Class E Airspace Is Safe

[Voices of Reason]

Class E Airspace and United States Practice



We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.




[email protected]

[the leyland brothers]

Same in continental Europe - plenty of class E and it seems to work just fine.

You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.

Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?

[TIMMEEEE]

Voices of Reason and the Leyland Brothers .

This sounds like a carefully crafted response, not unlike those that have been espoused by Dick Smith and his cohorts.

I would say you have been put up to this or have some vested interest in the NAS.

Leyland Brothers - no fixed address on your profile??
What do you have to hide??
Add to this the fact that you registered in 2000 and have only made 3 postings indicates to me your validity or lack thereof.

When every Professional Pilot and every Airline/Commuter pilot / Air Traffic Controller I have spoken to thinks this new system is flawed and the model doesnt suit Australia then I would sit up and listen.
Unlike Mr Smith that refuses to listen to those at the coal face so to speak and would defend this system to his grave.

Need I say more?

[ferris]

VoR.

I'm flabbergasted. I've watched you say eloquently, and with factual backing, every point I and others have been trying to make about the NAS debacle. Then this.

Class E airspace needs to be defined before we can even decide what you are talking about. Are you talking about ICAO Class E, European Class E, or US Class E? All of them are slightly, yet fundamentally, different.

As you may or may not be aware, the average sector size (measured in NM) is on average, much larger in oz than the US. Oz controllers on a radar sector may typically have a range setting of 475NM. Now if you are an American, with an average range setting of, say, 125NM (or smaller), you will appreciate how much easier it is to spot unknown paints and separate them from your IFRs. Right there is a huge difference between the US of A and oz, which hasn't been addressed, no matter which Class E the ausNAS is going to use (using).
As for controllers being negative; why the hell shouldn't they? They do it like they are told and get called 'criminals' etc, they see a perfectly good system torn down FOR NO BENEFIT etc etc. It would only be someone totally bereft of any interest in their job- just turning up and taking the money- who wouldn't be negative.

There is much more to this than 'culture', and it's fairly shallow of you to suggest it. I haven't time now to go on with this, but I'm sure someone else can pick up the thread.

Class E may be safe enough in the US, but until oz does it EXACTLY like the US (with manning levels, sector sizes, radar coverage, RULES, etc) then the oz version just cannot be compared. You ought to know that.

[Voices of Reason]

Unlike most of the posts on this site, we HAVE provided factual information. We cannot sit by and let you make unfounded generalist statements about Class E airspace. Our comments regarding the implementation of ALL of the NAS elements are well documented – so you are aware of our position on that implementation. When you criticize Class E airspace as a means of providing adequate levels of service, we must intervene.

What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia? Put aside the designation of areas and detail exactly what part of your basic Class E procedures is different from those applied in the United States. Forget whether you have radar or not – it is essentially irrelevant. Detail EXACTLY what part of your Class E procedures is different to those applicable in the United States.

In the United States, controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – in EXACTLY the same way as is done in Class A, B, C and D airspace, and in exactly the same way Australian controllers separate aircraft in Class A, C and D airspace.

In the United States, controllers pass traffic on observed VFR traffic – and when asked and able, provide suggestions for avoidance. Most often, however, pilots are intelligent enough to realize that if passed traffic by a controller they take whatever action they deem necessary.

In the United States, traffic information on VFR traffic is passed when it is available and relevant – that is, when in the opinion of the controller the aircraft are on a collision course. If it is assumed that they will miss – BY WHATEVER DISTANCE – traffic is rarely passed. That appears to be the fundamental misunderstanding by Australian controllers. If separation is NOT required in Class E airspace – why concern yourself when aircraft pass with less than you would use as a controller.

We know that your controllers went through a difficult cultural change when Class G airspace was ceded to them, having to pass traffic in apparent and obvious conflict situations – yet aircraft did nor hit. This is fundamentally no different.

We have stated on several occasions that we do NOT support the change process that was used in Australia. We have stated on many occasions that your training and education packages were deficient. But we cannot stand by and allow Class E airspace to be maligned as an airspace management tool when it is the process of use and application and not the airspace classification itself that is at fault.

[Kaptin M]

Your apparent backflip (or sellout?) is a matter of concern to me, VoR.
You have previously posted many sensible, authoratative and informative articles here, all espousing SAFETY as being the singular, over-riding factor to be considered in every instance, but now, surprisingly, you state...If separation is NOT required in Class E airspace – why concern yourself when aircraft pass with less than you would use as a controller. The answer is SAFETY - simply because we have an "adventurer" who has implemented a LESS SAFE system in place of one that has provided air travellers with a BETTER, SAFER system, because he "believes" that it might give G.A. in Australia a boost.

Earlier postings by you, VoR, make it quite difficullt to believe that this is now the one and same SAFETY-orientated author(s) who has posted this latest topic!

[Voices of Reason]

We have watched as thread after thread on this site is hijacked by ignorance!

You have NOT read what we have said.

At NO point have we condoned your current airspace model, nor have we condoned the manner in which it was implemented. We have made NO judgment on whether or not Class E airspace is appropriate in the areas in which it has been implemented in Australia.

We HAVE said in this series of posts that Class E airspace, properly applied, is safe. If you can provide facts or evidence that Class E airspace – NOT its application in Australia – but Class E airspace itself – is unsafe, then do so.

We absolutely agree that for the same number of IFR to VFR aircraft conflict pairs, the level of risk decreases significantly as you move through airspace classifications G to A. It is absolutely correct to say that in any given volume the level of risk associated with Class C airspace is less than that associated with Class E.

It is NOT correct to say that there should be a disproportionately lower level of risk in an airspace volume simply because you CAN provide a service – if that were the case, all of your airspace in Australia would be designated as Class A.

The ICAO Airspace Classification System is about ensuring a uniform and cost appropriate risk level across your country, and all countries.

[tobzalp]

I have no problem with class E. The sector I work has had it for years. The problem I have is with replacing C with E for no gain to anyone at all. That is the problem with NAS.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

VoR, you will find most people here do not have a hatred for Class E airspace in the correct areas. What people do have a problem with is the fact that huge areas of C airspace in very sensitive areas and in effect at very dangerous stages of RPT jets flights have been replaced with E. E airspace in it's place can work fine, but do you guys think it is acceptable to implement Class E airspace on the major inbound and outbound routes from the Major Capital City airports in Australia. The most difficult time to get visual with traffic, is when a jet is on descent, as it is very difficult to see below you when in a jet on descent. It is also one of the busiest phases of flight for the pilot. Surely this is not the time to make the pilot have to be looking out trying to spot conflicting unalerted VFR traffic. This is one of the big reasons NAS is a farce. Why wouldn't they design the CTA steps to allow the jets to remain in Class C airspace for these phases of their flights?

Also as Ferris said, you may not be aware but the Australian ATC system is designed with all 1200 VFR paints being of the "not concerned" variety and as such show up as a dull, very hard to distinguish light grey colour (unless thats changed since I left for sandier shores), and this in conjunction with the huge scale of Australian sectors in comparison to the US, makes it very difficult to pick up that you have VFR aircraft in your airspace, let alone decide if they are of concern.

I hope this clarifies a couple of the concerns that ATC's at least have with NAS, and the reason it may appear we are against Class E, full stop.

[the leyland brothers]

Until oz does it EXACTLY like the US (competent FAA controllers and competent FAA licenced pilots) then the oz version just cannot be compared. Everyone knows that.

[karrank]

In January (in their first thread) VOR said:
The continental portion of the United States of America is a good example, where the high [but not total] coverage by secondary radar allows the application of Class E, rather than Class C, airspace...

...The third step – and this is critical – is to test and evaluate the risk mitigations offered by the classification...

...Some States – such as the United States of America, and certain European States - have recognised that they have substantial secondary radar coverage, and have been able to factor that coverage, and widespread transponder carriage, in the assessment of risk, allowing Class E airspace to be used more widely

The message seems to have changed since then in a most remarkable fashion. Reminds me of when John Laws had been bagging banks for months then came out with "The banks aren't that bad you know..."

