CASA Boss Confirms Support for NAS

[Frank Arouet]

John McCormick made an unambiguous surprise affirmation of his suppport for the NAS at yesterdays SCC meeting. Dr Hawke, the new CASA Chairman of the Board, concurred, and in what appeared to be a re alignment of it's previous policy, the new Chairman of AOPA, Phillip Reiss confirmed that organisation's support.

[An Interested Party]

So, let me see.

The United States of America, from whence the NAS model is derived, out of more than 190 sovereign countries around the world, is the sole model of world's best practice. And as the ardent follower of world's best practice that Australia is, it would be remiss of Australia not to embrace wholeheartedly the NAS model and become only the second or more than 190 sovereign countries around the world to follow the NAS model, never mind the fact that it is not compliant with international policy derived by ICAO, and enshrined in the law of each of those 190 or more sovereign countries, the United Sates of America and Australia included.

This is not the first time Australia has sided unilaterally with the United States of America in attempting to arbitrate world's best practice. Most recently, from an international array of more than 200 sovereign countries, the United States of America and Australia stood alone in opposing the Kyoto Protocol.

Of course the United States of America claimed it was the arbiter or world's best practice, and that despite the science, everyone else was plain wrong. Of course Australia followed, being of course obsessed with following the lead of the arbiter of world's best practice, the United States of America.

How embarrassing that the United States of America has now embraced the science and has joined the rest of the world in climate science. How long until the United States of America accepts that maybe - just maybe - the reason they do what they do in airspace management is more about the cost of change, rather than the science of change. In fact, if you were to read the background material for all of the research and development programs in airspace management in the United States of America, you would see that they are being undertaken because NAS just won't continue to work as air traffic increases. It has long since reached its use by date.

My point? NAS is what the United States of America has always done, and changing it would be prohibitively expensive. That doesn't make it world's best practice - it just makes it United States of America best practice. If the United States of America could change their airspace model they surely would. Should Australia change to the 1/190 model, or move to the 188/190 model. The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it.

[Joker 10]

At last some sense comes into the NAS issue, now we have a leader for CASA and a Chairman with impeccable qualifications we can expect to see more rational decisions come forth.

Great to see leadership at last.

[LeadSled]

AIP,
If you choose ( as I do) to use air safety outcomes/accident rates (using ICAO criteria --- not the "tailored" definitions occasionally used elsewhere) whatever US is doing (FAA + US AOPA + NBAA + NTSB + all the other contributors to air safety), US IS world's best practice.

If you doubt this, all the statistics are available from the most significant of the relevant published material, that most advanced aviation nations make available. Without any preconceived outcome in mind, go have an unbiased look, you might be very surprised. Make certain you compare like with like.
There is only one area where we beat the US, and that is gliding

Within US, huge volumes of movements are accommodated, the MAC rate is so much less than Australia, that the difference cannot be written of as "sampling error", by whatever name. The rates quoted by the CASA DAS/CEO will surprise many, he is correct. Why wouldn't he be correct, he is only quoting publicly available data.

Being largely concerned with international transport, much of the ICAO docs. have little to do with GA. Indeed, the Chicago Convention of 1944, at the height of WWII, did not have GA as a high priority, at least in part because GA as we know it didn't even exist in 1944.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that ICAO D is in any way optimum for a GA (or any) aerodrome, nor is there anything improper in filing differences to meet national objectives.

GAAP is FAA D, with minor variations, the movement rate caps are not intended to be permanent, once mitigations for the problems detailed in the Ambidjii report are put in place, I am certain there will be changes to the movement caps.

I feel very sorry for those who are disadvantaged by the caps, let's hope everybody smartly gets together to get the mitigation in place. A few CFIs understanding the GAAP "rules" would be a start --- see the Ambidjii report.

Tootle pip!!

[blueloo]

So have they announced total and complete Australia wide RADAR coverage to suit?

[Frank Arouet]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/papers/gaapfull_june09.pdf

[Joker 10]

Blue Loo the USA does not have nationwide RADAR coverage, large tracts of the Mid West are just like the Australian GAFA as is Northern Arizona which is why Steve Fossett took so long to find.

[Jabawocky]

Perspective joker...Perspective.

I do not have data on this to back it up, but I am sure leadie can dig it up, I would bet a round of beers that the area that is covered, covers a far greater percentage of flights than the percentage of Australian flights in radar coverage.

Must be sure we are comparing apples with apples I think.

J:ok:

[Howabout]

I won't get into an argument about statistics, but don't the powers that be have any understanding of 'change fatigue?' We are still suffering from the last round of zealotry and now we have the new boy, who wasn't around last time, telling us (allegedly) that he supports NAS.

