Actual Delays to GA Ops by Airspace Design in Australia

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Re-reading through a lot that has been written about how NAS and the airspace changes being pushed by the few are going to be the panacea and reduce all these company destroying delays to GA.

Nobody to date seems to recall any significant delays from either side of the microphone however.

I am just curious - has anybody in the PPrune audience flying GA been unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification?

Give details (as much as you want to reveal) and lets see what the real problems are. Why not?

[Ratshit]

Re-reading through a lot that has been written about how NAS and the airspace changes being pushed by the few are going to be the panacea and reduce all these company destroying delays to GA.

Nobody to date seems to recall any significant delays from either side of the microphone however.

I am just curious - has anybody in the PPrune audience flying GA been unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification?

Give details (as much as you want to reveal) and lets see what the real problems are. Why not?

****zu

Is the right forum to ask a question about GA, given that it says its for Airline and RPT issues. Maybe it would be better placed in its companion Dunnunda & Godzone forum. Being a GA type, I normally just stick my nose in here and have a bit of a look around, without saying much.

That said, does being required to slow down to 0.75 normal cruise airspeed from TOC on a flight from YBTL to YBCS qualify as being "unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification"? If so, then yes I have!

Not too sure how to separate "airspace classification" from "traffic".

R:cool:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

RS,

Well thats kind of my point - if you read a lot what the pro-NAS lobby has to say, the solution seems to be 'NAS Airspace Classification'.

In your example, I don't see it would have made much difference (without knowing all the details). Indeed, your example would seem to suggest it is more to do with 'infrastructure' - i.e. available concrete on the ground! My own view, is that no amount of tinkering with D and C airspace classification is going to change that, therefore I wonder about a lot of the claims being made and their merits.

Even in the US (where there a lot more runways for GA to choose from), one cannot fly in to a Major airport at a busy time and not expect some sort of delay - if you were planning to fly your Mooney or Baron to Chicago somehow I don't think you would plan to go to O'Hare or Midway. Going to Cairns however, there isn't a lot of choice.

[Ratshit]

"..one cannot fly in to a Major airport at a busy time and not expect some sort of delay.."

True, but it neither sounded (on APPR or TWR freq) nor appearred (once on the ground), particularly "busy". Nor was the weather a significant issue.

I suspect that it was a procedural thing! It was easier to slow me down to put me at the end of the "heavies" arrival line up for the localiser onto the main runway, rather than take me a different way that would have allowed a visual appr to a right base onto the lighty's runway.

R:cool:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Well, a call to APP after landing might have answered your questions - perhaps the 'busy' period had been dealt with by the time you got on frequency? Isn't CS split in to 2 APP frequencies?

The RT is not always a good indicator of how busy the traffic is anyway, strange as it might sound.

Whatever the reason(s), having Class E airspace or a Class D tower would have made no difference in this case right?

[SM4 Pirate]

This one time at band camp...

[Jet_A_Knight]

Does what i perceived as 'dodgy processing' in certain Class C terminal airspace count??

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Does the underwhelming response suggest a lot of effort has been expended arguing about the wrong things in the past?

[gaunty]

In a word. Yes.!:\

And I thought this whole matter was done and dusted in the VOR threads which BTW are still to be found.

Search "Voices of Reason" in D & G Reporting Points and read away. They are all locked BTW :hmm: but still make fascinating reading and are available for reference lest anyone is tempted to become an imperialist running dog revisionist. :p Maybe we should have them printed in a Little Red Book. :E

[bushy]

Many of the thousands of small aeroplanes in Australia do not get delayed in controlled airspace, because they do not go there. They choose to skirt around the CTA's, because it's all too hard. This is fine. It's their choice. But I wonder if it is necessary. It is not good when they are scud running through the hills because the low lying coastal area seems to be reservrd for Airlines.
Is this because the little aeroplanes are flown by "imperialist running dog revisionists?"


Where there is no low level track for vfr aircraft, the airspace system must be very user friendly, to avoid wrecks in the hills.

Is it true that the airlines and the military need so much airspace because they are not very good at navigating? Or is our Airspace system so unweildly that we cannot handle it.

A canadian friend told me he went into Oshkosh in a 172 recently. On final he was number two to a Wright flyer, and had a mustang flollowing him.

[Sunfish]

delayed five minutes getting into YMEN a few weeks ago, but that was because about four aircraft were departing, plus Helis coming and going - busy place, good to see:ok:

[gaunty]

bushy

A canadian friend told me he went into Oshkosh in a 172 recently. On final he was number two to a Wright flyer, and had a mustang flollowing him. exactly the point. They don't get nannied, they dont get patronised by those purporting to "help" them, they apply the skills they have been taught at boot camp and practise daily in, out of and around high traffic density areas. Sadly the training of recent generations of Australian pilots back to the early eighties has been so dumbed down, few would be able to handle what you describe.

It IMHO is really simple. When you get your drivers license it assumes that you will be driving through the often difficult and high density conditions in a city. There are no restrictions placed upon him/her beyond the rules and signage. It is a brave indeed foolhardy person who ventures into Sydney City in peak hour traffic for example for the first time without a "practise" with someone who can guide them and or some serious prior preparation.

The alternative is of course to plan to go when it is not busy or if you dont need to go around it. Every city/busy traffic environment in the world has a peripherique, beltway, bypass, circle road call it what you like that allows simple avoidance of the congested area should you not need to go there.
Not only do we as road users accept the extra distance involved but we welcome it, joyously. The extra distance is more than compensated by the time saving and personal frustration. Clearly this very pragmatic solution has not driven private cars off the road it has most likely had the opposite effect.

Now if you (as in we/us anybody) are not prepared to accept that as the way it is and want your own personal path cleared for you, all the traffic lights along your route changed to green without notice, every time, at the considerable expense, frustration, inconvenience and the effort required of others then you probably need medical help.

An unrestricted pilot license training includes operations into and around CTA at least it used to. So tell me again what is so difficult about the sytem we use in air traffic management.
So we come back to our North American cousins, if there was a single word that could decsribe them North and South pragmatic is probably it. Thats the way they built their ATC system to handle their particular geomorphic and geographic land use and us being fairly close cousins bound by substantially the same rules in the ICAO family have done likewise.

Many of the thousands of small aeroplanes in Australia do not get delayed in controlled airspace, because they do not go there. does not therefore IMHO automatically invoke;
They choose to skirt around the CTA's, because it's all too hard.

Is this because the little aeroplanes are flown by "imperialist running dog revisionists?" probably.:E

It is not good when they are scud running through the hills because the low lying coastal .... with respect if you are the "wrong" side of the hills under those conditions you should stay there, no amount of ATC will solve that and if you are already coastal its not an issue.
On the other hand if you need a hand to relocate the coastal primaries around the coast of Australia to the "other side of the hills" to solve the airline coastal ownership problem you seem to believe exists for their benefit, I can introduce you to some South African entrepreneurs (code for carpetbaggers) who are dab hands at it. ;)


Simple quiz question for you. How many and which "primary" airports in Australia are NOT either coastal or in the immediate hinterland.

[Knackers]

Getting back to the question, I can confidently state that aircraft I handle are often denied clearances into Class E airspace because they are not on radar and cannot be procedurally separated with other traffic, either due to the disposition of the traffic, lack of navaids or lack of nav gear on the said aircraft. If the airspace had been left as Class G, they could climb to their planned flight level. This idea of Class E without radar coverage is a joke, restricts aircraft operations and prevents block level assignment.

These delays can be attributed solely to airspace classification.

[gaunty]

Knackers help me out here, so the amount/percentage of GAFA in Oz relative to the US is why the US NAS works well there but not so well here.
Are you saying G without say ADSB or E with. Seems to me you cant cherry pick bits of this with that and expect to get a +ve result.

Pity about low level ADSB being aborted for the time being, at one point we were the world leaders in the implementation for a system which like the Australian developed DME is/was tailor made for our peculiar and unique airspace requirements.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

...prevents block level assignment... This isn't airspace designation, its a rule! Its a rule that doesn't exist in the US in the same airspace either....because they are not on radar and cannot be procedurally separated... How would you separate yourself from the same traffic in G airspace, or would you rely on the 'big sky'? If you are griping about being separated in visibility nice enuf to do it yourself have you tried one of the 'flaky VFR procedures', IFR pickup, or VFR climb?

I hope I'm not picking on you Knackers, I just imagine S_T was after stories about being locked out of C airspace and complaints about the more flexible E airspace surprise me.

[Dick Smith]

Knackers, it is so sad. You obviously don’t know how Class E airspace is supposed to work. Class E airspace in the USA works identically to Class G airspace when VMC exists, and identically to Class A airspace when IMC exists.

You may have noticed that in Australia, people at CASA and people at Airservices who resist change have prevented Class E airspace from being used properly. In the USA, if an aircraft is about to be held or diverted in VMC in Class E, one or the other pilot simply reverts to VFR. This then gives a traffic information service between the aircraft, and this of course is identical to it being Class G.

What you are saying is that to solve the problem in Australia we should convert the airspace back to Class G – i.e. not have the advantages of Class A and full separation when IMC exists! Wouldn’t it be a better idea to train pilots and air traffic controllers so that when in VMC, one or the other IFR aircraft simply reverts to VFR, takes a traffic information service and is not held or delayed.