Have you become an anti-Dick, and are you preparing the fight againsT PROJECT ROLLBACK?

...and competent FAA radar coverage?

[Voices of Reason]

With the greatest of respect, EVERY major airport in the United States is surrounded by Class E airspace in the climb and descent phase of flight. The highest Class B airspace extends to 7000 feet above ground (possibly 10,000 feet at one or two airports) - Class C about the same - ALL the airspace above and around Class B, C and D towers is Class E.

If you cannot see VFR traffic because of the deficiencies of your system [any system, not specifically Australia's system] - then the obligation to pass traffic in respect of observed traffic cannot be met - but the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied.

Pilots operate in this airspace comfortably and consistently on a daily basis.

We stand by all previous posts - any change to current procedures or airspace design MUST be accompanied by appropriate studies, and the contention that appropriate levels of safety are provided explicitly proven.

This thread was meant to defend Class E as a valid and legitimate airspace management option - it is NOT about WHERE it is applied in Australia, or HOW it was implemented.

[Here to Help]

We HAVE said in this series of posts that Class E airspace, properly applied, is safe.

What really do you mean by this? Nothing, as we all know, is absolutely safe so surely you are not suggesting this.

Do you mean that Class E, properly applied, is as safe as it can be? Well, anything, properly applied, is as safe as it can be - that's the definition of "properly" in this case. If that's what you mean then you're making a tautology. If not, then please elucidate on how to "properly" apply Class E.

Do you mean that Class E, properly applied, is safe enough? This implies some form of risk/benefit consideration. Given that you make no judgement on the apprioriateness of it's use in the currently designated areas of Australia, then this interpretation of your statement renders it contradictory or meaningless.

So what do you mean by this statement?

If you meant that "safe" is a relative term then saying "Class E, properly applied, is as safe" is meaningless without a comparison.

Sorry to concentrate on this one line of yours, but the word "safe" is a word much abused and I am seeking clarification of what you meant. I might add that you used an even less qualified statement in the thread title "Class E Airspace is Safe", which, intended or not, could serve to get people's backs up and only encourage those who use sophistry to support NAS, to lower the level of debate believing that they have your reputable pseudonymn as support.

If you can provide facts or evidence that Class E airspace – NOT its application in Australia – but Class E airspace itself – is unsafe, then do so.

Like the definition of "safe", the word "unsafe" is problematical.
Again, is it an absolute term? a relative term?

I'll take "unsafe" to mean that, in airspace terms, there is a possibility of an accident even if all procedures are applied correctly.

From this I will demonstrate that, depending on what you wish to define as "properly" in applying procedures, that Class E is unsafe, because either the properly applied procedures allow for an accident, or that or it is impossible to for it to be applied properly. I will use one scenario as a discussion point and we'll see how far we get.

An IFR B737 is on descent into a major aerodrome. A VFR PA31 is cruising along a crossing track at FL115. The paths of the aircraft cross so that a midair collision will occur if nothing is done. Both are in Class E.

One or some of the following parts of the system must work for the collision to be avoided:

ATC sees the PA31 in his/her scan
ATC's STCA works correctly
PA31 has a working transponder
PA31 was transponder turned on
PA31 has working Mode C
PA31 has Mode C selected.
PA31 pilot can see the B737
PA31 is monitoring the ATC frequency
Pilots of the B737 can see the PA31
B737 TCAS is working correctly
Any avoiding action taken will be in different directions.

Assumption 1: Each of these factors are a necessary part of Class E being properly applied.

Because we know that they are not a guarantee it is impossible for Class E to be properly applied, it is thus impossible for Class E to be "safe", therefore it is unsafe.

Assumption 2: Some or none of these factors are part of Class E being properly applied.

If so, then in "properly" applying Class E then we have a midair collision occuring with Class E due to external factors. To talk of Class E being "safe", therefore, in isolation of these factors is to talk in isolation of actual events and therefore meaningless. Given that these factors exist, a collision is possible in Class E when applied properly, therefore Class E is unsafe.

In conclusion, either it is impossible to apply Class E properly, or it is possible. This depends on the definition of applying it "properly". Either way, a midair collision still occurs, therefore either by design or in application, Class E airspace is unsafe.

To make it a bit less esoteric: even if everyone follows the "rules" in Class E, there is still a risk of collision, unless you think the "rules" are everything that avoids and accident, of course, which is unrealistic because you cannot guarantee everything.

It is absolutely correct to say that in any given volume the level of risk associated with Class C airspace is less than that associated with Class E.

This is not recognised by many proponents of NAS, and even if it is, there is no demonstration of the increased benefit for decreased safety.

VoR your posts are appreciated by many here, and many agree with you. Your "outburst" is hard to understand. In this thread you state that the NAS implementation is flawed, however you come out with a flawed argument concluding somehow that Class E airspace is safe. For one you cite that in the US people don't complain - how is that a valid argument? It is perplexing that given such reasoned and measured arguments put forward by you previously, you come out with a blanket statement is not defined or qualified..

As many have said, so so many times:

Class E is less safe than C. There are no real benefits in replacing C with E as NAS does. Therefore there is a decrease in safety for no real benefit.

No-one has ever, on this forum, shown the actual benefits which outweigh the increased risk in Class E in NAS. The increased risk has been demonstrated, the benefits haven't.

Instead of challenging others to prove Class E as safe (fruitless exercise ; ), we should be challenging others to prove why it is needed.

HtH

[Checkerboard]

Since its implementation how many pilots have you heard using the "IFR Pick Up" and VFR CLIMB/Descent"?

I have heard none. In WA all the professional operators refuse to use these new procedures, if they had I think we would have already had a mid air or at the least some very close calls. A more flexilbe system they say, then why is no one using it????

[DirtyPierre]

VoR,

I was very surprised about your latest post.

Nowhere have I seen the ATC's or professional pilots of OZ say that E airspace (per se) was unsafe.

Read ****su-tonka's post again.

As for questioning the airspace design. Why not? Just cause, in your opinion, European and US ATC don't question, this makes OZ ATC and pilots some sort of whinging lunatic fringe. Perhaps those that question have legitimate concerns? Just because it is done in the US and Europe it is immediately acceptable for OZ. No way, baby.

It all sounds like an argument put forward by Dick. In fact, your last couple of posts read like something written by Dick, and not the reasoned, logical VoR we have heard from before.

Lets get something straight.

Fact: ATCs and pilots in OZ do not object to Class E airspace. We've been using it for over 5 years. We object to the airspace design incorporating E airspace in the descent/climb profiles of fare paying jets into busy airfields like Brisbane and Melbourne.

What is the difference between Dick and a computer?
Only have to punch the information into the computer once.

[ferris]

Are you saying you are not aware that the US does not OPERATE it's Class E differently to other places, and particularly, ICAO?What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia Have a look at the thread on the ATC forum about Class E procedures, and you will see a panorama of different applications. US controllers claim to "morally separate" as well as pass traffic, and their parameters for operating their E like C differ to how the Brits do it (1000' or 3000' for example). But all this is an aside to the oz issue; ATC is different in the US to oz. Why? Because oz controllers are wearing 3 hats while they do ATC; flight data, FS and ATC. Where in the states is en-route control done that way? All these dry arguments about comparing the US to oz don't refelct coalface reality- a common problem in ATC. I could go on for ages about this subject, but I'll just leave you with a simple question;
IF CLASS E IS "SAFE", WHY ISN'T ALL THE AIRSPACE IN THE US, OR THE WORLD, CLASS E? Note: See HeretoHelp's post.

[Here to Help]

Had I read this before I posted, it would have been a shorter post : )
If you cannot see VFR traffic because of the deficiencies of your system [any system, not specifically Australia's system] - then the obligation to pass traffic in respect of observed traffic cannot be met - but the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied.

