"Clear to Drop" for VFR PJE in class E

[karrank]

Latest horse-cr@p, coming to you shortly from ASA & CASA.

The procedures for parrot-shooting in the various classes of airspace are clearly laid out in AIP ENR 5.5. In C/D you need a clearance to enter the area and "clear to drop".

In E you are required to advise ATC before commencing operations, and "clear to drop" is not mentioned. Crew broadcast on G freq, ATC broadcast on E freq (if different) & pass traffic. Great freedom for operators.

Now some ASA drone has found AIP ENR 1.1 21.1.8 which says "...when operations are conducted in controlled airspace, a clearance to drop is required." and decided this applies to VFR PJE operations in E airspace:confused:

In the face of ATC disbelief he minced off to CASA with his silly plan and they've BACKED HIM. It won't even need a training program because its standardisation action. Another TLI & I don't know how the PJE people learn about it :uhoh:

The plan is, apparantly, aircraft will not need a clearance to enter E, but will not be able to drop without "clear to drop". The "clear to drop" WILL NOT PROVIDE SEPARATION WITH ANYTHING, it is a clerical, form-ticking CASA-bullsh1t exercise only.

My questions:
:confused: Why?
:confused: How will ATC feel about providing what sounds like a clearance to somebody who is never under any sort of control?
:confused: Why?
:confused: How do PJE operators feel about this latest "enhancement"?
:confused: Why?
:confused: What would be the result of delaying or witholding "clear to drop", (other than another hysterical media campaign from Lord Bikkie)?

[karrank]

Well, I guess nobody gives a buggar and the aforementioned mincer can rubberstamp his mad plan?:8

[Boney]

Works like this.


"ABC passing 3,000 on climb to FL120 for parachute ops @ ....., request code".

"ABC, code 0510, report 2 mins. before drop".


"ABC, 2 mins. till drop, request traffic".

"ABC, clear for drop, IFR traffic is a Dash 8 10 miles west of you tracking north, report on decent".

"ABC, clear for drop"


"ABC, jumpers away, on decent"

Seems to work quite well but is a bit of a grey area.

[Uncommon Sense]

Clear to Drop.

What does that now mean in the context of E Airspace?

'Clear' of what?

Can the ATC refuse the drop clearance? (i.e. if there is known traffic above the DZ?)

Can the PJE PIC drop without the 'clear to drop' instruction? If not - Why not?!

If E Airspace is to be E Airspace, let it be E Airspace. If E Airpspace is not appropriate change it back.

How about Clear to Drop - Whatever that Means - traffic is a Saab 340 overhead the DZ!!

The only problem with commonsense - it not that common

email uncommon sense ([email protected])

[Arm out the window]

Why shouldn't you need a clearance to drop in E?
They have IFR on full reporting and control; if air traffic know where they are, surely it's a good practice to do it that way.
What's the big deal with having to ask for a clearance?

[Uncommon Sense]

From the Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services, effective 10 June 2004:



ATC responsibilities to PJE aircraft

4.6.1.2 ATC shall provide traffic information to PJE aircraft, and, except in Class E or Class G airspace, apply separation between parachutists and non-PJE aircraft.
Pilots of PJE aircraft operating in Class E airspace are required to establish contact with ATC notifying the intent to commence operations before the drop commences.

4.6.1.3 ATC shall make a broadcast on the appropriate frequency before the drop as an alert to pilots of flights operating in the airspace.

4.6.1.4 In Class E airspace, ATC shall also provide traffic information to non- PJE IFR aircraft and aircraft using IFR Pick-up about PJE aircraft.

4.6.1.5 Pilots of parachute jumping aircraft are responsible for notifying ATC when the jump has been completed.



It seems kind of crazy to me (assuming I have interpreted this correctly) that ATC work away at separating IFR traffic and passing radar observed VFR traffic only to then say 'Clear to Drop' to an aircraft who can send 10 parachutists through the path of an IFR turboprop on descent.

Is this really the kind of freedom for GA that RHS was fighting for?

The only problem with commonsense - it not that common

email uncommon sense ([email protected])

[bush mechanics]

After a few weeks of jump flying recently(nice break from mail bags and Alpha Bravos Oscars)In a controll zone I didnt get one single delay,The guys in the tower did a fine job of keeping all the turboprops and 737s away.
How it worked for us was airways clearance was issued from the tower to whatever height required in the dropzone,which happened to be right over the township 3 miles from the field.
On reaching jump height I would make a all stations call to melb centre and then obtain a clearance to drop and decend from the tower even though I was above the upper controll limit for the airport.They would clear me on a visual approach and the rest is history.

Uncomon sense,
If you are clear to ,DROP,DECEND.CLIMB,LAND.TAKEOFF.JOIN CICUIT,TAXI.Then thats what you do.
If ATC wont issue a clearance to drop well you dont drop.Just like any clearance denied.What would a IFR rpt ac be doing in a DZ???

[bush mechanics]

Uncommon sense,
What about all the DZs that have been around for many years,Are you going to close them soo you can push a IFR route straight thru it?
Also we never gained a clearance to drop as soon as inbound rpt traffic was within 20 miles,Melbourne Centre issued a all stations call just before we dropped.

[Uncommon Sense]

BM

When and Where did I suggest the DZ's be closed? Your words not mine.

At issue is the procedure. The PJE is either separated from IFR traffic or it is not. This other wishy-washy crap is full of holes that a team of lawyers could drive a truck full of money through.

If the ATC service can provide the separation service (use the radar - remember that mantra from RHS?) then let them do it - properly. Hey, there isn't even a charge for the service!

