IFR/VFR in E airspace

[karrank]

We in Australia are still getting our heads around the concept of E airspace. We had an incident near Brisbane where a descending jet was given traffic on a VFR, yet the jet subsequently never sighted the traffic and had a TCAS RA. The fanatic that has implemented this airspace (which would previously have been C airspace, with full separation) reckons no mud can stick to him, the controllers tried to get the flights to hit to make him look bad...

The air traffic controller allowed the Virgin plane to descend right into the smaller plane. By the way, both planes were on radar, both planes were talking to air traffic control. The air traffic controller allowed this to happen. It's basically criminal.

What would you have done?

[FlyingForFun]

For the benefit of a (mainly VFR) pilot who's never been south of the equator, how do you guys use Class E? Are you using it in the European model, for control areas? Or for airways, as per the American model?

I can't speak from an ATC point of view, but from a pilot's point of view I've never understood the idea of a Class E control area. I figure that if a controller is controller IFR traffic in the vicinity of an airport then the traffic will likely be climbing/descending, the pilots will have a high workload... the very last thing anyone needs is for me to go flying through the airspace, VFR, without talking to anyone. On the other hand, the American model, I think, works very well.

FFF
---------------

[karrank]

Heading toward the US model apparantly... But doing it without the radar

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

When you say it works very well in the US, can you answer how they do it there. My reading of E airspace is that by the book, in E airspace IFR separated from other IFR, and IFR are given traffic information on known or radar observed VFR. So in the US, is this the case or does a controller when the need arises, separate IFR from VFR or just pass traffic and leave it up to the aircraft to self separate as is the case in OZ. In the case mentioned the controller passed traffic and then updated the traffic another 2 times. The 737 continued to descend but due to at no time establishing visual with the VFR, he followed the resulting RA and they missed by 400ft and 0.4 of a mile.

We are being told by the airspace dictator, that in the US the controller would have stepped in and stopped the 737's descent and because the Oz controller didn't he was guilty of "criminal negligence". The feeling in Oz is that you are opening a big can of worms if you start providing a separation service between IFR and VFR aircraft in E airspace (especially when intentions and details of VFR are sketchy at best). Any thoughts?

[Swift]

I work in the UK at a Unit which has Class E airspace surrounding our control zone (which is Class D). In the situation described by karrank, where both aircraft were speaking to ATC but the Virgin pilot was not visual with the VFR aircraft, I would have provided a descent restriction to ensure that separation was maintained. Why would I have done this when our MATS 1 states that only traffic information is to be passed? Well, a further quote from the book states:

"Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic."

In the case of an IFR aircraft and an unkown contact in Class E airspace we would be expected to pass traffic information followed by advice on avoiding action or traffic avoidance.

As controllers we also have a duty of care. The following quote comes from an earlier thread and was provided by Legalapproach:

"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”

Where a person is engaged in a transaction in which he holds himself out as having professional skill, the law expects him to show the average amount of competence associated with the proper discharge of the duties of that profession, trade or calling, and if he falls short of that and injures someone in consequence, he is not behaving reasonably.

I suspect that in the case of an ATCO seeing an impending collision on radar a failure to warn the relevant aircraft and give advice would amount to negligence if a collision ensued."

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Swift thanks for all that. My question is would you stop an aircraft off on descent above an unverified VFR paint, basing your separation on unverified mode C information. I think that opens a can of worms because what if that information is incorrect. Also upon stopping off your IFR the VFR starts to climb straight at the IFR. And then at what point do you stop giving instructions to your IFR for fear of contradicting a TCAS RA, as we are warned not to do these days. It all gets very grey from my point of view. C airspace was so much more clear cut.

[Swift]

If we're talking about unverfied mode C then the MATS 1 states:

"Unverified Mode C data may be used for separation purposes provided a minimum vertical separation of 3000ft for aircraft in receipt of a RAS and 5000ft for aircraft in receipt of a radar control service is maintained and radar returns, however presented, are not allowed to merge."

So in Class E go for 5000ft if you've already got that amount of vertical separation otherwise go for lateral separation. The 5000ft allows for any unusual manouevres the VFR aircraft may make. How much lateral separation to give is a good question as there is nothing in the books to help you. Under a RAS (outside CAS) you'd be looking for five miles. I'd probably aim for at least three miles in Class E. Anyone have any other suggestions?

