Airspace Policy Statement 2010

[LeadSled]

Folks,
In all the excitement about the brave new world of the Aviation White Paper, the release of the Airspace Policy Statement has been overlooked.

Those who were hoping to see the end of "NAS" will be profoundly disappointed, and mortified by para. 39.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/files/AAPS_081209.pdf

This makes interesting reading. Any of you who had access to one version of the draft of the "new" Airspace Policy statement, mid last year, would have noted that "CASA" had expurgated many of the major points in the then existing policy statement.

Two features missing from that "CASA/OAR Draft" were references to "Risk Management" and, surprise, surprise, NAS. Also the "Class C Radar" directive.

The Minister and his staff, and particularly the "Department" and its new Secretary, are to be congratulated for not falling for such nonsense.

See the policy in general, and note the following:

37 The Government‟s airspace strategy, to be implemented by CASA, involves the adoption of a risk-based approach to determining Australia‟s future airspace needs.

38 The implementation of this strategy requires the identification of risks to aviation safety using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and ultimately the safety judgment of CASA as the airspace regulator.

39 The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.

40 ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) also provide an important basis for airspace administration. The airspace strategy requires any deviations from ICAO SARPs to be well justified, documented, and formally notified to ICAO as a difference.


For those who are multi-lingual, including bureaucratese, this is a very strong statement. As I am sure you all know, this Airspace Policy automatically forms part of the Airspace Act, it's not just pollywaffle.

Tootle pip!!

[GaryGnu]

Leadslead,

I will gladly admit to wanting to see the end of NAS. I think you are right in that the Government, for no good reason I can think of, has continued an obsession with using the US as a model for Airspace architecture.

However, my favourite section of the AAPS is Section 43

The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives.

One of my biggest issues with the NAS policy is that it arbitrarily dictated that volumes of airspace relative to an aerodrome should have certain designations. I am therefore optimistic that we will in good time gain an appropriate airspace composition without it being dictated by special interest(s).

The original NAS document contained various ATC techniques based on US practice e.g. Implied Clearance. The AAPS still requires that such characteristics be subject to relevant analyses.

[LeadSled]

has continued an obsession with using the US as a model for Airspace architecture.


Gary,

Could the "obsession" with the US model perhaps be because it forms the very basis of all ICAO CNS/ATM. There is not a more thoroughly proven system.

Why does Australia always remind me of the "Little Old Lady", watching her darling offspring in the march past: " Ooohh look, Freddie's the only soldier in the Battalion in step".

We have a great record for trying to re-invent the wheel, and it ends up with corners.

Tootle pip!!

[twodogsflying]

Also:

25. The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.

This means the priotity of airspace design is protecting the innocent passenger, not self interest groups.:ok:

[LeadSled]

Owen,
Just take a deep breath and count to ten, we wouldn't like you to blow a fooofle valve!!
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Owen,

Don't forget the first country to mandate seat belts in cars....not. :ok:

Non radar E over D is just plain dumb. Get over it, leadsled.

[LeadSled]

Bloggsie,
You are entitle to your own opinion, of course.

However, starting with ICAO, there is quite a deal of heavyweight opinion against you, and not just FAA or us "fundamentalists". Including countries that Owen would probably warm to, given said countries' virulently anti-US politics.

You should have a look around the world, and have a look at the variety of answers.

C over D, or C without radar, is a bit of a rarity. Or better still, develop a bit of an understanding of the risk management basis of ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace management.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

Non radar E over D is just plain dumb

Is it OK at say, Rockhampton?

[topdrop]

Try again - Rocky has radar coverage.

[Frank Arouet]

So the answer is yes, which accounts for most of the J curve and busiest part of the continent doesn't it? Where exactly is this "dumb" airspace.

[Frank Arouet]

The count so far is one.

[Capn Bloggs]

Frank, not too sure about your line of questioning, but there is no Non-radar E on D outside the J curve as far as I know. There used to be but that was quickly converted back to C when a Tobago pilot almost killed a bunch of fare-paying pax (and some crew) in a Virgin 737 at Launy.

If the loonies win, the same E on D arrangement will exist at Karratha and Broome. I'm waiting (still) for ledsled or Dick to tell me WHY this is such a good idea compared to C on D. All they can say is "that is the way it is done eslewhere so cut ya whingeing".

[Frank Arouet]

no Non-radar E on D outside the J curve as far as I know

My point exactly.

Grey areas around Albury, should be fixed if it's dangerous. Then there would be no "dumb" airspace.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with G over D in places like Broome and Karratha instead of controlling everything up to the Ionosphere?

Just asking.:)

[AerocatS2A]

Frank I think that would be better than E over D in Broome because you'd then have the freedom to manoeuvre as required for traffic separation.

I'd be interested to know how big the Class D zone will be. If it is smaller than the current 30nm MBZ (yeah it's not called an MBZ but that's what it is) then I can see problems with VFR aircraft operating outside the zone and possibly over the top of it without talking to anyone, where as at present everyone is required to monitor and broadcast within 30nm of Broome.