So you would agree that a mid air collision can still happen in Class E even when "the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied." Given what I wrote previously, this surely cannot be called "safe". (In isolation from reality, talking about Class E as a design concept, sure, it could be seen as safe, but what does that mean in reality?)

I quote from the ATSB interim report, to use the most recent incident as an example and to demonstrate that this is not just an intellectual exercise:
..the crews of both aircraft and the ATS controller complied with the published procedures for Class E airspace under NAS.
So we had a near collision with everyone doing the right thing. In fact, the report details that all parties did more than required by the system.

If this is an unacceptable situation, then, according to your reasoning, it must be due to the location of the Class E airspace and not the design of Class E itself. It cannot be the implementation (eg education and training) because the ATSB says that all parties followed the correct Class E procedures.

Now, you say:This thread was meant to defend Class E as a valid and legitimate airspace management option - it is NOT about WHERE it is applied in Australia, or HOW it was implemented.

That's fine - and no-one here has said that all Class E should be removed - it has been part of our airspace for a number of years. No-one says that Class E shouldn't be used anywhere.

However, you do cite examples of US airspace which seem to work fine (because no-one complains and there are no controllers calling for an increase in services), which to me means that you are also implying that any similar airspace in Australia should be fine and why are we all kicking up a fuss?

If our Melbourne and Brisbane E airspace is similar to that used near cities in the US, then, given your comments on the US system, it should be perfectly OK to have E in these places.

Well,
We have Class E in this airspace
We have the procedures being applied correctly (ATSB report)
We have a TCAS RA.

This is not acceptable to many people here, regardless of how acceptable it may be in the US or Europe. The location of the Class E is wrong, and just because it seems to be acceptable for similar locations in the US, it doesn't follow that it should be acceptable in Australia.

It actually begs the question of "Why is it acceptable in the US?"

In answering this question, maybe we can reveal more about how the differences in aviation, culture and infrastructure cause this difference between Australia and the US.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

I think, as evidenced by VoR's constant use of the word "We", that some assimilation by the Borg has possibly taken place.

Naturally, as the cutest of that species, I approve.

Other evidence of assimilation comes from the unspoken yet dominant, "Resistance is Futile" theme.

I think you should all keep that in mind when reading future post's from VoR.

Perhaps that too explains Winstun and his drone-ish, anti-social behaviour?!

Maybe Dick as well... the apparent automaton like behaviour and the unwillingness to accept direction from anyone except the collective mind.

It bears thinking about....

I am the Cutest of Borg!!

[DirtyPierre]

You may be the cutest of borg, but give me 7 of 9 any ol'day!

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Ahh she's nuthin but a bunch of implants!!! and I should know!!

[NOtimTAMs]

Uh, Ferris:

"IF CLASS E IS "SAFE", WHY ISN'T ALL THE AIRSPACE IN THE US, OR THE WORLD, CLASS E?"

....or conversely, if Class A (or insert your favourite airspace here) is the safest airspace, why isn't all the airspace in the US, or the world, Class A (or insert your favourite airspace here) ?

Why aren't *all* flights undertaken by dual 10,000 hour pilots under the IFR with at least twin turbine engines ...and 300% fuel reserves...and on and on ad nauseum

Argue, but at least be logical.

[Ian McKenzie]

All airspace should be class A (no VFR crap) and should be run by a privately owned profit making company like Serco. Whats the point of air traffic control if you cant make a buck out of it?

[whogivesa????]

If you cannot see VFR traffic because of the deficiencies of your system [any system, not specifically Australia's system] - then the obligation to pass traffic in respect of observed traffic cannot be met - but the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied


So, just because the LEGAL parameters are met, this makes it safe ?

The fact stillremains that AUS STILL does not have the same level of radar coverage as teh US has?

Dispute THIS fact, KNUCKLEHEAD!@!!!!!

[Voices of Reason]

To the last post.

We have participated in many fora over the years, but we would strain to find a level of ignorance to compare. You must be embarassed.

Perhaps you would like to find a reference in ANY global documentation that identifies a requirement for radar in Class E airspace. It is not a pre-requisite, and Class E - in fact Class A, B, C, D E, F and G can - and are - be operated satisfactorily with or without radar coverage.

We hope for the sake of the travelling public in Australia that you are not a controller or air transport pilot. Clearly you would have failed airspace legislation.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

VoR. I have always argued that while not a legislative requirement for Class E airspace to be under radar coverage, since "the passing of Radar observed VFR traffic" is such a huge component of the workings of E airspace I have always personally felt it is best suited to a radar environment. In my opinion non-radar airspace is best suited where there are high performance jets operating to being classified C, and have everything positively separated. Non-radar E, leaves too much reliance to visual separation, which invariably then leads to the odd TCAS avoidance. This TCAS reliance is especially disturbing in some parts of Oz, where some aircrafts transponders, if turned on at all, have probably never actually interrogated a radar head, so the value of TCAS could be seriously undermined. I am sure your little committee will make some condascending "we know best cos we are from the good old U S of A" but australians know Australian conditions better than anyone thanks.

[Aussie Andy]

So, let me get this straight: When VoR says things you guys like, he's OK; but
When VoR says things you don't like, then he's a "knucklehead"?
Grow up, ladies, please!

Andyhttp://members.lycos.co.uk/andyhardyuk/pprune/pip5.gif

[the leyland brothers]

AirNoServicesAustralia, I fail to understand why your :

I have always personally felt

and

in my opinion

should carry any more weight than Dick Smith’s :

I believe.

And just how ignorant of the supposedly “unique Australian conditions” :rolleyes: do you think the former Head Air Traffic Controller is?

As Daryl Kerrigan would say : Ya ********!

(Actually – upon reflection, I think I’ll take Dick Smith’s I believe.)

[Aussie Andy]

Well said Mike (or is it Mal)!? ;)

[tobzalp]

And now they roll out 'aussie' andy. This thread gets better and better.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Well well, good to see the two clowns above bothered to answer any of my concerns. Congratulations you have joined the distinguished company of Winstun in my ignore all posts list. Not going to waste my time reading that drivel. But to answer before I never have to see your rubbish again, I believe and I feel, in my case is not the basis for airspace design. Everyone on here has their beliefs, the only difference is Dick has changed Australian Aviation dramatically based purely on his beliefs. Big Big difference.

If you are referring to the esteemed ex Head ATC, I personally don't have much respect for him.
Now that you two numb nuts are ignored by my computer, I guess I can also quote the Castle,

Ahhhh the Serenity

[Creampuff]

I’m with Aussie Andy on this one.

It’s duplicitous to applaud VOR for coming to a logical conclusion which you happen to like on one hand, but then lambaste VOR for coming to a logical conclusion which you happen not to like on the other.

And Aussie Andy has no connection with Dick Smith.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Creampuff please read all the responses and disregard the angry comments made. Just read the facts and the questions posed. VoR is saying that E airspace is a perfectly fine class of airspace. Yet not that long ago they were making comments about the difficulty of seeing and avoiding unalerted VFR traffic for RPT jets. Now how does anyone suppose a non-communicating, no flight plan VFR in non-radar airspace is ever going to be anything other than unalerted traffic for the RPT aircraft. What, is the IFR psychic and thus going to sense the aircrafts presence. VoR also went to great lengths to point out that airspace should never be designed with TCAS as a mitigating factor in the safety of said airspace. Non-Radar E airspace as pointed out above has 2 levels of defence, first visual acquisition of a target the IFR doesn't even know is or isn't there, and then TCAS. How can anyone ever consider that to be safe??? And while people are saying safety is a relative term, in this case its bloody clear cut, if you are relying on only one safeguard before relying on TCAS to save the day, then thats dangerous, no matter what happens or doesn't happen in the states.

[Woomera]

Gentlemen and others.

Pleaase lets keep this civilised shall we and read carefully what the V o R actually said.

IMHO it is a perfectly balanced argument entirely in the context of their previous posts.

I seem to recall an acronym that got me through a bunch of CASA exams. RTFQ, because that's where the answer will be.

