Labor’s Class C radar policy

[Dick Smith]

One of the points included in Labor’s aviation policy before the last election was that they would remove John Anderson’s directive which required an approach radar control service for all Class C airspace which had been reclassified from Class E over D. This was as per NAS.

Martin Ferguson, who at the time was the Shadow Minister responsible for the aviation policy, told me that this policy was introduced because a number of controllers in the Class D towers did not believe that radar was necessary. They claimed that they could do the Class C airspace above the Class D without radar and without any extra cost.

Of course, people like Scurvy.D.Dog and other Class D tower controllers have made the same claim on this site. That is, that they can provide Class C above Class D, with all the extra services required of that classification (compared to Class E), without any additional costs. The claim has always been, “If we can provide a higher service (i.e. Class C) at the same cost as Class E, it is better for us to provide it!”

Could this be one of the reasons that there is such a staffing problem in these Class D towers? Imagine if you were a manager at Airservices, and your controllers in the towers claimed that they could not only control the Class D airspace, but they were also happy to change the Class E airspace above to Class C and control that as well at no extra cost. Considering that the Class C above Launceston is larger than the controlled airspace at JFK in New York, it must be quite a task.

One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great. I wonder if this is one of the reasons that we have tower controllers in Australia with medical problems. Could it be that the strain and workload is too great – having this extra airspace responsibility when there is no radar provided and no extra staffing?

More importantly, once the bosses can see that there are workers who are anxious to take extra responsibility, provide additional service and accept additional liability without any potential for extra income, they can see that these workers can be exploited.

It is food for thought.

[Capn Bloggs]

Until your hair-brained NAS came along, there was ALWAYS "C" over a tower (in fact, life was much simpler then; "controlled" or "uncontrolled"). I suggest you go chasing those naughty dollar-driven, afffordable safety AsA managers you keep harping on about if there is a problem with controllers in the non-radar towers.

[MelbPilot85]

Considering that the Class C above Launceston is larger than the controlled airspace at JFK in New York, it must be quite a task.

Thats great Dick, but the problem with that statement (and the NAS changes you fought to have implemented), is it fails to take into account that Australia and the USA have different requirements with regards to their airspace. The amount of traffic in the New York airspace you refer to, must be far greater, and therefore require more controllers.

From my point of view, it seems that you are hell bent on making the Australian system a copy of the American one. Obviously you think its a great system, it may well be. But just because it works so well over there, does it meet all our needs? Wouldn't it be better to think for ourselves and learn from other countries (not just the US), to develop a system that is better suited for us?

[Plazbot]

One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great.

Sounds to me like these Hawaiian controllers are resistant to change. Must be real bad eggs. Obviously Australian Controllers who CAN do this are far far more efficient.

[Sexual Chocolate]

Da da da da da da da!

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. your bait stinks Dick :hmm:
.
I will say this though:-
.
1. Show me one, JUST one ICAO procedural approach & tower rated US ATC?
.
2. Show me how many controllers in the US (on average) would administer the same segments of flight into a like type regional airport in OZ i.e the Tower and Approach?
.
Get some new bait cobba :suspect:

[Roger Standby]

Dick,

Not sure if you've overstepped the boundaries with your familiarity with SDD, but I find your comments offensive. How dare you assume to guess why a controller is off on sick leave.:= I'm sure that every controller will vouch these days that the stress and pressure the job of separating aircraft is now far less than that of having to deal with the cr@p that comes down from above.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Overstepped .... your dam'd right he has :mad: :mad:

[Capt Wally]

Oh boy Dick yr stepping on some toes there cobba, how's the Yanky Ford going?...........back on the rd again are we?

Our ATC staff aren't there for the fun of it anymore, they might have been once but not these days.


CW:)

[Plazbot]

Lets be fair, I reread Mr Dick's post and nowhere saw anything about sick leave and SDD. Pretty long bow gents. I believe Dick is saying that there is a staffing issue because they are trying to do more with less and if they dropped back to just the E service, they could cut roster hours and therefore free up staff. Unfortunately, getting less than 1 equals zero.

[Dick Smith]

Plazbot,you are correct. I was not referring to an individual controller.
Scurvy,A US ATC in the non radar twr is not approach rated because approach is provided from the Center or Tracon 24 hrs per day-not just during twr hrs.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Could this be one of the reasons that there is such a staffing problem in these Class D towers?
and;
One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great. I wonder if this is one of the reasons that we have tower controllers in Australia with medical problems.
.
He knows EXACTLY what is at play, because I have told him TO HIS FACE .... moreover he knows it is not airspace operations related!!
.
Who is telling you to attempt this spin ball?? your mates on the board? .. senior management? WJH?
.
Never again Dick^&%d :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Dick Smith]

Scurvy I am not referring to you as you did not give me any details of your situation nor did I ask.
Why not discuss the valid point I have brought up-that is that our class D twrs have a huge amount of airspace and hardly any staff.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.... proves my point, you know dam'd well what we discussed walking up the Brisbane street mall with your American friend ... :*
.
... and separately you know dam'd well what the issue is with D staffing ..... AND it has NOTHING to do with C or E over D, nor does shifting APP to Centre change anything, you still need the same number of D controllers, and an additional number of APP controllers in the centre (or tracon), do you want to more than double the LSP's for the industry??? :ugh:
.
Drop it DICK! :*

[fixa24]

Dick said: I wonder if this is one of the reasons that we have tower controllers in Australia with medical problems.

That's drawing a long bow, isn't it Dick?

Therefore, are you saying that the CASA DAME's are not doing their job either?

Maybe workload is the only factor in this. Maybe the tower you quote is far too bust to even be a class d tower (think Cairns or even cooly before they went to C) and so have no spare capacity to handle more aircraft, but towers like LT and HB and AY do have that capacity....

Each place is different Dick.

The US is not the World leader in all situations..

[En-Rooter]

Scurv,

Must say, I admire your patience and perseverance with this character.


Sorry Dick, way too many beers last night :(

[av8boy]

One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great.

Of course, Lihue is a contract tower operated by Airservices under contract with the FAA. I don't know how it works with the contract guys, but FAA controllers aren't really in a position to say that they "would not be prepared to change" airspace class based upon anything.

Dave

[Howard Hughes]

Could this be one of the reasons that there is such a staffing problem in these Class D towers?
Last time I checked ML and PH were not class D towers!:rolleyes:

If only you would act to improve aviation for ALL, rather than 'muck raking' and pushing what seems like your own personal agenda, you really could make a difference and garner some support!:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Fixa24 I said "one of the reasons" I agree the primary reason appears to be a lack of staff. I also agree that the US is not the world leader in all things however there are often some things that are done better in other countries that can be copied to bring benefit to our country.
Howard Hughes,if you mean by my own "personal agenda" the allocating of airspace categories on an objective basis, based on traffic densities and risk.-well yes.
Why wouldn't everyone want that?,

[peuce]

Slightly off topic, but here's an interesting read on the problems with terminal and above-terminal Class E Airspace in other parts of the world. Maybe we're 'ahead of our time' in solving the problem:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=286773

[Dick Smith]

Peuce
The thread is refering to Class E terminal airspace where there is no tower - ie where we would have class G. As post no 7 states in the UK there is a lot of class G in this situation. In Australia it's the same at places like Avalon and Proserpine.
The lesson is to be vigilent in all airspace-just look at the ATSB weekly summaries to see the number of VCA's in classC

[peuce]

The difference is that a VCA is an ACCIDENTAL unidentified VFR in controlled airspace ... whereas Class E Airspace is INTENTIONAL unidentified VFR aircraft in controlled airspace

Should we be planning to fail ?

[Roger Standby]

World's best practice - BAH!:eek::ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Roger Standby,I'm sure that there are those who would say that "worlds best practice" is class A airspace. I believe that class E is better than class G -which lots of our airline services now fly in. In the USA airline services operate in a minimum of class E airspace so its certainly an upgrade on what happens here.Class E has the advantage of a separation service for IFR and a mandatory transponder requirement fo VFR.
I believe G is a Flight Service airspace and E is an ATC airspace.

[kam16]

I believe G is a Flight Service airspace and E is an ATC airspace.


Dick

That is a righteous belief but find the staff to man the extra consoles needed for E airspace. Before you say that we will not need additional staff I have been in the FS/ATC industry for 20 plus years and we will need many additional staff.
As a side the present management believe that we are only 22 short across the country? To quote a line from a movie " tell them that they are dreaming"
AsA are in crisis mode with staffing and it is only going to get worse.
But you have been told all of this previously and chose to ignore it then so I guess I am wasting my time.....

[Dick Smith]

Kam16, I have not chosen to ignore what has been said on previous occasions re the staffing levels required.
I have always provided an adequate number of staff in the businesses I have operated-otherwise I would have got my staff offside and not been as successful.
To provide a class E service at a place like Birdsville with about one IFR movement per day is unlikely to require more staff however to upgrade to class E where jet airlines operate would.
If other countries with a similar wealth to ours, such as Canada, can provide class E services in the terminal area why can't we? Or at least try it out.
I totally agree that AA requires more ATCs

[Quokka]

... there-in lies the problem.

In past years our industry was not short of people with the aptitude and intellect to do the job... all of the jobs in Aviation that required a higher intellect and aptitude. Perhaps the only organisation outside of Defence that was testing for specific cognitive skills.

Now, many organisations are aptitude-testing for a broad range of cognitive skills as a part of recruitment processes that are more sophisticated than the recruitment processes found in Aviation... and there is a significantly smaller population of candidates to choose from... and Generation Z does not have the numbers to provide what we need... and a lot of those who do have the aptitude just aren't interested in being pilots or Air Traffic Controllers... it's not what their Generation wants in life.

Dick, the bow-wave of the Baby Boomers has passed ATC by and it may be that you have to accept that an increased service may not be possible with a diminishing intake of controllers. The required numbers may never be achieved...

[Flying Binghi]

Ah Ha... Finally, something every body agrees with - we need more ATC'ers.

[max1]

Spin doctors say we are ONLY down 22 operational and 14 instructors = 36.
Seeing we are only down that many we are trying to get 170 plus through the college in 2008/09.
Some enterprising journalist care to ask the question?
Over the next 2 years we will lose conservatively 150-200 controllers @ 30 years experience each. Bye bye to 4500-6000 years of accumulated wisdom.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick S said:
I believe that class E is better than class G -which lots of our airline services now fly in.

Rubbish! It might be called G after your alphabet soup airspace, but our class G has mandatory radio use above 5000ft, full directed traffic information for IFR, and mandatory radio use at CTAF Rs. Our sort of class G is a damn-sight more flexible as (and safe as) non-radar Class E, where you have Dick Jack-Boots flying around with not a care in the world looking at his GPS/MAP/all the new gadgets on board, listening to his Ipod hopefully with his Transponder on (not that it's actually tested).

You really are a furphy-merchant, Dick. Why not tell it like it REALLY is?

[vans]

That’s the most sanctimonious post I’ve heard for a while Bloggs. where you have Dick Jack-Boots flying around with not a care in the world looking at his GPS/MAP/all the new gadgets on board, listening to his Ipod hopefully with his Transponder on (not that it's actually tested) How would you know this to be a fact, or have you allowed your prejudices to color your judgment? Yes, I get it……..all operations except the ones you are involved in are totally unsafe and the aircraft are flown by some be-goggled clot who has no idea what he is doing – right?

For your information all VFR aircraft with a transponder are required to have both the transponder and encoder tested by a licenced engineer every two years under AD RAD 43 and AD RAD 47. Since you have no way of knowing anything about the truth or otherwise of your statement, to post it merely demonstrates your contempt for others.

[Capn Bloggs]

Vans,

My post was slightly tongue in cheek (apart from the bit about Dick not telling the whole story). I sincerely hope that most lighty pilots DO NOT fly around listening to their ipods, but I wouldn't be so sure, especially these days. When some VFR cannot even comply with the very basics of R/T, what else are they not doing right?

