PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?
View Single Post
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 09:20
  #40 (permalink)  
LeadSled
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
----where is there class E with no ATC service??????
Rotorblades,
When somebody doesn't turn up for work, when there is nobody on the ground, for whatever reason. In the parts of the world where that happens, if we canceled the service, or turned tail there would be precious few services.

Who remembers the morning "they" lost the keys of Cairns tower??

In part, the comment was for Bloggs, who (if he is actually a pilot) seems to have spent his or her flying time in a very narrow, cosseted and orderly straighjacketed environment, where all the decisions (except, perhaps, what dressing to have on his salad) has already been made for him.

He appears to have simply no comprehension about what happens outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- the real world where many aircraft ( including VH- RPT) operate in any airspace that may cross their track, from G on up with whatever CNS/ATM services that are available, starting with nil/none/zilch.

ARFOR,
Once again, you have demonstrated you are the master of cut and paste, but nowhere have you shown any understanding of the intent of ICAO CNS/ATM processes.

You put your own definitions on chosen words and phrases, seemingly without any idea of how those words are actually interpreted in a process that includes risk management justified benefit/cost analysis, and not just of the apparent cost of the CNS/ATM service provider.

Along with a number of other posters, you assume that anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or ill-informed, could it possible be that you and your compatriots are the ones whose knowledge has some serious gaps.

As to instrument procedure design, have you ever done an ICAO specialists course on the subject ?? I have, would you believe on behalf of my union?? I know what I am talking about, you just choose your interpretation of my words. I stand by every word of what I said on the subject, I still work in the area to this day. You do know that most Airservices work in this area is done externally, do you??

Re. reference systems:
---The previous comparisons in this thread of the US and Australian systems completely eliminates this option as a valid comparison.
No they don't.

That might be your opinion/the opinion of other ppruners, to which you are all entitled, but it is no more than an assertion, that was not accepted by either the UK NATS or FAA consultants during the period of the operation of the NAS implementation team.

Then a wonderful assertion from you:
----the risk of un-alerted not see and not avoid in Class E is not zero, it is also not vanishingly small when considering the concentration of climbing and descending aircraft in and around terminal area airspace.
---- is not zero ----- well, of course it is not, and cannot be, but none of you blokes have proffered anything to actually justify (as opposed to assert) that C over D is justified. Indeed, if the "TMA" airspace justified C, the tower airspace would also need to be C or B, and not D.

That you clearly believe otherwise only further serves to illustrate your fundamental lack of understanding of risk analysis. The Airservices ARM model produces results with a high degree of confidence, with valid data. However, as we have seen, and as is true of all modeling, garbage in = garbage out.

And, of course, per. the Ministerial directive, for C there has to be terminal radar ---- which makes for some interesting potential civil liabilities in the current non-radar C environment.

If the aerodrome traffic only justifies a D tower, by definition (low level) C cannot be justified over D, it is simply impossible for the approach and departure traffic, clear of the circuit area, the D zone, to present a greater collision risk than in the immediate D zone of the aerodrome.

The collision risk cannot increase as the traffic spreads out, to assert otherwise ---- I'll leave that to others to judge.

That you can't understand/accept that, we all know, but it is a fact, nevertheless. And I mean fact, it is not an assertion by me. No collision risk model exists, that could reach such a conclusion, including the Airservices ARM model.

In any event, none of you have justified the continual assertion that VFR (with mandatory transponder) in E represents a greater threat than VFR in G, in the same volume of airspace.

The value doesn't actually interest me, because whatever the VFR traffic level, E is either not required or too dangerous. There is no in-between.

Bloggs,

What absolute rubbish, once again, bald assertions without a shred of justification.Let us know, please, why E in the rest of the world just doesn't cause problems, but would be( in your opinion) bordering on suicidal in Australia. Not assertions, just facts.

Perhaps the following from you :
C needs radar. I don't think soooooo...
would be far more accurate if you edited you comments to read:

C needs radar. I don't think

Tootle pip!!

Last edited by LeadSled; 22nd Apr 2010 at 09:40.
LeadSled is offline