And let's not gets personal either

So far these threads have been remarkable (by PPRuNe standards anyway) for the rational level of debate despite the occasional appearance of our own beloved Court Jester.:p

Otherwise in the sprirt of that great Aussie movie it's "straight to the pool room darl" :cool:

[Aussie Andy]

Ah, plazbot! I see you are a bit paranoid: there is no "they"! And if you don't think I'm Aussie, mate, call me (my phone number PM'd to you) and check my accent, or ask me tricky questions about "football, meatpies, kangaroos and Holden cars" if you like!

Andy :O

[mjbow2]

Suprisingly, someone has rattled your cage. Your earlier work was devoid of your emotions.

Just for clarification purposes.
US class B published 'normal' dimensions is up to 10,000ft MSL Individually tailored in lateral and vertical limits to suit.
ie

LA
San Diego
Phoenix
Cincinnatti
Salt Lake City
Chicago
Atlanta
NY

are all at 10,000msl

Others for example are as required.
Kansas City
Minniapolis/St Paul
Pittsburgh
St Louis

Are all at 8000msl

Denver 12000MSL

(couldnt find any at 7000)

Class C is up to 4000AGL and 10NM
Class D is up to 2500AGL and 4NM

Class E is ALL Airways from 1200agl up to 18000msl and generally from 14500-18000 (exceptions noted, as often E will go to surface/700agl)

As a regional driver, I often flew into Chicago/Minni/Denver/Pheonix as well as many uncontrolled and class E airports. From the time we dropped below FL180 it was a constant job to see and avoid (class E) no matter where we were. In Denver for example (as with many other class B airports) there were many small Ga airports close by.( within 4nm) it was often that we had to keep a sharp lookout even on 4mile final as the airspace below was class E. God forbid the little guys busted into B airspace
BUT
The one really good thing about class E (or any other class for that matter) surrounding 'most' (read almost all) class B airports is that ALL aircraft within 30nm HAD to have an operable modeC transponder. Not a requirement for all class E of course. Out in the boondocks it could be a challenge to self seperate in E while on a visual approach (up to 30 miles out) to the airport with GA aircraft not even required to have a radio, let alone a transponder. We always were given the location of even primary targets though, before sending us off. Obviously, (or maybe not so obviously) If the other traffic in the area was an IFR (regardless of whether the E airspace was RADAR equiped or not) we were not cleared into the area (airport/holding pattern/airway) until we either had the other IFR traffic in sight or the other IFR was out of the way.(ie landed or moved outside of seperation tollerances.)

Clearly however, it was always our discretion to ask for an amended clearance if we believed a known (or unsighted) VFR aircraft could pose a collision risk.

Even though we had a TCAS it was really only any good around class B airports as most everywhere else there was little to no requirement for transponders. In other words you coudlnt rely on TCAS outside of the class B 30nm)

I guess my point is, ever since my GA flight training days, class E was really only viewed as an extention of G except that it was possible to get a level of IFR service that G didnt provide. We were so used to using the see and avoid with the added bonus that ATC MIGHT give us VFR traffic advisories and full IFR seperation. From my experience I feel comfortable with class E surrounding these busy airports, I suppose simply because Im used to it.....

Anyway, VoR. You dissapoint me with your personal attacks as you previously showed enourmous restraint. I too now suspect that youre not the origional Voice of Reason!

Cheers
MJB

PS Ferris...If my understanding of 'flight data' is correct then yes the US contollers do all three of those functions also.

[tobzalp]

OMG the call me defence. And you reckon he does not know Dick?

[taresa_green]

VFR in airspace with IFR aircraft and no one else knowing its there???
yer its safe all right
for me that is because I stay right out of it!!!!!!!!!!

[Creampuff]

The one really good thing about class E (or any other class for that matter) surrounding 'most' (read almost all) class B airports [in the USA] is that ALL aircraft within 30nm HAD to have an operable mode C transponder. I’d be interested to know whether each and every one of those aircraft was/is required to verify the serviceability and accuracy of their transponder with ATC(presumably only achievable with the benefit of radar or at least SSR), before entering the class E. I apologise in advance if that question has already been answered.

(And a slight drift off track if I may Woomera: I’m not surprised that even the most level headed of posters sometimes lose patience when faced with the downright rudeness and stupidity that occasionally finds it way onto D&G.)

[mjbow2]

Taresa-Green...

If you are a 747 driver and if you have flown to LA/SanFran or any other port city of the US....its too late, youve already done it...I trust you didnt have a mid air?

MJB

Cream puff

Just like there is no requirement for ATC to verify that your medical is valid, fuel caps are on....etc, etc, etc..... there is no specific requirement to check xponder with ATC. But if it is inop then I can probably dig up a dozen regs that you would have broken before your took off!

[Creampuff]

So there’s no room for misinterpretation here, mjbow2: Are you saying that in the class E airspace to which you referred – that is, in the class E airspace around class B airports in the USA in which the carriage and use of mode C is/was mandated – VFR aircraft are/were not required to contact ATC to verify the serviceability and accuracy of the transponder.

It’s yes or no answer.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

mjbow2, that shows a real lack of understanding of the whole issue with verifying mode C and making sure a transponder is serviceable. I have lost count of the number of pilots who when told their transponder is either not working or the Mode C is out of tolerance, has responded but the light is on and it being interrogated by the radar. Great! That doesn't mean it is working properly. A pilot knows his medical is valid, his fuel caps are on, he does not know his transponder is serviceable without having it veriefied with ATC, and the fact is, if you fly solely around Alice for example, you will never have the opportunity to have this checked by a Radar Controller because there aint no radar out there (which considering the mix and level of traffic is a disgrace).

[5miles]

VoR - I think you're scalloping.

"Forget whether you have radar or not – it is essentially irrelevant. "

If that is true and TCAS is not to be considered as a mitigator for an airprox, then why is the following mandatory?

“All aircraft, except aircraft operating to the VFR which are not fitted with an engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering a transponder, must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.”


:ugh: :ugh:

[gaunty]

Creampuff me old

I was burnt at the stake about the eleventy ninth time for suggesting that if the transponder was supposed to be on in E and there was no radar, how was one to establish that it was actually working and/or accurate? Pretty fundamental I thought and especially since it is appears to be part of the TCAS primary defence mechanism in our wonderful new Alice in Wonderland airspace system.

But maybe the Emperor was wearing clothes that day, I'm only a little short arse and it's hard for me to see over the crowds in front of me. But I'd swear I saw some dangly bits throught the legs of those in front of me. :O

Woomera, good one, I see the PPRuNers are still in Ready Fire Aim mode.:rolleyes:

[druglord]

Yeah mjbow, what's your take on all this class E business? I personally don't feel unsafe flying here, but I was pretty concerned when I first got here. I've only had maybe 1 RA since I've been here and that was with traffic in sight. On the other hand I feel aussie airspace is or was safer even if it was out of sync with the rest of the world.

[mjbow2]

Creampuff- No

A.N.S.A.- just to be sure we are on the same page... I made no assertions in relation to 'verifying the servicablility' of the transponder....

Class E under and around class B. No contact required with ATC. See answer RE creampuff.

How you verify your transponder is working is not a debate that this monday morning half back wants to get into. Dont forget that aircraft without radio can operate in class E airspace also...


Ohh hey Drugie...ya snuck one by me there....well considering I have flown in oz for the first time a month or so ago I am still evaluating everything. I did all my GA stuff over there so naturally I am more comfortable with the US deal.

We only had TA's and that thing was going off all the time, especially at ORD and MSP....they put butter on the sides just to slide us in there sometimes! You know the drill! But seriously I think its mostly a culture thing, its what your used to. I am having trouble here for example coming to grips with the fact that on an IFR flight I need to be familiar with airspace boundries. As you well know....if youre IFR in the US, airspace boundries mean nothing (few exceptions noted)...IFR is IFR....you get seperation even in G (mostly you would be on an airway-therefor in E) with no radar, but you may be surrounded by G and you still get an IFR clearance and you are seperated......

