Why should we be as restrictive as the US?

[Four Seven Eleven]

New NAS proposal

Following the debacle that has been NAS implementation so far, I offer the following as a solution:

Design Criteria
1. Follow ICAO methodology as far as practicable.
2. Where compatible, follow the United States model.
3. Eliminate local variations completely, if possible.

Airspace Model
1. Class A: Above the transition layer (Compliant with the US model)
Comment: The US model of Class A airspace above the transition layer appears to be unnecessarily restrictive, in that it does not allow VFR flight. Perhaps Class B airspace could be used in Australia, to allow less restrictive procedures to apply to VFR aircraft, thus stimulating GA activity.
2. Class B: All busy airports, typically capital city and major regional airports.
3. Class C: less busy airports, such as regional centres.
4. Class D: Existing GAAP and smaller airports.
5. Class E: From 700/1200AGL up to the transition layer, outside of Class B, C and D steps. This is entirely consistent with the US model, where class E extends up to the transition layer. As noted above, Class A above the transition layer would be too restrictive, and a relaxation to Class B is warranted in Australia.
6. Class F: Not used (compliant with the US model)
7. Class G: Everywhere else (Compliant with the US model)

The above model has the following advantages:
1. It is fully compliant with both ICAO and the US model.
2. It does not require the mooted ‘enhanced’ Class E procedures which are currently being considered.
3. It removes the ‘no VFR above FL180’ restriction which exists in the US, with no discernible adverse impact on safety. This will allow GA activity in Australia which is not possible under the restrictions imposed in the US.
4. It allows the majority of VFR flights (the unpressurised light aircraft) to benefit from the freedoms of Class E airspace)
5. It affords safety to the majority of RPT operations, which would be contained within Classes B, C or D.

Comments?

[No Further Requirements]

4-7-11 the only thing I can see that may be restrictive in the proposal you have is that all enroute controllers will become demi-approach controllers at most aerodromes. This may cause some delays in areas not contained within good radar coverage. Other than that, I like it. Cheers,

NFR.

[boree3]

At last a clear concise and unambiguous post as to what the airspace criteria are worldwide. No spin, no brainwashing, no table slamming, just plain commonsense. Keep up the good works fellow professionals out there as we will win. Anybody out there (most of us in the industry) have had to put up with so many untruths etc. the last twelve months or so it`s going to make the unravelling, sorry i meant roll back, sorry i meant revision to current procedures (remember, commonsense does not apply) oh so sweet. See Dick, if only you`d listen to us you could have backed down without too much loss of face whereas now it`s a Royal Commission for you & your parasites now. It will be interesting to see the terminalogical inexactitudes proffered to get out from under the faecal matter as it falls from this one.

BY THE WAY DICK, EVEN YOU MUST BY NOW REALISE THE BLEEDIN OBVIOUS.....YOUR WRONG.....:cool:

[Chris Higgins]

4711 and others... pretty much on the right track. We shouldn't be controlling anything in Class B, C or E that doesn't have full-time radar coverage. Even the Class D tower at a secondary airport here in Pittsburgh has a "radar-repeater", which is nothing more than a hook up to Pittsburgh's radar room.

Yes, there's nothing wrong with determining your own airspace requirements or limitations, and this is still done in all ICAO countries. My only urging is that you do not consider non-radar airspace that has non-contributing VFR traffic "controlled".

Whatever is decided, must be done quickly, so as to restore the travelling publics faith and allow instructors the time and ability to get people back into the air with a safe working knowledge of the rules.

I am very concerned about AOPA. In the past, they have only promoted doing everything as cheaply as possible, flying wherever they want, without telling anyone and paying nothing to do it.

Flying was never supposed to be cheap! It's supposed to be safe.

[lizard drinking]

I'd like to see the transition layer raised, to allow easier access to the 10,000 to 14,000 level for VFR also. I would like to see the USA 18,000 feet used, as an altitude and FL, but if that seems too high or gives the FSS more work to do passing area QNH, the NZ (ICAO) 13,000 would be at least better than what we have right now.

[QSK?]

4711:

Great analysis, but I propose you submit it formally to Airservices Australia, CASA, DOD and (unfortunately) the ARG (or whatever its new name is).

The idea won't do much if it just sits on this forum.

[Dick Smith]

Four Seven Eleven, it is great to see the amount of Class E airspace in your proposed airspace model considering how much it was hated by ATCs and pilots. You probably remember that under the AMATS changes Class E was originally to be introduced on a trial basis in December 1992 and be totally operating to the US system by June on 1994.

After I finished my term as Chairman of CAA those who were against change won the day.

