It's Back!! NAS 3B coming to some airspace near you!

[putytat]

NAS is Back!
The very strong rumour is that NAS is back in full force post Jul07. And this time the change proponents will have a stronger mandate than ever before and better advice:yuk: .

Expect the good old favourites such as E base Fl145, Class E corridors to lead the show, followed closely by E over D towers that will shrink to match the 'tried and proven' US model fo 5NM radius.

Expect the workshops to start shortly after Jul07 due to the fact that the first implementation date will be mid 2008.

Sources state that the pending federal election (and strong lobbying by interested parties) is in no way connected to this revitalised reforming of Austrlaian Airspace and procedures.

[SM4 Pirate]

With all the c.r.a.p. going on at ASA; good luck getting any "new" NAS reforms going; can you say short-staffed; can you say unable to organise a root in a whore house; can you say tell 'im he's dreamin.

The ink on whole service delivery line thing is still wet; why not load up the system with more issues to deal with; you know it makes sense.

When does CASA/DoTARS take over airspace?

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

PS Puttytat, too early, tomorrow is the right date for such a post.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Go to the Minister's web site, back to Truss, and have a look at the press release for 14 September 2006, the policy is there for all to see.
Amongst other things, G is the default, risk management is the order of the day. Also have a look at the OBPR Handbook, quite interesting really.
And, believe it or not, one Richard Harold Smith didn't have much (anything) to do with that policy statement. One C.Manning Esq., was at the announcement, he didn't seem too perturbed at the policy statement and its' ramifications, although some of his Regional management pilots probably had apoplexy.
Will it be as the above posts ?? Based on the policy (and OBPR MANDATORY guidelines) there could conceivably be quite a windback of C and D, particularly C in the mid-levels. Remember this will no longer involve Airservices, the implementation of Government airspace management policy will be AERU/OAM within CASA/DOTARS. Given the quite blunt policy, don't expect ASTRA naval gazing to survive.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The independent post implementation review of NAS 2C doesn't seem to have revealed the end of civilisation as we know it.

[putytat]

SM4 Pirate, Yes the timing was off by less than 12 hours, but readers may have then thought this is a prank, which it is definitely not.

The implementation will definitely involve ASA in a large way. More E means more service when it replaces G. Low E airspace near aerodromes currently in G will require full IFR separation and therefore an increase in ATC staffing and restrictions to aircrew. There goes the cost benefit analysis!

It is usually impossible to ascertain who is behind any policy statement, maybe the Govt is getting some quality advice now that the election is approaching.

In relation to the 2C PIR, even though the civilisation is not ending, more calls are to be made mandatory(full circle already?), and there will be more education roadshows and DVDs / brochures. :ugh:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

… just wondering ... when is the latest possible date in Nov for a Fed Election?…. assuming they go then, when would ‘caretaker’ mode start …. might look into that and corresponding sitting days!
.
… and to an extent Lead you are right OAM, CASA, DoTaRS, The Minister will all be directly responsible for the outcome! … we will simply apply the rules for the category of airspace as directed!
.
.. in the meantime, the process of ‘Americanisation’ will necessarily require a very close look at the comparative safety and efficiency outcomes of such changes … including delay comparisions of Tower, App and Enroute sequencing/separation options … I guess at some point that will need some input from those that actually provide the services!
.
… hmmmmm….. by then the restructured new ‘line managers’ will be the SME’s!
.
… anyone else joining the dots here???
.
… oh well, I guess ‘duty of care’ is gunna get another workout as a last line separation/segregation standard!

[peuce]

Here is my suggestion for ASA Staff ....

You've spent years banging your collective heads against the proverbial brick wall in this forum, and elsewhere. Just as one catastrophic policy is averted, THEY create a new bushfire or turn in another direction ... needing the clear heads of ASA staffers and pilots to take up arms again... to help save THEM from themselves.

I say, let go ...

Let THEM bring in their new systems, let THEM hire more controllers, let THEM pay more overtime, let THEM buy more infrastructure, let THEM be delayed by restrictive procedures, let THEM get a fright in the windscreen, let THEM ...