I am yet to make a fully informed jugdement though on which is a safer SYSTEM despite the stats saying the US is still about the safest place to fly. Obviously my favouring the US is based on that the system as a whole is entirely more user friendly and its familiar to me.....we will see!

[the leyland brothers]

If you live in Alice Springs and want your transponder checked then you only have to ask!

Ask the driver of a parked airline aircraft to check it on his TCAS display that is.

Don’t waste your time asking air traffic control. TCAS equipped aircraft have more surveillance technology than is available to the air traffic controllers at Alice!
[a pair of high grade binoculars notwithstanding ;) ]


A small child places their hands over their eyes and says : “You cant see me – you cant see me!” To them, the world has disappeared.

AirNoServicesAustralia selectively ignores those who’s opinions he disagrees with. To him, all dissention has disappeared, and he can once again claim hand on heart that everyone he has spoken to agrees with his opinions. :rolleyes:


Darryl reckons : “Waddaya want with a pair o’ joustin’ sticks?”



[Edit format to appease DirtyPierre's delicate sensibilities...]

[druglord]

MJbow, Yeah apparently the controllers LOVE the 1900's...they're fast and they can do the old 240 to the marker unlike the slippery jets. Anyway, i'm thread hijacking... see whatchya think of the aussie system...yeah the airspace thing over there is ridiculously insane and needlessly complicated.

[Creampuff]

Thanks mjbow2.

The next question: how often does heavy metal in US E get RAs, and if not often, why not?

A person very close to me flies for a very large international airline in and out of LAX et al, and has done so for a very long time, and he can’t recall ever getting an RA. Why does Australia appear – repeat appear – to be getting a disproportionate number of RAs in its E?

[Here to Help]

Creampuff wrote:It’s duplicitous to applaud VOR for coming to a logical conclusion which you happen to like on one hand, but then lambaste VOR for coming to a logical conclusion which you happen not to like on the other.

Woomera wrote:Pleaase lets keep this civilised shall we and read carefully what the V o R actually said.

IMHO it is a perfectly balanced argument entirely in the context of their previous posts.

Well, let's see, I have responded to VoR's assertions in this thread yet he/they/no-one have addressed it.
It is false to say that Class E is safe if you are only talking of the theoretical application for it.

Awaiting a reply....

[mjbow2]

Cream-e....


Simple answer is; I dont know!

I would suggest that many RA's are received daily over there....Like Drug-e said, his one RA came when traffic was already 'in sight' I suspect that most RA's occur in the appraoch environment with traffic 'in sight'.......

As I said our Beechlanda's only gave TA's not RA's so cant speak from experience on this one!

[Creampuff]

Thanks again, mjbow2. My source suggests that there are not many RAs received daily over there, at least not ones that are, for want of a better word, ‘unexpected’. My source suggests that at some airports where there are simultaneous opposite direction approaches to base of parallel runways, and an RA is entirely expected and normal part of the approach, given the heavy metal coming the other way and descending towards (but hopefully not to!) exactly the same point in space.

As to RAs of the kind recently investigated by the ATSB – my source can’t recall having had one.

Can any heavy metal drivers out there tell us about their RA experiences in US E?

[DirtyPierre]

Creampuff and mjbow2,

Just in regard to your discussion about RAs, are all aircraft in USA equipped with the same version of TCAS. TCAS version 7 I think might be the latest.

If not all aircraft are fitted with the same version of TCAS software, this might influence the amount of RAs and TAs.

Leyland Brothers, could you please stop "yelling" in your posts. I'm going deaf trying to read them!

TAH MUCHLY!

[WALLEY2]

VoR,

Our Chief Justice of the High Court stated:

"where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though not perhaps great, nethertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent."

What is the cost gains from reclassifying C to E airspace?

Where we are dealing with approachs to major regional airports without radar or larger airports within radar coverage as aircraft are converging and concentrating, you could not argue the risk is "remote or fanciful".

Consequently you would need a substacial cost saving for this airspace change otherwise by the Cheif Justice Gibb dictum you have commited a negligent act.

Is there any downside to having more C airspace than most countries- why apply a lower common denominator, should we tell the USA to decrease their radar in more remote areas as Australia uses less quite "safely"- is this your argument or have I missed the point ?

It is not my field of expertise but your normal clarity and insightful contribution is not so clear to me this time.

Cheers Mike

[Towering Q]

One thing I have noticed about V of R's posts in this thread is that they are a lot shorter than in previous contributions. Before, when reading their posts I would ensure that I had a cup of warm beverage and the wife and child were asleep.:ok:

[Creampuff]

WALLEY2: It is true the Chief Justice of the High Court said that. However, I suggest you get some expert advice as to whether a duty of care is owed, and if so by whom, in relation to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace.

There is some very solid High Court authority that says no duty of care is owed in relation to, for example, legislative acts. If the federal Parliament passed a law tomorrow to the effect that, for example, all airspace in Australia is class G, notwithstanding the evidently foreseeable risk of an increase in the risk of MACs, and notwithstanding that no cost-benefit analysis had been carried out, no court in the country would find that the legislature owed a duty of care to the people killed or injured in a subsequent MAC caused by the change to universal class G. The remedy in this example would lie in the ballot box, not the court.

It gets much, much trickier and muddier when it comes to the exercise of delegated powers. If CASA makes a CAO, is that a legislative act or an operational decision? Smells legislative to me. If AA declares airspace arrangements which accord with the standards set by CASA and apply to everyone, is that a legislative act or an operational decision? The spectrum from legislative to operational has an infinite combination of variables, and the case law identifying the border line is inconsistent and the reasoning difficult to apply other than to the particular facts of the case. It would be a very brave lawyer indeed who risks her professional indemnity insurance by expressing general views about anybody’s duty of care in relation to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace, other than to say that on any analysis, Mr Dick Smith and the ARG probably escape liability, because (as I’ve pointed out previously ad nauseum, neither he nor the ARG has ever had any legal power with respect to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace. The strings that were pulled to make NAS happen were necessarily connected to AA, and perhaps to CASA.

With respect to the authors of your report (with whose reasoning and conclusions on substantive issues, I should add, I was generally impressed) they took a considerable risk in making the unqualified suggestion that the dictum quoted necessarily constrains the exercise of legal powers with respect to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace.

[the leyland brothers]

What I think creamie's trying to tell you in his fancy city-slicker-lawyer mumbo-jumbo-lingo, Walley, is that your report is only good for wrapping fish and chips.

:8

[amos2]

You know, you lot really do amaze me!

Anybody, and I mean anybody, who operated under the old system in Oz, knows it was safer than the nonsence we operate under today.

But VoR, a corporate pilot in the States, starts sprouting on an Oz forum, in the third person, about this great knowledge he thinks he has, in respect to the way airspace should be!!

And you lot fall for it.

Anybody asked VoR what his status is?

Could be a CPL for all we know! :p

[tobzalp]

I asked him/her/it as the first reply to the first post he/her/it made. There was a reply. Do a quick search. I think that what the point this 3rd person was making was missed way back at the start.

They were never advocating or disproving NAS but were defending the airspace that apparently they had some hand in designing (Class E ICAO). This is where their/her/its recent outburst of defence was aimed. Whilst they/her/it/whatever can sprout numbers about the risk models etc, it does not disprove that class C in Australia was provided for less cost and Greater Safety than E. FULL STOP.

[WALLEY2]

Creamy,

A CAO is a delegated legislation and therefore rest in the Senate for 14 days where it may be discussed and voted on or automatically approved.

Yes we have taken legal advise and reserved QCs for our fight if it comes to pass. A friend actually met the former Chief Justice and told him of our use of his Dictum when asked (tongue in cheek) for his advise he smiled and said "I would be very careful if I was You" Probably true words from an elderly sage.

While there is no punitive action possible against the Minister ARG etc. they cannot overwrite your rights under common law.

The question we are preparing for is whether they can direct us to do a negligent act?

If there is a loss of property or god forbid life and an adverse coronial enquiry then the baloon goes up.