You may remember that no Class E airspace was introduced until I came back as Chairman in 1998 and even then it required a lot of hands-on work that I am always criticised for. Even now Class E airspace is resisted and not working correctly as pilots and air traffic controllers have not been properly trained, and as you have pointed out the MATS documentation has never been correctly written for Class E. One day you will get some leaders who have vision I’m sure.

The message here is that there is always great resistance to change and it is good to see that I have had an influence and you are now pushing for more Class E airspace. Since I instigated the AMATS changes in December 1991, I have always been a strong supporter for using Class E airspace in the way the US does. It is very efficient as it has the advantages of Class A airspace when IMC exists, and the flexibility of Class G airspace when VMC exists.

[89 steps to heaven]

It's not resistance to change. It's resistance to unsubstantiated change (........ and idiots).

[DirtyPierre]

Dick,

Air traffic controllers in this country are NOT opposed to Class E airspace.

This has been repeated many times in this forum, yet you still don't get the message!

It's where the E airspace is located which has become an issue.

We have had E airspace on the east coast of OZ, where I work, since the early nineties. It works, but not where high speed/performnce aircraft carrying fare paying passengers have to "see and avoid" non-identified, unverified, intentions unknown VFR aircraft.

Dick, you got it wrong.......again!

[Four Seven Eleven]

Even now Class E airspace is resisted and not working correctly…

Pilots resisting an airspace system because it does not work correctly? Go figure!!

What more needs to be said?

Dangerous amateurs – wrecking the Australian aviation industry.

[ferris]

Gee. Whatever would've oz aviation done without Dick?

Posts dripping with self-adulation are just the best!


So Dick, would you be prepared to balance the 'good' you have done, with the damage ?

And if you keep referring to US ClassE as ICAO ClassE, and the actual airspace that is in oz, you'll need to 'spin it' better than you have so far. THE CAT IS GETTING OUT OF THE BAG, AND THE PUBLIC ARE WISING UP! The clock is ticking for you (again).

[Chris Higgins]

Alright, so I must admit to being guilty of this myself, but we are not helping anybody by continually beating up Mr Smith.

As a turbo-jet captain who flies with a broad spectrum of experience levels, I am still compelled to act with respect and even admiration of those subordinates that call my faults in the spirit of a safe operation. No I've not got into any trouble, but it's probably because I have fostered a strong team spirit that has allowed people to speak up without fear of reprisalty action.

Mr Smith, you have flown around the world and caught flying glimpses of the airspaces you have traversed. I have worked and fed my family for fourteen years in the US Airspace. From flying instruction in Cessnas to teaching systems and procedural training on the Boeing 757/767 in Seattle at Flight Safety/Boeing, on behalf of a major US airline.

You have claimed in the past to know of my ignorance regarding Class E airspace, but the truth is, I really wonder, with the lack of regulatory compliance, near-miss incidents, arguing and misunderstanding, whether anyone in Australia really understands what it is we actually do over here. You seem to be humbled more recently with your responses (a good sign), you've apologised on national radio (a good sign), and your posts here seem to be a little more close to the mark.

If you want to talk about this some more, call me on 0011.1.724.493.0000 or e-mail me on [email protected].

I am happy to help out any way I can, including providing a national training sylabus for whatever system you decide upon.


Sincerely,

Chris Higgins

[Lodown]

Uh! Oh! Chris. You're risking getting lots of flame mail.

[Chris Higgins]

The biggest risk is not taking one!

[Chief galah]

How will GAAP towers provide a D service under the current separation rules without causing significant delays to IFR?

How will enroute controllers provide an non-radar separation service to IFR's into/out of regional non-towered airports with E airspace down to 700' or 1200' when there is more than one aircraft and conditions are IMC?

Has anyone considered how inefficient the IMC E airspace system can be?

[tobzalp]

CG now we are getting more towards the real picture. It is because of the low level of E airspace (700') that IFR pick Up is required. With the current airspace it is never (well maybe once or twice) used. When VMC exists it should be Hunky Dorey but I bet a pound of no****sherlock that the regionals will not use it so effectively for the IMC will always exist.

The sysytem was working Nov 26 last year. VFRs could go many more places then than they can now (not above 180 now) and it cost exactly the same to fly the same flight then as now and the rediculous flight plan/non flight plan pop up requests are dealt exactly the same way now as then. But as we see in another thread, some $75million has been wasted to stroke some retard's ego.

[welcome_stranger]

CH,

You are both brave and generous, but I fear your generousity is misplaced as the the named individual will with all probability not contact you. To do so would be a tacit admission that he is wrong (which never happens) and that the problems are to some degree of his making (thus disproving the "it was a conspiricy against me/they resist change/it is a union beat up/they don't understand the underlying premis that is based on my beliefs" explainations).