I believe the problem exists because in Australia before Class E airspace was introduced we only had controlled and uncontrolled airspace. There are some pilots and air traffic controllers who simply can’t believe that the most successful airspace in the world can change depending on the weather conditions and the professionalism of the pilots and air traffic controllers.

Most of the time, Class E airspace in the USA operates as if it is Class G. This is because most of the time in the USA, VMC exists. One pilot will simply use the advantage of cancelling IFR or climbing VFR, receive a traffic information service and not be delayed. One day in the next three or four decades this will happen here and Class E airspace will be operating correctly.

For a bit more on this see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/14chapter13.pdf)

[Icarus2001]

Dick thanks for the link but I am concerned that the most prominent feature on that page is a picture of a TCAS display, clearly this features prominently in your view of how to keep aircraft apart in E airspace!:ok:

Class E airspace in the USA works identically to Class G airspace when VMC exists, and identically to Class A airspace when IMC exists.
So you mean weather dependent airspace rules. What if the non radar E is F180 to F245 with solid cloud at F225 up to F250. Which rules apply then? Do the aircraft below the cloud operate VFR and those above IFR?

Do you really think a 737 on RPT operations should downgrade to VFR category if it is fine weather? Do you think that they can?

I operate every day through non radar E airspace and I do not like it one bit. In radar coverage okay but no radar E is like russian roulette.

[mjbow2]

Knackers

If the airspace had been left as Class G, they could climb to their planned flight level. This idea of Class E without radar coverage is a joke, restricts aircraft operations and prevents block level assignment.

Your argument just does not hold water. You do not need a clearance to operate VFR in class E. I take it then that you would object to Class C without radar too, which we have here is Oz?

Perhaps you actually do like NAS, its just that you dont understand it.


Icarus2001

You are trying desperately to complicate the issues here. Its a pity the picture on Dick's page distracted you from the real issue. The benefit of class E.

Imagine that you're flying from your favorite holiday spot in Cairns back home to Groote Eylandt. At some point you are going to descent out of class A into class G. On this particular day its lousy weather down to IFR minimums. Currently you get to battle it out with Air North and Royal Tropicana Airlines for positioning and separation while descending to Groote all between yourselves on the centre frequency then later on CTAF.

Meanwhile ****su-Tonka whos working that sector in Brissy is sitting staring at his screen tapping his fingers on the desk sucking down the last drop of mocca, waiting to give a clearance to Air Top end out of Milingradswalla and clearance to Jungle Airways to descend out of controlled area into Jabagrida, all while you lot sort yourselves out at Groote. No worries, its a little cumbersome with the chatter but you all get there with not too many dramas.

Once all 4 aircraft have left class A airspace (3 for Groote, 1 for Jabagrida) ****su is done with you.

If the airways into Groote and Jabagrida were class E, ****su would be controlling all of you procedurally until you cancelled IFR on the ground.

Now with E airways there is no extra chatter on the radios and you get positive controller separation all the way to the runway. Doesn’t that sound nice you think to yourself.

The following weekend the weather is all that the top end can promise in the dry season. No instrument approaches now! You fly your trip home at the same time as last weekend and the same two airlines are arriving at a similar time. ****su clears Air North for a visual approach first because she's flying a fancy jet and got there first. Royal Tropicana is doing line training with a QF cadet so asks for the full GPS approach.

Uh oh you think... we're under full contol in class E so this is Tropicana’s approach is gonna slow me down because (as it turns out) you have the same ETA. You get on the phone and ask ****su if it will slow you down and he says ' Yes absolutely airman, I cannot clear you into the same airport until Royal Tropicana has cancelled IFR. 'Doh' you think to yourself. Then you remember what Dick Smith says about class E... hey its just like G if the weathers good.

Great you think to yourself. You key the mic and in your best airman’s voice say 'Brissy centre, Private Air MJB, request cancel IFR'. 'Done'! says ****su and off you go direct to a left downwind at Groote and get in well ahead of our young cadet... who’s having a little trouble getting configured by the FAF.

Full separating in IMC... flexible in VMC. Less chatter and stepping on one another on centre freq and not a hint of repeating the Bathurst incident. Everyone’s happy.

MJB

[tobzalp]

Knackers
.
Now with E airways there is no extra chatter on the radios and you get positive controller separation all the way to the runway. MJB

No extra chatter?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

All well and good - but you are going to need a lot more ****su's to do all that stuff.

If it is really neccessary in someones opinion do it - controllers won't mind (they are not really resistant to change despite what you get told - in the last 10 years they have been in a state of constant change).

Ok - so now.... who is going to pay for it?

Also, E won't be on a separate frequency (unless someone wants to fund that too [pleeeease]) - the chatter from down below in VMC land will still be there.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Knackers, it is so sad. You obviously don’t know how Class E airspace is supposed to work. Class E airspace in the USA works identically to Class G airspace when VMC exists .. non-surveillance Class E airspace in the USA works identically with ICAO F when VMC exists and ONE or more IFR crews declare VFR!
.
…. Which in effect removes the separation service from conflicting IFR, who then has no option but to look out for the cowboy/girl rocketing in see and hope to avoid!! .. moreover, the other IFR has less time to become aware of the relevant traffic as they would have been separated right up until the VFR dirty dive/climb … traffic information is useless unless it is given early and crews can absorb and determine best segregation! … and the ol’ chestnut of ATC keeping an ‘eye’ … that’s nice and fuzzy if ATC/FS have surveillance to watch for airprox! …. no third party surveillance for ‘directed’ traffic information, vectors or terrain avoidance (TMA), no trained eyes on the ground to apply APP/Visual Separation .. result is procedural 1 in 1 out in anything other than SKYCLEAR ….. that is better/safer/ more efficient how? … and identically to Class A airspace when IMC exists. .. no because without surveillance and clearance requirements, VFR could be lurking around/below/above scattered … with or without their TXPDR on!! … couldn’t they!You may have noticed that in Australia, people at CASA and people at Airservices who resist change have prevented Class E airspace from being used properly. … no, we operate ICAO class E In the USA, if an aircraft is about to be held or diverted in VMC in Class E, one or the other pilot simply reverts to VFR. … ah .. so it is dependent on IFR pilots giving up a separation service! This then gives a traffic information service between the aircraft … at the last minute, and when the traffic (formally going to be separated) are within a proximity that properly requires that traffic information much earlier as in ICAO F or OZ GWhat you are saying is that to solve the problem in Australia we should convert the airspace back to Class G – i.e. not have the advantages of Class A and full separation when IMC exists! F, D and C would work quite well where Surveillance exists outside Primary TMA’s! Wouldn’t it be a better idea to train pilots and air traffic controllers so that when in VMC, one or the other IFR aircraft simply reverts to VFR, takes a traffic information service and is not held or delayed.… why should that be necessary for IFR to have to do that?
I believe the problem exists because in Australia before Class E airspace was introduced we only had controlled and uncontrolled airspace. There are some pilots and air traffic controllers who simply can’t believe that the most successful airspace in the world can change depending on the weather conditions and the professionalism of the pilots and air traffic controllers. … so us Aussie antipodeans are resistant to change?? … no, we are all changed up! …. The reg’s, rules and liabilities are one issue, the other is the net cost and safety benefit! …. And as we know, to be accurate and effective, each volume requires an analysis!Most of the time, Class E airspace in the USA operates as if it is Class G. .. ICAO F ... and lets not mention comparative surveillance availability! This is because most of the time in the USA, VMC exists. .. SKYCLEAR or OVERCAST AT 300’ eh … what about the partial VMC, layered VMC? ... one mans/womans version of VMC vice another’s???? One pilot will simply use the advantage of cancelling IFR or climbing VFR, … and wait for it .. receive a traffic information service and not be delayed...and so One day in the next three or four decades this will happen here and Class E airspace will be operating correctly. and it will be all yours! :ok:
.
mjBowKnackersIf the airspace had been left as Class G, they could climb to their planned flight level. This idea of Class E without radar coverage is a joke, restricts aircraft operations and prevents block level assignment.
Your argument just does not hold water. …. said the watering can :E You do not need a clearance to operate VFR in class E. I take it then that you would object to Class C without radar too, below Sector MSA I do .. and lets not forget that VFR in C outside radar coverage are ‘known’ for traffic information/separation purposes …. Not in E!!! … your argument is flawed!Perhaps you actually do like NAS, its just that you dont understand it. .. or perhaps he/she doesn’t like AusNAS because he/she does understand it!Meanwhile ****su-Tonka whos working that sector in Brissy is sitting staring at his screen tapping his fingers on the desk sucking down the last drop of mocca, waiting to give a clearance to Air Top end out of Milingradswalla and clearance to Jungle Airways to descend out of controlled area into Jabagrida, all while you lot sort yourselves out at Groote. No worries, its a little cumbersome with the chatter but you all get there with not too many dramas. … pissa .. shame there would be far fewer players in your drama if they were paying for surveillance and remote approach control/controllers …. None the less, if that is what industry wants and it stands up to establishment criteria …. Go your hardest!Once all 4 aircraft have left class A airspace (3 for Groote, 1 for Jabagrida) ****su is done with you. .. I dare say ****s is providing services to others (probably hundreds of miles away) …. And is unable to provide you with approach as well!If the airways into Groote and Jabagrida were class E, ****su would be controlling all of you procedurally until you cancelled IFR on the ground. … and how does ****s separate two IFR descending into or climbing out of a remote aerodrome? … HmmmmNow with E airways there is no extra chatter on the radios and you get positive controller separation all the way to the runway. Doesn’t that sound nice you think to yourself. … yup, and you and the other bloke would be howling about the cost of such extravagance in a few years time!The following weekend the weather is all that the top end can promise in the dry season. No instrument approaches now! You fly your trip home at the same time as last weekend and the same two airlines are arriving at a similar time. ****su clears Air North for a visual approach first because she's flying a fancy jet and got there first. Royal Tropicana is doing line training with a QF cadet so asks for the full GPS approach.
.
Uh oh you think... we're under full contol in class E so this is Tropicana’s approach is gonna slow me down because (as it turns out) you have the same ETA. You get on the phone and ask ****su if it will slow you down and he says ' Yes absolutely airman, I cannot clear you into the same airport until Royal Tropicana has cancelled IFR. 'Doh' you think to yourself. Then you remember what Dick Smith says about class E... hey its just like G if the weathers good.
.
Great you think to yourself. You key the mic and in your best airman’s voice say 'Brissy centre, Private Air MJB, request cancel IFR'. 'Done'! says ****su and off you go direct to a left downwind at Groote and get in well ahead of our young cadet... who’s having a little trouble getting configured by the FAF. .. meanwhile soaring over the ranch is Huey in his VFR PA28 having a local jolly around the nice puffy clouds … you don’t know about him do ya, nor where the other IFR is (perhaps in real lateral proximity, 1,000ft below climbing, or perhaps 1,000ft above and descending .... should make for some exciting terminal area op's …… E is better how exactly??Full separating in IMC..... and unnecessary delays as a result with unknown VFR lurking flexible in VMC. see and avoid in any form of VMC Less chatter and stepping on one another on centre freq and not a hint of repeating the Bathurst incident. .. care to explain? Everyone’s happy. … night mary loo! :E

