things are not right back at home.
…same question as the last!
Dick Smith may not have all of the answers..so what are your answers?
…. Do you read our posts?
I am going to Washington DC tomorrow to take my kids to the Air and Space Museum and then get the two youngest ones their Australian Passports. I won't be able to answer anything you might have in reply for about a week.
.. have a great time, look forward to your return
.
.. over to you Mr Smith!
Self edited to remove some jabs ..... in good faith