I can't see it ever ending untill THEY see for themselves, the foly of their own making

[VVS Laxman]

Puece,

I see exactly what you mean; just hope and prey like hell that you are not the ATC (who didn't do X) when they eventual happens:\

Everything that went wrong (before the rollback) was some ATC's fault, in the just culture that we have (awsure), ATC didn't monitor, weren't trained right, the ATC cancelled the MSAW/STCA/RAM, the ATC didn't use the airspace as designed, the ATC should have XXX etc.

Crikey, count me out; ECS/UAS here I come.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This whole airspace issue would become academic if there was enough infrastructure to provide adequite monitoring.

[bushy]

And the airlines should pay for it, as they are the ones who "need" it.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Fair bit of hysteria here. Bring it on, sounds like a hoot. It will only mean delays in regional terminal areas (no tower) if pilots are unwilling to use the flaky VFR procedures they (more or less) currently use in G. Procedural separation standards are a bit huge though.

E airspace over Melbourne down to 4,500, bring it on!

The only problem I had with Mr. Smith was his claims that these arrangements would save money or increase safety, when it is fairly obvious the cost will be huge and involve a decrease in safety. It still may be affordable, and will probably still be safe enuf.

[putytat]

One can recall the day when the Lancair nearly cleaned up the Virgin 737 north of BN aftrer the Lancair had been given traffic several times and reported sighting the big red airframe. Even though he had it in sight he misjudged the closing speed!

All occurred in E airspace - safe enough though:ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

I believe this is the situation.

From 1 July 2007 there will be an Office of Airspace Policy (OAP) in DoTRS, and an Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) in CASA (takes over AERU role).

OAP responsibility is government policy on airspace matters. OAR responsibility will be to investigate changes to airspace architecture to ensure safety and cost benefit. OAR also has responsibility for regulatory aspects related to airspace i.e. declaration of permanent and temporary airspace.

For something like class E over class D for example, OAP will tell OAR to conduct an investigation as to where or if implementation would be appropriate. OAR conduct the investigation, seek input from affected parties including ASA and industry, and determin where or if at all implementation is appropriate, safe and has a demonstratable cost benefit, and provide a response to OAP. If the decision is made to go ahead somewhere, OAP will instruct ASA to implement it.

Theoretically after 1 July ASA's role reverts to simply being the air traffic service provider, and after the above processes are finishedthey are told what to implement and where.

[SM4 Pirate]

Theoretically after 1 July ASA's role reverts to simply being the air traffic service provider, and after the above processes are finished they are told what to implement and where. What about when?

If ASA resources are otherwise fully used; who exactly is going to manage all of this change process; whether it be ATC HAZIDs, Mapping Data, TNAs, Training development then delivery, changes to instructions etc. Please don't say OT, we're already busting from that pressure at the coal face.

What will get priority, Route reviews, airspace change, SDE, UPRs, MLAT, ADS-B, GBAS, GRAS, CDAs, Tailored arrivals, CPDLC, Abinitio training, Experienced ATC training? All the industry needs right now is for things providing benefit to be shelved while things that cost money and provide little or no benefit, for those that pay the bills, are implemented, not!

What is the rest of the world doing? NAS is now (what) 7 years old, without review/amendment? Where do the CASR PARTS fit? What about CTAFs that probably need to be "D"; and the "Ds" that may need to be CTAFs?

Is the Willoughby report which was the 'CBA basis' going to be reviewed? Seems like the CTAF PIR was relatively competent; maybe they could do more.

[putytat]

Lets face it.

During the introduction of NAS 2, ATC were basically criminal.

Can I expect they will be again?

Care to explain further? Strong claims - any evidence or facts?

It would be interesting to hear how ATC were criminal in NAS. Which NAS 2 are you referring too - 2A / 2B / 2C? Which characteristic, or is this just a general whinge based on very little?

[willadvise]

Putytat
See here (http://www.civilair.asn.au/cgi-bin/yabb2/nph-YaBB.pl?num=1081996768) for what Coral is talking about.

[SM4 Pirate]

For those that couldn't trawl through the link, this was in response to the event which you mention putytat: SMITH: What the air traffic... you're saying, sure. The air traffic controller allowed the Virgin plane to descend right into the smaller plane. By the way, both planes were on radar, both planes were talking to air traffic control. The air traffic controller allowed this to happen. It's basically criminal.
They did the same thing in Melbourne a few weeks ago where they turned a small plane, under radar control, under the Virgin plane, and then let the Virgin plane descend right on the top of it again.
Fancy just giving traffic in Class E to an IFR about a VFR; you should separate all remember; ya bunch of criminals.