[Knackers]

I know exactly how E should work and I know exactly how it isn't working. I completely aree with you, Dick, that aircraft should be able to climb or descend VFR when they can in order to avoid delays. For several months this worked perfectly in the airspace I control outside of radar coverage. I'd deny a clearance, the pilot would ask for details of the restricting traffic, make a judgement, then climb VFR. Then that option was taken away from the pilots.

I was simply pointing out the delays. I don't have any say in the rules. I just apply them - "remain clear of Class E airspace, expect clearance upon radar identification". Said aircraft stooges along at FL180 for 15 minutes when a quick chat to the restricting traffic would have permitted further climb. Ten minutes prior to the time of passing separation is safe but it chews up a lot of airspace.

[mjbow2]

****su, you’re right about that chatter down below.
So lets get rid of the unnecessary VFR chatter on centre frequency.

There is no reason why VFR traffic in G airspace, when they’re no where near an airport cannot simply monitor (or not, its up to them) the centre frequency and employ the see and avoid concept with other VFR, just like they do in the US. As you know, I have experience with both these systems. When I came back from the US I could not believe how much airtime was wasted by VFR aircraft reporting position on centre frequency to an area of several hundred thousand square miles. I would suggest that our VFR pilots are not that bad at see and avoid as to rely on a CTAF of that size. I would suggest however that they are so used to the old way of getting on the radio any time they can, I am sure this gives them some false sense of security.

Scurvy

You do a good job of trying to spit hairs and divert attention from the truth. Can I suggest that you try to offer one, just one suggestion of how we could implement the NAS.

You say

VMC exists and ONE or more IFR crews declare VFR!
.
…. Which in effect removes the separation service from conflicting IFR


No. you are conveniently creating one situation and falsely calling it another. If the IFR aircraft cancels IFR, they are now VFR and separation in E is up to them. In this situation there is absolutely NO removal of IFR/IFR separation. Your scenario does not exist.

Can I suggest that maybe you might ask say myself or Chris Higgins or God forbid Dick Smith about how efficiently it actually works. I can tell you categorically that in 7 years of flying into uncontrolled airports in the US using class E non radar airways (prevalent around the Rocky’s where I’ve done a lot of flying) I have had to hold twice. Both times were in Telluride Colorado where there is one way in and the same way out due to the very high mountains. Both times the weather was marginal, which is to say it was not quite good enough to go in VFR. You are trying to create a situation that does not exist in actuality.

Imagine if we were trying to go the other way. Could you imagine the uproar if we had class E airways IFR/IFR separation then tried to do away with it? Pilots and controllers alike would be giving us every possible scenario they could think of were safety was reduced.


no because without surveillance and clearance requirements, VFR could be lurking around/below/above scattered … with or without their TXPDR on!! … couldn’t they!
A furphy if I ever saw one. This is a situation that exists now. So don’t blame NAS.

OK. So knackers is flying back home to beautiful Groote. First off, he will leave class A airspace and outside of radar coverage and when he finally breaks out from the clouds at say 8000ft, he is still subject to that same VFR ‘lurking’ below the clouds. That’s one reason we have VFR cloud clearance requirements.



no, we operate ICAO class E
… ah .. so it is dependent on IFR pilots giving up a separation service!
… at the last minute, and when the traffic (formally going to be separated) are within a proximity that properly requires that traffic information much earlier as in ICAO F or OZ G

Another red herring. IF a pilot decides to depart or arrive VFR it is no different than what IFR traffic does now from an uncontrolled airport. You try to make it sound as though on the rare occasion that a pilot would utilizes VFR for these purposes the safety level drops to an unacceptable level. We have this supposed unacceptable level now in VMC class G.

You try to make it sound as though the IFR traffic will suddenly pop into the windshield of the IFR that just cancelled. What rubbish. Supposedly you as the controller were applying appropriate separation standards before one of them cancelled IFR. Also, the one being delayed would already know about the other IFR because it is the very reason for the delay.


Wouldn’t it be a better idea to train pilots and air traffic controllers so that when in VMC, one or the other IFR aircraft simply reverts to VFR, takes a traffic information service and is not held or delayed.

… why should that be necessary for IFR to have to do that?


It is not NECESSAY, it is an option. Once again, you are tying to pin something on NAS that exists already. If having 2 or more IFR flights battle it out without separation services in VMC G (we have that now) then there in no problem by giving those same aircraft the option to have full separation services when the weather is bad by making the airways class E. I am sure you would agree with this!

Work with us here Scurvy.

so us Aussie antipodeans are resistant to change?? … no, we are all changed up! …. The reg’s, rules and liabilities are one issue, the other is the net cost and safety benefit! …. And as we know, to be accurate and effective, each volume requires an analysis!

I suggest you read your own posts Scurvy and see just how resistant to these changes you personally are. As for the analysis. Its been done. The US has applied statistical models and have applied the airspace classifications according to risk. It works!

... and lets not mention comparative surveillance availability!

Furhpy. Its been done to death. Class E DOES NOT REQUIRE radar. There are approximately 250 class D airports in the US with non radar E above them. How about this Scurvy. Instead of us trying to implement E all over the place to start off with, how about say, turning Alice Spring into D with E above until that flash new radar arrives. I am guessing we will have enough time between now and when that thing arrives to give it a real good trial. Just one spot…not everywhere, just there and see how it goes. And lets make the airways between say Tennant Creek and Port Augusta class E while we’re at it. ONLY until the radar arrives at Alice, then we can go back to that huge block of C radar that we seem to love to much down here and splash all over the joint like it costs nothing.

One day in the next three or four decades this will happen here and Class E airspace will be operating correctly.

How about since we are going to get these improvements anyway in about 30- 40 years, lets speed it up and make it 12-24 months. Everybody is happy. That way, you can get off your computer screen and back to the radar screen and we can enjoy the separation services and the freedom not to get services (just like we get now in G without a choice) when we deem them not necessary.

below Sector MSA I do .. and lets not forget that VFR in C outside radar coverage are ‘known’ for traffic information/separation purposes …. Not in E!!! … your argument is flawed!

Not flawed at all. Under NAS there would be no such thing as non radar Class C.


pissa .. shame there would be far fewer players in your drama if they were paying for surveillance and remote approach control/controllers

That’s a policy issue at the federal level. Its been clear for 10 years that this government has abandon any kind of real support for aviation as an essential part of infrastructure. They wont fund our industry and the cost recovery program, especially with the next round of fee hikes is what is killing aviation here. They need to fund what is needed including NAS.

As for remote approach controllers, I think you are mincing words a bit there. Centre controllers would be responsible for sequencing aircraft in and out (procedurally where required) and if that means reducing the sector sizes and adding a handful more controllers, then so be it. But again, that is a political decision on funding for essential infrastructure.


and how does ****s separate two IFR descending into or climbing out of a remote aerodrome? … Hmmmm

The same way you do when you sequence someone into Alice Springs in non radar C. Again, a furphy trying to pin a ‘flaw’ on NAS when we have the same issues right now.

I dare say ****s is providing services to others (probably hundreds of miles away) …. And is unable to provide you with approach as

Furphy. Surely you’re not telling me Australian controllers don’t know how to procedurally separate?