TCAS RA's (from memory) would instruct a pilot to climb/descend, it wouldn't instruct a pilot to turn (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore the best avoiding action a controller could give, in my humble opinion, would always be a turn left/right and therefore not contradicting any climb/descend RA that the pilot may also get.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Ok next question, is as is the case with most VFR's you have no details on, just an unverified radar return, isn't it frought with danger to turn your aircraft when you have no idea of the intentions of the VFR aircraft. You turn your aircraft just as this aircraft commences a turn also.

My point being is there a place for E airspace on major inbound and outbound jet routes from major capital city airports. The state of play in Australia right now is, jets inbound and outbound of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane have to go through E airspace on their normal profile, and as a result contend with unidentified, non-communicating, unverified VFR aircraft, and rely on 1. The controller spotting the 1200 paint on radar, 2. The pilot getting visual with the VFR, and 3. If all else fails TCAS avoiding a collision. Now is the controller trying to work this situation criminally negligent or the designer of the airspace guilty.

[Swift]

I think as along as the controller endeavours to provide some form of separation and excercises a duty of care he/she can never be called negligent.

I agree that Class E airspace surrounding major airports is far from ideal, which is why we are trying to get ours "upgraded" to Class D - a long and arduous process. Still, Class E is better than G. I recently visited Norwich Airport (in the UK), which is not only in Class G airspace but also surrounded by several Air Force bases. The radar controllers there have one hell of a job safely vectoring inbound jets through that lot.

Actively changing your airspace from class C to E seems quite extreme unless the traffic levels were such that class C could no longer be justified. Class D would have been the obvious choice, but then I don't know the background behind the change.

[Timothy]

I must say that flying in Class E in France (where it is very widespread) whether I or V is a potentially scary thing to do. Many FIS frequencies are simply unmanned, or are manned by FISOs with such a poor command of English that no communication takes place. The result is that there is unlikely to be any information given to V traffic about potential conflicts and the information given to I traffic is very often incomprehensible. :(

Timothy

[Scott Voigt]

Hi Y'all;

Time for the Yank to interject :D Here we are to give traffic advisories on all known traffic. In other words, if the IFR has traffic you issue it. If it appears that the two targets are going to merge at the same altititude you would give what we call a safety alert and would then either stop the aircraft, vector or do what you would do to keep them from hitting. If both aircraft were VFR then you would give suggested headings to the aircraft or altitudes.

Now, if the aircraft appeared that they were going to not touch, then other than issuing traffic, you don't have to do anything. However, we all know just how accurate radar can be the further you get from the antenna, I think that you would find most controllers here would probably suggest to the IFR aircraft that if you don't see him you may want to level above or below him depending on if climbing or decending...

Excuse for spelling or rambling right now. I messed up my back and am on muscle relaxers, steroids and pain meds and am not thinking real clear right now <sigh>. All in time prior to our Communicating for Safety Conference next week... Sure wish that some folks from Austrailia could have come and talked about your airspace problems. We would have had a whole room full of folks that could have answered your questions...

regards

Scott:sad:

PS. Just because you get a TCAS RA doesn't mean that they were going to hit. We have VFR vrs IFR perfectly separated (500 feet) and the darn things goes off all of the time...

[FWA NATCA]

karrank,

Any controller that would delibertly attempt to put two airplanes together should be removed from duty. If I saw any controller pull a stupid stunt like what you described I would not hesitate to report it, this act if it actually occured is criminal.

I understand that you guys down under are struggling with learning a new airspace classification system, it isn't easy to do, but there is no excuse for anything but total professionalism.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[Scott Voigt]

Mike;

I guess I didn't get that from his post... I don't know if the two aircraft were wired or not. We get TCAS RA's on folks that we don't even have to issue traffic too because of what TCAS thinks is happening but really isn't. The pilots almost ALWAYS get excited when the RA goes off because they are taught that it is going to go off in the case of a hit, but that isn't always the case...