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, why don’t you tell the full story? Especially the fact that I apologised to the air traffic controllers concerned the following day on the same radio station.

What is criminal is the complete lack of training given by Airservices Australia to the air traffic controllers. As we know, Class E airspace works incredibly safely in other countries (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Is_Class_E_safe.php)) however it appears that Australian air traffic controllers are not trained when one aircraft is under full air traffic control and the other is receiving flight following, to give a simple heading so one can avoid the other. It happens all the time in the USA, Europe, Canada and New Zealand. Why can’t it happen here?

[Lodown]

Another election. Another plan to keep a couple of vocal critics quiet until after the election. This is becoming monotonous.

[SM4 Pirate]

Dick, welcome back; I was simply highlighting the post above which made reference to the 'criminals'; I was not the one being sarcastic above bringing it up. I noted your apology at the time; no need to repeat it.

You say the ATCs are not trained correctly? Please tell me more... Your interpretation of what is correct and what isn't; is not covered in the airspace definition and or the ICAO documentation, the AIP or MATS. IFR get traffic on VFR in E, right?

If you really want "Class B services" regarding IFR to VFR in E then you need to call it something else; but that might be a unique non compliant system...:ugh:

I do not believe the VFR aircraft involved in this case was subject to a "RIS" (or flight following); but was called (on the marconi radio thingy) because it was getting 'bloody close'; the pilot did respond, right? Then got the whole conflict avoidance thing wrong re judgement of the closing speed.

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, you are right. The VFR aircraft involved was not subject to a RIS because at the time, rather than follow the proven US NAS procedures, Airservices had introduced a “one shot” system which was all but useless.

Notwithstanding this, thousands of IFR airline aircraft transit through Class E every day (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Is_Class_E_safe.php)). Every day, when Qantas flies into LA or JFK, it flies through Class E airspace. If there is a VFR aircraft in similar circumstances, the Qantas crew is given traffic and if the pilots do not sight the traffic within a reasonable time, the aircraft is given a vector – normally track shortening – to remain clear. No, it may not be the prescribed Australian system but it is simply the proven NAS system.

In all my research I cannot find any record of a midair collision between an airliner and another aircraft in Class E airspace in the USA.

It would be better if I had said that not only was it the training of the air traffic controllers that was deficient, but also the procedures which were in existence at the time.

[Howard Hughes]

Paging Mr Smith, just wondering if you have time to respond to my post? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3198895&postcount=48)

I wish you all the best in your new position.

Cheers, HH.:ok:

[SM4 Pirate]

Notwithstanding this, thousands of IFR airline aircraft transit through Class E every day (see here). Every day, when Qantas flies into LA or JFK, it flies through Class E airspace. If there is a VFR aircraft in similar circumstances, the Qantas crew is given traffic and if the pilots do not sight the traffic within a reasonable time, the aircraft is given a vector – normally track shortening – to remain clear. No, it may not be the prescribed Australian system but it is simply the proven NAS system. What you are actually saying is the airspace is capable of combining VFRs without clearances and jets including airliners; but to compensate the obvious safety deficiencies the air traffic controllers take the big aircraft that they are controlling away from the unknown VFR traffic (workload permitting). So who is saving money here, I can assure you that most times the track shortening to which you allude is only done when the landing sequence permits; if not a gap is actually made beacuse of the interupting VFR listening to his CDs/MP3 player.

Is this service closer to B or G?

I don't have a problem with providing the services in the manner that it is done in the USA; but please acknowledge to get this level of service you must, repeat must, adjust the workload of those controllers to be able to react correctly.

This is where it has fallen down so far, not mentioning the radar coverage issue, the additional services have been added onto the existing sectors, to keep costs in check, thus rendering the ability to react at less than an optimum level; remembering that traffic is actually required by the airspace, not avoidance vectoring.

I have written many times here on PPRUNE that C is safer than E, and requires less controllers given the same facilities. Because you can ‘plan’ what you do and as a last resort if need say no; an amended clearance with known elements is far safer than reacting to the unknown VFR in a safety critical moment. So why would we actually want less safety at higher cost?

When you next ‘evaluate and cost predict’ please do not dismiss my idea’s simply because they do not fit your ideal. E over D is safe, but it is not as safe as C over D.