Transponders may well be serviceable, but are they on? I don't really care about the "serviceability" of the transponder (I assume that that is taken as a given assuming you are correct). I said "tested". That means does it work in the context of me picking it up on my TCAS. Despite numerous suggestions, transponders are never checked on the day to see if they are actually on and working properly. Almost every other piece of aircraft equipment (apart from emergency gear) is checked/used on each flight. Given that transponders are the only mitigator of an otherwise stupid airspace concept (ie VFR and IFR swanning around looking out for each other to avoid midairs) it is dumb not to have a on-the-day check when in radar E, at least. That is what I meant by "tested".

The system would look a bit dumb if a Transponder failed 1 day after the two year check and a midair resulted...

[Dick Smith]

That is, there are those who believe that whatever the Government has said or done in the past must be correct

If Governments in the past have put in a particular airspace system and procedures, then this must be correct and should not be doubted in any way.

I am naturally sceptical in relation to what the Government tells me. I like to get my own facts. There are those who have a fundamental belief which is quite different. They accept what they are told by the Government and believe that anyone who doubts the Government’s view is suspect.

What I am saying is don’t always believe what you are told. Sometimes Governments get it completely wrong and resist change in every way until change is forced upon them. I hope we don’t end up with a 737 hitting Tinderry Peak before we use the radar in the area properly.

Edited to remove reference to Hicks.

Much Ado

[peuce]

Dick,

So does that mean that the Government might have been wrong in bringing in:


Alphabet Airspace
NAS

[Much Ado]

Dick I edited your post of the Hicks references...and I deleted two infantile personal attacks from Capt_Snafu and mjbow2.

If anybody objects...I really don't care.

Stay on topic or thread gets locked.

Stop attacking the man, whomever he is, or the thread gets deleted.

[Dick Smith]

Much Ado, I support your editing totally. The problem was that the original post attacking me about Mr Hicks was left on for quite a while (perhaps you missed it) so I thought I should explain my position. I’m delighted that the whole issue has been removed because as you state, it really has no bearing on the thread.

[Much Ado]

As much as we'd like to be omnipresent...:ok:

Much Ado

[THE IRON MAIDEN]

Dick,

What was wrong with the old FSO/ATC set up?
Sure over the year’s advancements in technology is improving the way that ATC's can do their jobs.

But what was wrong with keeping FSO/ATCs as they were with the new technology to help them?

Someone mentioned "controlled" and "uncontrolled" airspace. Class E just doesn't make sense. Bugger off Class E. Give back G to the FSO's and free up these EnRoute controllers from worrying about some VFR bugger in the weeds wanting some help.

Surely these EnRoute guys have enough in their “controlled” airspace to worry about without the extra work created when YOU made redundant the FSO’s And as far as I can tell giving most of the FSO work load to the ATC guys. (At least that which was IFR anyway) why don’t VFR guys get any service these days beyond controlled airspace?

Are you aware of the Bud lite radio ad campaign “Bud Lite presents real men of genius”






Today we salute you Mr. Airspace Reform Expert Guy

When things have been set up and run by experts for over 40yrs, why not leave them be. When, if you have a lot of money and time on your hands, you can F:mad:k it up for everyone else.

(Back up singer) I’m an important man yeah!

Sure you can fly a plane, with 2 or 4 GPS units, airconditioning and a weather radar. But it takes a real man to sit there time after time and make a real DICK of himself.

(Back up signer) o he’s a massive dick yeah

Class D towers? Ha! Who needs them?
FSOs... what a waste of space.
Class E airspace reform…... now we’re cooking! So step aside let ME show you how it's done....... The American way!

(Back up singer) God Bless America.

So crack open a nice cold bud lite Mr. Airspace Reform Expert Guy. Because when it comes to the affordable safety of our flying public, the bottom dollar is in YOUR account.

[Dick Smith]

Mr Moderator, please leave the Iron Maiden post on. Yes, it may be a personal attack but at least it is funny!

Ok Biggus Dickus:E:ok:

MA

[THE IRON MAIDEN]

I appreciate that you have a sense of humor dick...

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, if you believed the Government may have got it wrong in bringing in alphabet airspace and in making a decision to bring in NAS, you would want to look at the objective facts.

One issue you could look at would be whether other modern aviation countries had brought in alphabet airspace. As all modern countries have, I would say that was pretty likely to be a good decision.

In relation to the policy on NAS, you would want to look at countries which are similar to Australia – a large continent with both radar and non-radar airspace. That is, similar to the USA and Canada.

You would want to then see if the aviation industry (both the airlines and general aviation) was doing well in those countries and what the resultant level of safety was. You would also then apply the commonsense test – i.e. is there the pressure and marketplace in those countries to evolve to an efficient and safe system?

One of the reasons I believe our procedures are so archaic is that we have so little traffic in so many places. We do have modern procedures at the GAAP airports. I recently found out that they shouldn’t be GAAP at all - they should be US Class D. In about 1987 a group of Aussie controllers went overseas to look at how they could better handle airports that had many hundreds of thousands of movements. They copied the US system at places like Van Nuys. Of course, no one was game to say that we were actually copying the US Class D system, so they called it “GAAP” and what happened is history.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Dick I learned to fly at YSBK in the early 80s but was in PNG by 87. I only use GAAP airports these days infrequently and BK only maybe twice since 1987.

Beyond no longer needing taxi clearance at GAAPs what really changed from a 'nuts and bolts' perspective?

I am going to suggest not a whole lot...unlike NAS2b as an example of the other end of the spectrum of change management.

Perhaps this example of ATC professionals heading off to the US and bringing back some good, easily implemented, ideas is the preferred model...rather than the 'all encompassing/overarching' NAS2b approach?

[peuce]

Dick,

I was being facetious ... the trouble with us individually looking at Government decisions objectively, is that we all have our own objectives

Chimbu,

Wise words ... selective implementation is the way to go ... that is, what is appropriate for our situation

[Howabout]

Personal opinion only, but I think that John Anderson was sold a pup with respect to his 'radar direction letter'. Mr Anderson seems to have swallowed the argument that:

* there's no C airspace in the US that doesn't have radar
* therefore, we can't have airspace classified as Class C without radar
* because, if we do, then it's unsafe

If someone can point me to a definitive source, as opposed to opinion, that states Class C without radar is a no-no, I'd appreciate it.

Call me a dumb-bum, but I still cannot understand a logic process that says Class C without radar, where all traffic is known, is unsafe, whereas Class E without radar, where all traffic is not known, is perfectly OK.

[Quokka]

You are correct.

Class C without RADAR is 100% safe as all traffic are known... therefore all traffic will receive either full separation, or detailed traffic. The only downside to Class C without RADAR is that the separation standards applied are Procedural not RADAR, meaning, more restrictions on IFR aircraft. This is the problem in WA outside of the coverage of the RADAR at Kalamunda.

Class E without RADAR is a large number of deaths waiting to happen... because no-one knows who's out there...

Class E without RADAR removes the ability of the controller to provide avoidance advice to IFR aircraft (especially fast, heavy jets carrying hundreds of passengers) when unidentified VFR aircraft are observed and a collision is possible.

Class E without RADAR and without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts from the unidentified aircraft removes the Call-&-Respond layer of safety... I can't see you, but I'm calling you and if you're out there, somewhere, please respond and we'll work something out.

Class E without RADAR, without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts, without mandatory carriage of Mode C transponders and even if they are carrying an operational transponder, choosing not to switch the thing on or failing to switch the thing on... is a call for carnage... :{

[Capn Bloggs]

If Governments in the past have put in a particular airspace system and procedures, then this must be correct and should not be doubted in any way.

And that is the current problem, Dick. You with your political clout have managed to convince the government of the day to implement your airspace system.

In the old days, the department of civil aviation (full of bureaucrats/pilots/ATCers not interested in politics) put good, practical,safe procedures in place without the direct influence of "experts" such as yourself. What resulted was first-class aviation system that suited our unique conditions and situation. You hated Flight Service, you hated the interference, so you used your political clout to change it.

And don't come the "you want to go back to 1990 don't you?". I don't. But equally, I don't want your endgame either. I like flying: I don't want to die in a midair over Alice just because a weekend warrior doesn't like being involved in the system, or watch the news one night when it is announced that an A380 has just clobbered a lighty that was swanning around over Rotto in E airspace with his transponder accidentally turned off.

[Dick Smith]

Quokka, your post in relation to Class C may be correct if the Class C was adequately staffed by air traffic controllers and did not take away from services in other airspace. At the present time, our procedural Class C in places like Albury is controlled by the air traffic controller already responsible for the Class D in the busy approach and circuit area.

Using that Class D controller (quite often only one person) to also provide services for an enormous cubic volume of Class C airspace is obviously an accident waiting to happen. No, not in the Class C airspace (where the risk of collision is very small) but close to the circuit area because the controller is not concentrating on that traffic.

I’ve said this again and again, however you don’t seem to grasp my point.

Imagine if Airservices put Class B airspace at Avalon, and got the Tullamarine approach controllers to be responsible. It would be obvious that whilst the airspace at Avalon might be slightly safer, the airspace at Tullamarine would have a reduction in the level of safety because the controllers were not concentrating where the collision risk is highest.

Isn’t it interesting that you will not give recognition to this “diffusion of responsibility” problem. That is it the only reason that other countries don’t have their tower controllers also responsible for huge volumes of Class C approach airspace.

It is about putting the resources and the manpower where the risk is.

I believe controllers are being short changed by being given this extra responsibility (and liability) when there is no possible extra income. After all, it obviously increases risk.

[ferris]

Your argument is totally spurious, Dick. You are not an ATC, so how could you possibly know whether a D tower 'owning' class C airspace is dangerous/ unable to be done/ a misallocation of resources or whatever? Your argument that it is "common sense" is unfounded.
If that is the case, why are enroute ATCs providing DTI? Surely the same argument applies (that their attention is being drawn away from their primary separation responsibility). Or even take it further- in the US and (many other places ) a radar controller has a co-ordinator sitting next to them in order to effect co-ordination. How come in oz we can do ATC without several people on the one position? Surely, by your argument, this must be stopped immediately?

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, this is so sad but I’ll have to say it again. That is, I did not “hate” Flight Service or the “interference” (whatever that means). The duplicated ATC/Flight Service system was very expensive and I believe if it had stayed in place, the extra hundreds of millions of dollars that the industry would have had to pay over the last 14 years would have done even more damage than has occurred so far.

I also believe that we should use radar where possible, and it seemed sensible to use licensed air traffic controllers to do this, rather than to train Flight Service officers to use radar.

The duplicated ATC/Flight Service system was good when 50% of the air traffic control costs were paid by the taxpayer. When the Labor Government in the 1980s decided after the Bosch report that the air traffic control system should not only be funded by the industry, but should also make a profit for Government, it was obvious that the fantastic Flight Service system, with its outstations as places like Longreach and Charleville, would be unaffordable.

It was a tough decision which I was responsible for at that time, however I did everything I could to make sure that the Flight Service officers who wanted to be trained as air traffic controllers could go through this training, and the ones who wanted a good redundancy package could have one.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

The duplicated ATC/Flight Service system was very expensive
It wasn't duplicated. I didn't get DTI when in Controlled Airspace and I didn't get ATC Clearances when I was in uncontrolled airspace.

it seemed sensible to use licensed air traffic controllers to do this, rather than to train Flight Service officers to use radar.
Maybe to you but not to me. FSOs were paid less. Why not give them radar to give traffic? Cheaper than ATCs doing it. Better use of financial resources I would have thought but hey, what do I know, all I do is fly aeroplanes...

Ferris hits another nail on the head...:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, I have consistently stated that I believe enroute ATCs that are responsible for separating traffic in controlled airspace should not have a DTI service on their frequency. This is because DTI requires pilots to talk aircraft to aircraft when in IMC, and this will block out the ATC when giving separation instructions. I have been consistent on this.