If the targets were not going to merge would you have done anything other than issue traffic? I wouldn't have, because the radar showed that they were not going to hit. They would be close, but it didn't reach the need for a safety alert. Now, would I have suggested that they level until they saw the other aircraft? Yup, but until we really know how close they came, I wouldn't be casting stones...

regards

Scott

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Mike, I don't think you understood Karrank's post. There is a mental midget running around Australia at the moment, changing all airspace he can get his hands on to E airspace, because he flys a private plane and so he doesn't want to have to be bothered with getting clearances and talking on the radio and the like. He was the one who accused a 30 year veteran controller that he had intentionally allowed the aircraft to get close so as to give fuel to the raging fire that is all these airspace changes recently (or NAS as Mr Dick Smith likes to call it, the aforementioned mental midget).

Dick Smith said this controller was criminally negligent, even though the individual followed the training that controllers in Australia have been given to the letter. Because as I understand it, in Australia, controllers are urged to follow the ICAO definition of E airspace that being (again as I understand it) to only provide traffic information between IFR and known/radar observed VFR in E, and let the aircraft self separate. Anyway the investigation into the incident has only just begun so, whatever the facts noone has the right to prejudge a controller and call him a "criminal" when he has enough to worry about without that.

[Scott Voigt]

Oh for Air No Services <G>...

We have two kinds of separation actually <G>. There is legal separation and moral separation... The book gives you what you are required to do (generally won't help you in a court of law.) and then there is the moral kind, of what you should have done. We all do that legal stuff (well at least when we don't have an error.) and we all strive for the moral kind too...

regards

Scott:ok:

[ferris]

OK Scott.
So what if you stop a descending IFR off above the conflicting unidentified traffic, and cause a collision because the transponder of the unidentified VFR was incorrect? Are you still legally right? Are you even morally right?

[M609]

I'm truly thankful of having no class E where I work. But: As far is I'm concerned no one gets more then what the airspace dictates.
Class E is class E, and seperation is NOT available between I and V. If airspace users what more, they need to upgrade to a higher class. :hmm:

That said, some of the nastiest airproxes in Norway happended in class E, and I belive it's the most dangerous class because so many pilots belive they get seperation fron VFR traffic.

[brimstone]

Let's not forget that the pilot has a responsibility here. If despite being given timely and accurate traffic information in either Class E or G airspace he chooses to continue into confliction with the traffic rather than act on the information given I don't see how a controller can be held responsible for any subsequent incident.

[ferris]

Yet in Australia we have controllers being described as 'criminals', and on this very forum fellow controllers claiming 'moral separation' responsibilities!!!

[M609]

'moral separation' responsibilities!!!

If this is the case, then all airspace should be class C...........

But......then again, I'm a fan of CAS above MSA etc , so I might be somewhat biased....

[Scott Voigt]

Hi Ferris;

Yup, I am morally correct too, because I can't account for anything other than what I know. <shrug> It is also why I suggest that they level off and not give them a clearance to do so. As has already been mentioned, it is still the pilots responsibility to see and avoid, however, if the targets are going to merge, than I am required to give a safety alert and either stop the aircraft or vector them.

As to others who shun working class E. It's not that big of a deal. We do it day in and day out with a LOT of aircraft. I expect that there aren't any other countries in the world that have the amount or percentage of GA flying around than we do. All it takes is some training and it works. It allows the users of the airspace (the actual owners in this country.) to be able to fly about fairly unfettered and get some general use out of their aircraft.

As both a controller and a pilot, I wouldn't want to see it any other way. If we were to contine to restrict aviation, we would price it out of existance and do nothing but hurt the aviation industry as a whole.

regards

Scott

[FWA NATCA]

In a busy terminal enviroment (in my case Class C airspace) on a nice sunny day, you have a lot of vfr aircraft flying around enjoying themselves, so we issue a lot of traffic calls, and yes we will stop a climb or descent or issue a turn to avoid one of these many VFR's.

By the book, I have to issue traffic, or if necessary a safety alert, on the moral standpoint, I'm going to make sure that my traffic doesn't merge with some VFR guy.

As for misinterpreting the origional post, I think based on the below quote I didn't.