He will do it the same as when he clears someone to ‘leave control area descending’. It will go something like this. ‘Royal Tropicana, descend and maintain 2500ft until established, cleared direct Novemba Alpha NDB and cleared approach, report canceling IFR. And for the following aircraft… ‘Air North, hold on R180 25DME, 5000ft, expect further clearance at 22:00’ When Tropicana cancels Air North gets the same clearance. Its not that hard! Again, If we look at how we can make this work instead of just throwing up ill conceived objections. If this requires sectors a little bit smaller, then so be it. With the other changes like no VFR chatter on centre frequency it will make the controllers tasks a little less daunting than you imagine. Its not impossible, they do it elsewhere.


Less chatter and stepping on one another on centre freq and not a hint of repeating the Bathurst incident.

Sorry, Orange incident. Less chatter by stopping this inane practice of VFR aircraft broadcasting their position to Cathay Pacific at FL350, Jungle Airways 400nm away and centre who don’t care anyway.


MJ

[Shitsu_Tonka]

The re-broadcast is more a result of the combining of the frequencies due airspace (controller) consolidation.

In some instances this is CASA and ICAO non-compliant I am told (In TMA environment, e.g. CG, CS)

Heres an idea... (not a new one)... unless in a CTAF area, everywhere at or below 5000' use 126.7 (which a lot do anyway) when OCTA/G non-radar.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

What's on second :ugh:
Didn't we talk about this before?

[peuce]

That’s a policy issue at the federal level. Its been clear for 10 years that this government has abandon any kind of real support for aviation as an essential part of infrastructure. They wont fund our industry and the cost recovery program, especially with the next round of fee hikes is what is killing aviation here. They need to fund what is needed including NAS.



Well, that's alright then. I won't worry about the extra costs I'm up for in your scenarios .. because you've told the Government to step up to the mark.

The realities are:


To provide an approach service into any aerodrome requires an Approach Rating ... that's the Law
Not all (very few) Enroute Controllers have Approach Ratings
An Approach rating costs time and money
Expanded control services (whether E,C,D or A) require more Controllers and more facilities
More Controllers requires more money

The point being ... you can have any service you want, as long as you(the Aviation Industry) are willing to pay for it.

[gaunty]

But this whole new fandangle was going to save the Government/Industry $70,000,000 wasn't it ?

Oh that's right but we've alrweady been down that rabbit hole.:ugh:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. a thread regarding GA delays (or lack there of) turns into a debate over replacing remote G with E?? :suspect: .. Bazaar ... http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/114.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1087.gif
Scurvy
.
You do a good job of trying to spit hairs and divert attention from the truth. .. could you point to an example? :hmm: Can I suggest that you try to offer one, just one suggestion of how we could implement the NAS. Airspace Architecture and associated - an alternative view http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229828&referrerid=81193
.
.. amongst others!You say
VMC exists and ONE or more IFR crews declare VFR!
.
…. Which in effect removes the separation service from conflicting IFR
No. you are conveniently creating one situation and falsely calling it another. .. you call me a liar based on .. If the IFR aircraft cancels IFR, they are now VFR and separation in E is up to them. In this situation there is absolutely NO removal of IFR/IFR separation. … your premise is patently wrong!
.
.. Two IFR’s in conflict, being separated (in VMC or partial IMC) are then not ‘separated’ if one declares VFR …… the other IFR aircraft (who knows there is an aircraft in such proximity to warrant a separation standard) that is now reducing proximity VFR and more than likely not in sight! ... has their ‘separation' service been removed without their co-approval? Your scenario does not exist. .. I am sure you wish it so!Can I suggest that maybe you might ask say myself or Chris Higgins or God forbid Dick Smith about how efficiently it actually works. … for years …… FOR YEARS!!! I can tell you categorically that in 7 years of flying into uncontrolled airports in the US using class E non radar airways (prevalent around the Rocky’s where I’ve done a lot of flying) I have had to hold twice. Both times were in Telluride Colorado where there is one way in and the same way out due to the very high mountains. … whether there is one way in or out is irrelevant .. unless any and all conflicts have no more than 1 IFR in any pair, in E a separation 'standard' MUST exist . that is why ther would be delays here or in the US … Both times the weather was marginal, which is to say it was not quite good enough to go in VFR. … I rest my case! You are trying to create a situation that does not exist in actuality. …. No, this is Airspace 101 .. not IRAQI WMD!Imagine if we were trying to go the other way. Could you imagine the uproar if we had class E airways IFR/IFR separation then tried to do away with it? Pilots and controllers alike would be giving us every possible scenario they could think of were safety was reduced. … good god .. that sounds familiar! .. C to E???
no because without surveillance and clearance requirements, VFR could be lurking around/below/above scattered … with or without their TXPDR on!! … couldn’t they!
A furphy if I ever saw one. This is a situation that exists now. … egggzackery …. it articulates the very point that ‘Remote, Partial, IFR separation services in E or flight services (T.I) F or Oz G (centre DTI to IFR) …. VFR and some IFR disappear in supposed VMC and ALL VFR are unknown …. So what is the point of E?? … So don’t blame NAS. … whose NAS?OK. So knackers is flying back home to beautiful Groote. First off, he will leave class A airspace and outside of radar coverage and when he finally breaks out from the clouds at say 8000ft, he is still subject to that same VFR ‘lurking’ below the clouds. .. yep .. Knackers has still got to see Huey in that screaming C210 climbing directly at him with the sun in his eyes … Hope Knackers has a nose borrowed from a Lancaster .... how bout this scenario then:-
.
So knackers is flying back home to beautiful Groote. First off, he will leave class A airspace and outside of radar coverage and when he finally breaks out from the first layer of clouds at say 8000ft he is on top of scattered CU with a base of 2500AGL Knackers is still subject to that same VFR ‘lurking’ below/around the clouds. That’s one reason we have VFR cloud clearance requirements. …. Oh thank goodness for that … that make see and avoid a piece of piss particularly as Knackers has no idea that Huey is about to swap paint with him! ….. the NTSB has all the records of such events in US E ish’ airspace and there outcomes …
no, we operate ICAO class E
… ah .. so it is dependent on IFR pilots giving up a separation service!
… at the last minute, and when the traffic (formally going to be separated) are within a proximity that properly requires that traffic information much earlier as in ICAO F or OZ G
Another red herring. IF a pilot decides to depart or arrive VFR it is no different than what IFR traffic does now from an uncontrolled airport. You try to make it sound as though on the rare occasion that a pilot would utilizes VFR for these purposes the safety level drops to an unacceptable level. We have this supposed unacceptable level now in VMC class G. … and again, so why do you want E??You try to make it sound as though the IFR traffic will suddenly pop into the windshield of the IFR that just cancelled. What rubbish. Supposedly you as the controller were applying appropriate separation standards before one of them cancelled IFR. .. which laterally speaking could be very close if the navigational availability is only NDB etc, no ATS ‘surveillance’ to verify actual position for reduction from Procedural Separation standards to no separation other than pilot arranged from short notice traffic information …. It is possible/probable (given IFR are generally on ERC tracks) that the separation in place might be 1000ft with no lateral displacement .. how long does it take the average IFR commuter to descent/climb 1000ft ….. ?? Also, the one being delayed would already know about the other IFR because it is the very reason for the delay. … not in CTA! (i.e.E) as the controller will be issuing clearances that provide separation without the burden of also issuing traffic information .. if short notice traffic information is required because Huey (with his shiny new IFR rating) has decided to declare VFR and climb/descend through another IFR in partial VMC …. How much time do think Knackers has got??
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to train pilots and air traffic controllers so that when in VMC, one or the other IFR aircraft simply reverts to VFR, takes a traffic information service and is not held or delayed.

… why should that be necessary for IFR to have to do that?
It is not NECESSAY, it is an option. Once again, you are tying to pin something on NAS that exists already. … not in Oz G!... at the moment, IFR pilots are given TI early and therefore the time to collate and assess how to deal with other IFR traffic in G … E is no different except a delay in IMC between arrivals and departures as ATS will have effectively ‘timed approaches’ and ‘timed departures’ with landing reports etc on which to base procedural separation!
In Oz G (ICAO F) the pilots have the ability to safely depart and arrive on segregated flight paths based on accurate Directed Traffic Information from ATS and pilot to pilot assessment …… I ask again, why would you want to replace that at sparsely used remote airports?? ….. where is the mountains of data on IMC IFR/IFR airprox’s in G?? If having 2 or more IFR flights battle it out without separation services in VMC G (we have that now) then there in no problem by giving those same aircraft the option to have full separation services when the weather is bad by making the airways class E. I am sure you would agree with this! …. Between A045 and A105, in any event above the Sector MSA, with ATS surveillance, and outside the climb and descent areas of higher classification of airspaces … Yes!Work with us here Scurvy.so us Aussie antipodeans are resistant to change?? … no, we are all changed up! …. The reg’s, rules and liabilities are one issue, the other is the net cost and safety benefit! …. And as we know, to be accurate and effective, each volume requires an analysis!
I suggest you read your own posts Scurvy and see just how resistant to these changes you personally are. … resistant to change .. you must be joking … resistant to costly allocation of resources for little tangible cost and safety gain! As for the analysis. Its been done. The US has applied statistical models and have applied the airspace classifications according to risk. It works! … again .. egggzackery …. Geographic volumes of airspaces need proper analysis to determine the appropriate classification of airspace … and I think you will find that without ATS surveillance and supporting rules, regs and protections for ATS operators (to vector IFR around unknown and unpredictable VFR) there is little tangible safety GAIN for IFR and VFR at remote regional airports from changing Oz G to procedural E?
... and lets not mention comparative surveillance availability!
Furhpy. Its been done to death. Class E DOES NOT REQUIRE radar. … require .. NO … we talking about practical safety outcomes .. surveillance is the only way VFR can be made known to IFR! There are approximately 250 class D airports in the US with non radar E above them. … so what! … if it was F or G with surveillance, would the result be substancially different from E and the safety occurrence stats with the NTSB??? How about this Scurvy. Instead of us trying to implement E all over the place to start off with, how about say, turning Alice Spring into D with E above until that flash new radar arrives. I am guessing we will have enough time between now and when that thing arrives to give it a real good trial. Just one spot…not everywhere, just there and see how it goes. …. are you taking the piss?? …. How bout this mj ….
.
It was E over Alice (and all other D’s) during the 2B debacle …. Do you remember the results?! ….. you would go to the ATSB site for that sorry tale!And lets make the airways between say Tennant Creek and Port Augusta class E while we’re at it. …. ‘Let’s just make this .. and that … you sound suspiciously like .. well .. let’s not go there :ugh:
… thank goodness determining airspace services will be subject to an A.S.! ONLY until the radar arrives at Alice, then we can go back to that huge block of C radar that we seem to love to much down here and splash all over the joint like it costs nothing. .. and who do you suppose decree that radar is required in C?? …. Blame him/them, not us! …. DS Said:

One day in the next three or four decades this will happen here and Class E airspace will be operating correctly.
How about since we are going to get these improvements anyway in about 30- 40 years, lets speed it up and make it 12-24 months. .. might have happened if ADS-B had been subsidised! Everybody is happy. .. cannot see too many other with the same view .. what 3 posters?! That way, you can get off your computer screen and back to the radar screen ... I will do as I wish with my off duty time! and we can enjoy the separation services and the freedom not to get services (just like we get now in G without a choice) when we deem them not necessary. ... like a washing machine without water or soap .... a useless waste of energy! and anyway .. who is we … ?
below Sector MSA I do .. and lets not forget that VFR in C outside radar coverage are ‘known’ for traffic information/separation purposes …. Not in E!!! … your argument is flawed!
Not flawed at all. Under NAS there would be no such thing as non radar Class C. … well that is daft excluding a level of full CTA service C in favour of dodgem city E
pissa .. shame there would be far fewer players in your drama if they were paying for surveillance and remote approach control/controllers
That’s a policy issue at the federal level. Its been clear for 10 years that this government has abandon any kind of real support for aviation as an essential part of infrastructure. They wont fund our industry and the cost recovery program, especially with the next round of fee hikes is what is killing aviation here. .. meanwhile you advocate More E and C radar??? They need to fund what is needed including NAS. …. Wake up Mary Loo .. your are having a dream!As for remote approach controllers, I think you are mincing words a bit there. Centre controllers would be responsible for sequencing aircraft in and out (procedurally where required) and if that means reducing the sector sizes and adding a handful more controllers, then so be it. … and handful more controllers … how many approach units and sector resizing/working and training bods do you reckon??? .. say 5 staff per remote E terminal (you would have to have staff to roster for the additional positions open during core hours) …. How many remote terminals are you counting on??? But again, that is a political decision on funding for essential infrastructure. …. Do not muddy infrastructure spending with providing an ongoing service!
and how does ****s separate two IFR descending into or climbing out of a remote aerodrome? … Hmmmm
The same way you do when you sequence someone into Alice Springs in non radar C. Again, a furphy trying to pin a ‘flaw’ on NAS when we have the same issues right now. …. Again .. you are wrong …. ****s cannot provide Visual separation, runway separation, maximising terminal airspace use by visual weather assessment, procedural approach and departures separate from wide area enroute and F/S G services … mate …. Read the posts that people take the time to provide to explain the technical on these subjects ….
I dare say ****s is providing services to others (probably hundreds of miles away) …. And is unable to provide you with approach as
Furphy. Surely you’re not telling me Australian controllers don’t know how to procedurally separate? …. No read the sentence ….. ****s (as most ATC’s) know how to procedurally separate .. enroute procedural standards are in the main different from Approach .. irrespective, trained and rated controllers provide them all the time ….. NOT TOGETHER at the same time…. ATC 101 mj …. !
.
… this quote is instructive!He will do it the same as when he clears someone to ‘leave control area descending’. It will go something like this. ‘Royal Tropicana, descend and maintain 2500ft until established, cleared direct Novemba Alpha NDB and cleared approach, report canceling IFR. And for the following aircraft… ‘Air North, hold on R180 25DME, 5000ft, expect further clearance at 22:00’ When Tropicana cancels Air North gets the same clearance. Its not that hard! Again, If we look at how we can make this work instead of just throwing up ill conceived objections. If this requires sectors a little bit smaller, then so be it. With the other changes like no VFR chatter on centre frequency it will make the controllers tasks a little less daunting than you imagine. Its not impossible, they do it elsewhere. .. ill conceived objections :rolleyes: .. :hmm:
Less chatter and stepping on one another on centre freq and not a hint of repeating the Bathurst incident.
Sorry, Orange incident. Less chatter by stopping this inane practice of VFR aircraft broadcasting their position to Cathay Pacific at FL350, Jungle Airways 400nm away and centre who don’t care anyway. …. There you go … full circle … Flight Service OCTA (effectively the same as procedural E without the IFR delays in the terminal area)and separate from CTA High sectors ……
.
… and it only cost us half a Billion (give or take) to get here!http://techhelpers.net/e4u/drink/trink35.gif
.
Imagine how many ADS-B ground stations and aircraft boxes that would have bought …. You (and the rest of us) could have been enjoying the freedoms and efficiencies now!
.
… Merry Christmas mj http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/party/fest24.gif

[Dick Smith]

****su_Tonka, you state:

Heres an idea... (not a new one)... unless in a CTAF area, everywhere at or below 5000' use 126.7 (which a lot do anyway) when OCTA/G non-radar. I find it extraordinary that you appear to be obsessed with “radio arranged” separation when flying enroute. Can I ask what you would use radio for when enroute away from a CTAF area? Giving announcements every three or four minutes so other VFR aircraft can hear you? Or is it to call up when you see another aircraft – i.e: “Aircraft at Barrenjoey, I can see you, I will remain clear.” I’ve heard that one a lot and it is completely useless, but I suppose it makes the pilot feel important.

At the present time, even in our radio obsessed environment, there is not even a radio requirement below 5,000 feet for VFR aircraft away from CTAFs which have radio requirements. Why then would you want everyone using 126.7? Even the Airservices collision risk modelling shows that the only real chance of a collision in Class G airspace is not when enroute, but in the approach, departure or circuit area of a CTAF.

From the sound of it you want VFR aircraft on 126.7 below 5,000 feet – either making announcements or replying to announcements. It is amazing that no other country in the world has such a system.

If you look at the midair collision rate from leading aviation countries, the number of midairs which take place below 5,000 feet and away from aerodromes is miniscule. It is normally only when someone is following a topographical feature like a coastline or a beach. I’m not sure how radio calls would work in that situation – obviously you would need to call every two or three minutes to make it worthwhile, and if every aircraft within VHF range below 5,000 feet was giving radio position reports when below 5,000 feet, the whole system would become so blocked up with calls it would stop working.

Food for thought.

Peuce, you seem to be objecting to what is common practice in the USA. My suggestion is that you talk to a few US controllers. They don’t seem to have a problem in using commonsense for IFR aircraft in Class G airspace. They don’t consider they are “breaking the law.”

A few years back I said on this forum that many US controllers do not know if an aircraft is in Class E or Class G airspace. I was howled down, but it is in fact the truth. I suggest you have a look at a US chart of aircraft going into Lake Havasu airport in Arizona. You will find that in certain directions the IFR aircraft goes through a section of Class G airspace. I discussed this with the Centre controller who didn’t even know that this was so. He or she simply separated IFR traffic on the frequency where practicable.

Controllers in the US and other countries are not obsessed about whether an IFR aircraft is in controlled or outside controlled airspace like Australia. The culture has only come about in Australia because a separate union, with flight service officers, ran the uncontrolled airspace.

This has developed a “belief” that controlled and uncontrolled airspace must keep rules and procedures that were written 50 years ago. This is simply not so. We are a sovereign country – we can write any rule for aircraft in Class E or Class G airspace. We can simply notify a difference with ICAO. The USA proudly claims that it has the highest number of filed differences with ICAO – this is because there are many sensible people in the USA who realise that ICAO is pretty well controlled by third world countries who often want to over-regulate and over-prescribe to employ the maximum number of people.

[Green on, Go!]

Dick,

This post is probably five minutes of my life I'll never get back, as your track record of answering people's questions on D&G is not great. However, here goes:

Why would we (Australia) want to adopt an airspace system where the air traffic controllers routinely provide services that are not IAW the airspace classification (either more or less service)?

Without needing to get into the detail, surely this practice of controllers 'making it up as they go along' is indicative of an underlying system that is fundamentally flawed.

[Dick Smith]

Green on, Go!, the “airspace classification” is not something that is fundamental and set down by God. ICAO lists airspace classifications in alphabetical form. It also lists the services that would be provided in the airspace classifications if they complied with ICAO. As you know, there is no mandatory requirement for a country to comply - there is simply a requirement to notify a difference.