I do not understand why we are different to the USA (and other countries – such as South Africa) where there is a coordinator sitting beside the radar controller to affect coordination. A South African air traffic control manager visited Australia and said to me that the Australian system would be far more efficient if there were at least two people at each console – as you have mentioned.

I wouldn’t necessarily stop these things immediately, but I would certainly look at copying the best proven practices from other leading aviation countries and incorporating them with what we do best here.

[ferris]

Sorry, I'm confused...
I have consistently stated that I believe enroute ATCs that are responsible for separating traffic in controlled airspace should not have a DTI service on their frequency is preceded by
I also believe that we should use radar where possible, and it seemed sensible to use licensed air traffic controllers to do this, rather than to train Flight Service officers to use radar.

Which is it, Dick?
I'm glad to see that you think we should be doing things in the best way. I look forward to you pushing the oz methods in the US (they are looking at it changing, after all).

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, I think you can only be confused because you have never looked at other countries to see how they perform their air traffic control.

For example, in the USA or Canada, when operating IFR you are always talking to the controller who has the radar if you are within the coverage area. However, believe it or not, there is no directed traffic service and IFR and VFR aircraft are not making self-announcements on ATC frequencies.

In fact, there is no other aviation country I know of – and I’ve flown in a few – that has aircraft making self-announcements, whether IFR or VFR, on “control” frequencies.

“How does this work?” you may ask. Well, it is all about NAS. Give me a phone call on 02 9450 0600.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

In fact, there is no other aviation country I know of – and I’ve flown in a few – that has aircraft making self-announcements, whether IFR or VFR, on “control” frequencies.

So how am I supposed to manage a collision risk with a lighty that has just been given to me as traffic by the tower in REAL Class D?? It's not exactly self-announcing, just a bit worse: the two of us self-separating on the R/T. What a silly idea.

[vans]

You may as well give up on this one Dick. If these people haven’t “Got it” by now, they’re never going to!

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, what you do is to look in the direction of the traffic that has been given, sight the traffic and avoid it. It is called “alerted see and avoid.” Try flying into Bankstown or Moorabbin and attempting to start a dialogue with the traffic you have been given by the tower – I think you’d be told very quickly how traffic information at a modern airport operates.

Ferris, my comments in relation to Class D towers and handing huge volumes of Class C airspace to the lone controller have come from asking questions. I’ve spoken to many controllers – both in Australia and overseas – about this particular issue.

Controlled airspace may have worked at these locations before 1991 because VFR aircraft had full flight plans in the system. In fact they operated at quadrantal levels identical to IFR, and when you were given traffic information you were not even told if the aircraft was IFR or VFR – it was irrelevant. This meant that if a VFR aircraft was overflying a non-radar tower, the ATC not only had the radio call for the clearance, but also a flight strip which confirmed the location, track etc of the VFR aircraft.

Nowadays it is completely different. Whereas IFR aircraft have a flight plan and the back up of a flight strip for safety, this does not normally happen with VFR. If a VFR aircraft calls for a clearance and says that he is 25 miles to the north east of Alice Springs, but actually is to the south east, there is no way of the controller knowing. This is why you need the back up of an approach radar if you are going to actually separate VFR aircraft from IFR without a flight plan in the system – otherwise it really is a sham.

Controllers in Class D towers have told me that there have been times since 1991 when they have been “separating” a VFR aircraft from an IFR aircraft in the C airspace above only to find that the VFR aircraft was in a completely different location to that stated.

I do not understand why Australian controllers would not want to follow world’s best practice. That is, if they are going to be given the responsibility of separating IFR and VFR in Class C, they need the correct tools to do this – i.e. an approach radar.

[ferris]

Dick, I am confused because you make two posts in the very same thread, one claiming that it was your idea to have Flight Service done by ATC as they have the radars, and another that says you have always opposed ATC doing Flight Service.
No response from you regarding that.
Moreover, you claim I don't know much about what happens in other countries. As I am currently licensed in my third international position, I put it to you that it is in fact YOU who does not understand the ramifications of what you espouse, as you haven't held an ATC or airspace design qualification in ANY country- oz or otherwise.
By all means, please continue to tell people who actually do the job, with international experience (or without), how it should be done, because you have flown thru an airspace somewhere. Your opinions will be given suitable credence. I once read a National Geograhic mag in a Dick Smith shop. Have I got some ideas for you!!

Is that PLAIN ENOUGH for you (and the vans-type sycophants)?

[Outer Marker]

Quokka,

Class C with or without radar is 100% (almost) safe. ADS-B should solve your problems in C in the not too distant future.

Class E without RADAR is a large number of deaths waiting to happen... because no-one knows who's out there... This is just emotive excreta tauri, with absolutely no imperical evidence to back it up!

Class E without RADAR removes the ability of the controller to provide avoidance advice to IFR aircraft (especially fast, heavy jets carrying hundreds of passengers) when unidentified VFR aircraft are observed and a collision is possible. Again you have not proved your case - the US has had what is now called class E airspace from 1200 AGL (and now a lot of 700 AGL) over most of the continental USA except for the mountinous spine running down the the country in the west, since 1945. Their first major national radar system was first fired up in the mid 60's, but low level radar coverage (below 10,000) only existed around the major airports. For the rest the enroute centre controllers provided a procedural arrivals and departure service through class E (Below 18,000) into and out of class D CTRs and to 1200 AGL to airports sitting under the class E. This situation continued into the 80's and still exists in many areas below 5000'. In 1975 for instance Los Angeles Centre was handling around 1.8 million IFR movements a year, many of thos movements GA IFR operating in class E below 10,000'.

Class E without RADAR and without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts from the unidentified aircraft removes the Call-&-Respond layer of safety... I can't see you, but I'm calling you and if you're out there, somewhere, please respond and we'll work something out.Once more an assumption not a fact. Except around their Class B terminal areas the FAA has not mandated transponders for VFR and certainly does nor require mandatory radio calls from VFR in class E.

Class E without RADAR, without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts, without mandatory carriage of Mode C transponders and even if they are carrying an operational transponder, choosing not to switch the thing on or failing to switch the thing on... is a call for carnage... Please identify all of the carnage that has occured in the US because of the class E airspace.

The Australian problem is our class C culture and both pilots and ATC's either can't or don't want to get their heads around a system that has been proven with far higher traffic levels than Australia will ever see, both with and without radar, and to the best of my knowledge neither the ATC's or the airline pilots are or ever have asked for a change.

NB

[OZBUSDRIVER]

that has aircraft making self-announcements, whether IFR or VFR, on “control” frequencies.
???????

Dick, could you please indicate the requirment for self-announcement for VFR aircraft? I must have missed that one in AIP.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, I don’t want Flight Service being done by ATC. I want ATC separating IFR aircraft in Class E, or giving traffic information in Class G when on radar as per ICAO. I don’t see why air traffic controllers should be giving some type of 1930s procedure that was brought in before air traffic control existed.

[Roger Standby]

I quite often see vfr cruising through my "E" airspace and never hear a peep.:*

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver, I can assure you that it is in the AIP. Australia is the only country in the world that has a mandatory radio requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E. Furthermore, it is mandatory to monitor the Class E control frequency – that is why all the Class E frequency boundaries are on the charts. If the VFR aircraft hears an IFR aircraft in the vicinity, the VFR aircraft must make an announcement.

There is nothing like this anywhere in the world. It was brought in by the ‘die hards’ with the roll back of NAS 2b – obviously so that air traffic controllers will then have a liability towards VFR aircraft in Class E and can be sued by the families.

Try flying around Sydney on a weekend. The Sydney Radar frequency is coupled with control frequencies, and VFR aircraft make constant self-announcements at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. Fortunately this is reducing, but I wonder how the approach and departure controllers can cope with this.

[Dick Smith]

Roger Standby, you state:

I quite often see vfr cruising through my "E" airspace and never hear a peep. Could this be because you, or IFR pilots flying through your airspace, are not giving full position reports? Many seem to have forgotten that there is a unique rule in Australia that even when radar identified in Class E or G airspace, IFR aircraft must give full position reports.

Why would this be so? It is so the pilots of VFR aircraft (who are monitoring the frequency by mandatory regulation) can answer – just as in the old “full position” Flight Service days. It is a complete crock – trying to keep a 1930s procedure in the 21st century.

As I have mentioned numerous times before, I’m amazed that the air traffic controllers would allow this. Having a mandatory requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor ATC frequencies means that in a radar environment the air traffic controller has a duty of care to the VFR aircraft – i.e. the controller must call the aircraft if it is getting close to another aircraft and give traffic information.

In other countries of which I know, there is simply no way that the VFR pilot can work out which is the correct ATC frequency to be on as the sector boundaries are not shown on the charts. The pilot would have to call a nearby Flightwatch or ATC outlet to find the correct frequency and the controller would have to agree to provide the VFR aircraft with a Flight Following service.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Australia is the only country in the world that has a mandatory radio requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E. Furthermore, it is mandatory to monitor the Class E control frequency – that is why all the Class E frequency boundaries are on the charts. If the VFR aircraft hears an IFR aircraft in the vicinity, the VFR aircraft must make an announcement

I would have thought that, if I was about to run into an A380 in E commonsense/airmanship/life preservation mode would dictate that I make a broadcast, especially when I couldn't see him! That is exactly why some of us say Class E is stupid and from a bygone era of slow old DC-3/4/6 and Cessna pistons. Drag yourself out of the thirties and into the 21st century please.

Many seem to have forgotten that there is a unique rule in Australia that even when radar identified in Class E or G airspace, IFR aircraft must give full position reports.

I haven't forgotten; IFR aircraft are NOT required to give position reports when identified.

I wonder how the approach and departure controllers can cope with this.

Stop the tail wagging the dog. Manning levels by AsA should not dictate how the airspace system should be set up. Or, maybe somebody has determined that the workload is OK, therefore saving the industry money. Affordable Safety...

[Outer Marker]

So does yours Scurvy! There is/was an American ATC in Brisbane who came to us after 1981. He was the ATC FDP expert on the TAAATS project. This guy worked a regional tower in the US with a mix of RPT/GA movements in excess of say Adelaides with half the staff and no tower radar.

Also what you don't seem to realise or accept is the fact that in the US low level radar coverage, below 10,000, only became common in the 80's, and that the FAA still do not guarantee enroute coverage below 5,000'. So obviously there were/are many significant regional airports in the US that didn't have low level radar coverage and with the responsible enroute centre doing to arrivals and departures into a class D tower. And I can assure you that those towers handled a lot more than your average of 52 movements/day. In fact in the US Launceston would probably not. qualify for a manned tower.

NB

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

I’m amazed that the air traffic controllers would allow this. Having a mandatory requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor ATC frequencies means that in a radar environment the air traffic controller has a duty of care to the VFR aircraft – i.e. the controller must call the aircraft if it is getting close to another aircraft and give traffic information.

I'm amazed that you think the concept of a person on a radar advising one or two aircraft that they may be getting close to running into each other is amazing.

If the VFR aircraft hears an IFR aircraft in the vicinity, the VFR aircraft must make an announcement.

Wrong again. Back to the books for you, sonny. :=

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, I understand you are a regional airline pilot, yet when I said that aircraft flying IFR which are radar identified in Class E and G airspace must give full position reports, you said:

I haven't forgotten; IFR aircraft are NOT required to give position reports when identified. This is an amazing statement. What has happened to your training? How could a VFR aircraft complying with the mandatory radio and monitoring requirements in Class E possibly know where you were to make an announcement?

For example, in radar covered airspace, on changing frequency if you simply say to the controller, “Echo Yankee Hotel, 9,000”, how could a VFR pilot possibly know where you are?

Or what about this one? “Melbourne Centre, Echo Yankee Hotel, request traffic for descent.” Once again, how could a VFR aircraft know where you were to answer as he or she is supposed to do?

Capn Bloggs, you have shown me how this whole system has got into such a total mess. I understood you were one of the vocal people who insisted that VFR aircraft monitor and announce in Class E airspace. I understood you were one of the people who insisted the frequency boundaries be put back on the charts so they would be monitoring the correct ATC frequency so they could answer (or announce to) the IFR aircraft.