If the report maintains that something needs to be done at GAAPs (it does; I've read it too), then fine. However, the (alleged) blanket statement about NAS is going to cause more angst and division than this guy appreciates. We already know about the huge divide on CTAF and CTAF(R). Now, do we go back to the stoush about E over D?

In one fell swoop, if these NAS features are on his agenda, this guy is potentially alienating the entire regional and domestic fraternity. I have my own opinion on the CTAF question, and it does not align with the regional's position - but I'll put it aside if it means not revisiting the last disaster. And, on the E over D question, let's just get radar, qualify the controllers to use it, and make it all C.

Probably be cheaper that another round of John and Martha road-shows, glossy brochures and CD-ROMS.

[Chief galah]

I didn't see AirServices announcement that it had doubled its ATC staff. :hmm:

[Howabout]

CG, admittedly I glossed over the practicalities. My point is that going back to NAS is going to involve inordinate expense, division, no practical gain and a fatigued and divided industry.

Do we want to go there again?

[LeadSled]

BluLoo,
Perhaps the difference in low level radar coverage is offset by the fact that there is sod all aviation in Australia, a sad fact.

Even if the "forecast" expansion claimed by the JCP out to 2025 was achieved ( a most improbable circumstance), the 2025 traffic levels would only be somewhere between one tenth and one fifth of present US "lower 48" traffic.

As to matters CTAF v. CTAF(R) ---- sounds like an announcement is imminent, and I believe it will surprise a few, but a very sound decision. A few will be profoundly unhappy, facts having trumped beliefs. Pilots will have no problem dealing with the decision.

Mr. McCormick is very strong on facts.

We all know that there will be expanded ADS-B use, mostly high level, because some airlines want it and are prepared to pay AA (even though nobody has demonstrated actual savings, given Australia's minuscule traffic levels --- the only physical ongoing cause of airborne delays in Australia, ultimately, is lack of runway real estate, not airspace saturation) but it sure sounds like there has been an outbreak if virulent common sense on the matter of any "mandate" of ADS-B at low levels.

Bad news for the enthusiasts for "managed airspace", and the peddlers of vapourware.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Howabout,

Nothing to do with John McCormick, but it looks like once place will solve the "E or C" over D debate, by closing the particular tower (with the support of the dominant Regional --- saves money), and it all reverts to G.

How's that grabya as a solution.

Then, if NAS is progressed, in this area it will all become E (down to 1200/750agl) under A.

As for "change fatigue", how about the real problem is "almost changed but didn't quite finish the job fatigue". Don't forget the ATSB figures for NAS 2B, there were none, zero, zilch serious (whatever ATSB classification that is) incidents caused by NAS 2B, over an almost twelve month period.

Now let's watch all the naysayers roar into action. Then go have a look at the ATSB records.

Tootle pip!!

[Howabout]

Thanks Lead, I appreciate your views, but seem to remember a couple of incidents in E that weren't judged to be incidents because E was 'see-and-avoid' regarding IFR to VFR separation. Hence, under the regime at the time (E airspace), they were not, technicaly, incidents.

If the airspace was C, they would have been serious NMACs.

So, with all due respect, I think you are being a bit cute.

Over.

[C-change]

Great, new brooms = sweeping changes.

The big old wheel keeps on turning. Here we go again, more changes, probably back to what we did 10 yrs ago, (MBZ anyone) more letters than the greek alphabet to remember.

Anyone running the show ever heard of the KISS principle !!

Time to get off this merry-go-round called aviation.

[blueloo]

I can accept that Australia will not have full radar coverage in the near and not foreseeable future.

There should however be radar coverage (and controlling) anywhere RPT jets of a certain capacity (and I don't know what arbitrary figure one would use - but say SAAB / Dash 8 size give or take) operate a scheduled service.

ADS-B can take up the rest of the slack.

[Jabawocky]

ADS-B can take up the rest of the slack.

sorry ... that horse bolted.... or is Clancy and Jim Craig on the horizon ;)

Stay tuned............... but do not hold they breath!:suspect:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

From that Ambidji report... Ambidji was unable to find any evidence whereby international administrations had either conducted a risk study or even took into account societal risk considerations. Consequently, it may be likely that many of the international airspace structures that Ambidji undertook comparative analyses on may be at the same, or higher, risk profile as the GAAP aerodromes in Australia. This factor could explain why a Class D control tower in the United States of America (USA) can handle over 300,000 movements annually but an Australian equivalent may not. It is possible that the USA aerodrome is currently operating with a higher level of risk.

[Capn Bloggs]

now we have a leader for CASA and a Chairman with impeccable qualifications we can expect to see more rational decisions come forth.

Let me see. The CEO has no commercial aviation experience in regional Australia, hardly ever operated a Hi Cap jet in regional Australia (apart from up the coast from SY to BN at 500ft in his 777) and flies a lighty from Archerfield.