The ICAO airspace classifications which were introduced in the early 1990s basically put alphabetical letters on the existing airspace system. The ICAO panel then decided which service would be provided in that particular classification. However the service wasn’t exactly what was provided at the time in the USA – just the service that the panel agreed on.

The USA basically placed the ICAO airspace classifications onto their existing airspace system without any procedural changes (that I know of). Of course the US airspace system does not exactly comply with the ICAO classifications.

My suggestion is to talk to a US air traffic controller. As Voices of Reason pointed out, there is no major move from controllers in the USA to fundamentally change their airspace system. There is no move for a prescriptive rule to stop them from separating two IFR aircraft in Class G airspace if they so choose to do so. As I’ve never yet heard of a pilot objecting to being separated under such circumstances, I suppose it is pretty well a non-issue.

I understand that the training in Australia is to be incredibly prescriptive and comply with rules even if they are completely against commonsense and safety. Look at what happened at Benalla! The alarm system went off a number of times but the controller turned off the alarm and did not inform the pilot. Why? Because there was not a prescriptive rule that required the air traffic controller to tell a pilot if he or she was heading off course.

It would be great if controllers were told to use commonsense wherever possible and provide an additional service if it improved safety and was not likely to be objected to by the pilot. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

My suggestion is that you read again the comment by an Australian air traffic controller here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/atc_culture.php).

[peuce]

It would be great if controllers were told to use commonsense wherever possible and provide an additional service if it improved safety and was not likely to be objected to by the pilot. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.


Mr Smith,

Correct me if I am wrong ... you are saying that if an Australian IFR pilot goes to the USA to fly, there is no way that he can tell what service he will receive in Class G airspace. Sometimes he could expect to receive Traffic Information, sometimes he can expect to be Separated ... depending on how much "common sense" the Controller at the time uses.

Correct me if I am wrong ... you want Australia to adopt this system.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Dick,

So why therefore does every man and his dog clog up the Centre frequencies with just such broadcasts?

I am not talking some hypothetical - I am talking the day to day reality.

Anyway - under one of the many abandoned versions of NAS wasn't 126.7 the national CTAF anyway?

Problem seems to be, that a great majority of the itinerant flyers out there have become so confused with all the myriad changes that they no longer know what to broadcast, whether to broadcast, to whom, on what frequency(ies) or if they need an Airways clearance.

Do I have data to support that? No.

But I have been listening to the frequencies most days for the past 15 years.

----------------------

Back on topic, there appears to be no compelling anecdotal evidence presented on this thread that there is any delay to GA ops because of the airspace structure anyhow.

You must shake your head and wonder where all the millions have gone? I certainly shake my head at the fanciful suggestions of a $70M p/a saving because of it - the way things are going I can only see an increase in the ANSP costs because of NAS.

[Green on, Go!]

Dick,
Thank-you for taking the time to reply to my post.
I'll ask the question from a different perspective. From what you've said the FAA prescribes procedures known as A, yet the controllers follow procedures known as B due to the fact that they use 'common sense', it's part of their 'service oriented culture', its adds to safety, whatever. Would it not then be prudent for the FAA, in order to protect their controllers from litigation, to simply adopt/prescribe procedures B?
Let me demonstrate with a hypothetical:
A controller is responsible for a volume of airpsace which contains both E and G Classes. On this particular day he has a fairly solid amount of traffic going, but he's functioning well within his capabilities. A nasty 3-way IFR confliction evolves in a part of his G class airspace where, IAW the airspace classifiacation, he could provide directed traffic with updates or use 'common sense' and take control of the situation and start separating these aircraft using some vectors and other fancy stuff. He knows it will add to his workload and take up a not insignificant portion of his scan but hey, 'I'm using my initiative by providing a better service and adding to safety'. Meanwhile, in another part of his airspace, one or more of the following occurs:
an IFR aircraft in Class E accidently commences descent without requesting it (perhaps he thought he was in Class G) and swaps paint with the IFR aircraft 1000FT below, opposite direction. The Conflict Alert goes off, but there just wasn't time; or
another IFR aircraft in G Class airspace whom, for any number of reasons, the controller is no longer providing a service to, deviates from it's flight planned route. The controller is alerted by the route adherance monitor (RAM) but thinks, 'He's just tracking for 5 mile final like the 25 other times in a shift I see the RAM go of. Besides, I've got my butt hanging out with this other conflict going on. I need to concentrate on that'. Next thing the Minimum Safe Altitude Warning goes off and CFIT.
Years later in a Federal Penitentiary, with his wife and children destitute, the controller thinks to himself, 'If only...'.
From a personal perspective, it's not losing the job that worries me as I've got the knowledge and skills to find something else. The criminal negligance case and the ensuing civil suit from the mother of the pilot(s) really does. If you thnk I'm being a bit 'Henny Penny the sky is falling' or hiding behind my 'culture', then do some research on controllers currently in gaol around the world, even where they followed all applicable rules and regulations, let alone a violation similar to the above. The rules and duty of care are all I have.
I find it difficult to believe that a controller would retain his/her freedom let alone his/her job when flagrantly disregarding procedure in a society a litigous as that of the USA, just because he/she was using 'common sense' or adding to safety at the expense of duty of care.
What is the point of prescribing procedures when they are routinely violated? Why not make procedure A resemble Procedure B? What obligation is an IFR aircraft in Class G airspace under to comply with a control instruction, even if it is for separation? I don't mind change, however, if my 'culture' makes me not want to adopt a system that prescribes rules that aren't really meant to be followed, then perhaps my 'culture' isn't so bad. Perhaps that's what you're up against Dick. What is it the CRM guys say? Culture change is a generational thing, not an overnight thing?

[gaunty]

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ON AUSTRALIAN AIRSPACE
Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss

Sept 2006

Better Australian Airspace Management
Aviation is a global industry. This industry is vitally important to our economy and to our way of life.

As a nation, Australia manages and provides air traffic services to eleven per cent of the airspace over the Earth's surface.

Aviation relies on the safe and efficient management of airspace. A variety of airspace management systems apply across the world.

In 2002 the Australian Government instituted a process where Australian airspace management would be modelled on the National Airspace System, or NAS. In part this was to align Australia's airspace classification system with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO's) internationally recognised system. It was also aimed at modelling our airspace system on the proven US system, which has an excellent track record.

There have been important developments since the 2002 decision to adopt the NAS. These developments are a driver of this statement. Seventeen NAS Characteristics have already been implemented in Stage 1 and Stages 2a, 2b, 2c, and an additional June 2005 stage. The key changes to date have included:

improved services for VFR aircraft in Radar Class G and E airspace;

providing increased flexibility for IFR flights in Class E airspace;

in radar coverage, lowering the base of Class A airspace to 18000 feet;

more airspace designated as Class E;

air traffic control procedures in Class D airspace standardised to follow ICAO rules;

mandatory transponder carriage expanded to include all aircraft operating in Class G above 10000 ft and all controlled classes of airspace; and

new uniform operating procedures at all non-towered aerodromes.

Ongoing change will be a feature of airspace management. In 2003 ICAO released its global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept. This is ICAO's vision for an integrated, harmonised and globally interoperable Air Traffic Management system up to and beyond the year 2025. The operational concept describes how an integrated global Air Traffic Management system should operate, providing States and industry with clearer objectives for designing and implementing Air Traffic Management and supporting Communications, Navigation and Surveillance systems.

ICAO's vision acknowledges the need for a global, seamless, safe and efficient system for air navigation and identifies that Global Navigation Satellite Systems are most suitable to meet a large part of such need. It is now possible to contemplate a move from reliance upon ground based navigation and surveillance systems, some of which date back to the 1950s, to a space-based system that is capable of handling significant increases in traffic densities. At the same time, the world is gradually moving away from a system of country specific national air traffic management systems.

The issue is not whether Australia will participate in this global concept, but when and how. Of key importance will be identifying what systems will be required to ensure continued safe, secure and efficient aviation.

Related to this has been the rise of a series of new technologies. For example, while Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS B) has been in use in various parts of the world for some years now, it is only in relatively recent times that it has become a serious option for widespread use as a surveillance and traffic management tool. Future airspace reforms will need to be responsive to the introduction and refinement of such technologies and changes in air traffic management. This will necessitate changes to how we consider and implement airspace reforms.

The Australian Government has given its final response to the Banks Taskforce report Rethinking Regulation: Report of the Taskforce on Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Business. The Government has committed itself to addressing the regulatory burden across a wide range of sectors and business activities. Action in specific areas includes tougher rules for making new regulation, including rigorous cost-benefit and risk analysis of regulatory options. These are issues that apply as much to airspace and aviation as they do to taxation and health.

A further development is that the Government has been consulting closely with industry on airspace. We have received clear messages. Throughout industry there are supporters of, and those with reservations about, the NAS reforms. But regardless of their views of the NAS, industry wants to be a closer partner in the policy development process, with more genuine consultation on future reforms. Industry also wants reform proposals to be better backed by solid analysis, including cost benefit and risk analysis.

The Government is responding positively to this feedback.

A feature of most areas of public policy is that there is never an end state. There will always be room for improvement so as to ensure that policy and its implementation meet the expectations of the community and help ensure Australia's competitiveness. New challenges and opportunities will continue to arise. Reforms being announced in this statement reflect the issues mentioned above, and the Government's decision as to the best way to proceed.

