NAS rears its head again [Archive] - Page 2

Dick Smith

5th Apr 2010, 22:51

Everyone seems to love posting copies of postings that have been made previously. In that spirit, I thought I should add this one by VOR – a highly esteemed expert on international airspace.

Mike Barry, I’ll also let VOR – suspected to be an ATC professional – to comment on Class E.

Here it is:

Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.

Well, possibly CASA and Airservices are now taking that advice, ie. they should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible

Of course, this is a rumour network and the rumour is that VOR is now back working with either CASA or Airservices. Can anyone confirm this?

ARFOR

5th Apr 2010, 23:46

Most US airports servicing the level of RPT traffic serviced by Australian regional towered airports have Class C services.

US Class C services are all radar covered TRACON

TRACON are small scale/range Approach and Departure Terminal area services where controllers are specifically managing comparatively small volume compared with en-route controllers in Australia

Many terminal area volumes of airspace in the US [particularly since the quote you cite from 2004] have been reclassified C or B. That reclassification has been the result of NMAC, MAC and/or representations by US industry for change.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace
Nor is it for Class C [ICAO]

Why do the US utilise Class E outside busy RPT Terminal Area’s? The density of VFR traffic that can not be serviced to the same level it is in Europe, Australia and elsewhere.

- Does that mean the US system with Class E components is better? No, it is simply a necessity.

- Does that mean the ICAO, European or Australian system is better? No, it is simply better able to manage the lower VFR densities with less controller resources combined with the substantially less widespread ATS infrastructure such as surveillance.

peuce

5th Apr 2010, 23:56

Dick .... 1 + 1 = 2

Is that false, because you don't know my real name?

Dick Smith

6th Apr 2010, 00:40

Owen

It’s not so much about credibility. It’s about the obvious issue - if you constantly post without using your real name about such relatively mundane issues as airspace, then eventually you’ll have no influence.

Look at what’s happening. I totally support the fact that people can post on PPRuNe anonymously – an absolute necessity when whistle-blowing becomes unavoidable and at other important times. However, when discussing an issue of where to allocate airspace categories – which should be totally science-based – I cannot see the need to hide behind anonymity.

Also, I point out – and it’s obvious – that the “powers that be” who make the decisions in the Government will simply take no notice of people constantly ranting whilst hiding behind anonymity instead of putting their own name to their beliefs.

So I will say it again …

I have always supported that there are times when posting anonymously is necessary. However nowhere in the PPRuNe rules does it say that people can’t post under their own name if they so wish.

All pretty simple as far as I’m concerned.

peuce

6th Apr 2010, 01:11

Dick ... first let me bang my head against a brick wall .. :ugh: Agh, that feels better.

Now, your are absolutely right. CASA/OAR/ASA/ATSB/DOT/BLF/etc are not going to change policy because of what an annonymous poster says on PPRUNE.
In fact, they probably won't change based on a non-anonymous posting either. Hell, I don't even know if your ARE the real Dick Smith ... but I suspect so!

What "rational" argument on PPRUNE does provide is food for thought for those who formally petition government through their Associations, Unions, Employers etc.

These people will read posts and decide, on their individual merits, whether the opinion is worth considering or not. That's the way I do it. I don't particularly consider the name of the poster ... but what, and how, they present a case. ALL these opinions help me form my position.

Howabout

6th Apr 2010, 05:41

DNS,

Beeeaudiful!! A picture's worth a thousand words - or in this case a few million. One cartoon sums up the crap with which we have had to deal for years. No reason, just blatant, fundamentalist ideology IMHO.

In short, what is the problem that the fundamentalists are trying to solve?

Also, where are the 'dozens and dozens?' If they have any credibility, regardless of the threat to their jobs, then they'd identify themselves, tell the 'truth' and just go out and get another job, wouldn't they? I am sure you will agree.

Finally, Much Ado added some much needed levity:

No, Dick is sailing close hauled but hasn't gone into irons yet. My finger hovers, quivering in anticipation.

We Mods watch the contorted gyrations with a certain sense of perverse enjoyment.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifNice to see a sailor as a MOD - or maybe he just reads a lot of Patrick O'Brian. 'In irons' ain't exactly an oft used expression these days. Notwithstanding, MA, nice injection of humour. We get too serious sometimes - but probably won't change!:}

Capn Bloggs

6th Apr 2010, 08:34

By Dick Smith:

many Australians went to war and even lost their lives so we could keep certain freedoms.

Yet it is confirmed here that actually telling the truth about air safety and linking a name to that truth would threaten job prospects - so the truth is not stated. Wimps in my opinion!

Comparing dead Australians and anonymous posters on Prune. Disgusting. He should be banned.

Howabout

6th Apr 2010, 09:49

Bloggs, I agree wholeheartedly. However, as intimated by the Mod, Much Ado, the credibility level is zip. I think continued exposure is preferable to banning.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein

DirtyPierre

6th Apr 2010, 10:11

Dick,

You will not find one Austalian ATC in support of Class E airspace over a Class D tower. You don't have to look far to find the Australian ATCs who want Class C airspace over a Class D tower. - Civilair!

Civilair - represents approximately 900 Australian ATCs. There is no other union for ATCs in Australia. Consequently, when Civilair release an opinion about an issue - like Airspace Classification over Regional Towers, then you can be sure that this is the opinion of approximately 900 Australian ATCs.

The Australian ATCs have already "outed" themselves on this issue.

No need for the ATCs to publicly name themselves on some industry forum. The ATCs have sent their opinion to those that matter.

DP

OZBUSDRIVER

7th Apr 2010, 00:14

To back up DP-

Class E above D - General Comments

Civil Air has concerns regarding the use of Class E airspace above Class D. The premise of E above D at Broome and Karratha is predicated upon an improvement in service level over existing Class G. Whilst demonstrably an improvement, it ignores practicalities of actual airspace management and, in our view, ignores the “As Low As Reasonably Practical” (ALARP) principle of risk management applied almost universally in aviation studies nationally.

In terms of airspace management, the modelling of C over D, as currently provided at all regional towers, offers improved separation integrity and virtually no additional operational costs to either the services provider or airspace users. Under ALARP it is impossible to justify E over D on either cost or safety basis when measured against the current C over D. It would be an untenable position for the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) to mandate a lower level of airspace, when a higher level of airspace is available for no additional cost. OAR would then risk being accused of putting ideology ahead of safety.

E over D introduces a new airspace model not in use elsewhere in Australia. This departure from accepted practice introduces a variation upon the standard operating procedures at all regional towers across Australia. It is also contrary to the provision of services under US NAS (Part 139 Class 1 Airports licensed for Scheduled Air Carrier with >30 pax seat capacity) in respect of airspace modelling. In most scenarios these operations are conducted under a C over D model.

VFR aircraft operating in Class E airspace will be unknown to both the controllers in the local tower, and Enroute centres in Brisbane and Melbourne. Separation between VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace and IFR aircraft arriving and departing from these locations will rely upon "Unalerted See and Avoid" procedures, which greatly increases collision risk, particularly considering the different operating speeds of typical VFR aircraft and the jet or high capacity/performance RPT turbo-prop aircraft which typically operate into Broome and Karratha. Whilst ACAS will provide some defence it is Civil Air’s view that ACAS should not be considered a mitigator in airspace design as it is intended as a last line of defence.

Alerted “See and Avoid” is predicated upon surveillance availability. In the case of Broome and Karratha the only prospect of surveillance is that of ADS-B and unfortunately penetration of ADS-B Out fitment in the GA fleet is limited at best.

(My italics and bolds)

So says Robert Mason, pres of CivilAir.

Now, should the OAR take the advice of Dick and his Lead Balloon... or the advice of the guys whose job it is to make it happen in the real world?

Just like last time, when this gets canned and we get C over D, there will be a blast on the talkback radio saying how these guys are neanderthals and resistant to change....I keep thinking of Scoobie Do..."I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky kids!" episode after episode:}

Ideology ahead of Safety....now, who would want that?:hmm:

Atlas Shrugged

7th Apr 2010, 04:39

Everyone seems to love posting copies of postings that have been made previously. In that spirit, I thought I should add this one by VOR – a highly esteemed expert on international airspace.

What about this one?

For those not familiar with the 7,468 times you posted it previously, I thought I should add a little something too, unfortunately from one not so esteemed..........enjoy:

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/airspace6_001.jpg

Oh, and just so you know....my real name is Art Vandelay

Frank Arouet

7th Apr 2010, 07:32

Outing people now Frank? Time for you to have a break.

CaptainMidnight

7th Apr 2010, 07:57

One NAS-related change that is being implemented with seemingly little consultation is from November this year the base of Class E across the country will be lowered from FL180 to FL145.

I'm told CASA OAR's statement re consultation conducted/completed was simply that the change was included in the Minister's airspace policy statement in 2007 .......

Much Ado

7th Apr 2010, 08:06

Frank Arouet has been given a week off for attempting to 'out' a fellow ppruner.

If Ppruners wish to post under their own names or to post in such a manner as to make it abundantly clear who they are that is their right but for one Ppruner to attempt to out another because they don't agree with their point of view and think they can silence them or put them under pressure from their employer is utterly unacceptable.

I have had a gut full of individuals making an issue of the anonymity of posters on this website - anonymity, up to a point, is a fundamental fact of life on this site and the very next person who even MENTIONS the word in ANY context will also get a week off.

Am I making myself fairly clear?

le Pingouin

7th Apr 2010, 08:54

:D

Will you be notifying the outed party?

peuce

7th Apr 2010, 09:27

Atlas,

I always suspected that you worked in a latex factory:E

Plazbot

7th Apr 2010, 10:51

http://rootzoo.com/article_photo_uploads/facebookpokerchips_20047_12234.jpg

Oh hai guyz!