As for the Chairman:
Name: Dr Allan Douglas Hawke
Residence: ACT
Present position: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board
Educational and professional qualifications: Bachelor of Science (Hons), Australian National University, 1970
Doctor of Philosophy, Australian National University, 1976
Fellow, Australian Institute of Public Administration, 1998
Fellow, Australian Institute of Management, 1999
Fellow, Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2001
Relevant experience: 2003-2006: High Commissioner to New Zealand
1999-2002: Secretary, Department of Defence
1996-1999: Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services
1994-1996: Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
Current Board Memberships: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board
Director, Datacom
Chairman of the DSTO Advisory Board
Chairman of the Canberra Raiders Board
Former Board Memberships: Administrative Review Council
Australian Strategic Policy Institute Council
President, ACT Branch, Institute of Public Administration Australia
Director, Canberra Girls Grammar School Board
Member, Foreign Affairs Council
Member, Defence and National Security Advisory Council
Chancellor, Australian National University

Obviously a top-class bureaucrat but aviation...?

If they allow no-radio lighties to mix it with HiCap RPT jets, either in the CTAF circuit or overhead a non-radar tower, just to placate a few self-centred non-conformists, or indeed gridlock some non-radar airspace with swathes of non-radar E, I will be very disappointed.:cool:

[Joker 10]

This factor could explain why a Class D

Hardly a fact, looks an awful like an opinion to me

[flying-spike]

"This factor could explain"
Opinion/hypothesis maybe?

[Howabout]

I am still not convinced on the case for E terminal airspace. E enroute, that used to be G, I don't have problems with; this seems like a quantifiable safety upgrade where it's achievable - available ATC resources etc.

There's also the point that the CASA boss, while supporting NAS (allegedly) hasn't really defined what that support entails. Is that 'support' an exact duplication of US NAS, or is it some form of adherence to a set of principles for more efficient airspace use that reflects an underlying NAS philosophy? Sorry, those are ropey words, but I wonder about intent, as claimed in the opening post, and actual intent.

However, let's assume that the intent is exact duplication (it may not be) with respect to E terminal. I know this is a bit long-winded, but I'm trying to lay my thoughts out and would appreciate an answer from the controller perspective.

One of the things that alarmed me during NAS 2b was the number of statements from controllers on this forum that pointed out the difficulties of providing some form of separation in a see-and-avoid environment when they could not control both aircraft (IFR RPT and VFR). More than one made the comment that by giving a recommended heading to an RPT he/she could well have run that aircraft into a non-communicating, but transponding, aircraft that did an unanticipated turn. Those posts got me thinking.

Which leads me to the question: Is this really a viable proposition for the future? If those sorts of doubts were raised in an environment where the problem was separation between a jet and relatively slow-moving VFR avgas singles or twins, what are the implications when we have far faster and quicker turning aircraft on the register.

I am referring, of course, to the introduction of VLJs, which every mag, guru and anybody else with an interest is touting as the way of the future. If slow-flying bug-smashers were a problem, what's the potential for a VFR VLJ to cruel everbody's day (say one-on-one with an A380)? The predictions are that VLJs will burgeon as a form of corporate and (if you're rich enough) private transport. No doubt, a proportion could be VFR.

Are we at risk of introducing a potentially antiquated system that cannot accommodate modern technology?

Any comment?

[tobzalp]

As a controller with ratings over the GAFA at this point in time, I support the correct implementation of NAS. Really, it is a very simple process. I am not so sure that the airlines are fully aware however of the actual way these E procedures will work for them. Take for example Cape York at this time of year. For much of the last month there has been OVC conditions around 6000.

When a couple of IFR aircraft depart within a few minutes of eachother, as it stands, they can go all the way up to 180 working themselves out. In procedural E where VMC does not exist they will be having a very tough time getting a clearance. While the crews will work out very quickly that they need to wait an extra minute or two before departing to get some form of distance separation that ATC can use, I ask how is this a saving as those props are turning while they wait?

This whole thing has had enormous coverage on this site and every time it gets a new head of steam is is due to a new bureaucrat with a hand up their arse or some idealist who really does not understand the mix of traffic that this country has and in what areas.

I am over it and really, implement whatever.:zzz:

[trueline]

I am over it and really, implement whatever.

Yeah, I feel the same.
Couldn't be bothered fighting those idiots that want to bring back NAS 2B.
Them and their 'risk analysis' and 'world's best practice'.
WE know it's dangerous but who ever listens to ATCs?

So, go ahead, bring it in and just hope that you're not on board the VFR bugsmasher that gets drilled by a SAAB 340 or DHC8 or Jungle jet over Albury....

[Howabout]

You guys didn't answer the question, but I suppose it goes to something I alluded to before. Change fatigue has buggered us all, regardless of which side of the mic you reside.