Mike R
NATCA FWA

quote: the controllers tried to get the flights to hit to make him look bad...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air traffic controller allowed the Virgin plane to descend right into the smaller plane. By the way, both planes were on radar, both planes were talking to air traffic control. The air traffic controller allowed this to happen. It's basically criminal.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Mike, as I said the quote was from Mr Dick Smith, and he was incorrect. The System Australian ATC works with, is designed in a way that 1200 paints are a light grey colour that is very similair to the background of the radar screen. They are actually called "not concerned" tracks. As such they are very hard to spot, and while the investigation into this incident is still continuing so all facts aren't available, it appears from the grapevine, that it was only when the VFR made a broadcast (late in proceedings) that the ATC realised their may be a problem. He didn't try and make them hit, what he did was what ATC'ers have been specifically told to do in their training in Australia (and from the other posts as is done in Europe), that is pass traffic (3 times) and allow the aircraft to self separate.

As was said in numerous posts, if you are unaware of the intentions of the VFR aircraft (as they are not required to talk or even monitor ATC freq.), and you have not verified their Mode C, how can you try and establish any form of separation with that aircraft. 1. You turn the IFR aircraft to hopefully miss the VFR only to see the VFR make a turn straight at your turning aircraft, or 2. You level off your IFR aircraft only to find out subsequently the VFR mode C was incorrect. These are the main concerns with going beyond the service ICAO Class E airspace is designed to encompass. I understand the whole moral obligation issue, and no controller ever wants to see 2 paints merge, but doesn't the controller also have an obligation to be sure of all information before basing a separation standard on that info. Personally I feel that if you sit back and pass traffic, and allow the aircraft to (hopefully) self separate and the planes hit, you will still be hung out to dry, but likewise if you try to separate IFR from an unverified, unidentified 1200 paint, and it turns out your radar info was incorrect, or the VFR changes course, the controller will have the book thrown at him. What to do???

Either way I don't believe, in Australia at least, with the system in place and the training carried out, the controller was in any way negligent, in this incident.

[SM4 Pirate]

I think there is a happy medium here somewhere.

The reason that ATC gives traffic and moves on (in AUS) in class E is staffing levels...

We have about 20% less ATCs per airborne aircraft than the USA; could be something in that? Workload dictates 'duty of care'.

The strict reading of the USA documentation, is not what actually happens, as Scott and Mike have implied, they don't let traffic in E just rest with traffic. Safety alerts, additional intervention; if needed. Where does it describe what makes it needed? That's what is learnt through participation in the system. In Australia, our system in new, we probably will in practise bring in the 'unofficial' USA way; but we need to learn through participation... Whilst we staff the way we do; massive airspace sectors, high/low functions from the same chair; we'll never cope with the workload.

If you change the system you must change staffing levels, Mr. Smith claims it can be done with less; the realities are that we will need more ATC's so that we can perform interventions etc. just like in the USA.

Our system (TAAATS) is incredibly hands on, GIGO; to do this all correctly we should get rid of all high/low sectors, we need more staff to facilitate this garbage.

RA's in themselves are not a telling stat, most RA happen in C or A airspace, where separation standards exist, but closing rates of climb/descent are too high.

What Mr. Smith did with these figures is just stupid; 21% reduction... blah blah blah. Luck has a lot to do with these figures, not many stats on safety can be derived.

The Hazard process for Nas 2b, stated that the most dangerous time would be 6 months after implementation, because guards will be relaxed and more participants willing to play the no call no plan game. We have arrived at the most dangerous 3 month period of NAS2b, lets get through it...

[Four Seven Eleven]

Folks

With all due respect to those who espouse 'moral' vs 'legal' separation. etc: All I and my fellow controllers want is to prevent mid-air collisions. As has been alluded to in this thread, one powerful individual in Australia has reduced our ability to do so.

All we want is a simple set of rules which will tell us who to separate, who to provide traffic to, and who gets nothing.

If there are 'grey' or 'moral' areas, then that is a crock. Work them out in advance and tell us what you want. It is not that hard.

If you want us to separate IFR from VFR, then call it class C, like it always was. Whatever you do, don't call it class E and then call the people who correctly apply class E procedures 'criminals'.

To do so is the ultimate act of bastardry.

[saintex2002]

...Taking in account what has happened with one of our italian atco friend ( ...8 years canned ) maybe one of these days we'll be enough strong all over this aeroworld to oblige our magt staff to be heared and above all understood and followed !!!

[allan907]

I guess in the Eastern States the introduction of Class E is probably a bit more fraught than here in the west. Don't know the details of the Virgin incident but it's probably far too early to start throwing stones until the verdict is in. If the controller did deliberately create an 'incident' just to prove a point then he deserves his arse kicked. Whatever, if he obeyed the rules then those rules perhaps should be looked at again.