OZBUSDRIVER

7th Apr 2010, 14:09

whaleoilbeefhooked...PLAZBOT!:ok:

ARFOR

8th Apr 2010, 01:59

EASA/FAA Annual Conference, St Petersburg, Florida, 4th June 2008

Association of European Airlines

http://files.aea.be/Speeches/Operators_Harmo.pdf

Slide bottom of page 3
US ATM system faces safety issues

TCAS RA’s
- AEA members flying to the USA have analyzed TCAS RA’s on approach comparing major US airports with European major airports
- The rate at some US airports (Newark, LAX, Denver, Philadelphia, SFO) is 100 times the rate at major European airports (LHR, CDG, SPL, FRA etc)

Compliance with ICAO
- Various serious safety incidents linked to the US ATM environment with loss of separation or near collision. In light of the Ueberlingen accident, all TCAS RA’s have to be complied with (ICAO), a modus operandi which is not fully understood in the USA

US ATM safety issues need to be tackled with urgency
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR10LA134&rpt=p
On February 13, 2010, about 1246 Pacific standard time, Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-7H4, N221WN, operating as flight #2534, abruptly maneuvered during radar vectors for initial approach to the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, California. At the time, the airplane was over Santa Clarita, California, about 20 miles northwest of Burbank. The 2 pilots, 80 passengers and 1 of the 3 flight attendants (FAs) were not injured. The remaining 2 FAs sustained a minor and a serious injury, respectively. The airplane was not damaged. The accident occurred during an instrument flight that was, at the time, operating in visual meteorological conditions. The scheduled domestic passenger flight was performed under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121, and it originated from Las Vegas, Nevada, at 1145.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Southwest Airlines operations personnel, the captain was advised of approaching traffic during communications with the air traffic controller. Initially, the flight crew did not observe the traffic. Subsequently, as the descending airplane was approaching 6,000 feet mean sea level, the crew received a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) resolution advisory (RA). The captain responded to the RA by initiating an estimated 1,500- to 2,000-foot-per-minute rate of descent. Thereafter, the crew initiated a similar rate of climb.
At the time, all of the passengers were seat belted in place. The three FAs were standing in the aft galley preparing for landing.
Updated on Feb 23 2010 5:22PM
One FA received a broken shoulder.

What FAA classification of airspace? Anyone?

SkyVector.com - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning (http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.200666667,-118.358666667&chart=114&zoom=3)

- 6,000ft
- Radar
- Approach [small range scale] controllers

Anyone not getting the idea yet?

Atlas Shrugged

8th Apr 2010, 07:23

I always suspected that you worked in a latex factory

Not just any old factory, dear boy!

Vandelay Industries - Purveyors of Fine Latex Products, no less!

We're currently testing the prototype for a big rubber dildo with NAS on it!

Happy trails!

http://excruciatingminutiae.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/george-costanza.jpg

OZBUSDRIVER

8th Apr 2010, 08:45

And the sad joke is thats it's all just history repeating...

And these guys are held up as "World's Best Practice"?????????

Capn Bloggs

8th Apr 2010, 10:46

Just to show what we're up against, this gem from one of Ledsled's mates on the SFO near-miss thread:

RAs always have a green arc so sometimes a small adjustment makes it happy again. If you can figure out how to lower the nose a tad with automation or manually will usually do that.

Cowboy yanks who don't know their stuff but who are the noisiest about how good their system is. Their system is what we get when we have amateurs doing the lobbying. :=

Chimbu chuckles

8th Apr 2010, 12:49

The captain responded to the RA by initiating an estimated 1,500- to 2,000-foot-per-minute rate of descent. Thereafter, the crew initiated a similar rate of climb.

Thats unreal - we get TCAS RAs thrown at us every 6 months in the sim, including multiple aircraft requiring a descent followed by a climb, and NEVER do they require such violent manouvering.

And you CANNOT do them on AP - manual only - and GENTLY.

ARFOR

8th Apr 2010, 13:25

The final report will be one to watch.

The RoD might have resulted from an increase beyond what they already had on the go before the RA occurred?!?!

- Did they get an increase cue due the VFR changing altitude?
- Did the VFR see the 737 and try to descend as well?
- Did they receive a TA?, perhaps they only received a late notice RA [happens sometimes when descending above GA aircraft with their TXPDR aerial only on the belly]?
- Did they get a reversal [even though not supposed to happen]?

All questions in my mind!

If the VFR and the jet were being 'positively' separated, would the same have occurred?

I guess we will find out soon enough!

LeadSled

8th Apr 2010, 14:29

ARFOR et al,

Wonderful selective stuff, I would recommend you all read ALL the slides from the AEA presentation.

Naturally, however, you pick out the one that shows, Oh!! Shock!! Horror!! that the US system doesn't work, when it obviously does ----- It produces better in-flight collision safety outcomes than the European figures ----- Where you have to take state by state ---- It's all there in publicly available records.

The "one hundred times" ---- what a lovely round figure ---- great for a media grab, but otherwise meaningless --- because there is no information about how the figures were derived ----- a bit like the NAS 2b windback "Safety Study", that had 50-100% error rates for pilots and 1E6 for ATC ---- complete nonsense figures.

Whether it is AEA, European IFALPA members etc, it is all a bit like the Australian domestic pilot attitude to ICAO (Yes! --- ICAO must be collectively wrong, as swell --- because US regard their airspace, including the dreaded E, as ICAO compliant) ----- Nothing the Yanks do can ever be right ------ but more to do with national attitudes than any serious study of safety outcomes. As for the AEA claim that it took the Uberlingen accident for US pilots to understand what to do in the event of an RA ---- What arrogant nonsense ------ it was a number of European countries (and, would you believe Australia) that had to introduce regulatory amendments to legalize following a TCAS RA, contrary to an ATC clearance, so that such was not a criminal offense.

I have to say that, at least in Australia, major airline's procedures were quite clear, follow the RA, well before the law caught up.

Of course, ARFOR, I believe your intended implication is that GA is the problem, there is sod all GA in Europe, particularly around large airports, go read the recent issue of Flight (6-12 April), featuring the future (or lack of one) in (western) Europe, for GA including corporate aviation.

Quite simply, from any rational and genuine collision risk study, the AEA grab is meaningless. Given the vastly different traffic "mix", "rates" of RA's prove nothing, and what many of you probably don't realise, is that RA's do not necessarily (in my personal experience most times) command any aggressive maneuver.

Tootle pip!!

PS: TCAS RAs are quite common in the EGLL London zone, I personally have had three in less than 10 minutes, two being other aircraft in the Bovingdon holding pattern, and one a tethered balloon at White Waltham. None were GA aircraft.

Capn Bloggs

8th Apr 2010, 15:32

Ledsled,
The "one hundred times" ---- what a lovely round figure ---- great for a media grab, but otherwise meaningless --- because there is no information about how the figures were derived -----
Exactly. You are obviously implying that the Europeans as spiving the books - who says that the yanks are higher than mighty with their reporting?

a bit like the NAS 2b windback "Safety Study", that had 50-100% error rates for pilots and 1E6 for ATC ---- complete nonsense figures.
What does it matter? Two near-misses occurred within a few months of introduction of terminal E airspace. WHY CAN'T YOU TAKE THE HINT?

As for the AEA claim that it took the Uberlingen accident for US pilots to understand what to do in the event of an RA ---- What arrogant nonsense
Judging by the opinings of at least two of your mates on the "SFO Near Miss" thread, the yanks have NO IDEA about TCAS or how to use it:

P51guy:
RAs always have a green arc so sometimes a small adjustment makes it happy again. If you can figure out how to lower the nose a tad with automation or manually will usually do that.

and Protectthehornet:
the TCAS RA could have been over ridden if the 777 crew had the traffic in sight and was SURE that was the only traffic.

Having killed more RPT pax in Jet/GA midairs than any other country combined that I know of (not to mention injuring crew with inappropriate RA responses; ARFOR's post above - caused by uncontrolled VFR traffic), the yanks are hardly god's-gift to aviation, and reading the diatribes from them (and yourself) about that SFO near miss being no big deal just cements in my mind that you and Dick Smith are living in denial. There are plenty of ways of accommodating VFR in the system. Class E airspace, especially unsurveilled E, is not one of them. You can rave on all you like about statistics, but when the next near miss inevitably occurs in E (as it did in 2003/4), I expect that you and Dick will again run for cover and blame someone else eg the RPT pilots.

RA's do not necessarily (in my personal experience most times) command any aggressive maneuver.
Obviously. The TCAS is only setting up a near miss, not a 1000ft vertical/5nm horizontal avoid. :cool: May I suggest that you point that out to your American aces.

By the way, WHERE IS THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS of E over D?

ARFOR

8th Apr 2010, 16:19

Leadsled

Selective? You tell us where ANY part of the previous linked information has been quoted selectively. The provided links are for the express purpose of readers reading the entire presentation which provides no divergence from that quoted above.
It produces better in-flight collision safety outcomes than the European figures ----- Where you have to take state by state ---- It's all there in publicly available records.
Do the readers the courtesy of providing supporting evidence. Throughout these discussions, you and Mr Smith have made grand pronouncements, but never provide documentary support. In this case, the member airlines of the AEA [which include:- ADRIA, Aer Lingus, AeroSvit, Air France, Air Malta, Air One, Alitalia, Austrian, bmi, British Airways, brussels airlines, Cargolux, Croatia Ailines, Czech Airlines, Cyprus Airways, Finnair, Iberia, Icelandair, Jat Airways, KLM, LOT, Lufthansa, LUXAIR, MALEV, Olympic Airways, SAS, Spanair, Swiss, TAP, TAROM, Turkish, Ukraine, and Virgin Atlantic] say differently.

Who do we believe? You and Mr Smith? or the research provided by these international airlines presented to EASA and the FAA at an international conference, as well as the large volume of other internationally based studies from the likes of the NTSB, TSB Canada, ATSB and many others on this subject?

I hope you will not be offended if I choose to believe the work of international groups and agencies, rather than yours and Mr Smith's whining!
Yes! --- ICAO must be collectively wrong, as swell --- because US regard their airspace, including the dreaded E, as ICAO compliant
That is a silly statement to make. No one has said ICAO must be wrong, rather that the FAA style ICAO [as you described it in your post on the SFO thread] is just that, different [filed differences]. It has been explained many times why it is different, it seems you are finally acknowledging that fact:-
Given the vastly different traffic "mix"
Bravo, we have that bit nailed. :D
I believe your intended implication is that GA is the problem
You believe incorrectly. GA volume is a fact of life in the US. Do the airspace services and rules need reviewing in the US? That would be up to the US Government. Would you agree, there has, and continues to be a steady stream of Class B and C protected areas being rolled out/reclassified from E and D in the US? That is also fact.

You may ‘believe’ whatever you like regarding GA in Europe or Australia, the fact remains, the comparative VFR volumes are lower, and the ATS infrastructures are fundamentally different from those in the US. This is the fundamental reason for volume specific risk analysis to ensure infrustructure AND Airspace Classification is correct.