[Joker 10]

Can't be VFR above FL 250

I am referring, of course, to the introduction of VLJs, which every mag, guru and anybody else with an interest is touting as the way of the future. If slow-flying bug-smashers were a problem, what's the potential for a VFR VLJ to cruel everbody's day (say one-on-one with an A380)? The predictions are that VLJs will burgeon as a form of corporate and (if you're rich enough) private transport. No doubt, a proportion could be VFR.

[Capn Bloggs]

One of the things that alarmed me during NAS 2b was the number of statements from controllers on this forum that pointed out the difficulties of providing some form of separation in a see-and-avoid environment when they could not control both aircraft (IFR RPT and VFR).
You think that's bad? At least ATC can see both aircraft.Think of the poor jet crew dodging a VFR on the CTAF AND being directed around by ATC on the Centre frequency in non-radar E because they are conflicting with another IFR. Yep, here comes DICK. "CANCEL IFR". So what did that achieve?? :ugh:

Can't be VFR above FL 250
FL 200 actually, without CASA approval. Which is why E should never have been introduced above FL200. :ugh:

[peuce]

Howabout,

As all the others have said, the issue in Class E is vectoring IFRs, whilst VFRs track as desired. With surveillance, there's some mitigation, without surveillance, it's Russian roulette.

As Dick will quite rightly say ... "they do it all day, every day in the States"

Yes, they do ... because they have to. There's no other way to process that amount of traffic. Imagine if it was all Class C.

The problem is ... we don't have to ... with our traffic levels, we have other options to protect IFRs, without inconveniencing VFRs .. too much.

[mjbow2]

Capn Bloggs

Your deliberate campaign of misinformation serves only to illustrate to other pilots your resistance to change despite the prevailing tide of common sense.

The next generation of GA and young regional airline pilots will be flying in NAS airspace in the future. Some of them will give credence to your comments merely because you fly a 717 jet and develop the same blind resistance that you have.

Capn Bloggs says

Think of the poor jet crew dodging a VFR on the CTAF AND being directed around by ATC on the Centre frequency

This has been explained to you before, yet you deliberately continue to mislead the readers.

You will never be in the situation as you describe. ATC will not clear you for an approach (visual or instrument) until any conflicting IFR traffic has been dealt with. You will not be given approval from ATC to change off the centre frequency until you are clear of any other IFR traffic. Do you understand this?

In VMC conditions class E is exactly the same as what we do now, in class G.

Myself and many other Australian pilots have flown for many years using Class E in the United States and understand how safe and efficient it is. You clearly have not and are not speaking from a position of understanding or experience.

Capn Bloggs you say

Yep, here comes DICK. "CANCEL IFR". So what did that achieve??

I cannot accept that you made it to a 717 with such a poor level of comprehension so can only conclude that you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters for the next generation of airline pilots who are yet to make up the mind about NAS.

What did class E achieve? How many times does this have to be explained to you? Improved safety in IMC conditions. The Orange (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/aair/aair200604222.aspx) near miss in IMC would not have occurred. The Qantas GPWS incident in IMC at Canberra (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/aair/aair200402747.aspx) would not have occurred. The Benalla and Mount Hotham accidents would not have occurred.

Any reasonable thinking pilot would want the protection of Class E during IMC conditions Capn Bloggs. A class of airspace that also has the flexibility of Class G if VMC conditions exist.

[Frank Burden]

Forecast 1:
A return to mandatory radio carriage and associated reporting in all airspace.

Forecast 2:
An introduction of the FARs to Australia to overcome all the blockages that have been created for the CASA regulatory reform program.

Sometimes, a ready made 95% solution is better than no solution.:D

[peuce]

mjbow2,

Just so I have this straight.
The scenario is an RPT 737 on descent from F300 into, say, Ballina.

Are you saying that, if it's VMC, the Captain will change to VFR and continue down on his merry way, seeing and avoiding... and free from ATC instructions.
(In fact, can an RPT Jet change to VFR?)

Will that really happen?

Or, is it more likely that the SOP will be to remain IFR till the circuit, and receive the maximum amount of ATC protection?

As for your IMC example, that's exactly what we are saying ... the IFR will be controlled, more or less,to the circuit... irrespective of any VFRs in the vicinity. Oh, but it's IMC, you say. Well, who decides if it's IMC? ATC, the IFR captain ? What if johnny VFR has a different opinion?

The bottom line is ... yes, it can work (it does in the US), but at a certain risk level. Do we need to accept that risk level?

[Howabout]

mjbow2, I won't get into a slanging match; that does nobody any good. But you did accuse Bloggs of spreading misinformation and I do take issue with that. So, I re-post what I said to Lead, as follows:

Thanks Lead, I appreciate your views, but seem to remember a couple of incidents in E that weren't judged to be incidents because E was 'see-and-avoid' regarding IFR to VFR separation. Hence, under the regime at the time (E airspace), they were not, technicaly, incidents.