In both these scenarios there is legal doubts, one solution would be for the Airport Owners Association to advise owners to close the airports or restrict access to non TCAS equipt aircraft, if an unproven terminal airspce system is to be forced upon our major regional airports. This is under consideration pending the CASA NPRM report.

Alternatively as our State Governments control worksafe practices we may well need to close active runways prior to allowing staff to caryout maintenance. Certainly we have been advised without Mandatory calls and possible aircraft without radios using the airport an active runway is not a safe working enviroment.

Then you have State Legislation against Federal legislation, normally it is the Fedral Legislation pervails however in this case it is in an area(worksafe) that is not covered by Federal Law.

Four things are certain:

1 The lawyers will make heaps

2 The Minister will have to show his hand and not hide behind others.

3 It is going to get very messy unless they have done a proper Design Safety Analysis.

4 The Senate, the State Labour Governments and the press will have a field day.


The question I keep asking is- why are we doing this to a system that has its own culture and has delivered excellent results?

Comparitive cost analysis shows our system is cost effective, there is no reputable report or analysis that demonstrates major cost savings.

Dick Smith says D Class Tower for Broome what about Ayers,KTA,KAL these towers cost Millions to instal and millions p.a. to run and by our DAS and FAA analysis are not required yet.

Airspace C to E no analysis on effects or costs. I ask again is there cost savings? VoR?

What are we doing and Why?? Why Oh Why???

[Voices of Reason]

Clarifications

First, we wish to apologize for some of the recent content under our nom-de-plume – the offending party has been removed from the roster of participants.

Second, as to credentials, suffice it to say our resumes would stand more than favorably against any offered by participants to this forum.

Now, in relation to this thread, perhaps we could go to first principles and try to clarify our original post.

As we have stated before, the entire basis for airspace service levels should be set around equitable risk management – that is, no single party should be exposed to a higher level of risk than another, unless that risk is accepted voluntarily.

By that, we mean that those that have sole responsibility for the risk to which they expose themselves – VFR pilots, glider pilots, military fighter pilots etc – may choose to operate to higher risk levels than those who have little or no control over risk – i.e., the fare paying passenger.

Good and effective airspace management is about ensuring that the fare paying passenger is not exposed to inappropriate risk levels – and just as important – inequitable risk levels.

So, the risk to a passenger flying to Sydney should be no higher than that for a passenger flying to Broome, Alice Springs, Launceston or Mildura, and vice versa.

Prior to the ICAO alphabet airspace classification system, there were as few as two classifications available in most parts of the world – controlled and uncontrolled airspace – with some States offering mid-range services such as Visual Exempt, or Instrument Visual airspace. The ICAO alphabet airspace system when finally codified offers seven layers of airspace service, and seven layers of risk management.

As we have previously stated, the system was developed by a panel whose primary responsibility was the accommodation of VFR flights in an increasingly complex environment of IFR flights – and an increasingly complex set of IFR flight parameters.

Now, for an airspace designer starting with a clean sheet of paper, it would be relatively simple to codify Australian airspace, so that the levels of risk are set to appropriate levels, and no single section of the community is subject to abnormally high levels of risk – except, as we stated before, where they choose to accept that risk. Some service leveling would be required to ensure that the model was not overly complex – so naturally there would be apparent over-servicing in certain areas. This occurs in all States.

We said “appropriate levels of risk”. Here is where it can get exceptionally difficult, even for a clean sheet approach. What one section of the aviation community will accept as appropriate may differ by one or two orders of magnitude to another section of the community. So a glider pilot might well be prepared to accept risk levels one hundred times higher than an airline pilot, or ten times higher than a VFR general aviation pilot. A VFR general aviation pilot might accept risk at a level ten times higher than an airline pilot. Is this wrong – basically no. The point of most contention comes where the high risk acceptor and the low risk acceptor come together. Here the airspace designer may need to impose an airspace classification that accommodates the lower risk threshold, or establish mitigating procedures.

So far, this is a lesson in theory.

The practicality of your debate in Australia is the superimposition of a model which may, or may not, set appropriate risk levels, over a system that has been in place for quite some time, and has therefore established a defacto risk standard.

Yes, it is absolutely true to say that for a given volume of airspace, with a set volume of traffic, the risk associated with Class G is higher than Class F, which is higher than Class E, which is higher than Class C etc. It is also true to say that if you have been providing a higher level of service for some time, the reduction from, say, Class C to Class E may appear either cost neutral or cost negative – i.e., a reduction for no cost benefit.

In fact, by our research into the airspace reforms conducted over the last 15 years in Australia, we have seen enormous overall cost benefit associated with the change in service levels – without any provable or demonstrable change in risk.

We understand that you have transitioned from over 2500 air traffic and flight information staff to around 1100. We accept that a large part of that was due to a technology change – nevertheless, traffic levels have increased, so the cost effectiveness has increased.

We expect that your responses will be along the lines of “we can provide the service, so why don’t we?”. This goes to one respondent’s quotation from Justice Gibbs. We have seen this, and other similar statements – particularly those associated with the United Kingdom and European Occupational Health and Safety directorates. The statements, on there own, are misleading, and need to be linked to the benefit side of the equation. Effectively, it is the passengers who will determine risk tolerability versus cost, a fact that Broome has tested. So, if a passenger can fly from Broome to Perth for $100.00, they may tolerate a “safety tax” of $5.00, but would baulk at $50.00. So the fact that a service can be provided is not necessarily an indicator that it should be provided, particularly when it can be demonstrated that risk is within an acceptable bound.

We suspect that some years ago, talk of controllers simultaneously providing traffic information in Class G airspace and separation services in Class C airspace would have been anathema. We understand it is done routinely now. Yes, the change from Class C to Class E does increase risk – but is it an unacceptable level of risk – probably not. Are the incidents in Class E airspace indicative of a safety deficiency – yes. Is it a deficiency in airspace design – probably not. It is more likely to be a misapplication of the procedures associated with Class E airspace. Despite the protestations from some that Australia is somehow “different” to the rest of the world, evidence in other States with Class E airspace would seem to indicate that the design of Class E itself is not deficient.

Now to the question of transponders in Class E airspace.

Our research – and we would challenge any participants in this thread to look back through airspace change documentation to validate this information – indicates that the transponder carriage and activation proposal was mooted as part of a reform initiative called Airspace 2000, and was offered as a trade-off by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association as a safety enhancement mitigators, in return for reduction or elimination of airspace charges.

The regulations giving effect to the transponder carriage and activation in Class E airspace were put in place immediately before Class E airspace was implemented on your east coast, several years ago. We understand that it had originally been planned to implement Class E airspace along your entire east coast, from the north of Queensland to South Australia, at 8500 feet and above, and that charts had been printed and distributed. We understand that a Richard Harold Smith ordered the charts withdrawn and the implementation stopped, in favor of a much smaller implementation in New South Wales, two months later. We understand that charts were re-printed and issued – but on instruction from the director of your regulator, apparently at the specific behest of the same Richard Harold Smith, the effective date was deferred for two weeks whilst a debate raged around the need for mandatory transponders. We understand the carriage and activation of transponders was opposed by the same Richard Harold Smith.

As we have stated previously, the carriage and activation of transponders is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace. Yes, it does enhance its application – but it is not a requirement. As we have also stated, the carriage and operation of transponders should only be seen as a means by which the traffic alerting characteristic of Class E airspace is better enabled – and NOT as a way to alert TCAS carrying aircraft to the presence of VFR flights.

We trust this provides clarification.

[karrank]

So I'd boil all that waffle down to a few dot points:

1. E airspace is safe, provided that E (and not C) is the appropriate sort of airspace for the traffic traversing it.

2. Transponders/radar is not required, but will mean less headlines (Not supported in fact so far.)

2. Dick has nailed a lot of stuff from all the previous plans he has implemented and then fought against into this schemozzle.