[Frank Arouet]

Owen Stanley;

ask any RPT driver out of AY what level they get identified

Out of curiosity, and referring to the Benalla accident for geographical comparison, exactly how low does the radar coverage at Albury go to. If I recall correctly some radar mapping was done around Benalla and some of the mapped countryside went down way below 4,000ft.

Is ther a capacity for the radar you use to be set to a lower coverage/ (even if the quality is not as good), and as you use it now, is it set to a particular lowest altitude?

[No Further Requirements]

Frank: At AY during the day most tracks drop out at about 8000ft. Sometimes, if the atmospheric conditions are right, you may get a sniff down to 6000 or 7000ft. However, it is in no way usable for separation as it is intermittent and 'jumps' around a bit. During the night, any traffic going overhead or slightly south of AY FL140 and below gets treated as a non-radar aircraft for separation purposes as they pop in and out of coverage along those routes, sometimes for periods in excess of 5 minutes.

Benalla, IIRC, is pretty useless below 6000ft. With the right conditions in the atmosphere, alignment of the planets, etc, you may see them below that slightly. Again, not well enough to use for separation. I don't think there's any way in which the radar can be tweaked to look lower, but I'm no boffin so I may be wrong.

Cheers,

NFR.

[le Pingouin]

Frank, the whole point of using radar for separation/monitoring is it needs to be good reliable coverage. If the quality is "not so good" it's useless because you don't know what you'll be getting from moment to moment.

No, there's no facility for it to be adjusted in any manner. The limiting factor is terrain shielding, not level filtering.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The statment also includes-
shall take advantage of advances in technology wherever practicable.

One wonders what the technolgy will be?:}

[Frank Arouet]

ADSB "OUT" would be the logical technological evolution of the existing radar system.

[man on the ground]

I don't think there's any way in which the radar can be tweaked to look lower, but I'm no boffin so I may be wrong.

Confirmed. No adjustment possible.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway: Primary or secondary radar, or ADS-B Out to ground is (more or less) line of sight.

What a modern ATC system (such as Eurocat/TAAAAAATS) displays are a different matter altogether --- both volumes of airspace and returns displayed are selectable.

"RADAR" coverage and what a working controller sees are not necessarily the same thing.

Tootle pip!!

[man on the ground]

What a modern ATC system (such as Eurocat/TAAAAAATS) displays are a different matter altogether --- both volumes of airspace and returns displayed are selectable. "RADAR" coverage and what a working controller sees are not necessarily the same thing.

Lead,

You seem to be implying that controllers do not always take advantage of all radar coverage.

Every sector displays ALL surveillance capability (radar, ADSC, ADSB) available for the airspace being worked at all times.

[LeadSled]

----- available for the airspace being worked at all times.

Man On The Ground,

That's not the same as the total potential volume of airspace with radar coverage.

As I recall, there is a rather well known case, going back to the "Class G trial", where there was a big difference in the available (volume of) radar coverage, north of Sydney, and the coverage available to the working controller.

As I further recall, Airservices found themselves in an interesting situation about this "coverage", when the quite easily available 10,000 and 5,000 ft coverage charts for the area were made available for scrutiny. My recollection is that "management decisions" about the displayed volume available to the sector controller were quite rapidly amended.

I would be most surprised if the Eurocat facility of suppressing selected returns (say SSR 1200) has been written out of TAAAAAATS. There have been some "interesting" high level "policy" discussions about which ADS-B returns "might" be suppressed, to de-clutter a controller's screen --- this discussion based on the "potential" situation where ADS-B OUT was made mandatory, as many were/are demanding.

If you are a controller, do you really want to watch/be distracted by a bunch of AG sprayers looking like flies buzzing around in a bottle.

Tootle pip!!

[mjbow2]

Leadsled

This is indeed good news. It was troubling at the time of the draft Airspace Policy Statement, the removal of any reference to NAS. I wonder if that omission was attributable to the rank and file at CASA and AsA?

I have it on good authority that John McCormick’s words of support for NAS are genuine. He surely must now surround himself with people who will support its implementation. Does Peter Cromarty actually support NAS? I have my doubts.

In the May 2009 Senate Estimates hearing the following was said.

Senator HEFFERNAN—You are a full supporter of the full implementation of the NAS class E over D airspace in Australia?

Mr Cromarty—I am a full supporter of a risk-based approach and if that is the appropriate cost-benefit solution then I am a full supporter.


In the same hearing the Common Risk Management framework was said to be a 'work in progress' and included the ALARP concept. I concede that I am not a mathematician nor a risk expert but my understanding is that ALARP has significant limitations.

Was this particular risk based approach used at Broome and Karratha? Was this same risk based approach used at Avalon? Does anyone know what risk assessment model is actually being used nowadays?