If the airspace was C, they would have been serious NMACs.

That was in response to Lead's assertion that ther were 'no incidents' under NAS 2b.

The concern, mjbow2, is not IFR to IFR - never has been. It's IFR to VFR, but I suspect you know this. Trying to confine the argument to IFR vs IFR is misleading and disingenuous on your part - precisely what you accuse Bloggs doing.

[C-change]

Something seems a bit smelly here.

I'm wondering if the Chairman, the CEO and Dick Smith are all mates !!!

[ferris]

I cannot accept that you made it to a 717 with such a poor level of comprehension Actually, MJBOW2, it is you who is quite clearly lacking comprehension. Your post is either deliberately misleading, or lacking basic understanding. It contains several factually incorrect statements. You say In VMC conditions class E is exactly the same as what we do now, in class G. That is blatantly incorrect. Do you really need it explained to you? How can someone claiming to " have operated for years in NAS class E and understand how safe and flexible it is" have any credibility after demonstrating such a basic lack of understanding? The Qantas GPWS incident in IMC at Canberra would not have occurred. Blatantly incorrect. The incident occurred because the controller arrived late for work. It wouldn't matter what class of airspace you have- even class A- if the controller isnt there to provide the service. But go ahead- continue to misinform. The Benalla and Mount Hotham accidents would not have occurred. Are you stupid, or just repeating misinformation from Dick's handbook? A lie told a hundred times....How does a controller, controlling procedurally (Mt Hotham- due lack of surveillance), stop CFIT? How does a controller, after having released an aircraft to make an approach (Benalla- even if there was surveillance) have any idea whether the pilot is visual, or have said pilot on freq to issue warnings etc? Are you advocating that pilots remain on the centre freq until decision height/visual? I'm really intrigued how you think this will work in the real world. (NB. This is without even going into having to have every possible approach at every airfield available to controllers, how controllers- even with adequate surveillance- would monitor all these approaches- screen scale, sector sizes etc etc).
Before you launch tirades against other posters for lacking understanding, how about YOU gain a bit of understanding about ATC, and how the practicalities of its provision exist in Australia's unique environment?
DONE TO DEATH.

[andrewr]

How does a controller, controlling procedurally (Mt Hotham- due lack of surveillance), stop CFIT? How does a controller, after having released an aircraft to make an approach (Benalla- even if there was surveillance) have any idea whether the pilot is visual, or have said pilot on freq to issue warnings etc?

I would suggest there is a big leap between "cutting a few corners" on the approach (as at Mt Hotham) when you think nobody is monitoring, and doing the same thing and lying to a controller by telling them you are flying the standard approach. If you a reporting to a controller, I would expect you are more likely to follow the rules, even if they can't actually see you on radar.

At Benalla the aircraft was well off course while it was still on radar. If the controller was responsible for issuing a clearance for the approach at the destination, do you think they might have queried the course early on?

The question is not necessarily whether a controller could have intervened at the last fatal step - changes to the situation much earlier in the flight might have changed the outcome.

[CaptainMidnight]

It has always intrigued me how a few here think they know airspace management, radar coverage, ATC procedures, what services ATC can provide and what workload they can handle better than ATC themselves, who clearly have the expertise because it is their job. And when given responses from ATC based on that expertise, it is still not heeded.

How often do we see ATCs here buying into cockpit matters, telling pilots how they should fly and manage their aircraft, deal with CRM and what workload they can handle?

[le Pingouin]

It has always intrigued me how a few here think they know airspace management, radar coverage, ATC procedures, what services ATC can provide and what workload they can handle better than ATC themselves, who clearly have the expertise because it is their job. And when given responses from ATC based on that expertise, it is still not heeded.

It's nothing about ATC & all about politics. Just ask TFN. How often do we see ATCs here buying into cockpit matters, telling pilots how they should fly and manage their aircraft, deal with CRM and what workload they can handle? They use the airspace & think they're the only aircraft in the sky. What's going to amuse me is when I refuse to clear them for an instrument approach in one tiny corner of my airspace because I'm too f*ing busy to monitor the approach.

[ferris]

Andrewr.