The volume of VFR in Australia [with the exception of the soon to be doomed GAAP airports] does not necessitate the use of Class E or FAA Class D type services. ICAO classifications without FAA style capacity filters are perfectly workable in Australia [except for the GA only GAAP's] and elsewhere around the world.
Quite simply, from any rational and genuine collision risk study, the AEA grab is meaningless. Given the vastly different traffic "mix", "rates" of RA's prove nothing, and what many of you probably don't realise, is that RA's do not necessarily (in my personal experience most times) command any aggressive maneuver.
Meaningless? In your personal experience most times :rolleyes:!

Leadsled, this is the baseline it seems. You want a system where ACAS RA’s are used as a first [and in some cases only] line of defence against catastrophic mid-air collision. There are so many reasons why that view is fundamentally flawed, although it does explain why you motor on past subject matter such as the Southwest Accident info above with nary a glance. Telling! :=

None, repeat none of what is being discussed here regarding ATS services and systems has any bearing on GA or corporate aviation viability. I raise you your Flight article with the cold hard realities facing the GA Mecca in the US - Van Nuys.

Officials consider cost cuts and new fees for Van Nuys Airport - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/05/local/me-airport5)

Airport costs sky rocketing! Why would that be? Surely not the US ATS system!?! I suggest you read the three pages of the linked article.

Let us dispense with the silly games shall we! These issues are far to serious.

man on the ground

8th Apr 2010, 16:40

PS: TCAS RAs are quite common in the EGLL London zone, I personally have had three in less than 10 minutes, two being other aircraft in the Bovingdon holding pattern, and one a tethered balloon at White Waltham. None were GA aircraft.

What a well equiped tethered balloon; with a mode C transponder!

LeadSled

9th Apr 2010, 02:13

Fact Versus Bluff, Bluster, Arrogance, Condescension and just plain Stupidity Owen and friends,
I have not quoted publicly available information, because it is exactly that, publicly available ---- instead of ranting, why don't yo avail yourselves of the available information.

The FACT remains, the US produces a better air safety outcome, as far as midairs are concerned, than European countries or Australia. Once again, your reference to alleged totals killed or injured only illustrates your inability to understand statistical analysis.

Tootle pip!!

peuce

9th Apr 2010, 03:06

Ah, statistics ...

I reckon you could put up a case that the US is safer than Australia, based on number of hours flown, aircrafty registered and passengers carried etc. I'm not going to try, it'll just give me a headache, but .. I'm going to accept your figures Leadsled.... and assume it is the case.

HOWEVER, statistics is just that, figures.

What if the following is the real situation?

Say Australia has less MACs because it has a better system, not because it has less movements.

What if our movement rate suddenly increased ten fold? Would you expect our MACS to increase proportionately? What if they didn't, and they stayed at, say, NIL?

How would that affect airspace management by statistics?

Who says we can't compare by absolutes? That is, say, US has 100 deaths, Australia has 10 ... Australia is safer.

Who says the US has to have more deaths because it has more aircraft, movements, passengers etc?

My long winded point is .... who says the only safety comparison method has to be statistics?

Icarus2001

9th Apr 2010, 03:53

I for one am getting tired of this going in circles.

Dick, the industry needs to see a safety case and costing for E over D and a safety case for C over D. Then we can compare apples with apples.

All this comparison with US procedures is a side show. They have almost universal radar coverage and a FS system. Two very different environments. We can all pull out examples to "prove" our case. What we really need is to "prove" E over D is as safe and cheaper than C over D otherwise why not use C over D?

Dick I still have not heard a statement of why we should have E over D instead of C over D.

I think E airspace can work, with surveillance available. I fly passenger jets and do not like the idea of E without surveillance low level.

What is the benefit Dick? Sell it to me.

Dick Smith

9th Apr 2010, 06:30

Icarus - you say

Dick I still have not heard a statement of why we should have E over D instead of C over D

Icarus

I have said it again and again. Have you ever stopped and thought why other countries have E over D? It’s all about improving safety. If we had C over D and there was adequate staffing and tools (ie. surveillance radar), it would of course be safer. But we don’t do that. We give large amounts of Class C airspace - often without radar – to the low level Class D Controller.

This means that the Controller’s attention is taken away from the D airspace close to the circuit area because the Controller also has to separate two aircraft twenty miles away in the C airspace. Surely it’s obvious to you?

The only reason the FAA says they have E over D is so the resources (ie. Controller expertise) can be concentrated where the risk is greatest.

Of course, I know the standard answer … our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all.

This is absolute rubbish – just why they would make such a claim is quite extraordinary. I think I know the reason and it will come to the fore one day.

peuce

9th Apr 2010, 07:14

Sorry Icarus, the circle must continue ...

Dick,

If a Controller can't do D + C, how can he do D + E?
I don't think Controllers are pushing for a D+C Controller ... they are suggesting a D Controller + a C Controller

LeadSled

9th Apr 2010, 07:19

Owen and Friends,

Are you seriously telling me that you would happily command a B747 on descent through Class E airspace KNOWING that there COULD BE a VFR aircraft INTENTIONS UNKNOWN that you MIGHT get an RA on?

Been doing it for years, along with thousands of other pilots, also through G and F, and even before TCAS was invented, likewise before VFR Exempt Controlled Airspace was called E. Since when the London TMA ( outside the then EGLL/EGKK SRZs) were a free go for VFR up to 10,000' (not any longer, of course, just setting the time line).

What so many of you seem unable to take in is that, outside Australia, such operations are un-exceptional, everybody, including QF international pilots (and now Jetstar) take them in their stride -- all in a days work.

As to my views on Australian ATC, they are more or less the views of most international pilots working in an out of Australia, the service provided is regarded as pedantic and inflexible, and designed for the convenience of controllers, rather than the aircraft.

I recommend to everybody the FSF study of Australian pilot, engineer and controller attitudes to air safety, published in 2003 or 2004, where the attitude of controllers to pilots is pretty much what is illustrated in previous post by (presumably) present or former ATC persons.

Just one example, we have had the capacity to do continuous descent approaches for more than 20 years, to pre-nominated touchdown time, +/- less than 60 sec, most places around the world continuous descent approaches are more or less the norm, (but not yet nominated touchdown times) for minimum noise/minimum fuel burn ---- so, despite all the talk, are continuous descent approaches the norm in Australia??

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled

9th Apr 2010, 07:21

Sorry - but reading some of the comments he has made, I simply don't believe it.

Direct,
All that proves is you don't know much about the job RPT Captains do, do you.
Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Apr 2010, 07:24

This means that the Controller’s attention is taken away from the D airspace close to the circuit area because the Controller also has to separate two aircraft twenty miles away in the C airspace. Surely it’s obvious to you?

Is this what you are trying to sell the bureaucrats? Is this your "World's Best Practice" argument?

Dick, the tower is also responsible for the surrounding E airspace. Why is it that the TOWER is given responsibility for this airspace and not Melbourne? E is supposed to be perfectly safe for IFR ops, so why the tower and not ML?

The tower should only be responsible for the immeadiate airspace around the runway, you say....Yet, ML is not given control of the surrounding E....WHY??

Local knowledge? Visual range? Situational awarness better from a tower and not a console some 4000km away???? Why would the SA be better for the tower and not the console? ...BECAUSE THERE IS NO SURVEILLANCE!

Dick, NO E WITHOUT SURVEILLANCE!

Separating IFR from VFR cannot be mitigated by IFR using TCAS to detect VFR. Un-alerted SEE and AVOID is proven not to be safe. Procedural C over D is inordinately safer than E over D. You cannot justify E over D because it is cheaper.

What a dog's breakfast of an argument...You cannot have C because you do not have radar yet...it's OK to have E:ugh:

Dick, when are you going to concede that one of those aircraft in your argument MUST be guaranteed a level of separation by that same tower controller that you think you are trying to save a bit of workload...more like helping into an early grave from the increased stress levels:suspect:

peuce

9th Apr 2010, 07:26

Leadsled,

What so many of you seem unable to take in is that, outside Australia, such operations are un-exceptional, everybody, including QF international pilots (and now Jetstar) take them in their stride -- all in a days work.

They may very well take it in their stride and accept it as part of their day's work ... because they HAVE TO ... in those airspace volumes that depend on E to work to any degree.

The difference in Australia is ... we DON'T HAVE TO ... there is no pressing need that we HAVE to have E over Broome .. to cope with the traffic levels.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Apr 2010, 08:12

Cumonnnn, someone has to tell the Lead Balloon why he can't do continuous decents in Oz....

max1

9th Apr 2010, 08:34

Lead sled

most places around the world continuous descent approaches are more or less the norm,

Not disagreeing with you, just interested to know where they actually work to touchdown.

If you could actually point the site out where I could find the information, rather than tell me to go and find it because it's out there it would be appreciated.

rotorblades

9th Apr 2010, 09:29

With regard to the CDA's into Heathrow, it is not generally par of the course to allocate a CDA from cruise. It is worked out more of a CDA from leaving the hold.
In the Uk (talking mainly about heathrow) they dont work on feeder fix times, everything bundles towards the 4 holds and are taken off in the order approach have worked out (from many miles away), the are *usually* allocated descent and given a range to touchdown to allow pilots to decide hw quickly to descend.

And beyond that, you cant really compare the traffic situation in Australia to that of the UK. The density is so much higher you dont have the space to allocate descent from the 300s down to 9000ft! you've got 5 other intl airports in the way. And if you gave a departure all the way to cruise from 5000ft he/she would think all his xmases have come at once and will agree to have your baby!

(can you tell im ex-UK TMA approach?????)

le Pingouin

9th Apr 2010, 11:01

Just one example, we have had the capacity to do continuous descent approaches for more than 20 years, to pre-nominated touchdown time, +/- less than 60 secGreat, so you'll be happy when you go around because you're right up the choofer of a heavy because he's 60 seconds late (good luck in it only being that) & you're a similar amount early? Not to mention the TA you got as you flew through the Dash8 that is following you onto the runway.

You might be interested in the Boeing Intent trials we're involved in - collecting data on accuracy of feeder fix estimates. Qantas 737-800s untouched by controller hands. Doesn't always work as advertised on the box, believe me.

All this automated stuff is great until you get aircraft anywhere near each other because they're doing their own thing without any regard for an overall "plan".

mjbow2

9th Apr 2010, 13:56

The fragmented and desperate fundamentalists arguments here are as astounding as they are devoid of any logic.