If this is so, and you are not giving full position reports when under radar control in E and G, you are simply not complying with the AIP, and the whole system that you are relying on (i.e. traffic announcements from VFR) cannot possibly work.

You may be interested in a quote from a letter I received on this matter from the CEO of Airservices on 25 July 2007. This letter was sent because regional airlines and other IFR pilots did not appear to be giving the required full position reports when radar identified in E and G airspace.

The AIP is explicit in that all IFR aircraft are required to give full position reports in all classes of airspace, except when ‘identified’ in class A, C and D airspace, and that before entering Class G airspace, IFR aircraft must also contact the ATS unit providing services in that area. The scenarios you provided in your letters indicate that the appropriate reporting is not occurring and this information will be passed onto CASA for the appropriate follow up action. It sounds to me as if CASA will have to follow up the training system in a particular Western Australian regional airline – would you agree?

By the way, this is the AIP reference:

10.2 Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace. I look forward to your advice on this one.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, it is getting worse. I stated in my post that VFR aircraft must make an announcement if they hear an IFR aircraft in the vicinity. You stated:

Wrong again. Back to the books for you, sonny. I am amazed that you are a regional airline pilot and for some reason your training has been so deficient that you clearly do not understand (or have forgotten) how the wound back system works. This is a direct quote from the latest Airservices publication entitled “Quick Reference Guide, November 25 National Airspace System changes”. It states clearly:

Class E operations - Frequency Management
AIP now states that pilots of VFR flights operating in Class E airspace should monitor the Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict with another aircraft … If a pilot determines that the aircraft is in potential conflict with another aircraft, the pilot should acknowledge by transmitting own call-sign and as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions. Capn Bloggs, are you suggesting that this Airservices publication is inaccurate?

[TrenShadow]

10.2 Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace.

Dick, as an ATC the way I read this clause (and indeed the way I have been trained), the "Except when identified" bit applies to the entire sentence. That is, any IFR flight that has been identified (radar or adsb) is not required to give position reports.

In the class E+G airspace that I am responsible for I get maybe 1 aircraft every week or two give me a position report in E/G airspace when identified. I always let them broadcast that report if they wish, to enhance the situational awareness of everyone who might be listening, but I certainly don't go chasing them all for reports at every position; my frequencies are quite congested enough as they are thank you very much.

[rack 'n stack]

Tren - you are correct.

The comma separating the excluder "Except when identified" pertains to the whole paragraph. So if you are IFR operating in ALL classes of airspace AND you are identified you do NOT make position reports.

[Capn Bloggs]

Thank you Tren and Rack.

Dick,

10.2 Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace.

I suggest that if you are confused by this text, you have it amended. And if the CEO of Airservices thinks that we should be doing position reports in E when Radar identified, then I suggest that that would be grounds to scrap the whole silly idea of E airspace and revert to C, where everybody knows where everybody is and is separated. None of this silly "looking out the window" as the primary means of separation. I wonder if A380 pilots have VFR TCAS targets displayed on their HUDs?

VFR flights operating in Class E airspace should monitor the Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict with another aircraft … If a pilot determines that the aircraft is in potential conflict with another aircraft, the pilot should acknowledge by transmitting own call-sign and as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions

Note CONFLICT (AIP words) is not VICINITY (your words).

For what it's worth, I think E airspace sucks, always has and always will. GET RID OF IT and get out of the dark ages. And I do apologise: I am not particularly experienced in E operations: we got rid of it (well, most of it) some time ago. :E

Next?

[Dick Smith]

TrenShadow, if the way you read the AIP is correct, what is the use of mandating the monitoring by all VFR aircraft of ATC frequencies when flying in Class E radar covered airspace? The VFR pilot just gets a barrage of calls but has no idea where the IFR aircraft are. Do you think it is a good idea to clutter up the VFR pilots’ minds with dozens of radio calls that mean completely nothing?

Also, if you are correct in your deciphering of the AIP, why did Greg Russell write me the letter of 25 July 2007? In the letter he says:

The AIP is explicit in that all IFR aircraft are required to give full position reports in all classes of airspace, except when ‘identified’ in class A, C and D airspace ... Interesting?

Also, and most importantly, in July 2007 when Airservices contacted CASA in relation to taking appropriate follow up action regarding IFR aircraft not giving position reports, why didn’t CASA notify Airservices that reports were not required?

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, this is ridiculous. The VFR pilot would not be able to make announcements or reports if in CONFLICT (AIP words) or in the VICINITY (my words) if he didn’t know the position of the IFR aircraft. If you are not giving position reports, there is no way that this Airservices educational material can work.

By the way Capn Bloggs, you state:

And if the CEO of Airservices thinks that we should be doing position reports in E when Radar identified… I understand that though the letter was signed by the CEO of Airservices, it was prepared and vetted by his air traffic control and airspace experts. I can assure you that I have checked with my contacts at Airservices, and they 100% stand by the letter that was prepared for the CEO.

So now what is your answer?

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

It sounds to me as if CASA will have to follow up the training system in a particular Western Australian regional airline – would you agree?

Perhaps a visit by CASA to Terry Hills might be more appropriate? :D

I agree with you on one thing: it is ridiculous... ;)

More to the point, these procedures are probably an attempt by the AsA lawyers to cover their rear ends in these days of duty of care. Can you possibly imagine what would happen if a A380 was taken out by a lighty in E airspace? Just for the "right" of VFR to fly unimpeded through the sky?

It still amazes me that anyone would consider allowing big and little aircraft to mix it without any attempt to keep them apart. I don't care what the Septics do.

[vans]

I’m afraid I have to agree with Capn Bloggs on this one Dick. I’ve never been under the impression that I have to make position reports as an IFR in E if identified (perhaps I’m wrong). If I’m identified, ATC knows where I am, and because I’m in a radar environment, they can also see the primary paint of a transpondered VFR aircraft. If ATC can see a potential conflict, they advise the IFR of the potential conflict with the VFR, and the VFR upon hearing this, should respond. If the VFR is in any doubt as to whether or not this conflict involves him or not, it would be good airmanship for him to respond anyway. In any case there is nothing to stop ATC from asking the VFR to identify himself and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace In this situation, the IFR has not yet been identified, hence the need for a position report.
The AIP is explicit in that all IFR aircraft are required to give full position reports in all classes of airspace, except when ‘identified’ in class A, C and D airspace ... The AIP is obviously not explicit, otherwise there would not be all this confusion. It is a poorly written piece of text in this instance.

I have often heard VFR aircraft respond in the above scenario, albeit perhaps not as many as should.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, they are welcome here at any time. I can take them for a fly in the Jetranger or the Agusta.

I do have a simple request of CASA. I ask someone from the Office of Airspace Regulation to simply make a post on this thread which explains the CASA interpretation of the AIP. From my previous discussions with CASA, they believe the requirement is for all IFR aircraft to make full position reports when in radar Class E and G airspace. If that is the case (or not the case), I ask CASA to post here.

[rack 'n stack]

Perhaps the CEO is receiving advice from people who are not currently rated controllers? Or they could be the same people telling him that there is only a shortfall of 36 controllers Australia wide?

[Pera]

As I have mentioned numerous times before, I’m amazed that the air traffic controllers would allow this. Having a mandatory requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor ATC frequencies means that in a radar environment the air traffic controller has a duty of care to the VFR aircraft – i.e. the controller must call the aircraft if it is getting close to another aircraft and give traffic information.



The responsibilities that ATC have in each class of airspace are clearly defined.

VFR aircraft in class E are provided with a FIS. FIS is provided by all stations broadcasts, so if the VFR aircraft is monitoring the correct frequency as required by AIP they will receive hazard alerts etc. ATC will be providing this service to all aircraft so there is no extra workload or responsibility.

[Walrus 7]

Vans,

There has never been a document issued by CASA, DOTARS or AsA that is not a poorly-written piece of text.

Walrus

[Capn Bloggs]

I do have a simple request of CASA. I ask someone from the Office of Airspace Regulation to simply make a post on this thread which explains the CASA interpretation of the AIP.

That is not the way to go about it. Regardless of what CASA says, I'll not make pos reports in radar E because the AIP says I don't have to (in my opinion). Besides, you will get various interpretations from various people in CASA. The words must be changed. The required words are pretty obvious, depending on what your point of view about the matter is! :}

[Dick Smith]

During my flight in the Caravan to the Old Station fly in on 9 June 2007, when in Class E airspace at 9,000 feet near Armidale in good radar coverage, I specifically asked the controller if I should be giving full position reports. He said yes, that was a requirement, however not all aircraft complied.

Here we have a Brisbane controller saying there is a requirement to give full position reports if you are flying IFR in radar Class E airspace. Capn Bloggs, are you telling me the air traffic controller’s advice was incorrect?

As I’m planning to fly the Caravan in Class E airspace tomorrow, I phoned the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA to ask them if I should give full position reports. The person I spoke to did not know the answer but said he would get back in touch with me. I’ll publish the answer here.

[Dick Smith]

Pera, why is it that when I’m flying VFR in Class E or G radar airspace, occasionally I will have air traffic control calling VFR aircraft in my general area? When I answer, they give me traffic on another VFR aircraft in my area.

I understood this was done because lawyers have advised air traffic controllers that they have a duty of care in this situation (if their workload is not too high) because Airservices has come up with a system where VFR aircraft must, by regulation, be monitoring the ATC sector frequency.

[Pera]

Pera, why is it that when I’m flying VFR in Class E or G radar airspace, occasionally I will have air traffic control calling VFR aircraft in my general area? When I answer, they give me traffic on another VFR aircraft in my area.

ATC are simply providing an unrequested RIS service because they have time.

I suggest that you have to monitor the frequency so that you obtain a FIS. I don't think that this requirement makes ATC responsible for traffic alerts.

I would think that ASA, CASA etc would be liable if ATC was held responsible for two vfr aircraft colliding in class E. AIP is very clear about the ATC responsibilities. It even states:

ENR 18.1.2 Traffic information services provided by ATC do not relieve pilots of their responsibilities for continued vigilance to see-and-avoid
other aircraft.

I guess if you have to monitor the frequency to get FIS, it makes sense that you make a broadcast if you think you are in conflict with an IFR aircraft, especially in non radar class E.

[Outer Marker]

Capn Bloggs,
The Australian airspace system certainly was unique, and provided no one from the outside came to visit us nothing could go wrong because we all understood the 'language'. We had a duplicate ATC/FS system where each group zealously protected their own patch. I'll never foreget the day a FS Supervisor rushed into the area control room and with great concern in his voice annouced that they had had a penetration of OCTA (the ATC had missed the departure coord on an IFR DC3). We used to use the word 'cruise' in our airways clearances, until in the early 90's there was a near miss to the NE of Sydney between and American and an Australian B747. Check out the ICAO definition of 'cruise'. Then we had that other empire, Operational Control, where ATC could close airspace due weather, refuse to sighn off on your flight plan, make you carry additional fuel etc.

Over the years wiser heads (Leave Dick out of this) have made decisions to try and bring us into line with common world wide practice in an attempt to reduce the possibility of confusion with our unique procedures. I believe that you are a regional airline pilot, that probably means you drive turboprops and operate normally below 20,000'. Well on a trip to the US associated with the TAAATS Project the team flew from Washington Dulles to Otawa in Canada in a Beech 1900 at 17,000'. Guess what? the whole enroute trip was in Class E. Chicago O'Hare and Atlanta Hatsfield regularly move between 2000 and 2500 aircraft a day, most of them RPT jet aircraft (Sydney averages around 800/day). Check out a US sectional chart sometime and you will see that like all of their major airports the terminal area is Class B airspace buried in Class E that goes down to 700 AGL and up the the base of the overlying Class A at 18,000'. The top of the Class B airspace is around 8500'. This means that the jet traffic into and out of these airports flies through a lot of class E between the A and B. But of course we all know that that is unsafe as can be shown by all the mid-air collision between GA and RPTs they have had.