How many TCAS RAs have we had in Class C VFR to IFR since we rolled back?

[triadic]

I note with interest that the:
"FINAL REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF CHARACTERISTIC 29, OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) STAGE 2C"
is published on the DoTRS web site and comments are being received until 20th April.

It is interesting to note that at last someone has made a very strong point about pilot/industry education in airspace change. For many years, perhaps 15 or so, I don't believe that we have ever seen more than 20 or 25% of the required education on airspace change. There is and has not been any commitment to an ongoing education program. You just can't do it for 3 months before the start date of the changes and think everyone has a handle on it.

If there were 100 pilots in the famous G Trial area, I would have said there were 90 different interpretations on how it should work and how one should participate in it !! No wonder it was stopped !

If we are going to do this properly, then we should increase the amount of education by at least four fold and the program must be ongoing (for ever if necessary!). CASA must bite the bullet and accept that they alone are responsible for standardisation across the industry. Just tell me who provides the standardisation to CFIs and Chief Pilots ?? Nobody!! as they do it themselves, because (incorrectly) CASA has let them go that way. No wonder it is a mess. Have we seen CASA mandate, yes, mandate attendance at briefing sessions or mandate specific airspace subject matter in AFRs and IRRs - No! Until they do it wont work.

The other point that the paper makes is that if you are going to change something it must be for an obvious valid reason/s and this needs to be communicated to the end user. The Sales pitch was never done and we all know the results, especially from the resistance to change that was there.
Finally, someone has come out and said that CULTURE must be recognised and addressed. It never was and many of us said so, but others knew better and again we know the results.


Change must be managed (it never was done as a serious project).
Change must be "sold" to the intended users
Change must be justified - both from a practical and $$ perspective
Change must address culture issues


Let's hope CASA get it right this time! (and budget for it)

:ugh: :ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

the Qantas crew is given traffic and if the pilots do not sight the traffic within a reasonable time, the aircraft is given a vector – normally track shortening – to remain clear.

You have got to be joking. In a few months we'll have a 550t aircraft with 550 fare-paying pax on board with the pilots looking out the window in an attempt to see and then avoid (IF ATC will let them off their cleared route) a light aircraft swanning around in E airspace.

That is just sheer LUNACY.

This is NOT 1950! Get rid of E airspace!

[Feather #3]

Perhaps put simply for both sides of the fence [and to use "that" word again], we in Oz chose to introduce another country's airspace system without introducing the culture involved.

In USA's 'E', ATC will separate IFR from VFR if not sighted by the IFR a/c. That's not in the words; it's the practice of the controllers who see it as their duty of care. I notice that the guys here are much more aware of traffic advice and seem quite comfortable with offering a solution if the conflict is beyond the IFR a/c.

G'day ;)

[SM4 Pirate]

Feather #3, the culture is the key; it's too late to ask for avoidance secnds before the TCAS RA happens; personally as an ATC flying an IFR jet, I'd say in response to any VFR traffic advice; request avoidance.

In radar coverage, traffic is given, if in the opinion of the ATC it is warranted; thus it should be clear to all on radar if your getting traffic info on VFR then you are going to be closer than the minimum radar standard; often much closer. Warranted isn't "just" less than the minimum radar, but means it's going to be too close to call. You may have noticed from time to time being only a mile or so away from other aircraft and not getting traffic info; this is because the controller deemed it wasn't warranted; conversely you may get traffic advice on something that is 10NM away; this means the ATC was going to be too busy to monitor you and the VFR; so gave traffic when they could.

Personally I believe that the industry shouldn't have to be separated from VFRs in E; it's the cake upside down. The most expensive (generally) equipment with fare paying passengers are given extra flight time or reduced safety, being taken off STARs etc to facilitate the VFR transit flight who generally has no requirement to be there 'unknown' but chooses to be.

Where is the rest of the world headed? What is in the ICAO docs and work programs for airspace design moving forward to accommodate all the new types of traffic, such as UAVs, not real compatible with see and avoid airspace. The USA is going to change to facilitate traffic movements, to avoid delays and they aren't concentrating on VFR facilitation (user pays), where are they going and why would we try to copy their 1950s design?