ARFOR continues to mislead with specious arguments that are factually bankrupt.

ARFOR you state

Most US airports servicing the level of RPT traffic serviced by Australian regional towered airports have Class C services.

Horsefeathers ARFOR! Of the 100 busiest airports in the United States almost half are Class D airports (43 at last count).

Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers. That’s the equivalent of 10 Avalon airports in Australia being serviced by Class E over D towers. Total aircraft movements at FAA Class D towers exceeds 16 million annually. Averaging over 40,000 each.

In excess of 40 of the more than 300 Class D airports in the United States service Part 135 and 121 airlines including high capacity RPT jet traffic. Virtually all have Class E above them. 71 Class E above D airports do not have radar-covered airspace above them or do not have radar feed to the tower (BRITE).

I’m certain that your research has already found this on the public record or have you chosen to ignore these facts?

ARFOR further states

Why do the US utilise Class E outside busy RPT Terminal Area’s? The density of VFR traffic that cannot be serviced to the same level it is in Europe, Australia and elsewhere.

- Does that mean the US system with Class E components is better? No, it is simply a necessity.

How absurd! Firstly Class E, both in terminal and enroute areas is for the benefit of IFR not VFR, despite the availability of Flight Following. By this ridiculous logic, Australia should replace Class C with Class E only when the traffic load increases to a level where ATC cannot provide a sufficient class C service. Amazing!

Peuce supports Class E above D in Broome if there was surveillance and everyone had a transponder. Do you also support the original NAS proposal to upgrade existing radar covered class G to Class E in the J curve? I look forward to your response.

Scurvy D Dog, a tower controller in Launceston is vehemently opposed to E over D even with the radar down at Launy! You controllers do not seem to be on the same page here.

Mike Barry wants to go back to full VFR reporting with controlled and uncontrolled airspace while most controllers on here want airliners descending in enroute Class C into class G. Are you controllers all on the same page here? It seems not.

Howabout is still under the illusion that somehow an airliner descending into Class G now is somehow in less danger of colliding with a NORDO VFR should that same airspace be renamed Class E. Extraordinarily illogical!

ARFOR

9th Apr 2010, 14:00

Leadsled
I have not quoted publicly available information, because it is exactly that, publicly available
Not to this public. Why would you not post it in support of your argument ;)

Mr Smith
I know the standard answer … [I]our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all
As has been stated, where is the incident data that suggests Australian D+C terminal tower operations are problematic?

I put to you this question:-

The C, D or E airspace [above A045] below huge amounts of 'en-route' C and or E above. Can controllers do both en-route and terminal area without any problems at all?

Is that what you are saying? Everyone would know these answers if:-

Risk analysis, CBA and proper process was followed to find out.

The US system? ... No it is not, not without dedicated approach and departures controllers [TRACON equivalent] :=

mjbow2

OK, lets have the list of these Class D airports, then we will cross reference them against the FAA ATADS database for US Part 139 Class 1 airports licenced for Scheduled Air Carrier [>30pax seat capacity]

Remember like for like comparisons mjbow ;)

Here is a hint, here is the list of the top 100 [in order top to bottom] Scheduled Air Carrier moves for 2008 at Part 139 Class 1 airports in the US and Australia combined [the same classification Australian Regional Towered Airports would hold in the US]

ATL, ORD, DFW, DEN, LAX, PHX, LAS, JFK, CLT, SEA, MIA, MCO, EWR, MSP, YSSY, SFO, PHL, IAH, DTW, MEM, LGA, BWI, YMML, FLL, BOS, MDW, IAD, DCA, SLC, TPA, SAN, YBBN, PDX, HNL, OAK, STL, MCI, ANC, SJC, IND, SAT, HOU, YPPH, AUS, SMF, BNA, SDF, SJU, DAL, PIT, SNA, MSY, RDU, CVG, YPAD, ABQ, ONT, CLE, RSW, ORF, MKE, BDL, JAX, PBI, RNO, BUR, CMH, BUF, YBCS, PVD, BOI, YSCB, GEG, TUS, ELP, OMA, OGG, MHT, BHM, OKC, YBCG, YPDN, RIC, TUL, KOA, LGB, YBTL, ROC, ALB, LIT, ISP, COS, CAK, LIH, DAY, SYR, CHS, GUM, FAT, GSO, SAV

You know how many of those are not Class B or C airspace? 4 and none of those 4 are on the 'continental' United States. ;)

Shall we look at the other US class B and C airspace airport locations compared with Australian Regional Towered Airports?

Capn Bloggs

9th Apr 2010, 14:25

MJBOW,
Firstly Class E, both in terminal and enroute areas is for the benefit of IFR not VFR,
Rubbish. Martha King said as much at the roadshow/Publicity Stunt in 03 (I think it was). The ONLY reason E exists is so VFR can do what they want. If there was no VFR, why would IFR want (or need, for that matter) anything less than C? So we could do the fabled IFR Pickup??

ARFOR

9th Apr 2010, 15:29

mjbow

Here is the remaining list [Air Carrier movements - top to bottom] of US Part 139 Class 1 Airports with Class B or C airspace. I have included the remaining Australian towered airports [that would qualify as US Part 139 Class 1 airports] within to make it easy for you:-

DSM, YBRK, MYR, GRR, PWM, ICT, SRQ, YMHB, LBB, YBMK, BIL, BTV, ABE, HRL, PNS, YMLT, SFB, AMA, FNT, ACY, HSV, STT, TYS, JAN, YBMC, TOL,YMAY, YBAS, CAE, MAF, MSN, XNA, YMAV, CID, YSCH, MLI, GSP, PSC, DAB, GRB, SGF, SHV, YSTW, LAN, SBA, BGR, TLH, SBN, YBHM, CRP, CHA, BTR, PIA, YMEN, MOB, ROA, FWA, CSG, LEX, LFT, AVL, MRY, FAY, LNK, ABI, CRW, CMI, EVV, SPI

Of the remaining [not in either of the Class B or C airspace lists posted] Part 139 Class 1 licenced airports:-

- How many have Class D TRSA? ;)
- How many require prior permission for Unscheduled Air Carrier [>30 seat capacity]? ;)

Happy hunting! :ok:

Howabout

9th Apr 2010, 16:00

mjbow2,

I am not in a combative mood, but I could not but help but pick up on your comment, as follows:

Howabout is still under the illusion that somehow an airliner descending into Class G now is somehow in less danger of colliding with a NORDO VFR should that same airspace be renamed Class E. Extraordinarily illogical!

I can't actually remember any such assertion on my part. But please remind me with a quote to that effect.

My argument, from the outset, has been that a positive separation service with C can be provided from within the existing resource base.

As for mentioning NORDO, and that's a peculiarly US term, I haven't the foggiest. For the life of me, I cannot remember a single post where I've used the term. Please elaborate.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Apr 2010, 16:13

NORDO, short for "No Radio", is a North American aviation term for aircraft flying without a radio. The term may originate from the 5-character uppercase abbreviated notation "NORDO" displayed on controllers' radar scopes when an aircraft transmits the "radio failure" code on its transponder. An alternate explanation is that "NO RDO" was the standard note made on maintenance and equipment sheets used in military aviation, starting in the 1930s, as a code to identify planes which needed radio repairs or were not equipped with radios.

Another little Americanism to creep into the vernacular..had to google it to be sure.

Chimbu chuckles

9th Apr 2010, 19:06

MJBOW, Dick, LS - yes jets descend in G airspace where they run the gauntlet of 'GA' aircraft making full use of their 'Free in G' 'rights' as confered by Dick during his 'rein' at CAA.

There was a time when anyone above 5000' or travelling more than 50nm was required to file a flight plan and be full reporting/constant 2 way coms with ATC/FS. An RPT crew would be given all this detail and be able to nut something out - "ok its a Baron and he was over XYX at 24 @ 8000' and his estimate for Blah VOR is 51. Hmmm 3 miles a minute so he's clear/Hmmm 3 miles a minute, hey its close we'll maintain 9000' until well clear/we'll call him up (we knew what frequency they were on remember?) and talk to him.

I would argue that the vast majority of pilots in those days who, while below 5000'/within 50nm/nosar no details etc, STILL had the discipline/knowledge/training to be on the right frequency and listening out and be responsive to the pilots around them.

I remember that system - it worked well.

Then Dick et al destroyed that system - and the RPT pilots went "ummm...ahhh...well gee, I mean, fck" :suspect:

When you destroyed that system you also destroyed the sense of inclusiveness and discipline that the system engendered among the vast majority of the users both professional and recreational. We have since had a couple of decades of propaganda aimed at finishing the job YOU started - who could forget that DILL glowering from the front of the CASA rag like a psycho headmaster at errant students - how dare you little people use your radios!!!

Now we have yet more of the same HORSE**** from Dick but this time its E over D. Its like the death of a thousand cuts!

From an international harmonisation point of view NOTHING beyond minor tweaking needed doing to the system as used by international long haul crews. Radio phraseology, stop heights on SID charts etc. And NO international jets in uncontrolled airspace. I don't care what they do in the US that is there business. I fly in Asia, Australia, NZ, ME, Europe and UK and we are NEVER outside A, B or C airspace.

Domestically RPT flight in G must ONLY be tolerated to the absolute minimum extent that Australia's unique technology and demographic circumstances demand.

The aviation system and infrastructure exists FOR ONE REASON ONLY - commerce - its a nationally and internationally vital system of commerce . Without it western society implodes. 'C' airspace is Commercial Airspace.

I have said it before and I will say it again - if tomorrow at midnight EVERY aircraft below 5700kg ceased to exist the system would not change in ANY way shape or form. The same could NOT be said if all the jets went away.

For that reason alone E over D or any other whacko airspace ideas you might come up with Dick are utterly without logical foundation. YOU might think E over D is the next logical step in your crusade to democratise airspace but who asked you?

Having (Hicap/RPT) jets outside controlled airspace on climb/descent, the highest workload phases, just defies any logic. There is not a SINGLE good reason that justifies the additional risk no matter how small YOU deem it to be. Its stupid, its irrational - its moronic!

I am an aircraft owner as well as a long haul pilot - I fly a large range of aircraft from open cockpit vintage biplanes to B767s and LOTS of my workmates do too - NONE of us expect 'the system' to be shaped or biassed in favour of our light GA/recreational aviation hobby - interestingly among my PPL friends NONE of them expect it either.

So just who is your 'constituency'?