Even when it is recommended that we adopt a US system (GA airport procedures) it is fiddled with and we get GAAP and again we have another Australian unique procedure, and that has been in place since 1978.

We also had our own unique DME system, until it was decided that it was not cost effective to maintain two DME systems, our 200mhz equipment and the international 1000mhz equipment. Plus the fact that because of the low production run of our stuff they cost an arm and a leg. (Very similar to the ATC/FS overlap and duplication)

The interesting thing in all this debate is that I don't believe any Australian ATC (not the US imports) has ever worked at a US ATC facility, and there are very few Australian pilots in this country that have flown with a US RPT either. So why don't we get the emotion out of all this and be big enough to look at the proposal and judge it on its merits. Take a holiday over there and do some flying in Class E, maybe around the Los Angeles Basin with a local, including a trip up the coast past LAX VFR, and see if they have a problem with it in that reasonably busy piece of airspace.

NB

[peuce]

Outer Marker,

I don't get all this FS/ATC "duplication and overlap" stuff.

FS proivded a certain service in a certain bucket of airspace, ATC provided a different service (at a different price) in their bucket of airspace.

Furthermore, Dick Smith has told us of the problems in mixing these services together ... even though this seems to be a very recent epiphany.

Yes, you told us some interesting and amusing warries ... but my question is still ...

Is what we have now, better, simpler and safer than what we had?

And Dick, don't mention the $800trillion odd that you arguably saved the Industry ... we're talking primacy of safety here.

[Pera]

OM,

Your history lesson is interesting, but what is so wrong with our system now that need changing.

[Quokka]

Outer Marker... on that trip through Class E airspace, were Heavy Wake Turbulence Category RPT jets transiting Class E airspace during the climb/descent phase?

[Outer Marker]

Quokka,

Yes. Earlier on that same trip we arrived at Washington Dulles in a BA B747-400 from Heathrow in daylight. I was fortunate enough to be in the cockpit for arrival. Some 40 minutes out we were descended by ATC to 14,000 and maintained that level for well over 20 minutes. During that time we were given traffic on a VFR C421 at 14,500 ahead of us on the same route, and during approach into Dulles on at least three lighties crossing our path beneath us in E before we entered the B airspace. The only comment from the very British BA crew came when we called the tower at 10 miles and were immediately cleared to land, although two more departures were then cleared for take-off before we crossed the threshold. (Discretionary landinf and take-off clearances as allowed by ICAO).

NB

[Quokka]

Were the "lighties" transponder-equipped and painting on the TCAS?

[Dick Smith]

Pera, you don’t seem to understand the subtle difference between the unique system that has been introduced by Airservices with the wind back, and that which is in other modern aviation countries.

The difference is that in Australia, the actual ATC sector boundaries are marked on the charts and it is mandatory for a VFR aircraft to monitor the frequency in that particular sector. This means that ATC will clearly have a responsibility to two VFR aircraft which are on radar and close to each other.

In no other country in the world that I know of are the air traffic control sector boundaries marked on charts. Yes, the Flight Service or Flightwatch and ATC outlet locations are generally shown on the charts. If pilots want to monitor one of these, they simply change to that frequency, but the pilot has no idea if that frequency complies with the particular airspace in which the pilot is flying. This means that it is normally not possible for the air traffic controller to call a particular aircraft as it could well be on a different frequency. This removes the duty of care and makes it quite clear to pilots and air traffic controllers that G and E airspace is not D – where a traffic information service is provided to VFR aircraft.

The other difference is that in Class E airspace in other countries, VFR pilots are not permitted to start making announcements. They can either call ATC for a workload permitting Flight Following service, or they must shut up. It is completely different.

[Pera]

The difference is that in Australia, the actual ATC sector boundaries are marked on the charts and it is mandatory for a VFR aircraft to monitor the frequency in that particular sector. This means that ATC will clearly have a responsibility to two VFR aircraft which are on radar and close to each other.

AIP and I disagree with your ascertion, but thanks for calling me ignorant.

This removes the duty of care and makes it quite clear to pilots and air traffic controllers that G and E airspace is not D – where a traffic information service is provided to VFR aircraft.

AIP makes it clear what service is provided in different classes of airspace and I've already discussed why VFR aircraft have to monitor the area frequency.

I don't disagree with you wanting to operate class E without the frequency requirements for VFR, but your assumptions that a frequency requirement places extra expectations of ATC are not supported by AIP.

[Freedom7]

Pera agree, AIP is very clear.

Outer Marker, please explain;

This guy worked a regional tower in the US with a mix of RPT/GA movements in excess of say Adelaides with half the staff and no tower radar.

How many staff?, How much airspace?Also what you don't seem to realise or accept is the fact that in the US low level radar coverage, below 10,000, only became common in the 80's, … and alphabet airspace came in when? and that the FAA still do not guarantee enroute coverage below 5,000'. most areas above D’s are in radar coverage So obviously there were/are many significant regional airports in the US that didn't have low level radar coverage perhaps you might point out which ones and their traffic mix and airspace arrangements including tower and tracon/enroute ATC numbers and with the responsible enroute centre doing to arrivals and departures into a class D tower. without radar, what would they use do you suppose, one in one out? And I can assure you that those towers handled a lot more than your average of 52 movements/day. Average of 52 is a false statement.

40+ Turbo-jet moves during TWR Hours, WX and associated, what do you think the real average is when the VFR’s are out to play?, and approach management during IMC?

Do you believe all traffic is being captured in stats? In fact in the US Launceston would probably not. qualify for a manned tower. In fact, you are wrong. Mind you using lures in stead of stinky dead things is not a bad play, still no bites though!

[Gear Down & Welded]

Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots?? Unless I'm tracking reference two airports or two navaids then how are they supposed to know where I am??

For Example if I call at SPIDR tracking to WENDY how on earth would I expect a VFR pilot to know where these points in space are?? Not to mention that it may be some time between these points so during the ensuring 20+ minutes I'm not saying anything!?

Can someone explain how aircraft are seperated where there are no broadcast or DTI requirements?? Are you expected to continue cruising though the clouds IFR and just pray that there isn't a VFR just under the layer that no-one knows about? Sounds like a good way to have an "Aluminum Shower"! :ugh: See and avoid doesn't work when one party is IMC!

I'm not resistant to change, I just need proof of concept other than the usual diatribe of "Well that's how the Yanks do it"... as my mother used to say... if someone jumped off the Westgate Bridge would you do it?? :eek:

[mjbow2]

Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots?? Unless I'm tracking reference two airports or two navaids then how are they supposed to know where I am??

Gear Down & Welded perhaps you should direct the question to those people who wound back NAS and introduced such a ridiculous requirement.

Gear Down & Welded Your mother is a wise woman. No doubt she looked at the results the last time someone else jumped off a bridge and has urged you not to do it. Class E is just like the Westgate bridge. So refusing to look at the USA's exceptional success with class E and copying it is a bit like jumping off the Westgate bridge despite the best available advice


You say Are you expected to continue cruising though the clouds IFR and just pray that there isn't a VFR just under the layer that no-one knows about? Yet we have this exact situation right now with IFR aircraft descending out of cloud in class G airspace.

[Dick Smith]

Gear Down & Welded, you state:

Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots?? My very point exactly. The whole requirement for position reporting by IFR in radar airspace, and the requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor and announce was introduced by Airservices in the wind back. Remember, under NAS 2b we had removed the air traffic control frequencies from the charts. No other country in the world has such a system, and there is no airspace which really complies with what Airservices are doing with the wind back.

The reason the Airservices experts wrote to me on 25 July 2007 and said that is it mandatory for IFR aircraft in Class E and G radar covered airspace to give position reports is because this is the only way their sham airspace system can work. It is sort of the old pre-AMATS system coupled into Class E airspace.

Remember, under NAS 2b, there was no requirement for VFR in E and G to monitor air traffic control. The requirement when enroute and in the approach and departure airspace of an airport was to monitor the airport frequency. When enroute there was no mandatory requirement to monitor ATC – although it was recommended that pilots monitor a nearby VHF outlet.

[Capn Bloggs]

Outer Marker

But of course we all know that that is unsafe as can be shown by all the mid-air collision between GA and RPTs they have had.
They've killed far more in jet-lighty collisions than we have. How many deaths are enough, just to satisfy the desires of people like Dick to fly around unhindered as though they are hte only ones in the airspace?

Some 40 minutes out we were descended by ATC to 14,000 and maintained that level for well over 20 minutes. During that time we were given traffic on a VFR C421 at 14,500 ahead of us on the same route
I assume going in the same direction. What would have happened had the 421, say 2nm in front, commenced a descent without prior warning to 12,500ft?

Then we had that other empire, Operational Control, where ATC could close airspace due weather, refuse to sighn off on your flight plan, make you carry additional fuel etc.
Had Operational Control been in operation at various airports around the world, hundreds (if not thousands) of people would still be alive today. Some pilots like trying to land in fog and some keep trying until they crash, as they have done on numerous occasions. Part of Operational Control is the tower telling pilots they can't land in fog. But that would be a silly idea wouldn't it?

We also had our own unique DME system, until it was decided that it was not cost effective to maintain two DME systems, our 200mhz equipment and the international 1000mhz equipment. Plus the fact that because of the low production run of our stuff they cost an arm and a leg.
DME A was mandated in Aus RPT in 1955. Was DME I available then? Do you realise the importance, in those days, of having DME (any sort?) in the outback. Obviously not.

Gear down and welded
Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots??
Because it gives the weakest link in the chain, the VFR (who may or may not be transponding - even though he is supposed to - because there is no requirement to check that he/she is) a chance to know where the jet near him is.

Dick doesn't agree that that is necessary. He just flies around with his eyes out the window hoping he'll pick up the jet that is about to ram him.

[Gear Down & Welded]

You seem to mis-understand my point... I'm all for having the VFR on frequency, but point being that if I say I'm tracking from point A to point B gives no useable information to a VFR pilot at all. For all intents and purposes I could very well say that I'm tracking to the moon! Same as saying on a CTAF that I'm overhead bla bla Sierra Bravo conducting the RNAV approach, means absolutely ZERO to a VFR pilot unless you happen to have someone that is IFR savvy on the other end.

As for terminal class E, I had a very animated discussion with Mike Smith on this. Flying overhead AY I was monitoring TWR (as required to under 2b) just so happened to call the quiet tower controller and tell him my position and intentions (Over Wodonga at A055 and tracking AY then WG). Bloody good thing I did because there just so happened to be a Saab340 (not yet on the frequency) who was coming the other way. Without positive seperation being provided by the controller (which under E he was not obliged to give) I would have at best been involved in an AIRPROX and TCAS event! With the seperation we passed within 200ft of each other (well seperated laterally though). So I hate to think what could have happened that day!!

My suggestion to Mike Smith at the time, relating to the above experience thus terminal E airspace, was why not have a requirement to have VFR call the tower (they are required to be on freq anyways) with self announce of who they are, where they are, and where they intend to go. This way the controller is aware of them and their intentions and can offer seperation guidance as appropriate?? Terminal E is gone, but the same could be said for enroute class E... no requirement for a clearance, just a requirement to announce what you are doing.

From the other side of the coin from an IFR perspective(back to my original topic!), the IFR guys are much more likely to know where the VFR guys are than the other way around. Alerted See and Avoid is workable, the original 2b concept with VFR on any (if at all) frequency he likes plying the skies whilst hopefully looking out the window and not playing with his charts, or playing with his GPS (or G1000!)... is more like 'pray to avoid' than see and avoid.:ugh:

Anyone done the math on exactly how much time you have if you have say two SR22's going nose to nose?? It's a small aircraft so won't be recognised until they are very close, with 360kts closure... seconds if that! :sad:

[SM4 Pirate]

My suggestion to Mike Smith at the time, relating to the above experience thus terminal E airspace, was why not have a requirement to have VFR call the tower (they are required to be on freq anyways) with self announce of who they are, where they are, and where they intend to go. This way the controller is aware of them and their intentions and can offer seperation guidance as appropriate?? Terminal E is gone, but the same could be said for enroute class E... no requirement for a clearance, just a requirement to announce what you are doing.My sources tell me this was one of the options for the rollback; but alas it proved to be more workload intensive than making it class C again (separation is easier than 'guidance' as essentially you as an ATC carry the same 'risk') and also there was the added risk posed by deliberate non-compliance with the call in process.