[Icarus2001]

the Qantas crew is given traffic and if the pilots do not sight the traffic within a reasonable time, the aircraft is given a vector – normally track shortening – to remain clear. you see Dick there you go again. Bloggs is spot on.
How is it normally track shortening? That is a complete fabrication. Even if it was track shortening are you aware of the issues involved in giving a heavy jet a late change to descent profile?
E airspace should only exist with radar coverage.

[Chief galah]

One only has to read this to see how simple E airspace is
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/aair/aair200304963.aspx

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

The VFR aircraft involved was not subject to a RIS because at the time, rather than follow the proven US NAS procedures, Airservices had introduced a “one shot” system which was all but useless. So you now agree that your plan of introducing the US system a little bit at a time was fundamentally flawed and dangerous?
As two of the scenarios that scared the ****e of the ATC took place within my group I will ensure these scenarios are included in any training package that is offered (if I'm still the NAS guy...) For realism the scenarios should terminate in a TCAS RA or collision if a vector is not issued to the airliner, to allow Dick's rich mate to continue his more important business unmolested.

[Lodown]

Good points Triadic. A comparitive consideration is that the education should be given time to work. With every education program that has occurred in the past 15 years, changes to regs are being made right up to the last minute. This makes it impossible to plan a comprehensive education program.
In the planning stages:
* a date gets set to implement changes. Fine.
* an education progam is factored in that works backwards from the implementation date. Fine.
* This provides a drop dead date for final changes to be incorporated. Not fine.
This last dot point mentioned is where the programs fall apart. Consultation and arguments inevitably drag on well past the date that changes should be finalised. The change merchants still have the implementation date on their minds and the education program gets squeezed, sometimes to the point that changes are still being made while pilot presentations are being conducted. In this case, pilots are better off without the education at all, rather than educating them on incorrect procedures.
Any aviation education program should be considered as an important measurement of the success of the program manager's task. In CASA, it gets bumped off to another department and the program manager washes his hands. Why? In part because the program manager is generally a specialist and education matters fall outside his or her experience.
The education needs to be considered as part of the implementation and not a house cleaning task afterwards.

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, you state:

I have written many times here on PPRUNE that C is safer than E … E over D is safe, but it is not as safe as C over D. Yes, in its simplistic form I would agree with you, but in the case of Airservices at Albury, they hand the extra Class C airspace to one controller in the tower, who is already at some times overloaded giving services in the Class D airspace below – where the collision risk is far greater.

Class C is obviously safer than Class E or Class D if it is properly staffed and there is a proper radar facility provided - otherwise the controller would have little idea where the VFR aircraft was.

If Airservices had performed the Class E over Class D study correctly, they would have looked at the extra workload on the Class D controller below, when given the extra duties in the Class C above, and also factored in the greater chance of an error being made by the controller in relation to aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. This purposely wasn’t done.

The reason the US NAS system has E over D is in relation to maximising safety with the available resources. Accidents happen close to an airport, and most often in the circuit area or on the runway. That is where the controller should be concentrating – not in putting a chinagraph pencil across a map to try to separate an IFR and VFR aircraft at 7,500 feet 20 miles from the aerodrome.

[mexicomel]

Dick - I just want you to shut up and go away. I have one of the stupid Airspace at a Glance cards you once gave to me - i kept it to remind me of how absurd your 'vision' was in Australian aviation conditions. Nothing's changed. Can't you see you are one of a very few that thinks this is a good idea - does this not tell you anything. You don't work in RPT - you have no idea - just stop your whining and complaining and go and save an Australian brand instead - you're much better at that - and I mean that sincerely.
And don't reply to this post - I don't want to hear it! Just shut up

[peuce]

From CASA's website:

The new policy setting out CASA’s overarching priorities states that the authority has been established primarily to look after the interests of the travelling public.
In addition, the policy says CASA’s resources must be allocated according to these priorities.
A risk-based approach has been taken to setting the priorities based on factors such as public concerns about their control over risks, their safety expectations and the potential for multiple fatalities.
CASA’s new priorities by industry sector are:
* Passenger transport – large aircraft
* Passenger transport – small aircraft (includes low capacity regular public transport, charter and humanitarian aerial work such as search and rescue and medical evacuations)
* Other commercial operations which carry passengers, such as joy flights
* Flying training
* Aerial work carrying passengers such as geological surveys or media operations
* Non-passenger carrying aerial work such as agricultural and freight operations
* Private transport and personal business flights
* High risk personal recreation and sports aviation flights
This hierarchy of priorities applies to the maintenance organisations, aerodromes and other infrastructure that support each sector of operations.
In other words, maintenance organisations that service high capacity regular public transport operations have a higher priority than other organisations.
The policy states that the allocation of CASA’s resources to a sector will correspond to that sector’s position on the list.
This means the overwhelming proportion of resources will go to the first five sectors, which carry passengers.