Given the total of 2 members of your cheer squad on here (its never been any more than maybe 3 over the years we have been debating this on Pprune) I actually don't think you have one - this whole 20+ years in the Aviation Hall of Doom you have been instrumental in creating is merely about your bloody ego.

All it takes is ONE. One mid air collision between a Boeing/Airbus and a lighty - just ONE caused by your Dickspace and hundreds die. The chances are NOT vanishingly small - it has happened more than once in the US. We came uncomfortably close (that is, by definition, what a TCAS RA IS!!) MORE than once in Australia.

Professional pilots and ATC feel that viscerally. You clearly don't.

You suggest the big payoff is that ATC will be relieved of some workload by E airspace and be 'better' able to monitor the D airspace. That is not a payoff that is BS justification of the most base kind.

The only airspace that makes a mid air collision 'vanishingly small' is controlled airspace, be it procedural or radar/adsb monitored. 100+++ passengers in a 737/767/777 or one of those silly French aeroplanes:ok: deserve NOTHING less.

Recreational aviation should be welcome in the system but on the system's terms not recreational aviation's terms in the same way that recreational boaties uses the seaway.

IF I want to fly my Bonanza in the same airspace as my colleagues in a jet I put in a flight plan and fit in around them - when I am descending at 400kts/3000' per minute in a 767 I damn well expect that everything airborne that can possibly hit me is known about and talking to somebody who is also talking to me.

Capn Bloggs

9th Apr 2010, 23:01

MJBOW,
Howabout is still under the illusion that somehow an airliner descending into Class G now is somehow in less danger of colliding with a NORDO VFR should that same airspace be renamed Class E. Extraordinarily illogical!
The NORDO VFR is operating illegally. You do know that carriage and use of radio by all aircraft above 5000ft in G is mandatory, don't you, as is transponders above 10,000ft in any type of airspace. Therefore, in relation to avoiding VFR, G is safer than E.

Well said, Chimbu. :ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Apr 2010, 00:39

To break this down to its simplest of issues-

Before the experiment- If there was an incident in the breakdown of separation in controlled airspace, it was usually the fault of an individual...somebody didn't follow the rules or procedures.

Since the experiment- If an incident resulting in a breakdown of separation standards, in the case of a VFR in class E, noting the IFR still gets roughly the same service as was received prior to the experiment, the VFR is exempt from procedures, cause the incident but is completely protected by the regulations...all they have to say was..."I didn't think I was in conflict"

Now, if there ever is an accident in class E between a CONTROLLED IFR HVY RPT and a NON-CONTROLLED GA VFR resulting in a number of deaths???

Are you guys willing to bet the farm on this "Vanishingly small probability" incident not happening? Especially, if you continue to introduce a random event to the experiment.

peuce

10th Apr 2010, 00:43

MJBOW,

I'm with Chuckles on this:ok:, however, to answer your question:

Peuce supports Class E above D in Broome if there was surveillance and everyone had a transponder. Do you also support the original NAS proposal to upgrade existing radar covered class G to Class E in the J curve? I look forward to your response.

That's nothing much to do with this topic, but the answer is ... it depends. Airspace classifications can't be decided on surveillance availability alone. Airspace Management is not about ideology, but about rational cost benefit analyses. Which volume are you talking about? What are the IFR movements like? Is a separation service warranted? Would the surveillance be put to better use with a Class F service, for example?:E

And not to put words in HOWABOUT's mouth, but I think he, like others, may have been alluding to the fact that VFRs into (or transitting within 30nm of) Broome now ... are required to advise their intentions. If Class E was above Broome, that would not be the case. So ... IFRs would have less SA than they do now.

Freedom7

10th Apr 2010, 00:45

Dick

This means that the Controller’s attention is taken away from the D airspace close to the circuit area because the Controller also has to separate two aircraft twenty miles away in the C airspace. Surely it’s obvious to you?

False statement.

Of course, I know the standard answer … our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all.

This is absolute rubbish – just why they would make such a claim is quite extraordinary. I think I know the reason and it will come to the fore one day.

Your statement is absolute rubbish, let us all know what the reason is?

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Apr 2010, 00:46

Just in case-

Πριν από το πείραμα-Αν υπήρχε ένα συμβάν στην κατανομή του διαχωρισμού σε ελεγχόμενο εναέριο χώρο, ήταν συνήθως η υπαιτιότητα ενός ατόμου ... κάποιος δεν ακολουθεί τους κανόνες ή διαδικασίες.

Δεδομένου ότι το πείραμα-Αν ένα συμβάν που προκύπτει σε μια ανάλυση των προτύπων διαχωρισμού, στην περίπτωση μιας VFR στην κατηγορία Ε, επισημαίνοντας την IFR παίρνει ακόμα σχεδόν την ίδια υπηρεσία, όπως είχε ληφθεί πριν από το πείραμα, το VFR εξαιρείται από τις διαδικασίες, να προκαλέσουν το περιστατικό, αλλά είναι εντελώς προστατεύεται από τους κανονισμούς ... όλα έχουν να πουν ήταν ... "Δεν πίστευα ότι ήμουν σε σύγκρουση"

Τώρα, αν ποτέ υπάρχει ένα ατύχημα στην τάξη E μεταξύ ΕΛΕΓΧΟΜΕΝΕΣ IFR HVY RPT και μια μη ελεγχόμενη ΓΣ εξ όψεως με αποτέλεσμα σε μια σειρά θανάτων?

Είναι εσείς πρόθυμοι να στοιχηματίσετε στο αγρόκτημα σε αυτό το "Vanishingly μικρή πιθανότητα» περιστατικό δεν συμβαίνει; Ειδικά, αν συνεχίσετε να εισαγάγει ένα τυχαίο γεγονός για να το πείραμα.

Here it is in Greek.....so there are no excuses:E

Dog One

10th Apr 2010, 01:36

Following on from OzBusDriver above, if there is a close near miss by a heavy RPT and a light GA and the GA aircraft loses control in the wake turbelence and crashes, the heavy crew would be blame less, because we are not aware of any traffice other than IFR, or would one expect the amateur aviator to don the accident investigator cap and pronounce that it was the RPT's fault because they should have seen and avoided the unknown light aircraft, ATC because they were looking the wrong way, or were busy seperating aircraft in C airspace 300 miles away.

Its all great in theory, but in practice, it will not work, and the snake oil sales men will vanish well before the body count begins.

Icarus2001

10th Apr 2010, 02:13

Thank you Dick for replying to my question.

It’s all about improving safety. If we had C over D and there was adequate staffing and tools (ie. surveillance radar), it would of course be safer.

So the issue then is lack of staffing and tools?

Surely you would agree that procedural C, which works fine is safer than non radar E?

We give large amounts of Class C airspace - often without radar – to the low level Class D Controller.

Well that is one way. C does not have to be operated by the tower, centre can and does do it.
You say controller, singular, if that is the issue then put another controller in the cab. This goes back to my first point which is YOUR point, the right STAFFING & TOOLS.

This means that the Controller’s attention is taken away from the D airspace close to the circuit area because the Controller also has to separate two aircraft twenty miles away in the C airspace. Surely it’s obvious to you?

Okay I see that. So if their attention should not be diverted away from the risky circuit airspace to control C how can they control the E, with IFR traffic you have created the same problem. Except now the responsible VFR aircraft in the area will be piping up on frequency adding to the workload.

We have had examples above of the R/T traffic and many controllers here, perhaps even dozens ;), have said that it is easier and more efficient for all to issue sep instructions to the VFR. It takes less R/T time than a VFR announcing and then the two and fro of negotiating some sep. Or are you suggesting that the VFR stay silent? So they become radio invisible and the RPT jet pilot does not know that they are there. The controller does not know they are there. Unfortunately the laws of physics mean that regardless of the airspace letter they can still hit each other.

The only reason the FAA says they have E over D is so the resources (ie. Controller expertise) can be concentrated where the risk is greatest. Okay. Do they have much E airspace without radar coverage? I believe the answer is no. So the VFR traffic is then visible to the system and can be managed.

Of course, I know the standard answer … our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all.
This is absolute rubbish – just why they would make such a claim is quite extraordinary. I think I know the reason and it will come to the fore one day.
Dick I have a great deal of respect for what you have achieved in your business life. I do not understand why you have so little respect for the views of professional ATCOs. Yes there are ratbag ATCOs just like there are ratbag pilots and entrepeneurs but to dismiss their views shows that you are doing the opposite of what you always say you do, that is, listen to the experts and pinch the best ideas.

If the controller can do E over D from the tower, surely they can do C over D. I am sure you must agree.

Again to make a statement like "this is absolute rubbish" does little to help your case. Where is the DATA that you are basing this on?

No government agency makes a decision of this importance without modelling the costs (roof insulation aside) so the DATA must exist to back you up.

Rather than going around in circles comparing this bit of US procedure to that bit of Aus procedure we (the industry not pprune) need to see the business case for it. AsA as you well know has the capability to model this in off line sims, the OAR should be presented and presenting this data so we can see how the decision is made. Open and accountable. You know, the stuff people went to war for.

Cheers.

LeadSled

10th Apr 2010, 04:42

With regard to the CDA's into Heathrow, it is not generally par of the course to allocate a CDA from cruise. It is worked out more of a CDA from leaving the hold.Rororblades,
With respect, tell me something I don't know, but you would have to agree that, as far as possible, the aim is a CDA to minimise noise. And most times it works damned well. The tenor of pilot respect for the efforts of UK NATS is a polar opposite of much pilot opinion on ATC in this country. Airservices isn't all too often referred to Airnoservices for nothing.

As to sequencing into EGLL, the "bedpost" holding points are much derided in Australian ATC circles, where many years of attempting to use far out speed control for sequencing is hopeless and nothing like the "across the fence" sequencing accuracy of EGLL is ever achieved here. For more years than I care to remember, we have not failed to notice the ability of you and your colleagues to handle a a wide variety of traffic, with a wide variety of pilot ability, and still maintain the movement rates you do.

Owen,
Watch you blood pressure, old chap, we wouldn't like you to blow a foooffle valve, you provide too much entertainment. As to any rational contribution to the subject in hand, that is a different matter.

As to the chap who flies around the world, but only ever in A.B,C (I think he said), that is rather miraculous, or more probably, he can't read a Jepp (or equivalent) chart. I'm not going to argue about it, just go get the charts and have a look.