Your postulations are nothing more than speculation. You may speculate that pilots wont cut corners, but I put it to you that they might just be aware of what can and cant be seen, and that knowledge might actually worsen the situation. Either way, changing an airspace system based on speculation about what might or might not be achieved is pretty stupid.
Whilst in the Benalla accident, the a/c might have been on radar and off course, there is always going to come a time in every single approach when the aircraft will be maneuvering in a manner not apparent to the controller (unless the idea is to mandate ILS-type approaches using WAAS/whatever, and a/c must be 'stable' before being cleared to approach, or some such rubbish :rolleyes: ). Every a/c must descend below the lowest safe at some point. Dick's idea to have increased hand-holding will bring enormous delay to many, many IFR flights that are successfully completed every year. This extra cost to the industry has nebulous benefit- what if the controller does have surveillance coverage, does have the aircraft on freq, and is monitoring the approach on a scale sufficient to detect the a/c being off-track? What if the pilot at Benalla acknowledges, checks his GPS derived position and comes up with the same wrong answer/incorrect info/whatever and continues with the same result? PURE SPECULATION, either way. Hardly a basis for airspace management. The only certainty is that there will be extra delays to IFR a/c (as an example; I'm assuming in the Orange incident cited that one of the a/c would've been holding overhead, waiting for the other to report on the ground so that the controller could clear the holding a/c to approach :D ) Just imagine the wasted time/resources etc.!!!
If proponents could absolutely show that ausNAS would provide affordable increases in safety, then there wouldn't be much of a leg for any naysayers to stand on. The problem is that many can see the practicalities (and their challenges) of what is proposed, and how little it will help anything.

[andrewr]

Your postulations are nothing more than speculation.

But those saying it wouldn't have made a difference are fact?

If controlled airspace doesn't improve safety for IFR, what is the point of any controlled airspace outside radar coverage?

If it does make it safer, the question then is do we want to pay the cost? If not that's OK, but we should understand the choices that are being made.

[Howabout]

andrewr,

The thrust of this thread goes way back. I hesitate to speak on behalf of the controllers, but the argument is thus (correct me guys if I'm wrong):

ATC does not have a problem with E airspace being lowered in areas where the airspace is currently G.
All ATC wants is to have sufficient resources to provide the level of service required. (Have I got it right so far?)
The argument really revolves around the re-classification of C terminal to E terminal. Everything else is a smoke-screen.
The arguments put forward in a couple of posts that people are resistant to change, for not wanting to go from G to E, are rubbish.
It's not the G to E scenario; it's the C to E being pushed by the fundamentalists (had to get that in).
Now, my definition of terminal may not be correct, but I'd define it as airspace after top-of-descent - yes, that's pretty broad.
C to E, in a terminal environment, means that you (sitting there eating that crappy muesli that QANTAS passes off these days as a breakfast) are reliant on the vision of two guys upfront to prevent an aluminium shower on the way into Launy.
Once again, it's not enroute (if the resources are available), it's terminal, terminal, terminal.

[ferris]

But those saying it wouldn't have made a difference are fact? Err, no, Andrew, I quite clearly said that either way, it's speculation. But trying to use speculation as a basis for change is pretty stupid.
If controlled airspace doesn't improve safety for IFR, what is the point of any controlled airspace outside radar coverage? Be careful of falling into Dick's traps, Andrew. Australia doesn't have ANY Class G. There is lots of Class F, just called Class G. This muddying of terms is used by certain proponents quite effectively. There is a big difference between changing from F to E, as opposed to changing from G to E. Not often mentioned, but there nonetheless. You might re-phrase your question thus: What is the point of Class E airspace, outside radar coverage? Class E undoubtedly provides more protection than lower classes- but at what cost? Perhaps the Class F service currently provided is the most efficient and appropriate level of service for Australian conditions? Certainly, changing existing Class C to E is the main gripe, as Howabout says.

[mjbow2]

Peuce you say

As Dick will quite rightly say ... "they do it all day, every day in the States"
Yes, they do ... because they have to. There's no other way to process that amount of traffic. Imagine if it was all Class C.

Peuce you make no sense what so ever. The United Stats does not use enroute Class C like we do because it simply does not stand up to any risk and cost benefit study.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only time we should replace our own enroute class C with class E is when our traffic levels and subsequent collision risk reach that of the United States?

Surely you understand that as actual risk increases, the class of airspace should increase too. ie Class E should be replaced with C as actual risk increases, not the other way around?

Peuce you ask

Are you saying that, if it's VMC, the Captain will change to VFR and continue down on his merry way, seeing and avoiding... and free from ATC instructions.

No

Howabout, you say

mjbow2, I won't get into a slanging match; that does nobody any good.

Thanks I appreciate that. And of course I agree with you.

You say

Trying to confine the argument to IFR vs IFR is misleading and disingenuous on your part - precisely what you accuse Bloggs doing.

I have never confined the case for Class E to IFR to IFR separation. I was correcting Capn Bloggs understanding of how IFR to IFR separation was going to work when he flies his 717 into a CTAF airport.


Ferris, you know full well that ATC passes on known VFR traffic to IFR aircraft in radar-covered class G. The same happens in class E.