As a VFR pilot I greatly miss the frequency boundaries (OK I know they have now issued an advisory chart). It kind of made your conscience clear, and your life assurance company happy, if you called in with a position report in known dodgy areas and also listened out.

We have a bijou problem with China Southern Airways training school at Merredin. The trainee pilots, bless 'em, are not too flash with the English language but so long as you can pick out the odd key word and have a rough location and a height at least you can keep your Mk 1 eyeball peeled in that area. Not that that has stopped a couple of close calls from Hing, Ping or Pong who decides that, as he isn't too flash with the local lingo the workload might be a tad too high to give a position report. Hey ho! problem solved with the new rules!!

[Scott Voigt]

The only separation standard that we have in class E with a VFR and anyone else is don't trade paint. Now, that said, IF two targets appear that they are going to merge and do so at the same altitude, we are 'required" by our handbook FAAH7110.65 to issue a "safety alert" to the aircraft that we are working and give vectors or altitudes which we feel will provide target resolution (targets will not touch.). For us it is not at all ambiguous. If the targets are not going to touch then we don't have to give a safety alert. Now that said, again we go back to the moral issue. Most of us know that the radar target is not extremely accurate depending on the postion from the antenna, the distance and other little things like how bad the wind is blowing against the antenna. So if they are going to be close and the aircraft don't have each other in sight ( as far as I know ) I am going to suggest that the one that I am working not descend into the other one. Yes, we can take it forgranted here in the US that a VFR is at the altitude that it is showing ( they are supposed to have them checked <G>.). What happens if it is off? <shrug> Don't know, I have done everything that I am both madated to do and all that I could have done...

regards

Scott

PS. Will be off line for the next few days. I am going to be up to my ears at Communicating for Safety... Sure wish that all of you could have been here. Going to be a LOT of interesting topics and discussion.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

See Scott thats the problem. In Oz now, if a VFR never wants to talk to ATC again, they don't have to, so they could go months without having their Mode C checked. So it is a real possibility that it could be incorrect and noone will know. That scares me. Whereas with the same number of controllers you can have C airspace in place, as was the case in Oz before, and verify the Mode C and seperate the aircraft. Controllers have found that having to scan for unidentified unverified VFR paints and then pass traffic (in many cases unnessesarily on Nil Mode C paints) to their IFR guys takes up more time than just separating everyone.

There is an easy middle ground in all this and that would be to modify the Class E steps into and out of the major Airports, to allow the jets in and out of Melbourne/Brisbane and Sydney to remain in Class C airspace on their normal profiles. Not a big change but in a flash would solve a lot of problems. So why is this not being done???

[duknweev]

Question for the Americans. Does your treatment of IFR traffic in Class E with respect to VFR avoidance maneouvres effectively result in traffic priority being assigned to VFR ahead of IFR. That is, does Class E screw the big jets for the benefit of GA? If so, as I presume, this is a major cultural and procedural difference to Australia.

For the Australians. Is it not reasonable, to take a look at the general trajectory of an unknown VFR aircraft, and base avoidance advice on this information? Surely to assume that the odd exception (in the case of wrong Mode C level information) would prevent vertical avoidance advice in every case is unreasonable. Surely to assume that the possibility of a random maneouvre conducted by a VFR on what had previously been a constant track after lateral avoidance advice had been given should preclude the issue of lateral avoidance advice in every circumstance, is also unreasonable? I am not for one second suggesting that we put up with E and treat it like C - simply to say that it is unfair to argue we don't have a legal leg to stand on should a collision occur after reasonable avoidance action was taken. It is ultimately a weak argument and one that identifies the other major cultural difference between Oz and US ATC.

For the Brits (and the Americans, for that matter). Do you, as a matter of regular procedure, vector IFR traffic in Class G around military zones? IFR vectoring in G is considered the most ultimate heinous crime against Australian aviation .... should an unknown VFR suddenly pop up in the wrong place .... again, a significant "cultural difference" to Oz and UK ATC.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Ok a question for Duknweev. Why should a controller have to assume anything. Why should a controller be put in a position where they need to assume that in most cases the Mode C will be correct, or that a VFR will maintain its course. Why should this be the case when before these changes, there were no assumptions needed. Controllers knew all intentions and information about all aircraft in the airspace and the pilots knew they were being positively separated from all other users, not just some of them.