Hint, what is the class of airspace not far off the coast at KLAX, outside the US continental boundary, or say around the coast at Vandenberg, or around Ventura, as described in the US equivalent of the Designates Airspace Handbook ---- and all shown on Jepp charts -- If you understand the charting convention of Jepp. Or the Upper Airspace over India, Pakistan etc. Or much of Africa.??

It's all there for those who want to look.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Its must be 25 years ago, that we ran the first trial of CDA to a nominated touchdown time ( using the onboard FMC predictions) in Brisbane, it was not long after "new" Brisbane opened, and it was very successful ----- but the trail was killed further up the food chain ---- for entirely unmeritorious reasons. Haven't mad much progress since, have we.

le Pingouin

10th Apr 2010, 05:00

Leadie, wanna know why such trials work so well? Because the aircraft get priority to allow them to demonstrate the principle. Doesn't mean it will transfer to "real life".

le Pingouin

10th Apr 2010, 05:18

With respect, tell me something I don't know, but you would have to agree that, as far as possible, the aim is a CDA to minimise noise. And most times it works damned well. The tenor of pilot respect for the efforts of UK NATS is a polar opposite of much pilot opinion on ATC in this country. Airservices isn't all too often referred to Airnoservices for nothingManagement is so focussed on the process that they've long lost sight of core business. And who do you think initiated the state of perpetual restructuring we now find ourselves in? :=

If the UK system is so wonderful & all without vast swathes of E airspace why aren't we aiming for that? :ugh:

Capn Bloggs

10th Apr 2010, 05:42

I was wondering how long it would take you to drag out the old "G over Afghanistan when I flew 7-Os in the 70s" waffle. Get with the times, Bloggs.

Where is that CBA on E over D? There isn't one, is there, because the answer wouldn't suit your argument, would it?

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Apr 2010, 06:59

Leadsled...why is it OK for C over D for Tamworth, Coffs, Launy and Rocky with the study NOT recommending E over D. Yet, you guys are pushing for E over D in equally as busy airspace at Broome and Karratha?

CivilAir is on the money....Ideology ahead of Safety.

If D and no surveillance then procedural C over D cannot be argued against......

Carnnnn Brisbane!

rotorblades

10th Apr 2010, 07:34

Hi All,
Thanks for the notes on my post.
I hate to keep harping on about UK this & UK that because each country needs to decide what is best for its traffic, and not just copy what someone else does because it looks good.
As for airlittleservice they need a major kick up the bum to sort out staffing so that sectors arent constantly running short of staff so that sectors have to be combined. Or trying to plaintitively bleat that only need one controller on duty from 10pm to 6am (although regularly there is only one rated controller on site from 7pm until 6am). there should always be two rated controllers on site at all times:mad:, regardless of traffic (it only takes 2). It wasnt that long ago I did a 9 hour shift with only 2 10min breaks. No time for dinner. And that was working very busy a,c,e & g airspace from surface to FL600 (major capital route). But not replacing the staff numbers is part of "affordable safety" apparently:eek:
The UK mainly has only 3 class of airspace in regular use A, D & G. There are patches of C & E but not too near any major routes. Heathrow's control zone is A airspace (one of the few A control zones) but before I left to come down here they were talking about degrading it to C to allow better access to the area for VFR flights (the control zone was a fair size about 15-20nm around ish), places like gatwick, Stansted, London City were all D Control Zones (All airways airspace being A. (around London anything above 2500-3500 was A.)
There are no airfields that take RPT & bizjets etc that are completely within G airspace. On a regular flight the lowest Class an airline pilot can expect to fly in is D, within the approach area. If going to Heathrow wont leave A for its entire flight in the UK FIR.

Having worked down here for 2.5 years now and now using A, C, E & G regularly I can see definate advantages in some C airspace around airports/airfields with RPT flights. However E is a complete crock. You still get VFRs randomly flying through and we (as ATC) dont know who they are, where they are going or what level they are (we cant assume mode C is correct).
They also recently changed the airspace around an airfield that goes uncontrolled when the airforce go home, it went from G sfc to 8500 to G sfc to 4500 & E from 4500 to 8500+. This has just caused untold confusion and restriction to jets & turbos. IFRs (mainly transitting twin/light) regularly go thrashing through it without a clearance. RPTs who do well when on departure have to cap their climb to 4000 until clearance (previously they could climb to 8000)(lowest safe alt outside of 25nm is 6600), inbound have to stay 'on' frequency until they leave at 4500', which for an A320 or B737 is not that far from the CTAF area and can lead to rushed calls and incidents.

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Apr 2010, 07:51

They also recently changed the airspace around an airfield that goes uncontrolled when the airforce go home, it went from G sfc to 8500 to G sfc to 4500 & E from 4500 to 8500+. This has just caused untold confusion and restriction to jets & turbos. IFRs (mainly transitting twin/light) regularly go thrashing through it without a clearance. RPTs who do well when on departure have to cap their climb to 4000 until clearance (previously they could climb to 8000)(lowest safe alt outside of 25nm is 6600), inbound have to stay 'on' frequency until they leave at 4500', which for an A320 or B737 is not that far from the CTAF area and can lead to rushed calls and incidents.

ohhhh rotorblades, don't say that....Willy is the Dick's little chestnut. Class E there can do no wrong.

mind you, class E is still controlled airspace so IFRs (mainly transitting twin/light) regularly go thrashing through it without a clearance is somewhat disturbing,

EDIT- we are the pride of Brisbane town.....:ok:

Chimbu chuckles

10th Apr 2010, 07:55

Read what I said again - I don't fly in US airspace - nor African. Africa is virtually all TIBA.

Been a while since you flew over India/Pakistan clearly - chances of meeting a light aircraft VFR no details over either country? Cannot happen. That is not to say you cannot die in that airspace, thank god for TCAS, but that is a matter of underfunded and terminally overloaded ATC system - India is a joke. I flew over India enroute Jeddah - home just a few days ago - utter nightmare, as is Saudi airspace. But there is no one airborne and unknown to the system - whether the system can find their details is a different thing.:ugh:

Apparently one of our crews had a TCAS RA over India/Bangladesh/Burma (cant remember which) recently. That was because the system is underfunded/understaffed/broken and someone, NOT our crew, made a mistake - not a design feature as you would have in Australian airspace.

The ONLY complaints I hear about Oz ATC from international pilots are;

AsA PAY ATTENTION!!!

1/. Occasional 'Non standard' phraseology (Usually from Brits and what they usually mean is different to UK - who have their own differences from ICAO but that is ok)
2/. Overly complex departure clearances. Its simply bizarre that Australia doesn't have stop heights on SID charts like so many other countries. Clearance from LHR as an example would be "ABC cleared to XYZ, Dover 5 Golf, squawk 1234" rather than the complex, long winded nausea we get in Oz.
3/. Occasional TIBA airspace - simply no excuse.
4/. Being jumped on from a great height for being 2nm off track (say going around a CB without asking for a clearance in the middle of the GAFA) when the airway you're on is 20nm wide.
5/. The utterly bizarre cock up that is the BN STAR charts.

It is utterly incomprehensible to me that anyone could think a 2, 4 or 6 seat light aircraft should have right of way over a jet aircraft full of passengers but that is what E over D/around C actually is. The same volume of airspace being 'controlled' for IFR and uncontrolled for VFR is a nonsense. Its like being a little bit pregnant - a nonsense concept. The fact of unknown aircraft being in the same volume of airspace means the airspace is uncontrolled.

If the workload for an ATCer in a D tower/where ever is too high for C/D then that IS NOT and indication of a failure in airspace classification but of its management - it needs more eyes NOT 'ignoring' that fact by making some of the traffic invisible. That is exactly like a 5 yr old sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling lalalalalalalal.

It costs money to have the extra eyes I hear you say?

Well woohoo hand the man a lollipop:hmm:

Its a sad fact of modern life that EVERY section of Govt/public service is overburdened with 'management' at the expense of competent service/coal face staff. Yes Minister was a documentary not a fictional comedy.

The industry DOES NOT exist to create non operational management positions at AsA.

E airspace is a 'get out of jail free card' for less than optimum human resources management. If having an A380 with 500 pax descending through airspace relying on TCAS to point out unknown light aircraft crisscrossing in front of that aircraft (why do I get a mental picture of a blind man crossing a freeway with a white cane?) and talking to no one is an example of 'worlds best practice' WTF is an example of worlds worst practice?

Clearly in the view of Dick et al having the A380/B737 in C airspace and the towelling hat brigade filing flight plans or being denied access to that airspace volume:ugh:

ARFOR

10th Apr 2010, 08:05

RotorB,

Exactly.

The disturbing part of all of this is that those who know jack all [the three amigo's] about the realities are 'apparently' leaning very heavily on faceless office types who are sometimes those that have never held a pilots licence, or flown in this type of airspace, let alone held an ATC licence, or provided the types of ATS services [knowing the practicalities and legalities] being discussed.

RotorB, Ozbus and like minded others, keep the factual content coming. People that count [decision makers] are watching, and listening :ok:

Howabout

10th Apr 2010, 08:17

OZ and the rest of you (post 381), as I pointed out previously, from my perspective that is the end game. The pro-NAS boys are deliberately keeping quiet on this one because they think they've got a cunning plan and, if they can just keep quiet for a while, universal E over US D at all those other places will fall into their laps with little/no effort.

From where I stand there's an admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning with this plan that goes like this:

"We are getting E over D at BME and KTA. The directive is already out to convert GAAP to E over US D, and AV will be the same without any additional pot-stirring or lobbying on our part. Do not rock the boat at this stage - no need.

"Once we have these changes locked down, we then go into lobby mode. We point out that we now have a 'totally confusing' system, whereby we now have two completely different sets of procedures and airspace types operating across the 'non-major' airports. At BME, KTA, AV and all the ex-GAAPs, we have, 'safe,' 'proven' US airspace. Yet at places like AY, LT, HB, TW, AS, etc, etc we have 'unique' Australian, 'Galapagos' D with overlying C. Surely this is at the very least confusing and non-standardised, and at the very worst, dangerous.

"The obvious solution Minister (sucker), is to reclassify all those other ports as E over US D for 'standardisation.' Otherwise, the confusion will generate incidents/accidents and, Minister, 'you'll have blood on your hands,' or something equally dramatic - there's a certain amount of form here going back to NAS. The pressure will also be applied via the media, who don't know any better, and the gullible couch potato that is well-informed through his reading of the Tele and seeing 'aviation experts' on A Current Affair.