Airspace Management - Moving Forward


The National Airspace System

The Government is committed to seeing the best possible airspace system implemented for Australia: an airspace system that will help Australia meet its international obligations as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization, an airspace system that will be recognised as world's best practice and, most importantly, an airspace system that will best meet this country's needs.

The implementation of the National Airspace System has been undertaken in stages over recent years, as it is neither safe nor practicable to change an airspace system overnight. Many of the major elements of the National Airpace System have now been implemented.

The National Airspace System has brought benefits to aviation in Australia, and the Government remains committed to its reform objectives, particularly greater flexibility and the allocation of air traffic management services on the basis of risk. But if we are to maximise the benefits of future stages, we will need to change how we approach its implementation.

Future stages will be implemented subject to the results of an enhanced analytical process, including cost-benefit and a single common risk management framework. This will include the use of an Australian Standard Risk Management Framework that is being formulated between relevant aviation agencies. Future reforms will also be subject to the results of closer consultation with stakeholders and take account of the impact of upcoming technological developments. The analysis will take account of developments in the airspace regimes of other jurisdictions, including within the United States and the European Union, to challenge our systems and approaches, and to help decide future changes in Australia.

The application of better analysis and consultation should reduce unproductive controversy. Better analysis and consultation on reforms may ultimately see future reforms put in place sooner than otherwise.



Institutional arrangements

The Government has decided to transfer the airspace regulatory function from Airservices Australia to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). This will address any perceived conflict of interest between Airservices Australia's service delivery functions and its role as the airspace regulator.

It has previously been announced that the function would be shifted from Airservices Australia to the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The decision to transfer the function to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was taken after careful note of industry views - especially that a dedicated new unit within the safety regulator is the best home for the airspace regulator. The decision reflects the Government's confidence in the reform program currently underway in CASA and CASA's focus on improved regulatory outcomes.

This function will become the responsibility of a distinct operational unit within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. This unit will be called the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) and will have the decision making powers for regulating civil airspace. The primary objective of the airspace regulator is to put in place decisions that ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of air traffic, cognisant of national security, the protection of the environment, and the equitable use of Australian airspace. It will:

be required to make airspace decisions in accordance with an Australian Airspace Policy Plan (the Airspace Plan) which would set the Government's policy for the longer term objectives for airspace;

determine standards for airspace classification and service provision, decide the levels of service to be provided according to a common risk management framework and regulate service delivery; and

continue to be funded through the existing system of navigation charges with a review within three years.

Until the function is transferred Airservices Australia, through its Airspace and Environmental Regulation Unit (AERU), will remain the airspace regulator. AERU will be undertaking an enhanced risk assessment process at regional airports. This process will boost safety by ensuring all risks are identified and that appropriate air traffic management services are in place.

In addition, Airservices Australia has advised me that it is introducing new technology to assist with the enhanced risk assessment and monitoring process. This new platform will integrate internal and external sources of information such as:

aircraft type and movements;

fare paying passenger numbers;

airline schedules and changes;

regular passenger transport jet and turbo prop destinations outside controlled airspace;

industry trends and intelligence; and

incident reports such as Airservices' Electronic Submitted Incident Reports and those reports submitted and available from the ATSB.

The integration of this information will improve knowledge and understanding of aviation activities across Australia. It will enable Airservices Australia to undertake more rigorous analysis of airspace operations thus providing earlier notice of possible emerging risks, which will deliver a significant improvement in anticipating and planning for immediate and future airspace needs.

Airservices will be presenting this process to industry in coming weeks.

Any significant risks that are identified as a result of this assessment and monitoring process will be addressed under the Common Risk Framework and will be dealt with by relevant portfolio agencies together with Defence.

Legislation to implement the functional shift from Airservices to CASA will be introduced into the Parliament as soon as possible. The Government's intention is that the OAR will be fully established by 1 July 2007.



The Australian Airspace Policy Plan

It is also important that Government provide clear guidance to airspace regulators of the policy frameworks under which they operate so that the broad suite of regulatory and other decisions of the regulator are consistent with the Government's policy intent.

A crucial part of the shift in the airspace regulation function to CASA will be the Airspace Plan. This Plan will be a legislative instrument and will help improve our management of airspace.

Much of the guidance in the Airspace Plan will be very straightforward, such as requirements with respect to ICAO guidelines. Other sections will describe the current classification system for Australian airspace, and will include the key minimum service level requirements for air traffic services to protect fare paying passengers.

Importantly the Plan will outline the common risk management framework for assessing risks in airspace and airspace change proposals.

A notable change is that the Government proposes to set out guidance for the new airspace regulator CASA in terms of the factors to take account of when assessing airspace classification.

Government policy is that safety has primacy and will always have primacy when assessing airspace changes.

However, the Government also believes that the regulator should take account of other factors when considering airspace changes - including the environment, national security, access and efficiency. This approach is also supported by ICAO in its Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept.

We believe that spelling this out in the Airspace Plan will enable CASA to protect safety while also providing benefits in other areas. Even in a country as large as Australia, airspace is a scarce resource with competing demands, and better use of this airspace can yield returns to the community as a whole.

The Airspace Plan will require that major changes to Australian airspace only follow assessment of the results of risk analysis, detailed examination of the potential costs and benefits, and inclusive consultation with all stakeholders to rigorously test proposed changes to Australia's airspace before they are implemented. This process will apply to the currently unimplemented NAS characteristics, requiring a more structured approach to reviewing and implementing these changes. Major proposals that are outside the NAS framework may also be considered if they pass the requisite tests.

The Airspace Plan will provide airspace users, regulators and service providers with medium and long-term guidance on how Australia's airspace will be managed. It will provide information on international and regional guidance related to strategic airspace requirements and a vision of airspace management technologies that may be deployed. This in turn will aid decision makers in both the public and private sectors in the planning of air traffic management and investment and infrastructure requirements.

An interim Airspace Plan will be issued for CASA to use from the time the function is officially transferred, i.e. upon the legislative changes coming into effect. This will be replaced within 12 months by a more comprehensive Plan that will be in effect for up to three years. We believe that the presence of an Airspace Plan, drafted in close consultation with stakeholders, will help provide an added measure of certainty for industry.

The Government is looking forward to active stakeholder involvement in the preparation of the Plan. To assist discussion of the issues, and the preparation of the Interim Plan, I am today releasing a draft discussion paper prepared by Airservices Australia on Australia's airspace architecture for the next 5-7 years. I am releasing this paper by Airservices so as to generate impetus for discussion on change for Australia's airspace as it incorporates NAS and new technologies. I am also keen to expose agency thinking to public scrutiny.

I encourage industry to provide comment on the draft paper to my Department to assist the development of Australia's Airspace Plan. My Department will be contacting industry to formalise the appropriate consultation arrangements.



Governance Arrangements for Agencies

In 2003 the Government abolished the Board of CASA to make it more directly accountable to the Minister for its performance. CASA's governance arrangements have since been reviewed against the recommended directions of the Uhrig template for administrative agencies. As a result of that review the Government has decided to further improve CASA's accountability and performance by making it subject to the Public Service Act 1999 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This legislative framework recognises that CASA is a government regulator and not a commercial business.

Airservices Australia's governance arrangements have also been assessed against the Uhrig template and there are no changes proposed to the commercial Board structure. The Government is confident that with the removal of the airspace regulatory functions, the Board and management of Airservices will be able to focus on their core business of delivering safe and efficient air navigation services.

In line with the Uhrig recommendations I will be issuing CASA and Airservices with Statements of Expectation which will provide strategic direction to both agencies as they move forward under the new arrangements.



Developments in Technology

Technological developments are also impacting on aviation operations. Of note are the ICAO recognition of Automatic Dependence Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) as a preferred surveillance technology, development of Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) for landing procedures and technology standards which will facilitate improved data sharing for Australia's Aeronautical Information Service (AIS).

It is natural that any airspace management changes take account of current and prospective technological developments. The key technology elements of this package, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) for sole use navigation, have been the subject of consultation with the aviation industry for some time through the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group (ASTRA)1 and the CASA discussion papers.

ADS-B is an air traffic surveillance technology being implemented in Australia that could contribute substantially to improved air traffic control surveillance coverage and separation at a lower cost than radar. Airlines support ADS B as one of the main surveillance tools of the future: Boeing and Airbus already routinely fit ADS B to their aircraft. Many of the newer aircraft engaged in Regular Public Transport operations (both international and domestic) are fitted with ADS-B as standard equipment. Around 25% of the Australian jet airliner fleet is already equipped.

Airservices, with the agreement of the airlines, has started the roll out of ADS-B services in our upper airspace to provide better tracking and less restrictive air traffic control separation standards for aircraft in range of the system that have compatible avionics installed.

With the promise of higher accuracy, lower cost and greater surveillance capability and efficiency, this new air traffic management system may allow aircraft to fly more efficient tracks. By being able to fit more traffic in the same amount of airspace, aircraft operators will also be able to reduce costs and minimise delays whilst freeing up airspace and increasing capacity.

The Australian application of ADS-B is consistent with ICAO standards and recommended practices. Full implementation of these new technologies (ADS-B and the use of GNSS as the sole means of navigation) may provide the potential to replace some secondary surveillance radar by cheaper, more effective ADS-B ground stations, and also allows for the gradual reduction in the number of ground based navigation aids. This in turn could lead to savings and efficiencies being passed on to the aviation industry without reducing safety levels. Also, increased fitment of ADS B "in" equipment has the potential to greatly enhance collision avoidance capability generally and more specifically in areas currently outside radar coverage.