Why has this become the case when as has been said here, the numbers of controllers has not reduced, and if anything due to greater workload there will be a need for more controllers to make this system work. Has there been that great a benefit for VFR aircraft when the majority of aircraft would have previously stooged unfettered and quite satisfied in G airspace below C. All these incidents have occured where C used to exist, and where previously these users would have all had a clearance and all been separated by ATC. If you want to improve the airspace from the old setup, replace G with E but leave the C airspace alone.

That is the question noone has answered, who has achieved great gains from these airspace changes? What has justified all this? RPT pilots certainly are not better off, ATCers are no better off, Noone has made financial savings from this system, so why make these changes in the first place? Because its the way its done in America?? Thats not reason enough, and if anything its a good reason to not do it. As has been pointed out, the US per traffic movement have more mid air collisions than we have ever had in Australia, yet they have a much higher ATC/aeroplane ratio than Oz, so why change to that system???

[duknweev]

ANSA. Thanks for answering my question with a question!

AIP ENR 1.6 p4.3

Regarding Class E (and up)
If an aircraft is likely to be a hazard to aircraft under radar control, the controller will take appropriate action to preserve the safety of radar controlled aircraft.

Regarding Class G
Where there is a radar service in non-controlled airspace, radar identified IFR aircraft will be provided with traffic information about unknown conflicting aircraft, unless it is impracticable. If requested by the pilot and if possible, a course of avoiding action will be suggested.

I sympathise completey with the predicament in which we are now placed. It isn't right that Class C was downgraded - but that isn't our fight.

[karrank]

So the general tone of the international replies is to separate with what you see.

Strange we had a training program here that beat it into us that IFR + VFR in E means a traffic service. The direct advice I got in the face of repeated questions on the matter was that "sly" separation is not what we're after, the pilots only need a traffic service, to do anything additional to that is the sort of primeval overservicing and resistance to change a certain f%ckwit biscuit maker has been whining about for 20years of so.

As far as I can see we have given the f%ckwit what he wants, and (as usual) he is still whining.

Perhaps the answer is to give him what he wants. Make an industrial decision to implement the US way of doing things, buggar ASA, we do it. If an IFR moves he is issued with a clearance, regardless of airspace class, and separated from everything regardless of his desires, unless he specifically requests a "flaky VFR procedure" or cancells IFR...

[missy]

Interesting discussions.

Scott, I guess we would have send an aussie to chat with you guys if we had known about it with more notice.

Scott, I have a question which I'm sure you will get to after you return. You stated "The only separation standard that we have in class E with a VFR and anyone else is don't trade paint." What about wake turbulence?

[Aussie Andy]

FYI:Fed: Report says air incident was not near-collision

By Paul Osborne
306 words
21 April 2004
Australian Associated Press General News
English
(c) 2004 Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved

CANBERRA, April 21 AAP - An incident involving a Virgin Blue 737 and a small aircraft near Brisbane earlier this month was not a near collision, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said today.

The jet and a Lancair aircraft passed within 1km of each other over Queensland's Sunshine Coast on April 7.

The air traffic controllers association, Civil Air, said at the time that the "serious mid-air incident" highlighted problems with the New Airspace System (NAS), introduced in November.

But the bureau said in a report released today that the two aircraft were never in danger of collision.

"In this incident the smaller Lancair aircraft was on air traffic control radar and in communication with controllers and the B737 aircraft had initiated a change of flight path before receiving two TCAS (traffic alert and collision avoidance system) alerts," the report said.

"The Lancair pilot informed the controller that he had the B737 in sight.

"While the B737 crew were unable to see the Lancair, they noted its presence on TCAS prior to the TCAS traffic advisory and resolution advisory alerts and they also received three reports of traffic from the air traffic controller."

The Virgin Blue jet was en route from Townsville and descending to land at Brisbane while the Lancair was heading from Maroochydore to St George.

The bureau said the crews of both aircraft and the controller complied with procedures.

Acting Transport Minister Ian Campbell said today the report showed Civil Air had been scaremongering.