Believe me boys and girls, who drive the regionals and the heavy metal going into places like Coffs, Albury, Alice, Hobart, Launy and all those others, you're in the gun-sights and are about to be comprehensively snookered unless you get it in a pile right now.

If you don't, you'll be mixing it with uncontrolled VFR traffic to all of those 'country' destinations to which you fly.

As I said, in my opinion an 'admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning,' I dips my lid. But don't wake up one morning and claim you didn't see it coming - it will be too late!

Care to comment on my interpretation Lead?

ARFOR

10th Apr 2010, 08:24

Nailed it Howabout :ok:

Yes, any comment DS, LS, mjbow?

LeadSled

10th Apr 2010, 08:36

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.htmlFolks,
See above, AIM Section 2, Controlled Airspace, Fig. 3-2-1, and explain to an obviously misinformed poor bloody RPT Captain how I transition from Class B (or maybe Class C, to upper airspace A, without transiting E???

Owen, if you have calmed down, maybe you can have a go.

Some of you who seem to think Karratha and Broome are some "thin edge of the wedge", congratulations, of course it is, another go at implementation of Government policy, as reflected in the White Paper, the Airspace Act 2007, the Airspace Regulations.

Whether you like it or not, that is Government policy, this Government have seen fit to continue with the policy of the previous Government, because it makes sense, because it is risk based, rather than "the traditional Australian controlled and uncontrolled".

Despite heavy lobbying, this Government has not seen fit to remove the radar requirement from C airspace, either, accepting the proposition that C should primarily be terminal airspace, not en-route airspace. That is, en-route airspace should be primarily A or E.

Owen, et al, you can jump up and down to your heart's content, but that's the what it is.

Will all this last minute furor change the outcomes at Karratha or Broome ---- I don't know, and won't know until the final decisions are made --- and I await the final outcome with great interest.

Will CASA OAR stick to the legislation or succumb to sectional pressure ----- Watch this space.

Tootle pip!!

Howabout

10th Apr 2010, 08:54

DNS, at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I know that I am right on the money.

Lead, thanks for the reply old fruit - silence kinda confirms my theory.

Chimbu chuckles

10th Apr 2010, 08:54

Whether you like it or not, that is Government policy, this Government have seen fit to continue with the policy of the previous Government, because it makes sense, because it is risk based, rather than "the traditional Australian controlled and uncontrolled".

Sure - I can just see the conversation now.:suspect:

"Well Minister what we are going to implement is a system where jet aircraft carrying lots of passengers at very high speeds will be climbing and descending in airspace where light aircraft being flown by pilots of unknown experience/standards with equipment of unknown serviceability will also be flying. They won't be talking to anyone and we wont even be sure they are on the correct frequency let alone whether their transponder is switched on or indeed accurate. Hell we wont even REALLY know if they are there at all. Think of it like a large blind man crossing a busy road in the middle of nowhere with his white cane tapping out in front of him - that is called TCAS. Its quite wonderful and it will save money"

"Excellent - Lets make it govt policy!!!!"

:ugh::rolleyes::hmm::ouch:

Dog One

10th Apr 2010, 09:09

Its interesting to note that one can fly up A461 and be out of radar VHF coverage by 200 DME DN, yet, once across the border, you are in both VHF and radar coverage to Honkers

Perhaps it about time the Government stopped throwing money away on useless whims, and got serious. Australia airspace designed to ICAO standards by Australian professionals would have cost a lot less to tax payers than this current fiasco.

The concrete mind set that says E is safer than procedural C shows a complete lack of knowledge how modern air transport operates.

Have to agree with the aerotart, that the whole concept is a complete nonsense.

ARFOR

10th Apr 2010, 09:24

LeadSled
another go at implementation of Government policy, as reflected in the White Paper, the Airspace Act 2007, the Airspace Regulations.

Whether you like it or not, that is Government policy

Oh no it is not. Government policy 'requires' proper process. That includes proper risk and CBA assessments.

That you and Mr Smith think you can blame the 'bureaucrats' after the fact is naively wrong. The whole saga is being well documented.

The Government is smart enough to know when plausible deniability no longer applies.

Last minute furor ;) not even close :ok:

Lets see if the patsy wakes up in time ;)

Howabout

10th Apr 2010, 09:30

Apologies Lead, missed this on the first quick scan:

Some of you who seem to think Karratha and Broome are some "thin edge of the wedge", congratulations, of course it is, another go at implementation of Government policy, as reflected in the White Paper, the Airspace Act 2007, the Airspace Regulations.

Thanks for the admission that there's a wider agenda.

As I said before boys and girls, don't say you didn't see it coming! (Post 386)

2b2

10th Apr 2010, 09:33

light aircraft being flown by pilots of unknown experience/standards with equipment of unknown serviceability will also be flying.

and these aircraft are getting smaller, faster and harder to see - Lancairs, SR22s, etc. Unfortunately the standard doesn't appear to be increasing accordingly.

What is on the horizon? VLJs. Should get really interesting with little jets flying around VFR in E/G.

ARFOR

10th Apr 2010, 09:51

LeadSled
Will CASA OAR stick to the legislation or succumb to sectional pressure ----- Watch this space
Quote of the day :D

Definition - 'sectional pressure' = media adverse politicians, and an ill-informed media tart. ;)

Who would have thought we would agree on anything :ok:

max1

10th Apr 2010, 10:02

SOMEONE keeps going on that the problems occur close to the airport and that we should 'free' controllers up to deal with these problems closer in, by not distracting them by dealing with problems further away.

From a controllers point of view the reason that these problems occur closer to the airport or holding pattern is probably because they haven't been subject to positive control and dealt with further out.

As a general rule, if I don't have Plan A/B/ and C ready for my arriving jet, or turbo, sequence BEFORE top of descent I will be playing catch up.

In the same vein it could be argued that overruns are not because the PIC was not on a stable approach at Xft or X miles (or what ever the company mandates) but because he was too high or fast as he crossed the airport fence. In that case the pilot should assess his approach as he passes the airport fence and apply their judgement at that point.
In this case we should be putting our resources into arrestor hooks and netting as this is where the overruns occur.

I am not actually serious in case the 'triumvirate' decide to latch on and push this barrow with the Minister.

Capn Bloggs

10th Apr 2010, 10:06

another go at implementation of Government policy, as reflected in the White Paper, the Airspace Act 2007, the Airspace Regulations.

Ledsled, you really are full of it. DICK, DICK, DICK, all over it.

Howabout

10th Apr 2010, 10:44

Well, Bloggs, I agree with your views, but unless the guys in the eastern regionals, and those that operate into current C over D, get it in a pile, it will be 'all over red rover' (see post 386).

I know you carry the torch in the west, but this is going to be lost, comprehensively, if the likes of the RAAA don't start using a bit of muscle now in the east. Also AIPA, and a bunch of others, RFN.

The writing is on the wall guys and the clock is ticking. At the risk of boring you, go back to posts 386 and 394. Also Leads's admission that E over US D is the universal end-state (post 388).

If that doesn't put the breeze up you, nothing will, and you'll be staring out of limited vis cockpits, with 100+ punters down the back, looking for that Tobago north of Launy (that you don't actually know about!).

ARFOR

10th Apr 2010, 11:03

LeadSled
AIM Section 2, Controlled Airspace, Fig. 3-2-1, and explain to an obviously misinformed poor bloody RPT Captain how I transition from Class B (or maybe Class C, to upper airspace A, without transiting E???
It has been done to death before, however, lets do it again for the dummies:-

- US Class B is up to A080 or higher [few if any VFR in TRACON Radar E above that]
- US Class C is up to 4,500AGL [all VFR in TRACON E above are in radar covered Approach and Departures Terminal area airspace]

The Southwest Airlines 737 was within the Burbank/SOCAL [radar Approach and Departures] TRACON E airspace above the class C at the time of the accident :hmm:

An awfully strong smell of blood in the water this evening [Australian Eastern Standard Time] ;)

topdrop

10th Apr 2010, 12:21

Government policy includes the risk is to be as low as reasonably practical (ALARP).
E over D or C is not as low a risk as C over D or C and since it costs no more to have C than E, there is no point in having E at all.

Howabout

10th Apr 2010, 12:31

topdrop,

Government policy also demands a rigorous cost/benefit study, but let's not complicate the issue.

If we can ignore those pesky requirements, we will. After all, what we want is 'proven' US airspace - what's a couple of GA/RPT MACs between friends?

The odds have to be 'vanishingly small' of similar occurrences here - I am sure you will agree.

Chimbu chuckles

10th Apr 2010, 14:00

I remember Dick proudly announcing during the NAS Debates of several years ago that E=G (VFR) & C(IFR) as if that all made perfect sense.

I am sorry but that is the sort of logic I came to expect from my daughter when she was 13 and the hormones were just kicking into gear:ugh:

I'll tell you, Dick, the same thing I told her. "Go to your room and don't come out until you have something sensible to say!!"

At least she would emerge from her room later and give me a big hug, tell me she loved me, and apologise. I don't want a hug Dick nor an assurance that you love me - just an apology and a promise you will be better behaved when you learn to cope with the hormone rush.

rotorblades

10th Apr 2010, 14:10

I agree Chimbu

I dont want to hug dick either, love or otherwise
:oh:

ARFOR

10th Apr 2010, 14:50

eeeeeewwwwww grouse :yuk:

Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/engel/angel-smiley-008.gif No offence intended of course towards those two or three who are clealy infatuated with 'THE' electonic DICK http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Dog One

10th Apr 2010, 23:41

Government policy must allow for local variations, hence the non standard 30nm CTAF(R) which now exists at Broome.

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Apr 2010, 00:49

Gotta ask, Leadie. GrandPa Aerotart is a current ATPL flying full time between here and Europe...Rotorblades is a current ATC pushing tin here and experienced OS, ARFOR is current ATC, Bloggs is a current skipper on regionals flying domesticly, Dog One is current ATC...........

Leadie, when was the last time you renewed your ATPL and when was the last time you ACTUALLY poled a widebody? You seem to take great delight in pointing the finger at everyone else's experience, so, pony up!

peuce

11th Apr 2010, 03:24

In the spirit of keeping this rolling ...

Does VB have the same SOPs as QF?
Does Tiger have the same SOPs as VB?
Hell, does JQ even have the same SOPs as QF?

Í'm guessing the answer to all questions is ... NO

But doesn't QF have tested and safe SOPS ... proven over many, many years?