To me, it follows that, in an airspace debate, what is best for Passenger Transport must take precedence. That is, even if GA aircraft are inconvenienced because of a more onerous airspace classification in a particular area ... if it means a greater safety for Transport Aircraft, CASA must select that classification.
It would be difficult, if not ompossible, for them (being the new Airspace Regulators) to argue that they implemented Class E over the top of Sydney so that weekend warriors could have a more accessible look-see.

[CaptainMidnight]

but in the case of Airservices at Albury, they hand the extra Class C airspace to one controller in the tower, who is probably quite happy with the arrangement. But then, you seem to know more about ATC than ATCs.

I suppose they'd be even happier if their responsibility was confined to SFC-2000 and an approach-rated enroute controller looked after the rest above, but clearly the level of traffic doesn't justify that nor the expense.

not in putting a chinagraph pencil across a map Where on earth do you get this rubbish from??

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, you state:

It would be difficult, if not impossible, for them (being the new Airspace Regulators) to argue that they implemented Class E over the top of Sydney so that weekend warriors could have a more accessible look-see. I don’t think it would be anything to do with weekend warriors having a more accessible look-see, it would all be about maximising safety for airline passengers. At the present time we direct VFR aircraft to Hornsby at 2,500 feet, and airline aircraft to Hornsby at 3,000 feet, giving a 500 foot separation. (See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/16chapter15.pdf)). I have never seen anything like that in the USA – planes are kept further than that apart when they are going over specific locations.

CaptainMidnight, you have now taken the bait so how about explaining how a single controller who is in the Albury Tower, with quite a lot of circuit traffic, can handle the situation when there is a Dash 8 inbound from the south and a VFR aircraft calls up for transit across the airspace, say at 5,500 feet when about 20 miles south of the aerodrome? Does the controller work out the “separation” in his or her mind? Do they mark it on a map? Or does he or she just say, “Remain OCTA”? I look forward to your answer.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

If Airservices had performed the Class E over Class D study correctly, they would have looked at the extra workload on the Class D controller below, when given the extra duties in the Class C above, and also factored in the greater chance of an error being made by the controller in relation to aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. This purposely wasn’t done.You ignore one other factor, the lower the boundary between enroute and the tower the more the enrooter needs to be involved in the approach phase of the flight. The more enroute is involved the more coordination is required between them, which would have no less potential to distract the tower guy from his circuit traffic (if such a thing was actually occurring). This problems recede a bit with the adequate low-level surveillance you are fighting against.

In the US enroute (AFAIK) control the IFR until they are cleared for the approach, without a boundary betwixt. Why did you insert a boundary it they don't do it?

[CaptainMidnight]

CaptainMidnight, you have now taken the bait No, no bait taken. Unlike you I don’t consider myself qualified to comment in detail on the work of ATC. I leave that to the real experts – those who do/have done the job.

I was merely alluding to the fact that as TWRs at places like AY LT HB manage airspace up to 8500/FL125 the ATCs there must be happy to do so, and be satisfied that they can do so in a safe and efficient manner.

However as an outsider looking in, I offer the following – ATCs can comment on the logic.

As the ETA of the -8 is known, then following the philosophy of thinking ahead and anticipating, it would seem logical for me to in advance limit the amount of circuit traffic around the period of the -8 ETA, both to 1) make a safe hole for the -8 and 2) to ensure I wasn’t too busy to the extent of affecting my ability to safely do my job?

To avoid fancy intercom & radio footwork between the TWR, an enroute ATC and both aircraft in close proximity to an aerodrome (i.e. minutes away), it seems entirely logical to me for the TWR to manage the airspace as jFj indicates. Limiting the circuit traffic due to the -8 arrival perhaps means the TWR has the time to separate the -8 and the overflyer?

The VFR overflier may indeed get held for a few minutes until the -8 is through 4500, as like it or not the priority of flights within CTA has RPT highest.