[Quokka]

Gear Down,

I think you've hit on the most likely scenario for a See-&-Avoid failure in Class E... it might be the A330 on descent through the preceding high-wing lighty without it's transponder on... but its more likely to be an opposite-direction lighty with a high-performance turbo-prop... nil-transponder on the lighty, with the pilot head-down playing with his brand new Garmin that Mr Smith endorsed on PPRUNE... :hmm:

[LeadSled]

Freedom 7

Also what you don't seem to realise or accept is the fact that in the US low level radar coverage, below 10,000, only became common in the 80's,

… and alphabet airspace came in when?

A pity you (and many others) have, apparently, no knowledge of the development of airspace management practices over the years since WWII.

ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace is, quite simply, based on the concepts developed by the FAA to handle the US traffic levels, as they have grown over the years.

What is now called "E", for convenience and understanding, the most widely used low/mid-level classification in US, FAA-wise was previously called "VFR Exempt" for short, or more fully "CTL(VFR Exempt).

ICAO adopted the US risk management based approach to provision of CNS/ATM services, because the FAA system was proven to work, and work reasonably efficiently and economically (particularly compared to pre-AMATS Australia) and with an outstanding safety record.

For anybody who wants to dispute the US safety record, please look at the statistics, they are readily available ---- and for anybody who wants to quote the loss of the B727 at San Diego, or the DC-9 at Cerritos (LAX) please look up the NTSB reports first.

But of course we all know that that is unsafe as can be shown by all the mid-air collision between GA and RPTs they have had.

They've killed far more in jet-lighty collisions than we have. How many deaths are enough, just to satisfy the desires of people like Dick to fly around unhindered as though they are hte only ones in the airspace?

Instead of such bald assertions, how about some researched figures, giving particular regard to the fact that traffic in US is, using a broad average (and just IFR) 25 to 30 times Australia, as a conservative figure, because not all IFR and very little VFR is recorded in the FAA ATC stats.

Again, all the facts and figures are easily available, for anybody who want to actually be informed of the facts.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

If the Class E above D is a measurable safety problem, why does it work so well in the USA and Canada – without even a mandatory transponder requirement below 10,000 feet in enroute airspace, and with over 50% of the 350 Class D airports in the USA not having radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D?

Surely US pilots and controllers would say something about this (or at least ask for a mandatory transponder requirement) if there was a measurable problem. See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Is_Class_E_safe.php) – from the much respected Voices of Reason.

[SM4 Pirate]

If the Class E above D is a measurable safety problem, why does it work so well in the USA and Canada – without even a mandatory transponder requirement below 10,000 feet in enroute airspace, and with over 50% of the 350 Class D airports in the USA not having radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D? Dick, I and others have tried to explain this before; I'll give it one more go.

E over D is not as safe a C over D; fact.

If you increase the risk, under the ALARP and modern risk management processes, you must have an identifiable cost benefit.

ie increased risk is ok if it pays it's own way.

It isn't about E over D is not safe; it's less safe (in that airspace, leave the CTRs out of the argument).

The USA probably wouldn't have done E over D if they started with C over D first; but they didn't. To simply say they do it so we can too is simplifying the argument and not addressing our legislative requirements.

If you change our laws/regs then it may be feasible to do what you suggest; but until that happens we must follow our laws.

E over D is still possible; even with our laws, you simply have to prove why the cost benefit is viable; that's the hard part.

[Dick Smith]

SM4Pirate, you state:

It isn't about E over D is not safe; it's less safe (in that airspace, leave the CTRs out of the argument).

How can you leave the workload of the controller in the CTR out of the argument? It is not a personal opinion, I have spoken to controllers all around the world in relation to this particular issue. The controllers in the United States have said that if they were responsible for Class C airspace to 8,500 feet above the D at Lihue, safety would actually be reduced. Why did they say this? They said because they wouldn’t be able to concentrate on the traffic close to the runway where the accidents are likely to happen.

SM4Pirate, you never answer this point. Are these controllers wrong?

I have always agreed that C is safer than E, but only if it is adequately staffed and you actually know where the VFR aircraft are.

When the controllers in Australia have to be responsible for huge amounts of Class C airspace as well as the D, do you accept that even to a small degree, the concentration of the controller on traffic close to the airport would be reduced – even slightly – by VFR aircraft calling and requiring a service in the Class C airspace above? It is simply logical commonsense to me and to many others I have spoken to.

I have pointed out to overseas controllers the view that Australian controllers have – that is, they can provide the extra service of C airspace above D, and believe the combination actually improves safety, not decreases safety. The overseas controllers all say this is not possible.

I find it interesting that you won’t even discuss this point and give any acceptance to the validity of the argument – even if it only has a small effect.

Is there anyone game to discuss the point made by overseas professional controllers that having too much airspace controlled by just one controller can actually reduce safety under some circumstances by capturing traffic which has very low collision risk possibility?

[Dick Smith]

By the way SM4Pirate, the so called ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) process that was introduced by Airservices is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen from any management team in all my life. Wouldn’t you want to have a system where you can allocate your resources where they have the greatest affect on safety?

More importantly, why would you want to have a system where you clearly have a greater liability and risk of litigation when it wasn’t even Government policy? The Government policy signed off by Federal Cabinet clearly shows that Class E above Class D airspace is all that was required. Airservices said, “Oh, Government, we can actually provide you with a higher class of airspace at no extra charge, even though the risk and liability to our organisation is far greater.”

I’m sure the people in the Minister’s office must have said, “Well, we may as well accept that. These people obviously have no business ability at all.” I’m sure that is what John Anderson did in relation to the wind back.

I’ve mentioned before on this site that I can see why those in power tend to want to exploit air traffic controllers. It is sad because if our air traffic controllers had the chance to talk to their colleagues in other leading aviation countries, they would quickly find that air traffic controllers in those countries will not countenance having extra liabilities over those required by Government policy – no matter what was done in the past.

Imagine if air traffic controllers said to the Government, “Look, we will be responsible for the separation of IFR traffic in Class G airspace when under radar. We can do it at no extra cost, so we may as well take on the extra responsibility and liability.”

I don’t think so. I hope the union leaders would not accept that under any circumstances.

[SM4 Pirate]

How can you leave the workload of the controller in the CTR out of the argument? Because it’s a different argument. Making it safer over there and less safe over there is not a valid argument. You must look at them as the two things they are. For example you could have the Class C controlled by an approach controller and the circuit by an aerodrome controller; but by doing that you have effectively double the cost for similar risk. Transferring what now is C to E and thus from Tower to enroute does not offset the ‘circuit’ risk savings by enabling the tower controller to do a ‘better’ job.

I have spoken to controllers all around the world in relation to this particular issue. The controllers in the United States have said that if they were responsible for Class C airspace to 8,500 feet above the D at Lihue, safety would actually be reduced.Well dur, I do not dispute that. But that’s what they started with. I’m sure if you said to the enroute/app controllers in such circumstances and said we would take away that piece of airspace and give it to the towers they too would see safety for their chunk of airspace increasing.

Why did they say this? They said because they wouldn’t be able to concentrate on the traffic close to the runway where the accidents are likely to happen. But because the collision highest risk is at the airport it doesn’t mean there is no risk in the ‘enroute’ phase of flight. Australian controllers have developed ‘coping mechanisms’ for ensuring safety, these may be delayed clearances or reduced through put or clearances that enable VFRs to be separated from other aircraft, so that when workload permits, closer attention can be given; until then ‘it’s safe’ a fall back position if you will.

SM4Pirate, you never answer this point. Are these controllers wrong? I didn’t realise that I was personally being asked; see above, but it’s more complex than they said so there for they are right. I say they are not wrong; but if you simply by the stroke of a pen, and (sic) fast cultural training, make change, then it’s not actually addressing all the issues. You can’t make risk ‘savings here’ and offset the risk ‘increases there’, despite your belief of this, it doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way.

I have always agreed that C is safer than E, but only if it is adequately staffed and you actually know where the VFR aircraft are. Yes but the same ‘limitations’ to unknown VFRs apply to class E.

When the controllers in Australia have to be responsible for huge amounts of Class C airspace as well as the D, do you accept that even to a small degree, the concentration of the controller on traffic close to the airport would be reduced – even slightly – by VFR aircraft calling and requiring a service in the Class C airspace above? It is simply logical commonsense to me and to many others I have spoken to. I totally agree, see comments about coping mechanisms, note the resistance to use FAA D clearance procedures it’s about being better able to manage. But as I also said, increasing the circuit safety is not equally and proportionately offset by the other options you have proposed. If our circuit risk was so bad it would be reflected in the stats, it’s no better or worse than the FAA stats.

I have pointed out to overseas controllers the view that Australian controllers have – that is, they can provide the extra service of C airspace above D, and believe the combination actually improves safety, not decreases safety. The overseas controllers all say this is not possible. There is a valid argument about knowing about VFRs earlier increases safety; knowing about transiting traffic enables you to act early and formulate a plan; You will note a relatively recent USA class D tower collision where damages were awarded because separation was not provided. The basis of the judgement was that to land the aircraft spacing was needed, so it should have been applied before the circuit by the controller.

I find it interesting that you won’t even discuss this point and give any acceptance to the validity of the argument – even if it only has a small effect. You obviously have me confused with someone-else, I have always accepted your comments about C vs E over D relating to the circuit, I don’t accept your argument that you can simply increase the enroute risk because you are reducing the terminal risk. I say that you are kidding yourself about the true benefits of that risk reduction; because if truly was significant it would be supported by the high incident rates that would be easily identified.

Is there anyone game to discuss the point made by overseas professional controllers that having too much airspace controlled by just one controller can actually reduce safety under some circumstances by capturing traffic which has very low collision risk possibility? You are asking for USA style class E, without supporting the USA style sectors controlling that E; to distract an enroute controller with IFR to VFR (traffic, if it’s seen) or low level IFR to IFR separation (procedural too) whilst dealing with high level traffic on a single manned console using the argument that the risk is low, so acceptable is flawed. If an enroute controller banged two 737s together because they are too busy separating two IFR chieftains close to terrain without surveillance, hence they had your highest attention, when previously the tower could have used their eyes to apply visual separation (called "Azimuth"); where exactly is the risk benefit?

It is not lawful to say risk here = X risk there = y, so we can make here = Z and there = t. You need to really assess it.

Blanket assessments such as global (national) change don’t stack up very well. It might be very easy to do an individual assessment, much easier than a national one. Particularly where surveillance is actually available; the risk over Nth QLD towers and LT for example would be negligible because radar is a available; but AY, CH, TW, AS, HB might be harder to achieve the same.

I’m willing to have a real discussion rather than he said she said bs; but please don’t try and paint me as a change resistant fundamentalist, unionised ATC. I’m all for change when the benefits are real and definable; I don’t like the concept of reduction here for increase there... Why not just have reductions; surely we can afford it; maybe we could spend some of the ASA profit on improvements?

[Dick Smith]

http://www.aopa.com.au/airspace6.jpg

Just think of it – if the USA or Canada decided to have Class C over D as per Australia at their 350 Class D airports, the Class C “steps” would extend to 120 nautical miles where they contacted the Class A airspace at FL180. The Class C would cover most of the continent at this level and the “steps” would make the airspace so complex that no pilot would be able to fathom out where the boundaries were!

The whole system would basically grind to a halt.

[Gear Down & Welded]

maybe we could spend some of the ASA profit on improvements?