Do you Leadslead or other readers know why ALARP has been included in the CRM framework? Does anyone know why we do not use the proven FAA Cost Benefit Analysis for the establishment and disestablishment of towered airports? Dr Bob Hall believes it is a cheap and proven method that is scientifically reliable.

Could it be that Peter Cromarty does not want to use the scientifically proven FAA Cost Benefit Analysis as this would make it hard to reject the E over D, C and B design on scientific grounds?

GaryGnu
There is a very good reason that the government is pursuing the FAA airspace model. It works extraordinarily well with 15 times the volume of air traffic than we currently have. Why should we wait until our uniquely Australian system has catastrophic failures as traffic loads increase?

As an airline pilot in both Australia and previously in the U.S. for a number of years, I look forward to the full implementation of NAS. GaryGnu I’m sure you would want the same if you had spent a few years flying in the U.S.

[LeadSled]

mjbow2,

Perhaps the most important thing here is that the senior management of "The Department" understands and supports US NAS.

I believe John McCormick's support is twofold, firstly he understand the US system, and the fact that the whole basis of ICAO CNS/ATM is the US NAS, and secondly, his experience of the FAA versus "the Australian Way" ---- something that is painfully obvious to any non-Australian based pilot, every time they "hit" Australian airspace.

If your only experience is the "Australian Way", you can have no comprehension of how well the US system works. Indeed, far to many "Australian" pilots exhibit great unease with the freedoms of the US system, until they actually experience it, and, I am please to say, the adaption is immediate (with the exception of several union die-hards from one particular Regional)

Professor Hall is correct, but don't forget ALARP is not the same as "As Low As Possible", the nonsense that is/was built into the Airservices Safety Management System.

That resulted in the claim (risk analysis of C v. E between 10,000 and 20/25,000', en-route) that one statistical zero was lower than another statistical zero, and therefor the lower zero was more zero than the higher zero, and therefor a safer zero. Zero in on that one!!

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

It works extraordinarily well with 15 times the volume of air traffic than we currently have.
I wish you guys would sprouting deceiving statistics. They may have 15 times the traffic, but it is spread over the whole of the USA. Look at the accident locations.

We may have 15 times less traffic but 90% of our landmass doesn't have a person living in it, let alone and aeroplane flying over it.

Stick to the relevant facts please.

[le Pingouin]

Leady

Coverage diagrams are useful as a guide as to what to expect but they aren't reality. At the margins of radar coverage there can be quite a variation in what is seen. Some days you'll get good coverage & on others bloody great holes appear.

To my knowledge around Melbourne there are no areas that have coverage suppressed, except in specially designated areas called "shoe boxes" around certain aerodromes close to a radar head such as Melbourne to prevent taxying aircraft being picked up. A shoe box is tiny.

We don't suppress any tracks & already get to see a myriad of 1200 blowflies.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I would be most surprised if the Eurocat facility of suppressing selected returns (say SSR 1200) has been written out of TAAAAAATS. There have been some "interesting" high level "policy" discussions about which ADS-B returns "might" be suppressed, to de-clutter a controller's screen --- this discussion based on the "potential" situation where ADS-B OUT was made mandatory, as many were/are demanding.

I find this statement somewhat alarming on several levels. Benefit of the doubt...Leadie, are you refering to the situation on the first week of operations with ALL aircraft in Europe having to squawk on ModeS?

And refering to 15 times busier over there than here yet...you are worried about "Clutter"????

EDIT- moved this para over to the "White Paper" thread

[man on the ground]

Lead
That's not the same as the total potential volume of airspace with radar coverage.

yes it is!

As I recall, there is a rather well known case, going back to the "Class G trial", where there was a big difference in the available (volume of) radar coverage, north of Sydney, and the coverage available to the working controller.

and I'm talking about current reality, not your recollections/perceptions of something over 10 years ago

I would be most surprised if the Eurocat facility of suppressing selected returns (say SSR 1200) has been written out of TAAAAAATS.

It hasn't; but very strict rules for any use, and never in the way are implying

There have been some "interesting" high level "policy" discussions about which ADS-B returns "might" be suppressed, to de-clutter a controller's screen --- this discussion based on the "potential" situation where ADS-B OUT was made mandatory, as many were/are demanding.

Not within Aus ATC there hasn't. Not even close to the truth, and you clearly don't understand the topic!

If you are a controller, do you really want to watch/be distracted by a bunch of AG sprayers looking like flies buzzing around in a bottle.

Yes! If providing services in/adjacent to G or E airspace, it is required!! you clearly have NO idea what a controllers display even looks like.

Best leave 'expert' comment to something you may be 'expert' in; which is obviously not ATC facilities

[gobbledock]

And hear i was thinking that 'J Curve' was a reference to Jennifer Lopez's curvacious a*s !

[Frank Arouet]

that would have everybody believe that the J Curve has full radar coverage to the ground

Who said that?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

As long as she doesn't talk:}

[Frank Arouet]

Same to you tiger.;)