There is strong international interest in ADS-B, with the US having announced that it will move to full adoption by around 2014. Australia is also having a close look at moving beyond the upper airspace program for ADS-B. The Australian Government supports the work being done to extend ADS-B as a civilian surveillance and separation tool for Australia's lower level airspace. However, this does not mean that the Government will take ADS-B, or any other new technology, at face value. We will make sure that new technologies are safe and add value by improving efficiency, our surveillance and separation capability, and our airspace.

Our decision about when and how to move to a wider use of ADS-B will be informed by a careful analysis of risk and a clear understanding of the benefits and costs for all sectors of the industry.

Implementation will also need support from the aviation industry, as the new technologies will not only require new approaches to air traffic services and flying operations, but will also mean new equipment in aircraft.

The world is changing and the Government is ensuring that Australia is in a position to take advantage of the benefits that new technologies offer. We are keen to do so in a way that is inclusive of stakeholders and allows them to understand and embrace these changes.

1) ASTRA, the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group, is Australia's whole of industry Air Traffic Management (ATM) planning body. ASTRA includes Airlines, Airports, Regional Aviation, Pilots, GA and various government organisations.

ENDS

Well at least they got that last bit right.

[mjbow2]

Peuce.

Its really quite simple. First of all, IFR flights are extremely rarely out of controlled airspace.

there is no way that he can tell what service he will receive in Class G airspace. Sometimes he could expect to receive Traffic Information, sometimes he can expect to be Separated ... depending on how much "common sense" the Controller at the time uses

Actually Peuce there is a way to tell. There are no services in G and that is what an Aussie pilot should expect in G in the USA! I am sure you can grasp that.

Now, as Dick said, on the very rare occasion that an IFR flight, say climbs out of G airspace (where radar exist) a controller might do the courtesy of providing some sort of service if he/she deems it helpful.

You try and make it sound like a flaw in the entire US airspace system because a controller extends a little professional courtesy.

I thought for a while there you were telling us about the increased costs of having NAS because you had to foot the bill. If they were making you pay for it then OK shelve it if you want… but since it appears its us, the airspace users paying for it then…

... you can have any service you want, as long as you(the Aviation Industry) are willing to pay for it

Thanks. Ill take NAS please!

Controllers that argue the cost of NAS show their true intent to resist NAS by any means as they don’t have a vested interest financially. Others in AsA may have other interests.

Scurvy
.
You do a good job of trying to spit hairs and divert attention from the truth
could you point to an example?

I gave you an entire post of examples. You may want to read it again as it appears you missed them.


If the IFR aircraft cancels IFR, they are now VFR and separation in E is up to them. In this situation there is absolutely NO removal of IFR/IFR separation
your premise is patently wrong!
... Two IFR’s in conflict, being separated (in VMC or partial IMC) are then not ‘separated’ if one declares VFR …… the other IFR aircraft (who knows there is an aircraft in such proximity to warrant a separation standard) that is now reducing proximity VFR and more than likely not in sight! ... has their ‘separation' service been removed without their co-approval?

Scurvy, please! (I am seriously laughing right now) Do you expect anyone to take this seriously? First of all proximity of aircraft do not dictate separation standards. Second, there is no ‘conflict’ as both aircraft were being separated. And third, read your own response, IFR/ VFR= no separation requirement. Surely you don’t want CASA to rewrite the rules to say ‘no one can cancel IFR in class E because you will remove separation services from other IFR’s?’ And finally, I know you haven’t thought this one through mate so I will spell it out for you.

You are assuming that my operations manual would have anything so ridiculous as to require that I have a separation service provided! The minute that I take off in Avalon I will have violated such a ridiculous rule because I am not being separated from the VFR 210 on downwind. Show me a single operations manual that states I need approval NOT to have separation services.

This is the kind of knee jerk, knit picking rubbish that has convinced me that you controllers will oppose NAS with any trash you can dig up, regardless of how incredible.


Can I suggest that maybe you might ask say myself or Chris Higgins or God forbid Dick Smith about how efficiently it actually works.

for years …… FOR YEARS!!!

Goodness Scurvy, you even quoted my example of how efficient it really is. (Since you missed it, I’ll spell it out) In 7 years, 3 at an airline 1 in a business jet, 3 in GA, the class E airways system has delayed me a total of about 10 minutes at uncontrolled airports. As you know we dont have the same density traffic so I think we are pretty safe from too many delays from this system.


good god .. that sounds familiar! .. C to E???

Misallocated C, spread all over the place where E should be (I don’t hear too many controllers complaining of the cost of this funnily enough). And then to replace terminal E without radar with C. I would love to hear on this thread from some of those VFR pilots at Alice Springs that have been delayed with a clearance like ‘Cessna 1 remain west of the Suart highway, at or below 5500ft and north of the range, traffic is 146 and 737 inbound’.

clouds at say 8000ft he is on top of scattered CU with a base of 2500AGL Knackers is still subject to that same VFR ‘lurking’ below/around the clouds.

… and other ramblings ad nausea, does not remove the fact that this is not unique to NAS, so try not to get beyond it and focus on the real issues here. Which I am glad you finally get to.

and again, so why do you want E??


To have the added level of safety of IFR/IFR separation when IMC exists and when VMC, the choice to participate in separation services.



and who do you suppose decree that radar is required in C?? …. Blame him/them, not us!

Sorry Scurvy, maybe my attempt at nuance was a little too subtle. It was meant as a jab at the current debacle going on in Canberra with the supply delays of the radar. And by the way, NAS would have that airspace as E over D and not the currently misallocated C. If there wasn’t the intervention in government policy by AsA with their ridiculous safety claim we would never have C without radar and it would only be used around busy airports as per the original NAS plan. Not the Joke that exists now thanks to a vocal minority.

Do not muddy infrastructure spending with providing an ongoing service!

Are traffic lights part of the road infrastructure? They provide a service too. Again, I refer to my earlier point, since you controllers aren’t the ones paying for it and we (the pilots) are the ones using it I can only disregard any view you might have on the costs of providing ATC. I will take you seriously on your concern for the cost of NAS when you are the ones paying for it. Right now its us, the users and as such I intend to voice my preference.

Then you go on and on with a spiel about why a centre controllers cant possibly provide procedural sequencing into and out of uncontrolled airfields. It sounds like a good opportunity to send some controllers to the US to learn how its done. Change whatever voluminous rules I’m sure AsA has tucked away in their library and provide training for the new and improved airspace architecture.

****su


Dick,

So why therefore does every man and his dog clog up the Centre frequencies with just such broadcasts?

I am not talking some hypothetical - I am talking the day to day reality.

They do it probably because they saw their instructor do it, who picked it up from their instructor. You get the picture. Its true that they do it and as a pilot who has frequently been blocked from making a request to a controller by aircraft both IFR and VFR talking to each other often for no benefit, I would not object to hearing a controller quietly telling them

‘Frequency change approved’ <tongue in cheek>

Those pilots that have flown VFR in the states will appreciate that call from approach when they are just too busy to continue VFR flight following in E…. :)

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Why on earth is ATC going to 'sequence in to an uncontrolled airport'?

There seems to be some misunderstandings of what ATC are there for - Airservices are going to get a lot bigger if some of the suggestions being made here ever come in to play!

[peuce]

I thought for a while there you were telling us about the increased costs of having NAS because you had to foot the bill. If they were making you pay for it then OK shelve it if you want… but since it appears its us, the airspace users paying for it then…
Thanks. Ill take NAS please!
Controllers that argue the cost of NAS show their true intent to resist NAS by any means as they don’t have a vested interest financially. Others in AsA may have other interests.
Me thinks you assume too much:= Wrong on both counts ... I'm not a Controller (but I do my research) and I am an airspace user/payer.
Then you go on and on with a spiel about why a centre controllers cant possibly provide procedural sequencing into and out of uncontrolled airfields. It sounds like a good opportunity to send some controllers to the US to learn how its done. Change whatever voluminous rules I’m sure AsA has tucked away in their library and provide training for the new and improved airspace architecture.

Then you go on and on with a spiel about why a Dash8 pilot cant possibly fly a B737. ... Change whatever voluminous rules I’m sure Banana Airlines has tucked away in their library and provide training for the new and improved multi-skilled pilot environment.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Mjbow

Mate - you are just making a goose of yourself with some of the twaddle you post. Get your facts straight.

Stuff like:

IFR flights are extremely rarely out of controlled airspace.
There are no services in G

make me wonder if you actually have a grasp of the current Airspace?

[CaptainMidnight]

Thanks. Ill take NAS please!You're very much in the minority. What is the position of your industry association?

And I agree with S-T - from some of your statements, your understanding of the current architecture and procedures is surprising.

[mjbow2]

I can see how Australians in this industry are so conditioned to the prescriptive.

S T and CaptainMidnight, go back and read the post again. I am NOT talking about Australian airspace, I am talking about US airspace. In particular I am talking about seperation services in response to Peuces questions of how it works in THE US!

And if you really want to get into it, any FIS services available in G in the US is in practice obtained from a Flight Service Station on a discrete frequency and not from Centre.

Slow down and actually read the posts!