3. Dick is willing to kill an entire system to preserve any detail of his current whim.

4. Any post from VOR that doesn't seem to match something said before by VOR is the fault of naughty rogue pixies. It would not be reasonable to say that, like any other group in Australian aviation, if you get three VOR members with something to say A will say one thing, B will take a contrary view and C will talk long & loud and try to convince everybody that his view is a consensus of A & B (while really being another contrary view.)

[Here to Help]

Second, as to credentials, suffice it to say our resumes would stand more than favorably against any offered by participants to this forum.
Interesting comment since not many have put their resume on here. Credentials of themselves do not mean that the person making an argument is right, in fact they are irrelevant. The only important thing is the validity of the argument itself. You can have all the credentials in the world and still be wrong. Mr D Smith makes the mistake of equating credentials and even identity with validity.

The identity of VoR is not required, but what is required is an assurance that what is written by VoR is from a consistent voice and not just from a bunch of people with differing ideas writing under the one pseudonym, otherwise why not post under different names? VoR has proven on the most part, without supplying credentials, that what they say is worth reading because it is generally well reasoned and referenced. When this thread came up, most people were up in arms because it wasn't they came to respect.

Yes, the change from Class C to Class E does increase risk – but is it an unacceptable level of risk – probably not. Are the incidents in Class E airspace indicative of a safety deficiency – yes. Is it a deficiency in airspace design – probably not.
"Probably not". Hardly definitive and thus not really that helpful in this debate.These statements need clarification and supportive evidence/argument.

You make a judgement here that Class C to E is "probably" an acceptable risk. To make this statement you must believe that the benefits "probably" outweigh the increased risk.

You have not outlined what the benefits of E are, so to understand what you mean, we need to know what you think these benefits are. What are the benefits, in Australia, of Class E over C, in the areas that NAS has introduced it?

Many here have outlined the increased risk in Class E, and we have seen several incidents that have highlighted the immediate dangers associated with the airspace, even when it is applied correctly. These incidents would not have happened in Class C under the same circumstances. No-one on this forum has yet to demonstrate the net benefit of Class E and many of us are waiting to see it.
It is more likely to be a misapplication of the procedures associated with Class E airspace.
What is your response to the ATSB report which cocludes that neither of the pilots nor ATC applied procedures incorrectly? If you disagree with the ATSB report then please clarify why. If not then why make this comment?

Again you assert that it seems to work OK in the US so it should be OK here. This is a premise that requires more elaboration. As I've stated before, we have a TCAS RA occuring when everyone involved followed the rules.

This is not acceptable here.

Does this happen in the US?

Would this situation be acceptable in the US?

Maybe Class E in similar areas in the US is acceptable because US controller and pilots apply procedures in Class E that are different to those prescribed to make it work. Do you have evidence that Class E procedures are followed to the letter in the US and that no workarounds (either culturally instilled or unofficially endorsed) are used?

To summarise:

The ATSB says that everyone followed the Class E procedures in the most recent Virgin incident, and we still got an RA.

You agree that there is a safety deficiency but say that it is probably the application of the rules and not the design of the airspace that faulty.

One of these is wrong - which one?


HtH

[tobzalp]

*cough* pm *cough* schnell

[Chief galah]

Life before Nov. 27

Vast volume of airspaCe.
Two airCraft, one Controller.
A Couple of radio transmissions.
AirCraft separated.

Cheap, EffiCient, BORING.

LifE aftEr Nov. 27.

Vast amount of airspacE.
Two aircraft, onE onlookEr.
MultiplE radio transmissions.
SEparation anxiEty.
Costly manoEuvrEs by airlinE aircraft.
NEar collision.
Bad PR.

ExpEnsivE, Labour intEnsivE, TERRIFYING.

So why not put somE ExcitEmEnt into your lifE. Fly E airspacE, availablE nEar your major cEntrE.

CG

[mjbow2]

Dirty P....
I dont have a good answer for you. Your question is a little more technical than I ever wish to get. I like flying and want to keep it that way:O

As far as I know there is TCAS I and TCAS II, giving Traffic Advisories and Resolution Advisories respectively. You may want to check out THIS (http://www.caasd.org/proj/tcas/)

[Philthy]

Early on in the piece VoR said:
What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia?

More recently VoR suggests that Class E procedures are misapplied in Australia and that this may be the cause of our problems.

Unfortunately, VoR, you are wrong in this instance. The fact that US controllers routinely do not apply Class E procedures "by the book" is confirmed in independent reports by both Captain Robin Beville-Anderson and Airservices Australia from a 'fact finding' tour of a number of US ATC facilities in, I think, 2002. The Beville-Anderson report is available through the AFAP but I don't know whether the Airservices report has been published.

Both of these reports confirm that higher levels of service than required by the airspace classification are routinely provided by US controllers. The reasons for this are not identified, but one might speculate.

As to Class E airspace being loved the world over - well, like everything, it has its place. The Frogs, for example, have recently come to the conclusion that it maybe isn't such a good idea to be punching RPT aircraft into airspaces where all VFR traffic isn't known after they had two mid-air collisions in the space of six months between IFR RPT aircraft and VFR aircraft.

Oh yeah, VoR, the mandatory transponder requirements in Class E were first mooted during the AMATS project in 1988. The Mother of all Airspace Debacles since.

[WALLEY2]

Philthy,

Your comment on B-A report has been on my lips, I remember the pasting it got, yet now these same people are saying yes it is E with culture(USA that is) and our pilots and ATC must be teught to apply it.

VoR nice to see your reasoned comments again, If USA applies E+(moves RPT away from radar detected VFR) how do you apply equality of risk between E Class with RADAR coverage and E Class without?

Surely lack of RADAR is removing an important line of defence in E Class therefore you move quicker to C class in non radar areas with similar traffic parameters.

Another question of personal interest: Is radar and its effective cover an imput parameter to FAA D Class tower analysis?

thx Mike

[DirtyPierre]

mjbow2,

Thanks for the heads-up on that material.

In OZ when Virgin still had TCAS Version 6, we would get RAs while still applying 100ft vertical separation if one aircraft was on climb or descent. With TCAS Version 7 this does not occur.

Happy Flying,

DP

[VVS Laxman]

What was the problem with this? It's all about permission, nothing to do with service...

I don't want to plan and I don't want to be told no; or expect delay (cause I didn't plan) or anything else for that matter... E gives the average Jo average pilot, like Dick, the ability to go whereever and do whatever. No restrictions, no limits, often no idea... e.g. transponder on a A045 over AY... In the bloody training video...

The onus is on the (VFR) pilots to take more responsibility, so we can save, save, save, without saving anything and without much onus taken...

The onus unfortunately is on the controller to over service, and over control where it's not needed and over restrict the planes that actually pay for me to be here... makes sence, NOT!

[the leyland brothers]

There are two aircraft.

One aircraft wants to miss by 5 miles. The other aircraft is happy just to miss.

Q: Which aircraft should endure the extra track miles?

A: The one that wants to miss by 5 miles.

There are two aircraft.

One aircraft wants to be able to talk to a radio operator. The other aircraft has a CD player.

Q: Which aircraft should bear the cost of operating the radio service?

A: The one that wants the service.

It aint rocket science, is it? :confused:

[Here to Help]

LB,

From your many-thoughts-provoking post I gather you believe that VFR aircraft in Class E should get priority over IFR, that VFR aircraft do not need to see and avoid IFR aircraft, and that they do not need to be on the same frequency as IFR aircraft. In short, you believe that IFR aircraft must get out of the way of VFR because it is the IFR that want the service, not the VFR.

From this I gather that you think that the IFR, which has a clearance, should either request an amended clearance or the controller should issue an amended clearance to get out of the VFR's way.

You are suggesting that the controller separate the IFR from the VFR, am I right?

What you suggest does not exist in any airspace classification.

You don't really want E airspace, because IFR get traffic on VFR, not separation. You don't want C airspace, because it means that VFRs need to talk to someone and be separated.

So what airspace do you really want? Do you have an idea?