Ferris you say in relation to the Qantas GPWS incident in Canberra

Blatantly incorrect. The incident occurred because the controller arrived late for work. It wouldn't matter what class of airspace you have

It is not incorrect at all. Perhaps you have forgotten what the NAS proposal says about terminal radar covered class E? NAS proposes to have towered airports within radar coverage that close at night, revert to Class E and that airspace will then be monitored/ controlled by the enroute controller. Just like they do in the United States when a tower closes for the night.

Ferris in relation to Mt Hotham and Benalla you say

Are you stupid…

No
Thanks for asking.

You say

A lie told a hundred times....How does a controller, controlling procedurally (Mt Hotham- due lack of surveillance), stop CFIT? How does a controller, after having released an aircraft to make an approach (Benalla- even if there was surveillance) have any idea whether the pilot is visual, or have said pilot on freq to issue warnings etc?

You claim that an Air Traffic Controller could not have prevented these accidents because of inadequate radar coverage in that area. You are telling the truth about the less than perfect radar coverage in these areas. It does not go all the way to the ground because of the terrain shadows.

It is important however that both you and the other readers understand exactly how the application of Class E corridors into these airports could have prevented these accidents. At both Mt Hotham and at Benalla the ATSB retrieved radar returns showed that ATC had radar contact with both aircraft, which were off track prior to dropping off radar.

Under our NAS and just like they do in the United States in places like the Rocky Mountains where I flew on a daily basis the controller would monitor the aircraft as they made their way toward the Initial or final approach fix. Only when the aircraft makes it to one of these fixes do they approve the aircraft to change off the centre controller’s frequency.

If the aircraft drops off radar due to coverage limitations then the controller can simply hand off with “radar contact lost, frequency change approved”.
But in both these cases, had the airways been Class E corridors the actual radar returns showed that the aircraft were off course prior to dropping off radar coverage and the controller could have alerted the pilots at that time.

I don’t wish to labour the point Ferris but don’t you think our passengers and us pilots deserve the benefit of Class E into places like Mt Hotham.

Sure you might lose us on radar prior to arriving at the FAF but can we at least have your eyes backing us up until such time as we do drop off the screen? We need you guys as long as we can in these places and Class E corridors provide us with your backup.

You ask

Are you advocating that pilots remain on the centre freq until decision height/visual? I'm really intrigued how you think this will work in the real world.

See above. No just until you see us safely on track/ on altitude at the FAF or until we drop off your telly. ☺ Like we got in the U.S.

CaptainMidnight, I understand that AsA may not be currently providing controllers with the required manpower to provide the services called for in NAS.

I am simply pointing out that the system as approved and proposed can and does work. I would only support NAS if it is appropriately resourced as proposed.

[ferris]

you know full well that ATC passes on known VFR traffic to IFR aircraft in radar-covered class G. The same happens in class E. How does that wash with your statement that "In VMC, E is the same as G"?????? E is not the same as G. Perhaps you are getting confused with E being the same as C, when it's IMC? Regardless, your lack of understanding of the classifications and what services are provided is evident.
At both Mt Hotham and at Benalla the ATSB retrieved radar returns showed that ATC had radar contact with both aircraft, which were off track prior to dropping off radar.
Putting aside the merits (or otherwise) of that assertion: So a/c will be monitored on-track. Which track? To what tolerance? HOW EXACTLY? This is the bit that those who do the job want to know. As a pilot, you don't care. As the person who has to do it I (and my colleagues) WANT TO KNOW. Recently, Dick raised as an example a small field near Washington. I spoke at length to a colleague who used to work that airspace, in order to educate myself about the practicalities (from the ATC perspective). Not only is there excellent, overlapping primary and secondary radar, there are more than 60 sectors in that area. More than 60 sectors!! So sure, if you want to split the area around Benalla into sectors of 1/10th their present size, track monitoring as you desire may be possible. Who is going to pay for it? Really, who? Dick defends the concept of affordable safety all the time. Do you think this is affordable safety? Given the lack of surveillance capability in oz, even the "track monitoring" you could receive would only give a nebulous benefit (even if you staffed consoles for it).
It is not incorrect at all. Perhaps you have forgotten what the NAS proposal says about terminal radar covered class E? NAS proposes to have towered airports within radar coverage that close at night, revert to Class E and that airspace will then be monitored/ controlled by the enroute controller You miss the point. If the controller isn't there (or AsA doesn't have enough staff to man consoles) you can make the airspace ANYTHING YOU WANT. But it will still be unmonitored. The only way around it is to require RPT jets to remain in manned airspace, and not be allowed to proceed into airspace that is unmanned, whatever classification that airspace carries. That way, in the CB case, the QF jet would hold in upper enroute airspace, until the missing sector driver shows up. The airspace was UNMANNED. Get it? CASA could do that right now, without changing any airspace classification.
I am simply pointing out that the system as approved and proposed can and does work. It works where there is the radar coverage, sector sizes and traffic levels/density that allow it to work. That is not Australia. That is what I am pointing out.