"It is regrettable that some individuals and organisations chose to speculate before the independent investigator had the opportunity to examine the evidence to determine the facts," Senator Campbell said.

"This sort of speculation can only serve to undermine confidence in the system."
Fed: Report says air incident was not near-collision=2

187 words
21 April 2004
Australian Associated Press General News
English
(c) 2004 Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Civil Air president Ted Lang said the bureau had no alternative but to find the incident did not constitute a near-miss because distance required between passing aircraft had been deleted under the new rules.

Mr Lang said the NAS had failed to produce any safety benefits.

"The minister would be hard pressed to justify the millions of dollars spent on NAS, including fees for aviation consultants," Mr Lang said.

"At the end of the day we have a new system that is no safer.

The union's belief that the system was dangerous was shared by the professional aviation industry and aviation organisations worldwide, he said.

Australian Democrats transport spokeswoman Lyn Allison said the report highlighted the failings of the system and an independent inquiry was needed.

"Here the Virgin pilot had to take evasive action, and yet, according to NAS, there is no problem with this sort of manoeuvre - business as usual. It is not on."

Senator Allison said the Democrats would seek Labor support for a senate inquiry next month.

[Scott Voigt]

No Services;

I have no idea why they don't put class C around the airport (as we do here at busier airports) so as to give a little bit of protection around the airport. <shrug> I don't have access to your new charts nor your manuals to see what all of it is like to compare the systems. But as others have mentioned, if you need to watch what we do so that you can emulate our system, get your govt. to call our govt. for an exchange program. I for one would not mind hosting some of y'all (it's BBQ season <G>) and have you plug in along side of me and learn the US system.

regards

Scott

Hi DuckN Weave;

No we don\'t give preference to VFR\'s over IFR\'s. In the IFR world we do IFR\'s and VFR\'s as we get the chance. However as it should be, safety alerts get FIRST priority at all times. It doesn\'t matter if you are VFR or IFR. Now that said, we don\'t have to talk to a VFR aircraft in class E if we don\'t want to. When I say that, what I mean is if we feel that we are too busy to handle the VFR traffic we can refuse them service or we can terminate them if we are already giving them service.

Now, if you are talking with the tower, we fit VFR and IFR together all of the time, and we go on what we normally call, first come, first serve. Doesn\'t so much matter if you are VFR or IFR. Who fits in the best is normally first and we put them where ever they will fit the best with the least effort.

For who asked, we don\'t do separation in G airspace. If we see traffic, we of course will issue it, but we don\'t do IFR per se in G airspace.

As to wake turbulence for VFR. That is the VFR pilots problem here. We will issue traffic and tell you to use caution due to possible wake turbulence, but in the radar environment we aren\'t going to keep you five miles behind a heavy. The tower however does have wake turbulence issues for depatures. Arrivals are again responsible for sepatation with wake if they are VFR.

Hi Missy,,,, Ahhh I see that it was you who asked about the wake turbulence, see above <G>...

You can see in one of my earlier posts, I too suggested a field trip to one of our faciities to see how we go about doing it. I have a spare bedroom <G>. You just have to get your govt. to contact our govt. so that we can get you in our faciities...

Oh, to those using the numbers to say that your folks work 20% more traffic per controller. I would think that those numbers are suspect. Are you using the US figures for traffic over the US, or traffic handled by all ATC facilities? The figure that shows for one flight counted in the US, may still be one that travels through seven enroute centers and two or three approach controls <G>. I think that for the most part, depending on how you are counting, you will find our folks just as productive per person if not more so... You may not know it, but the numbers that the FAA puts out for aircraft handled are just IFR aircraft. It doesn\'t take into account the MANY VFR\'s that we work too. Not to mention the bazillions of VFR\'s out there that we are issing traffic on that no one is talking too...


regards

Scott

[Lap? Kok? - Chek!]

Where there is a radar service in non-controlled airspace, radar identified IFR aircraft will be provided with traffic information about unknown conflicting aircraft , unless it is impracticable. If requested by the pilot and if possible, a course of avoiding action will be suggested.



How do you pass information on "unknown traffic" ?

[brimstone]

Lap? - the word "unknown" in this context means that the intentions of the conflicting aircraft visible to the radar controller are not known. Therefore he will advise the pilot of the IFR aircraft of the relative position of the "unknown" aircraft and any height information displayed by its transponder.