This thread is about the safety of E airspace and the procedures used in it. I have asked for evidence of what procedures (official or unofficial) are used in the US and whether they are the same as the procedures applied in Australia.

If Class E is to be overserviced in Australia ("E+" : ) to bring it up to C standards (like it appears to be in the US) - then, LB, can you tell me what the cost savings are? Can you tell me what the point of reclassification is? What are the specific cost savings, particularly when it doesn't cost anything for a VFR Class C clearance? Do you acknowledge that overserviced Class E is more workload intensive, and more costly for the IFR's that get deviated, than Class C?

[Feather #3]

VoR,

A excellent summary of events!! Couldn't have put it better myself! As to credentials; I've heard the denials, but I hope it's warming up in your part of the world. ;)

Philthy,

Robin may have put it into precise terms in his report, but the US "culture" of operating Class E [ indeed, the US culture of operating radar services - "green between"], and for that matter, Class D, has been known since the original AMATS days of 1990!

AsA/Gov't are to blame for a lot of the lack of culture transfer as highlighted in many Pprune posts. You can't take a system and dump it onto somewhere else where a fully mature system has operated unless you;

1. take the WHOLE [and, yes, I am shouting! :mad: ] system, otherwise you commit fraud, and

2. in any case, fully educate all the stakeholders. VFR can simply 'piss off' is not a suitable option, esp in the light of #1.

Enuff for now, thanks again VoR.

G'day ;)

[amos2]

The only people who want to mix amateur light aircraft pilots with professional high speed jet RPT pilots are...

wait for it....

amateur light aircraft pilots!

We know Dicks an amateur, so what does that say about Omni and his mates who support Dick? :rolleyes:

[OverRun]

Walley2 asked
Another question of personal interest: Is radar and its effective cover an input parameter to FAA D Class tower analysis?

The short answer is that I think it isn't, but I'd welcome other inputs on the topic. I think its effect sits, unquantifiably, deep inside the analysis. Let me give a simplified answer for reasons of space.

The FAA analysis method is in the report: (1990) Establishment and discontinuance criteria for airport traffic control towers. Report FAA-APO-90-7. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington. These criteria are stated to be for VFR towers. The FAA state that the primary responsibility of the VFR tower controller is to provide aircraft sequencing in the air and separation on the ground, and controllers determine aircraft position from pilot's reports and by direct observation of the aircraft.

There is no requirement for radar in executing this responsibility, and the criteria themselves do not provide for radar in the capital costing of the tower, nor do they provide any mechanism to check the value of radar. So it is simply not an input parameter.

The benefits of the tower in the analysis come from preventing collisions between aircraft, other prevented accidents and reduced flying time. To estimate those benefits, the FAA has developed a series of equations. For example, the reduction in collisions comes from the calculated difference using equations predicting collisions at towered airports and at non-towered airports.

These equations came from an analysis of all aircraft accidents on US soil using data from 1983-87, which were then screened to pick out accidents within 5 miles of airports. The final screening was to eliminate airports where there were less than 10,000 or more than 250,000 annual operations. A total of 2227 airports and 864 accidents were then used.

The equations for no tower/tower were found by analysis. The FAA tried some sophisticated methods to isolate out the effect of other variables such as ASPPCOV – the existence of radar approach control at the airport, and others such as the number of runways, but were not able to do so. So the fact that some (or was it many) airports with VFR towers have radar approach control is submerged somewhere in the computation of benefit, but it is not possible to see what the effect of radar is explicitly.

I don't know if there have been any later developments on this which bring the cost of radar into the analysis, or whether this tower analysis simply remains for VFR towers without the specific provision of radar. Anyone else got inputs? VoR? Philthy?

[Feather #3]

So the fact that some (or was it many) airports with VFR towers have radar approach control is submerged somewhere in the computation of benefit, but it is not possible to see what the effect of radar is explicitly.

The APP RDR will sequence IFR a/c to the duty runway for the [former] VFR/ [now] Class D TWR. In the handoff, if the TWR has a radar display, the local controller can see the position and speed of the inbound IFR, thus aiding the sorting of the runway sequence with local traffic. YSBK [as an example] are capable of doing a similar thing.

Hope that helps.

G'day ;)

PS This was the intention for places like MC, AY, CH, etc., but either the radar picture won't go that low or AsA was unwilling. It was never envisaged that our Class D towers would control the volume of airspace they do. The intention was that the Centre would sequence and pickup outside a basic aerodrome CTR.

[whogivesa????]

VoR

Perhaps you would like to find a reference in ANY global documentation that identifies a requirement for radar in Class E airspace. It is not a pre-requisite, and Class E - in fact Class A, B, C, D E, F and G can - and are - be operated satisfactorily with or without radar coverage.

I never said that it was a legal requirement. As a matter of fact I even said that "Just because all the legal requirements have been met, doesn't make it safe."

Insofar as "failing air law"... I don't think so.

My opinion is that it is YOUR, and your cronies', narrowmindedness, and bullheaded approach to these reasonable questions that make it seem as if you have "blinkers" on. You see what you want to see... you hear what you want to hear, and you will brook NO argument

Maybe I should phone DICK himself? after all, his numbers are listed in the AUSTRALIAN FLYING MAGAZINE, which by the way is becoming a MOUTHPIECE for the NAS. Very disappointed that a magazine with journalists of that calibre need to express themselves in THAT kind of fora!

[ferris]

Late reply- I've been away......

Still no-one has answered my point about US radar sectors being smaller scale than oz radar sectors, thereby enabling 'separation' between IFR and VFR of 'the paints don't overlap'. What do you do in oz when a paint is about 4 NM wide on the screen? Green-between might equal 6NM lateral!!!!!

NoTimTams.
As you have read, the VoR have clarified their position on "CLASS E IS SAFE". It's a QUALIFIED statement. Look it up. No need to apologise.....:hmm:

Someone else said that US controllers wear 3 hats too...... NOT AT THE SAME TIME. They are gobsmacked when you describe this to them.

Leyland brothers.
I'll pose a question to you.

There are 2 aircraft
One that wants to miss by an accepted industry standard (5NM), and one that just wants to miss (too ignorant to understand the concepts involved).
Q. Should both aircraft bear the responsibility of missing, or should it be born by the people who don't have the political clout to scare the Transport Minister?
A. The Transport minster might have to begin to worry about the number of people beginning to get the message. Hence, one day soon, BOTH aircraft may have to participate again.
or
Q. Wealthy gent, flying privately, couldn't give a toss about social responsibility because he believes he can use visual separation in any situation (including unalerted see-and-avoid of jet traffic) as he doesn't like asking for permission. Should the public (in the back of the jet) be forced to endure this increased risk, even though they have paid the govt fees and charges, paid the various taxes (fuel, air nav, etc), airline costs (avoiding actions, off-profile descents, TCAS fitments) paid paid paid paid, in order that the wealthy gent doesn't have to get a clearance?
A. No

It's definately not rocket science.

[apache]

Just on the Question of "that wealthy gent", what if he CAN fly IFR, is in an IFR aircraft, in IFR conditions.... but is too miserley to pay the en-route charges ? ie... tooling around no comms, doing approaches etc, climbing and descending through IFR levels ABSOLUTELY BLIND ???

[karrank]

It's a bit strange really, but the wealthy fella told me in a meeting once that he doesn't begrudge any of the considerable amount of avcharges he pays every year.

I've heard a rumour he don't hold an IFR rating, but enjoys the concept so much he frequently has a flying buddy when he wishes to do so. It is fair enuf also if a bloke experiences relative freedom flying in the US and forms the resolve to do the same here. Where he falls in the mud is he seems to think he is the ultimate architect of how this could be implemented, and anybody who may have an opinion on the subject is somebody opposing the brave new world of flying niceness.

I believe he is genuinely attempting to nurture the Australian aviation industry (from B747's to KLAX down to Cri-Cri's doing circuits in Sh1thole North) by reforming the airspace, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You got it wrong Dick.

Haven't seen much comment on this forum about Project Rollback yet.