And the banks should absorb the rate rises too! They couldn't possibly spend any of that profit margin! :yuk: Sorry SM4 couldn't resist!

Totally agree with your sentiments thought!

And I'm STILL yet to see an arugment that doesn't contain the words "United States" or "Overseas" in it... I'll say it again Dick and co, what are the benefits in AUSTRALIA using the AUSTRALIAN system with an AUSTRALIAN aircraft. I don't give a rats about IFR turbo-props dodging VFR twins at what would qualify as our lower flight levels over in the US. Just because THEY class it as ACCEPTABLE risk, why should we blindly accept that same risk here?? About the same stupidity as blindly following the US into several wars in recent history eh?? :=

[SM4 Pirate]

Just think of it – if the USA or Canada decided to have Class C over D as per Australia at their 350 Class D airports, the Class C “steps” would extend to 120 nautical miles where they contacted the Class A airspace at FL180. The Class C would cover most of the continent at this level and the “steps” would make the airspace so complex that no pilot would be able to fathom out where the boundaries were!

The whole system would basically grind to a halt. Agreed, but that doesn't mean we must copy them; we have a 'baseline' risk; how you actually establish/measure that is debatable, but to change it in the hole requires it to be measured and to evaluate the change. This is why ASA believed they were 'exposed' with NAS 2b; it wasn't anybody's airspace structure it was ours. We were in transition to something that was ours from a position where we had an established baseline. The measurements taken by everyone involved determined AFAIK, came to the same conclusion NAS2b was a higher risk than what was before with no quantifiable cost benefit. To get out of that legal loop hole, they had to move forward quickly or go back. they chose to go back. Doesn't mean they were right, but it is what they did. Now everyone is more aware about the legalities and the regulations.

This is where you fall down Dick in your mantra for change; somebody logically explains the reasons why we need to do assessments and the reasons we have what we have and instead of engaging in that element of debate you bring it back, sceptics 101 style, to your fundamental position. Not why we just can't, but, what we should. Yes, but what about the issues raised in the "why we just can't side."

As I have said, I'm all for change, I'd like to see lots of low level sectors and lots of ADS-B and lots of better mapped terrain (radar terrain) paths, lots of easily determined RNAV approaches, lots of Multi-Lat, radar surveillance, ADS-B in stations etc; GBAS/GRAS/GLS for better precision approaches, protected ILS GP huts etc. Hell if everything that flew was visible to a controller and we could really use 'segregation' not separation when one is a VFR, real pilot and ATC education, then I'd say go for it; make all of Australia E at A1200 ft. But back to reality, it all costs money and for whatever reasons people resist change, like ADS-B, GBAS etc; right?

[BurglarsDog]

Never mind E over D or C over D - surely lets get some D first. As a fare paying passenger, when I buy a ticket to fly I would expect the operator to guarantee that, outside of an act of god, or a human factors or mecahnical failure, I will get to my destination safely utilising a best practice well managed, risk assessed, ATM network of routes, airspace equipment rules and procedures applied by a competent (motivated = well paid) ATC workforce! Thats what an ANSP exists and is paid for right? Overseas , if I can use that word , by design and some evolution , this generally means flight wholly within controlled airspace. i.e. within a known traffic environment where conflictions can be deconflicted either proactively via flightplanning, flow, etc, or reactively by radar advice etc as per class G in UK for example. Although even in Uk, corners , literally are being cut by some CAT (Civilian Air transport operators = Oz RPT ; resulting in increased risk for all with only cost benefit to the CAT; hence one of the reasons for the latest ATSOCAS review - Air Traffic services outside controlled airspace- For those interested

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20070607ATSOCASReviewPhase2report.pdf

If an ATM system, for whatever reason, (cost v profit = Oz ANSP ?) chooses not to provide an ATC service (TIBA?) which, elsewhere in the world is generally deemed necessary in dealing with RPT; as lacking at Avalon and Hamilton, for example, then the safety case and risk management starategies should be transparent and perhaps open to some form of 3rd party scrutiny? Would that be CASA's job by any chance?

Appreciate its horses for courses and that Oz is a big place ; but the big sky theory is getting a bit pear shaped these days. More traffic same acreage of sky! And to not have a tower providing some form of ATC service to fare paying RPT types is unacceptable!

Reasonable people accept the status quo and nothing ever changes! Unreasonable types often challenge the status quo and this can result in change, which over time ensures some form of evolution. Perhaps, for the benefit of the majority not the minority, its time for a few more aviation types to be a little more unreasonable if we seek to evolve Oz ATC.
DogGone:

[Dick Smith]

Gear Down & Welded, you state:

And I'm STILL yet to see an argument that doesn't contain the words "United States" or "Overseas" in it...

My belief is that we should copy the best from overseas, whatever country it is from, and keep what we do best here.

For example, when I first proposed that we accept overseas type certification from leading aviation countries, it was violently opposed by the airworthiness people who worked for me at the CAA. Many of the same reasons were given as are given now against following the best airspace and procedures. Since we have accepted “first of type” certification from leading aviation countries, millions of dollars have been saved and there has been no measurable effect on safety.

Are you suggesting we should move back to unique Australian certification standards – such as having the Flight Data Recorder in a 747 sample more times per second than the unit provided by Boeing? Or how about a requirement for special and expensive metal guards over the baggage compartment light in Citations – once again adding unnecessarily to costs and resulting in bags being ripped as they were placed in the compartment.

[Atlas Shrugged]

I was wondering when that fecking Airspace at a Glance picture would come back.

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, I appreciate your detailed responses. I wish we could get together some time and discuss this. I will send you a PM.

The problem I see is that before I was involved in any reforms, we simply had controlled airspace and uncontrolled. The controlled airspace in a place like Sydney was actually equivalent to ICAO Class B – we separated everything from everything else, including VFR helicopters from VFR helicopters.

In moving to an airspace system which allocated the resources more effectively we needed to go to at least 5 classes of airspace and allocate these depending on the traffic density and collision risk. By moving to these 5 classes, it meant that some airspace needed to go to a higher classification (i.e. from uncontrolled to controlled) whilst other airspace needed to change to a lower category – i.e. from Class B to C or D, or (dare I say it) even E.

In recent times the people at Airservices have claimed that we can only go one way with airspace changes. That is, keep them the same or make them more restrictive. Fortunately in the past there were lateral thinking people in management at Airservices – or CAA at the time – that allowed airspace to change at places like Mount Isa, where the Class B equivalent tower (they separated everything from everything) was clearly a misallocation of resources.

Most importantly SM4 Pirate, you do not comment on the fact that the airspace is now clearly “upside down.” To have Class C airspace in the link above Class D at a place like Albury clearly shows this. Obviously the risk of collision is greater close to the airport when compared to the link airspace above. However we have the higher category Class C where the collision risk is less.

There are substantial savings to be made by going from Class C to E. For example, next week I will be flying from Gundaroo to Bendigo. Like most pilots, I will flight plan around the Albury Class C airspace so I don’t end up orbiting or being told to “remain OCTA.” I can assure you that if I try to fly through the approach airspace to the south of Albury at 7,500 feet, even if an IFR Cessna 172 is inbound to Albury, I will be held or diverted. I know because it has happened continuously in similar situations over the years.

I talk to many pilots and they all do what I do – flight plan around these huge “road blocks” of Class C. What would the cost be? No one knows because there is no way of measuring it. I would estimate it is millions of dollars of waste over the last decade or so – virtually all affecting general aviation.

In the UK all their non-radar tower airports have Class G above so aircraft can overfly and save needless waste. I don’t dare mention the USA – no, I will. Look at the diagram that I posted earlier. They have Class E airspace above all of their terminal areas so that unnecessary holding and fuel can be saved.

SM4 Pirate, you don’t cover the fact that we have Class C airspace above places like Proserpine and Avalon, but we have Class G uncontrolled airspace - without even a UNICOM - at low levels and in the circuit area where the collision risk is obviously far greater. Remember both of these airports have jet airline aircraft – with Avalon having over 1.5 million passengers per year.

In other leading aviation countries, operating jet airline aircraft without a minimum of Class E – or at least an air traffic control tower - is simply not allowed.

Fortunately there are young controllers coming along, and from their emails I get a feeling that they have a more lateral view of the situation.

To have an airspace system which is a “one way ratchet” which precludes ever correcting mistakes of the past would be an error in my view.

As mentioned above, the cost of the Class C “road block” airspace is staggering. The “road block” would be reduced if the Class C was provided with an approach radar system and adequate controllers. However everyone then says, “That’s too expensive.”

The answer seems to be, “Oh, don’t worry, just delay the VFR aircraft because if people stop flying VFR aircraft they are more likely to fly in airlines and that will give more income to Airservices.” This is a short term view. If we don’t have a viable and growing GA industry, we will end up without enough pilots to fly for the airlines – without even considering the lack of training for maintenance and other people.

SM4 Pirate, why don’t you comment on the fact that the airspace is “upside down” and clearly is reversed compared to what would be objectively sought after?

By the way, my suggestion is to have a look at the staggering number of incidents which take place in Class D airspace. Incidents like airline aircraft being cleared for take off when there is a motor vehicle on the runway, or the incident at Hamilton Island where two jets got awfully close together whilst the controller was holding VFR helicopters outside the zone. No one can tell me that holding aircraft outside the zone doesn’t add to stress and increase the chance of an error by controllers.

[Chris Higgins]

Hey Dick,

Clear your PMs mate, so we can talk!

[Dick Smith]

So-long, I agree that there clearly aren’t enough controllers even to provide the present services, let alone anything a bit better. I just wonder where the $500 million or so in income actually goes.

I agree that we would not be able to use target resolution (“green in between”) under the circumstances you have quoted, but how about within 10 miles of the Williamtown radar head? You would think it may be possible there – considering that is what many other leading aviation countries do.

I’m off to go bushwalking in the south west Tasmanian wilderness so I won’t be around for a while. Everyone can relax – including me!

[SM4 Pirate]

Dick, I hope you truly enjoyed your hiking in the wilderness; great country. Did the overland track a few years back and apart from the few ‘tigers’ to get your heart racing at the southern end it was a great adventure. So i leave here some light reading for your edification.

By the way SM4Pirate, the so called ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) process that was introduced by Airservices is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen from any management team in all my life. Wouldn’t you want to have a system where you can allocate your resources where they have the greatest affect on safety? Well despite your beliefs this is what I understand ALRAP to be; you have three types of risk under ALARP, Unacceptable Risk, Tolerable Risk and Acceptable Risk; where Risk is Unacceptable you must do something; and when risk is at the ‘higher end’ of tolerable the idea is to conduct a CBA to see if you can lower the risk.

More importantly, why would you want to have a system where you clearly have a greater liability and risk of litigation when it wasn’t even Government policy? The Government policy signed off by Federal Cabinet clearly shows that Class E above Class D airspace is all that was required. Airservices said, “Oh, Government, we can actually provide you with a higher class of airspace at no extra charge, even though the risk and liability to our organisation is far greater.” But despite your beliefs in the ‘government policy’ the government laws (REGS) prevented increase in risk (in all areas, i.e. no trade off’s) without cost benefit. The idea is if you have Acceptable risk you don’t make it a tolerable risk; you keep what you have and then reduce risk in other areas approaching intolerable (unacceptable) risk unless the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained.

Imagine if air traffic controllers said to the Government, “Look, we will be responsible for the separation of IFR traffic in Class G airspace when under radar. We can do it at no extra cost, so we may as well take on the extra responsibility and liability.” Culturally that is not acceptable; why would we do it, let alone stepping outside your beautifully supported ICAO airspace definitions (sic!) If we are going to be responsible for separation (which includes applying a standard) in G; as opposed to avoiding action suggestions which is simply target resolution or level advice the I suggest to you that is and would be a significant increase in costs ad resources; despite your beliefs.

I don’t think so. I hope the union leaders would not accept that under any circumstances.Perhaps you misunedrstand why we have a union, industrial negotiation is one thing, keeping a professional voice and clout is another; IMHO it’s a stupid idea.