[peuce]

Mjbow2,

Peuce you make no sense what so ever. The United Stats does not use enroute Class C like we do because it simply does not stand up to any risk and cost benefit study.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only time we should replace our own enroute class C with class E is when our traffic levels and subsequent collision risk reach that of the United States?

Nope. I don't think so.
I was saying what a mess it would be if US airspace was Class C, not E.
You can make enroute airspace above F200 whatever you like ... there's no VFRs there.
As HOWABOUT said, we are really concerned here about terminal airspace.

You bring up another interesting issue there also:
At both Mt Hotham and at Benalla the ATSB retrieved radar returns showed that ATC had radar contact with both aircraft, which were off track prior to dropping off radar.

There's a big difference between being ON RADAR and being visible to the CONTROLLER. Sector sizes etc.

Without discussing all your other issues, you summed it up pretty well yourself:

I understand that AsA may not be currently providing controllers with the required manpower to provide the services called for in NAS.

I am simply pointing out that the system as approved and proposed can and does work. I would only support NAS if it is appropriately resourced as proposed.

I think you'll find we are all in irreconcilable agreement. Re-read HOWABOUT's post above.

[ferris]

Coincidentally, at work last night I was reading the latest Navcanada magazine. It features an article on a project to develop an MSAW tool for their system. The article describes successful implementation trials that have already seen the tool used in anger (a caravan in IMC and in mountains needing to descend due icing). They claim their tool is better than others due to it calculating a vector for an aircraft, much like a short-term conflict probe. This reduces false alarms.
The article finishes by mentioning that the tool is available for purchase.

What a shame that AsA doesn't do this sort of work anymore, and is basically a tax collection vehicle. Perhaps if it's focus was less commercial, or there was some imperative to do something for aviation in general, rather than just deliver bonuses to managers and a fat cheque to general revenue, Australia might have the capability to do what Canada does.

Maybe we could just buy it from Navcanada (thereby trashing any savings made by running the organisation with no staff)?

[Capn Bloggs]

MJBow2,
Your deliberate campaign of misinformation
I sincerely hope you are not implying that I am a liar.

You will never be in the situation as you describe. ATC will not clear you for an approach (visual or instrument) until any conflicting IFR traffic has been dealt with. You will not be given approval from ATC to change off the centre frequency until you are clear of any other IFR traffic. Do you understand this?
Yes I do. Regardless of what the ATC might be instructing me to do, I may well have to be negotiating, on the CTAF, collision avoidance with a VFR (or indeed an IFR that has cancelled IFR for the departure) who is completely oblivious to the ATC instructions I am copping, from an ATC who is completely oblivious to the VFR's actions. That may require an course of action that will increase the conflict with the IFR that, because I cannot yet see, I am being procedurally separated from. You are the one who doesn't get it. Put a tower at the bottom of your fabled E, together with ADS-B or radar, and I'll come and talk. Until then, terminal non-radar E just won't work in the regions. I can assure you there is nothing worse than trying to run two separate frequencies. In my opinion communications overload of a crew is the most dangerous aspect of the operation and being procedurally controlled by an ATC as well as having to talk on the CTAF is a recipe for a disaster.

Quite apart from the scenario I just described, here's another. Yesterday, 3 jets (not particularly close to each other) were descending into YPKA. Gin clear day, great day for flying, but not for the poor ATC running the sector. He was working his bum off because he had to procedurally separate these three jets all the way to FL180 when he/we all breathed a sigh of relief as they all went into Class F, didn't run into each other, and landed happily at YPKA. "Change to VFR!" I hear you say. Then I lose all the services that I would get as an IFR in F.

If that was to happen on a regular basis in less than VMC as it does not infrequently, the system would be gridlocked and you'd have to stump up millions to provide full procedural control to all IFRs to 700ft or whatever you reckon it should go down to.

As for your E solution for the four situations you described, I agree that the Casino incident could have been avoided by E. But IMO that was less serious than the ones you didn't mention: SE QLD and Tasmania, where your E airspace was the direct cause of two of TCAS RAs involving HiCap RPT jets and doing-their-own-thing VFRs within months of it being introduced. As for Benalla, the radar coverage there has been stated as questionable. Mt Hotham? I hope you are not seriously saying that we should have low-level Class E everywhere just to keep pilots with allegedly "questionable" operating practices under control?

The other thing that I find irrational in this whole E debate is your ilk's willingness to accept A380s having to dodge no-radio VFRs swanning around the edges of terminal areas in E airspace, as well as the other part of NAS that really riles me, allowing carte-blanche no-radio VFR operations to mix it with HiCap jets in CTAFs. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You write very much like Dick Smith...

[VH-MLE]

I was thinking the exact same thing myself.

Cheers.

VH-MLE