Class E down to 4500ft overhead YWLM?

[LeadSled]

SCE to Aux,

Well done, the anti see and avoid brigade love quoting the rather dated BASI report, but carefully avoid any qualification, including the ATSB acceptance of AS/NZ 4360, in the settlement of the recommendation, more than 10 years ago.

News really travels fast in aviation circles, doesn't it.

We all know, or should know, the limitations of see and avoid, and we all know, or should know, the range of techniques that are mitigators for the limitations of see and avoid, so that the resultant hazard level is acceptable.

Radio alerting is one, and only one, of many.

I never cease to be amazed (as illustrated in a previous post here) that people who quite happily accept IFR in G, with "known traffic", reject E as somehow less satisfactory. ---- Unless radar is available. As if VFR (with transponder)traffic "swanning about" in E were a greater hazard than if the same airspace is G, and there is no separation between IFR aircraft, and the same VFR aircraft are "swanning about", without any mandatory transponder.

Folks, re. the new airspace policy, many of us have seen the anodyne nonsense that was the first draft of a new policy. Being totally bereft of anything approaching a basic standard ( other than totally undefined "world's best practice"), or any coherence direction as a "policy", a "policy free policy", and all references to risk and safety having been excised. I rather think you will find it is the Minister/Secretary who were less than impressed.

The Minister does understand that the US has a lower collision rate than Australia,a lower ATC error rate, and TIBA is unknown in US, and therefore the US must be doing something right, that we are not. All this before the arrival of Mr. McCormick and the new CASA Chairman, Dr. Hawke.

Those who thought this was an opportunity to slip in the flavour of the month, a two class "managed/unmanaged" airspace system, and dump A thro' G, are going to be disappointed.

I would hazard a guess that this has only been reinforced by the new Director of Aviation Safety, a vocal supporter of the US way of committing aviation, based on his public statements, and testimony to the Senate RRA&T Standing Committee.

Tootle pip!!!

PS 1: It will be interesting to see what happens with the Albury tower review, last I heard the number were coming up to close it, and therefor the D and C airspace. This time, due to the GFC, encouragement from airlines, not resistance.

PS 11: Bloggs, nobody inside or outside CASA thinks/suggests/recommends "no radio" is better than "radio (alerted see and avoid)", and there is no suggestion to that end. What those of us who prefer facts do know, is that dropping in the word "mandatory" does not improve compliance with required/recommended radio usage.