The only problem with commonsense - it not that common

email uncommon sense ([email protected])

[Uncommon Sense]

CASA have confirmed all parachute descents in Class E airspace require a clearance from ATC authorising the descent. (AIP ENR 1.1 - 21.1.8 )

An Air Traffic Control Clearance is defined as:
Authorisation for aircraft to proceed under conditions specified by an Air Traffic Control unit.
A clearance does not always indicate positive separation.
• VFR aircraft in Class C airspace are subject to a clearance but not necessarily separated from other VFR aircraft.
• VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to a clearance but not necessarily separated from IFR or VFR aircraft.
Provision of traffic information is a means by which ATC may acquit its responsibility to prevent collisions to aircraft both in and outside controlled airspace, subject to prescribed standards, procedures and practices.

A drop clearance in Class E airspace provides the pilot with an assurance that ATC has provided all relevant Class E airspace traffic information. Controller responsibility for parachuting in Class E airspace is limited to provision of IFR and VFR traffic and withholding a clearance when a collision appears likely. Separation minima are not applied to parachutists in Class E airspace.

A notification of clearance request made at least five (5) minutes before the proposed exit (AIP ENR 1.1 - 21.1.8 ) also satisfies the requirement for pilots of PJE aircraft operating in Class E airspace to establish contact with ATC notifying the intent to commence operations before the drop commences (AIP ENR 5.5 - 2.3.1) When insufficient notice is given, the drop clearance may be delayed

Where a parachutist will descend through different classes of controlled airspace the drop clearance applies to the complete descent. The controller issuing the drop clearance is responsible for coordination of the clearance.

CASA have advised the Australian Parachute Federation of the requirement for drop clearances in Class E airspace.

The November 25 2004 AIP and MATS amendments will address this issue.

Parachute descents in or through Class E airspace require a clearance from ATC authorising the descent. This is phrased as “[call-sign] CLEAR TO DROP”. An individual drop clearance must be issued for each descent.

Controllers shall make a broadcast on the Class E frequency (MATS 4.6.1.3) Controllers shall issue traffic on IFR, known VFR and observed radar tracks to parachute aircraft. This is due to the parachutists inability to “see and avoid” other traffic during the descent. Where the disposition of traffic in Class E airspace is such that a Safety Alert would be appropriate if the parachutist were released, the drop clearance shall not be issued. Pilot reports may be used to confirm aircraft are clear of the drop zone.

The controller issuing a drop clearance is responsible for prior coordination of the clearance through all classes of controlled airspace affected by the descent. To prevent pilots requesting separate clearances to drop through Class E and D airspace they should be advised the drop clearance through Class E airspace includes the drop clearance through Class D airspace.

All Groups should review parachuting procedures and/or LoAs.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

For my limited experience I cannot see any difficulty with ATC issuing a drop clearance to PJE aircraft who are using E-space. My experience was on my innaugural tour of our fair state three weeks ago. I was on YMNG CTAF approaching from NW at 3500, after I gave my inbound/overflying call I also heard a PJE op on CTAF reporting heading for the DZ at Nagambie. I was approx 5nm to west of his position. I also heard on ML RADAR PJE talking to ATC. ATC gave my position as unverified VFR at 3200:\ (I was) to west tracking for MNG and gave clearance to drop. If I was tracking closer to Nagambie I would have reported my intentions to PJE on the CTAF freq. ATC would have reported my position and if I was in conflict, the drop clearance would not have been issued until I was clear. How simple was that? Low level E-space is still controlled airspace. Only prob I can see is someone flying around without XPDR on and is possible too far out for a primary return on radar AND is not broadcasting intentions as per CTAF procedures AND is probably listening to a CD and enjoying the view....but then again they would be a problem no matter pre or post NAS.

[Uncommon Sense]

Does anyone recall the glossy NAS brochure saying that VFR aircraft should avoid IFR routes?

In to BN / MC / CG many of the PJE DZ affected by this instruction / procedure are perfectly aligned with the inbound STAR / outbound SID's.

Anyway, these routes are likely to roll-back to C airspace in about 3 months anyway to capture the 3 degree descent path - apparently.(?)

[bush mechanics]

Uncomon sense:
Mate Im a bit lost,Whem did I say that DZs should be closed?
I did answer one of your questions with a question though.Do you know of any dzs being alighned with IFR routes?As far as nas and all the other crap I agree with you,especialy flying in a busy non radar enviorenment like I do.See and avoid dosnt quite work real well.
Finally,your first post must have been a bit tonque in cheek?

[wombat too]

Ozbusdriver mentioned PJE at Nagambie - one of the few DZs where drops through cloud are legal. The current AIP words in ENR 5.5 were written before there were IFR aircraft dropping meatbombs - so as VFRs there was no real need for a clearance.

Now we have the potential for the drop aircraft to be IFR (read clearance required in E), and with the controller unable to tell where the cloud might be, it seems sensible to require a clearance to drop jumpers through an IFR level. No real sweat for the jump pilot, who will want the trafic info anyway - and saves him getting the clearance into the D below in some areas, because the contollers will need to co-ord the clearance for both lots of airspace - and can you imagine a Class C controller issuing the clearance to leave Class C if there is trafic in the underlying E or G (as there may be if E below C happens in the next round of "fine-tuning")

Point is, the jumpers do not have transponders and fall faster than would show up for a properly-equipped VFR aircraft, where the controller can see it descending through the IFR levels and issue traffic alerts or instruct the IFR acft to turn away from the descending traffic.

Just 'coz we sent them out in the past, beyond the areas that are now Class C, doesn't mean they can't be offered info to do it safely -well, relatively ;) - in future.

Documents are currently unclear - but if requiring a clearance makes it safer for all, why not? Dunno about CASA having yet confirmed that a clearance IS required, but maybe making this a rule will keep us all alive to argue the case another day - the clearance will not be issued if an IFR or observed VFR is underneath!)