SM4 Pirate, I appreciate your detailed responses. I wish we could get together some time and discuss this. I will send you a PM.Alas I won’t be able to meet with you, I’m exposed enough thanks all the same; such is the nature of my employer. Also, I’m not exactly sure what influence you think I have, perhaps it’s been significantly over-estimated.

The problem I see is that before I was involved in any reforms, we simply had controlled airspace and uncontrolled. The controlled airspace in a place like Sydney was actually equivalent to ICAO Class B – we separated everything from everything else, including VFR helicopters from VFR helicopters. No argument from me that’s against the spirit of the current global aviation climate and the ICAO rules as ratified in 1990 (alphabet airspace).

In recent times the people at Airservices have claimed that we can only go one way with airspace changes. That is, keep them the same or make them more restrictive. Fortunately in the past there were lateral thinking people in management at Airservices – or CAA at the time – that allowed airspace to change at places like Mount Isa, where the Class B equivalent tower (they separated everything from everything) was clearly a misallocation of resources. Well yes, but. Since changing to the ICAO airspace adaptations much has changed in terms of regulations. AFAIK, we can reduce services if there is a tangible cost benefit, providing the range is still ‘tolerable risk’ ; but to increase risk you must reduce costs. There are ways to reduce risk and reduce costs; it’s about better mitigation. I understand that ICAO is considering allowing TCAS as a mitigator; but ICAO still doesn’t allow it to be the ‘golden gate’ mitigator to risk, there must be something else available.

Most importantly SM4 Pirate, you do not comment on the fact that the airspace is now clearly “upside down.” To have Class C airspace in the link above Class D at a place like Albury clearly shows this. Obviously the risk of collision is greater close to the airport when compared to the link airspace above. However we have the higher category Class C where the collision risk is less.Like above, I didn’t see that question directed at me. The upside down nature of the risk is your opinion. You believe the risk is higher on the ground relating to circuit traffic at AY; I suggest it is more complex. If there are more traffic mixing above AY then it is conceivable that the risk is higher because of the increased conflict pairs; arguable this risk is worth without due regard and knowledge of VFR traffic. Essentially I agree with what you say, but I’m stating it’s not as simple as you suggest. The conflicts that resulted in much media attention, near CANTY, near YMLT, and Near YBMC, in NAS days were ‘evidence’ that because “you can” doesn’t mean “you should”, or that “you can” safely.

There are substantial savings to be made by going from Class C to E. For example, next week I will be flying from Gundaroo to Bendigo. Like most pilots, I will flight plan around the Albury Class C airspace so I don’t end up orbiting or being told to “remain OCTA.” I can assure you that if I try to fly through the approach airspace to the south of Albury at 7,500 feet, even if an IFR Cessna 172 is inbound to Albury, I will be held or diverted. I know because it has happened continuously in similar situations over the years. There is probably extra cost in increasing the ATC resources which may or may not offset the savings to VFRs, providing C, I have always stated is cheaper than E “in radar” as you don’t need to deal with unknowns and can utilise coping mechanisms when you get busy. Additionally your example highlights my above answer, because you don’t need to avoid (despite little evidence in clearance knock backs, I’m sure it does happen but it’s extremely overstated IMHO) the airspace you increase the conflict pairs and thus potentially increase the risk that your ‘upside down’ airspace risk model creates.

I talk to many pilots and they all do what I do – flight plan around these huge “road blocks” of Class C. What would the cost be? No one knows because there is no way of measuring it. I would estimate it is millions of dollars of waste over the last decade or so – virtually all affecting general aviation.I;m now appraoching 20 years of ATC duties and I have ‘knocked back’ a VFR clearance twice over that time (sh!ts were trumps). I encourage early calls, flight planning etc. Using your analogy ‘road blocks’ are created by the poor design and by the users.

In the UK all their non-radar tower airports have Class G above so aircraft can overfly and save needless waste. I don’t dare mention the USA – no, I will. Look at the diagram that I posted earlier. They have Class E airspace above all of their terminal areas so that unnecessary holding and fuel can be saved. And in the UK all airports that service RPT Jets have at least a Class D tower. In the USA there are approximately 135 D towers without ‘circuit’ radar coverage; but how many are there without ‘enroute’ radar coverage to 5000 AGL? How many of these towers are getting M-LAT; ADS-B, radar facilities to capture the missing (dare I say riskier) ‘black hole’ airspace. How many of those class D towers service RPT jets.

SM4 Pirate, you don’t cover the fact that we have Class C airspace above places like Proserpine and Avalon, but we have Class G uncontrolled airspace - without even a UNICOM - at low levels and in the circuit area where the collision risk is obviously far greater. Remember both of these airports have jet airline aircraft – with Avalon having over 1.5 million passengers per year.No argument from me on that, again Didn’t know I was being asked.

Risk improvements can be made easily IMHO at places like YWLM, YBRM, YPSP, YMAV; but does that mean a tower? There are other options; most of which will require some sort of ATC at some stage to do it. Where radar coverage is good what is the true collision risk? At places like YMAV, YWLM, YPSP what is the measured risk where there is no tower service, but everything leaving the above airspace is ‘regulated’? I’d suggest that is very different risk profiles to non-radar E; despite it being ‘terminal’ airspace.

In other leading aviation countries, operating jet airline aircraft without a minimum of Class E – or at least an air traffic control tower - is simply not allowed.I believe that this is IFATCA and dare I mention Civil Air, oops I did, policy. The current government policy is to protect PTOs (passenger transport operations) first and foremost, therefore there are things to be done.

Fortunately there are young controllers coming along, and from their emails I get a feeling that they have a more lateral view of the situation.

To have an airspace system which is a “one way ratchet” which precludes ever correcting mistakes of the past would be an error in my view. Now CASA is responsible for airspace, controllers of all descriptions will have very little impact in designs.

As mentioned above, the cost of the Class C “road block” airspace is staggering. The “road block” would be reduced if the Class C was provided with an approach radar system and adequate controllers. However everyone then says, “That’s too expensive.” Well yes and no, it currently would be too expensive; but in a few years it may be very achievable. Why does it need to be an approach service? Why not have good surveillance and manage the airspace appropriately. Good surveillance would IMHO would save about 50 controllers currently allocated to Procedural Sectors; because of the high workloads that non-radar creates; these could easily be directed to the airspace abutting the D towers with significant safety benefits.

The answer seems to be, “Oh, don’t worry, just delay the VFR aircraft because if people stop flying VFR aircraft they are more likely to fly in airlines and that will give more income to Airservices.” This is a short term view. If we don’t have a viable and growing GA industry, we will end up without enough pilots to fly for the airlines – without even considering the lack of training for maintenance and other people.I don’t think anyone thinks that way at all. But I don’t want unknown VFRs mixing it with Jets or fast moving Turbos; why increase the risks (the law says you can’t); yes they do it now, but why make it worse; unless you can prove the benefits, so far it’s anecdotes and waffle, sorry but true from my position. The number one detractor from the “Willoughby Report” was that it wasn’t tangible; if it wasn’t made to look so good with headline figures but actually had real evidence or at least arguable evidence then it would have had a much better chance.

By the way, my suggestion is to have a look at the staggering number of incidents which take place in Class D airspace. Incidents like airline aircraft being cleared for take off when there is a motor vehicle on the runway, or the incident at Hamilton Island where two jets got awfully close together whilst the controller was holding VFR helicopters outside the zone. No one can tell me that holding aircraft outside the zone doesn’t add to stress and increase the chance of an error by controllers.Again, you published a list of D tower incidents of which three or four (out of the 130 claimed events) were of the nature of which you claimed. Please show us some evidence of this large number of conflict in D. And the reasons why they happened, controller error, pilot error, combination, unkown etc. Then compare that to a similar time period of the NAS 2b or the GNAF airspace. PS no bird strikes etc; like last time.

PS The government inherited Airspace policy, where plans were due by September 2007; where are these plans? Will the policy be reviewed by the new government? Not to mention the current C directive issued 3 or 4 ministers ago, is it still active?

[Howabout]

Jeez SM4, I appreciate your passion, but it's just too long - again. I'd just register the observation that when Dick goes hiking, airspace isn't an issue with the majority - clearly there are a small number of sycophants (dare I say fundamentalists) that bang the drum, wag their tails and hang out for a pat on the head from Dick. 90% plus couldn't care less and are focussed on more important issues regarding the future of aviation in this country.

[Quokka]

...which brings us to a point where it might be appropriate to have a little poll... Moderator?

Which ICAO Class Airspace should a paying passenger on an airline jet fly through on descent into a capital city airport... Class C? Class E?

Which ICAO Class Airspace should a paying passenger on an airline jet fly through on descent before arriving at an aerodrome for which Class D tower services are provided? Class C? Class E?

Moderator?

[BurglarsDog]

SM4 good post.

Read it all.

Dont loose the passion!

I have lost a little and now commute 15000km each way to teach within a system that doesnt have the same challenges as Oz! We dont have any primary radar or procedural training either for that matter, buts thats in some one elses in tray !

However, beer is a $1 a schooner ; so feedback on anything and everything with anyone, is always loud but honest! 5 ex controllers 6 opinions!!
Result - occasionally = 1 change for the safer!

DogGone:ok:

[BurglarsDog]

Quokka

Sorry to post twice but"

a: Class C please - Full sep Guaranteed would be nice! Any subsequent loss of separation and the finger of liability can be pointed = ATC get litergated! Also the plan/ sequence set up en route can be followed through efficienctly and safely to the threshold - no surprises! Controller workload may be lower therefore more density should be achieved - maybe!

b: Class C again thanks. During descent an IFR aircraft doing 200- 300kts or whatever, could fly straight through the level of any cruising, climbing, descending, VFRs level. Potentially Ooch! But once into D, ATC can identify any potential confliction, and take responsibility for sequencing, passing traffic info and or instructions to sequence and thereby separate to the threshold. No standard needs be applied between VFR and IFR so no delay needed. (Eh Dick!)

DogGone:O

[Howabout]

Damn, despite my previous post, I can't help myself. I pose the following to controllers working 'upside-down' airspace. Dick maintains that providing separation in C is a distraction from providing separation where the action is - circuit area and rest of the D zone. I'd put it another way. If I only knew about the IFR in overlying E and could unintentionally run them into an unknown VFR, I think I would be in a permanent state of 'cacking my pants' - which would be a whole heap more distracting than knowing where everybody was and keeping them apart. Comments anyone?

[BurglarsDog]

Cost effective for who? The service provider, the operator, or the fare paying passenger?

Could also be read as most profitable (again for who?) if share holders and management bonuses are involved.

What is the base of radar cover around some of the busier non tower aerodromes? If it is low enough to effectively abutt an MBZ airpsace below then I would support class C over an MBZ as a minimum. The problem with class E over an MBZ or CTAF for that matter is that you have no control over the VFR traffic during vital climb and descent profiles of IFR traffic. If all traffic was mandated to call the radar controller within E, or to minimise control and RT, how about implementing a mandatory carriage of a transponder, and allocating a conspicuity code for VFR as per the old 7000 SSR in UK, (non verified mode C), say within a specified distance of the aerodrome - 50nm out for example (just a pluck). Then perhaps effective traffic info could be passed (AKA UK RAS or RIS system ) prior to relase to the CTAF / MBZ, and all players could self separate and sequence for the runway acccording to rules of the air and general airmanship principles. No tower controller would then be required. That said this would depend on the controllers responsibilities airspace and overall workload. Not knowing what the Melb and Bris blokes actually do day to day I cant compare with other systems. No doubt a lot more controllers would be required and sectorisation would need to be apportioned according to availability and serviceability of radar consoles.

Just a thought or two

DogGone:ok:

[werbil]

BD,

Carriage and use of a transponder in mandatory in class E airspace (except for aircraft without an engine driven electrical system).

VFR is REQUIRED to squawk 1200.

W