But thanks anyway

:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

With the greatest respect to 4711, class E airspace sucks, period. In busy non-radar airspace, all it does is lumber IFR with huge separation standards that destroy economical operations. But you didn't come and ask us, did you Dick? AusNAS VMC Climb and Descent do not exist in the USA above very low levels, because they're almost always on radar so these tin-pot half-baked workarounds for the severe limitations of non-radar E are not necessary. Additionally, ICAO VMC Climb and Decsent require the approval of BOTH parties, and it is NOT permitted above A100.

For the Australian application, Class F (as we have now) provides the greatest flexibility, with an adequate level of safety, in non-radar airspace. Ask any West Group controller what it'd be like covering the WA Goldfields with Class E down to FL145 or, god forbid, lower. And don't forget the extra cost.

Let's remember the ONLY reason Dick likes E: it allows him to go where he pleases, when he pleases, talking to no-one.

[Chris Higgins]

Captain Bloggs and all....

I really think that our group therapy on this and the long volumes of Dick bashing have to come to an end. We need to go forward now.

I will agree that Mr Smith has taken a very defensive posture on what he saw as an attempt at progress. Maybe his implementation lacked proper planning...remember, he is an entrepreneur. Let's pick up where he left off and fix the problem.

That way there will be nobody to blame...because, there will be no problem!


Sincerely,

Chris Higgins

[ferris]

He hasn't left off yet. That continues to be the problem.

[Chief galah]

C'mon you experts,

How is GAAP IFR traffic going to be processed from C to D into the circuit, especially when there's a bit of cloud around?

CG

[Chris Higgins]

There's a procedure for that called special VFR and the radar approach gets on an open land line and does a hand-off, just like any other control transition.

[Chief galah]

Re. Special VFR

Chris, if you are referring to my post, then yours doesn't make sense.

Current GAAP rules don't include special VFR.

For D airspace, special VFR for VFR category only, states that there be no undue delay for IFR traffic. Special VFR allows VFRs to fly clear of cloud (instead of 1000' vertically and 1500m horizontally).
I don't think an IFRy descending on an instrument approach into the circuit to get visual, being given traffic on VFRs in the circuit, of which there are many, and operating close to the cloud base, is a feasible way to operate.

As for radar hand-offs, Bankstown is the only radar display (TSAD) equipped GAAP tower in the country.

If the airspace is D, then all IFR's have to be separated from each other, and under current rules, this may prove difficult, with the amount of traffic currently at GAAP airports.

CG

[Chris Higgins]

Despite assurances from many that Dick Smith would not contact me, he did so right away...at his own expense and talked at great length about his many concerns over the latest changes to the Australian Airspace.

He was both respectful and energetic in his views and I found him to be very professional and respectful of my experiences here in the States.

I look forward to working with him some more and with the many of you who have solutions to the problems that we are confronted with.

Let's fix the problem! Stop shooting down reputations.

[Capn Bloggs]

What??!! He actually listened? Unbelievable. My ears are still ringing from 5 years ago.

[Icarus2001]

Chris Higgins I could not agree more. I am sure you will get plenty of support for your call...
Let's fix the problem! Stop shooting down reputations
The issue seems to be though that "the problem" is the NAS and the changes that came in on 27 Nov 2003.

When you say...
(Dick)...talked at great length about his many concerns over the latest changes to the Australian Airspace.
Are you talking about the changes Dick is pushing for or the changes to his beloved NAS required by CASA and AsA (the professional bodies responsible for aviation in Australia)?

CASA does not want US CTAFs. MBZs are here to stay. They are to be relied on as experts are they not?

AsA issued new supplementary charts to all pilots showing the area frequency boundaries that NAS had removed. They considered this necessary and the right thing to do.

Are these the changes Dick is concerned about?

[WhatWasThat]

Capt Bloggs,
I agree completely with your assertions about non-radar class E.
Without surveillance E starting at mid levels is potentially a reduction in safety compared to the currently implemented G.

Consider the situation of a busy non-radar environment with E base F145 in IMC, IFR aircraft depart from aerodromes in G and call for clearances, the ATC cant provide everyone clearances because procedural separation standards are very big, so the aircraft are delayed at F140 and below - burning oodles of gas and getting closer to all the other aircraft also stuck at F140 than they should, artificially increasing the traffic density at the levels immediately below CTA. Anyone who has flown in the goldfiields knows this can happen. At least now you get the benefit of the big sky up to F180.

With ADSB or some other form of surveillance we could push CTA down, but to do it when we cannot actually provide the service levels required is just plain dumb.