Why don't the others just copy QF?
Are they just stubborn fundamentalists? or is there another reason?

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Apr 2010, 03:47

Been talking about this to a mate who pushes tin for a living on one of the regional consoles.

This is what he said about programmed tailored arrivals-"turbo prop RPT out of a regional into a major, he's programmed a 2 minute delay behind a 738. I notice on maestro there's a 4 minute gap ahead of the 738. I go to the flow and say 'Before I slow turboprop down will you be speeding 738 up?' (Giving the 73 a high speed descent would have eliminated the turbo prop delay) Flow's reply: 'No the 738 is on a tailored arrival' can you believe it? A tailored arrival is creating a delay for the aircraft behind it!"...only the names and aircraft have been changed to protect the innocent but a very true story and only a day old!

Leadsled, care to respond on your furphy argument?

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Apr 2010, 04:14

Chuck , I just wished I kept all the BS material I received in the mail in the eighties and nineties. I have a few CAA newsletters with the then Chairman of the CAA spouting off how good TAAATS was going to be and how, with the help of all the built in automatic alarms for terrain, tracking and air to air conflicts, the current controllers would easily be able to do the job of FS as well as their own....And everyone believed Dick:ugh:

Dog One

11th Apr 2010, 06:20

And now - no one believes him!

Howabout

11th Apr 2010, 13:06

I'll repeat this one last time, then give up:

OZ and the rest of you (post 381), as I pointed out previously, from my perspective that is the end game. The pro-NAS boys are deliberately keeping quiet on this one because they think they've got a cunning plan and, if they can just keep quiet for a while, universal E over US D at all those other places will fall into their laps with little/no effort.

From where I stand there's an admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning with this plan that goes like this:

"We are getting E over D at BME and KTA. The directive is already out to convert GAAP to E over US D, and AV will be the same without any additional pot-stirring or lobbying on our part. Do not rock the boat at this stage - no need.

"Once we have these changes locked down, we then go into lobby mode. We point out that we now have a 'totally confusing' system, whereby we now have two completely different sets of procedures and airspace types operating across the 'non-major' airports. At BME, KTA, AV and all the ex-GAAPs, we have, 'safe,' 'proven' US airspace. Yet at places like AY, LT, HB, TW, AS, etc, etc we have 'unique' Australian, 'Galapagos' D with overlying C. Surely this is at the very least confusing and non-standardised, and at the very worst, dangerous.

"The obvious solution Minister (sucker), is to reclassify all those other ports as E over US D for 'standardisation.' Otherwise, the confusion will generate incidents/accidents and, Minister, 'you'll have blood on your hands,' or something equally dramatic - there's a certain amount of form here going back to NAS. The pressure will also be applied via the media, who don't know any better, and the gullible couch potato that is well-informed through his reading of the Tele and seeing 'aviation experts' on A Current Affair.

Believe me boys and girls, who drive the regionals and the heavy metal going into places like Coffs, Albury, Alice, Hobart, Launy and all those others, you're in the gun-sights and are about to be comprehensively snookered unless you get it in a pile right now.

If you don't, you'll be mixing it with uncontrolled VFR traffic to all of those 'country' destinations to which you fly.

As I said, in my opinion an 'admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning,' I dips my lid. But don't wake up one morning and claim you didn't see it coming - it will be too late!

The following excerpt from a previous post is also pertinent:

The writing is on the wall guys and the clock is ticking. At the risk of boring you, go back to posts 386 and 394. Also Leads's admission that E over US D is the universal end-state (post 388).

If that doesn't put the breeze up you, nothing will, and you'll be staring out of limited vis cockpits, with 100+ punters down the back, looking for that Tobago north of Launy (that you don't actually know about!).

mjbow2

12th Apr 2010, 06:44

ARFOR

I understand your burning desire to only list those airports that serve aircraft of Part 121 carriers with 31 seats or more. This is an unfortunate, misguided and deliberate attempt to mislead the unsuspecting reader.

And by the way, I don’t know why you care what airports aren’t in the contiguous U.S but you might check the location of Long beach California (LBG).

Part 139-airport class classification, has absolutely NOTHING to do with airspace determination. Part 139 details airport specifications for airports wishing to serve air carrier operations. Simply put, Class 1 for Part 121 > 30 seats, Class 2 for Part 121 < 30 seats.

Many class 1 airports serving high capacity RPT jets in the United States are in fact CTAF and Class E over D towered airports.

I WILL REPEAT THIS FACT:

Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers.

Your post compares some of our bigger airports that have similar aircraft movements to ones in the United States. It shows admirably that we have Class C appropriately allocated to these busy airports when compared to the U.S. Well done.

Here is another accurate comparison, like for like as you say.

Broome CTAF
36,162 movements, Aprx 410,000 pax 2007 (CASA aeronautical study)

Eagle/Vail non radar, E over D
36,417 movements 430,686 pax 2008 (FAA/ KEGE airport)

Pretty similar aren’t they?

One country's airspace has been assigned on the basis of a scientific Cost Benefit Analysis. Can you guess which one?

Projected cost of lives lost over 15 years (at Aprx USD $1m per life) divided by the cost of saving those lives by upgrading the airspace. Obviously the cost of upgrading the Eagle airports class D to Class C is significantly less than 1 when divided into the projected cost loss of lives.

Why you rant on and on about TRSA surrounding class D in the U.S. is perplexing. The first TRSA was established back in the early 1980’s prior to the FAA using the ICAO class A-G airspace classification and prior to the FAA adopting their current scientific Cost Benefit Analysis.

Contrary to what you believe, TRSA’s are NOT being upgraded to class C. Some class D airports get upgrade to class C only after a Cost Benefit Analysis has been performed weather there is an existing radar facility (TRSA) or not. Just like Class C airspace will be upgraded to Class B when traffic levels justify it.

Howabout

I apologise if my comments appeared as combative. That was not my intention. Sometimes as you know in these contentious debates, strong assertions can sometimes be lost in a somewhat venomous tone. This detracts from the evidence offered. I’m sorry.

You say

What idiot would support an E service, that allows VFRs to mix it with IFRs with no separation, when a C service can be provided from the same resource base?

As and RPT airline pilot, I SUPPORT Class E. It is truly extraordinary that any reasonable thinking person can say that there can only be Class C and Class G and NOTHING in between in the terminal or enroute environment. What a remarkably illogical thing to say.

Why can I not get positive IFR and terrain separation in places like Proserpine, Ballina and even Canberra after hours? Because fundamentalist cannot accept that E is perfectly safe and insist that G is somehow magically the safer class of airspace.

Surely you can see that if the currently assessed risk of collision is so remote in these places as to warrant class G, then it would then be that much safer for IFR to have class E?

My suspicion is however, that Australia is completely devoid of any real scientific risk assessment when it comes to airspace.

Chimbu Chuckles

Having (Hicap/RPT) jets outside controlled airspace on climb/descent, the highest workload phases, just defies any logic. There is not a SINGLE good reason that justifies the additional risk no matter how small YOU deem it to be. Its stupid, its irrational - its moronic!

I agree. Can you tell me why I have to fly a Boeing in radar covered Class G airspace in Australia?

Why after 15 years since its introduction, am I not able to fly through Class E instead of Class G in radar covered airspace along the J Curve?

Is it because fundamentalist have stomped there feet, covered their ears, closed there eyes and repeated often enough…. Not class E, we’ll all die!

Stick to your guns Chimbu! If you say it enough times class G will magically become safer than E, but only if you really, really believe it. Good luck!

le Pingouin

12th Apr 2010, 07:23

As and RPT airline pilot, I SUPPORT Class E. It is truly extraordinary that any reasonable thinking person can say that there can only be Class C and Class G and NOTHING in between in the terminal or enroute environment. What a remarkably illogical thing to say.
Why should we settle for E when C can be had over D for no more cost? Extraordinarily illogical to think of mixing unknown VFR with high cap RPT when we don't have to.

mjbow2, Why are you happy to accept unnecessary extra risk on behalf of your load of pax?

Howabout

12th Apr 2010, 07:41

mjbow2,

No need to apologise; but I do appreciate the olive branch - I do not like rational debate descending to name calling either.

The fact is, and if you look at my previous posts, my question remains unanswered:

Why should we accept E, when positive, guaranteed, separation can be provided with C? It's just not logical.

As regards my thoughts on G as opposed to E, that is location specific. Under G, and BME CTAF(R) there is a mandatory reporting requirement within 30nm. With E, no such requirement exists. Tell me which is better. An environment where at the minimum, you get a traffic alert, or where you just don't know what's out there under E procedures?

Once again, I do not want to descend to invective. But the question remains - if a higher level of service is achievable, why not provide it?

Jabawocky

12th Apr 2010, 07:45

Shoot me down if I am wrong here...better still I will delete the post, but on the face of it I think mjbow has said;

Class E is better than G. And he is talking more remote areas not necessarily over the top of D towers.
Why can I not get positive IFR and terrain separation in places like Proserpine, Ballina and even Canberra after hours?
..............they are all CTAF's:hmm:

Recently I made the same comment about Ballina and in IMC conditions E would be better but it really needs radar or it becomes very restrictive. This topic is not about that. Lets face it E is just G with seperation by ATC for IFR, but ATC work best with a screen of useful info to work with.........ohhh and yes ATC's to look at the useful info.

What Mr mjow has said is apples and oranges I feel. In other words comparing proserpine or Ballina to say Launie or Hobart. :=

J:ok:

and in a remote area with a CTAF and perhaps radar or wamlat

OZBUSDRIVER

12th Apr 2010, 08:48

http://flttrack.fltplan.com/airportphotos/KEGE.jpg
KEGE, sevicing the township of Eagle Colorado...population 3032 and Gypsum, Colorado...population 3654...claim to fame? feeder airport for the nearby Vale ski resort...

9000ft runway at 6548ft AGL

Lessee what else we can find?

WOW 2 scheduled flights a day to and connecting from Denver with Skywest.
CRJ900s(76pax) and CRJ700s(70pax and a 3 class 66pax) and CRJ200(50 pax) And AA put a 757 in daily to DFW

Looks like those numbers are heavily inflated for the ski season. In fact numbers for KEGE are

83 flights per day on average
42% transient GA
21% air taxi
17% military (helicopter training)
12% local GA
9% commercial...thats about 8 flights a day on average.

430686 passengers on 2726 commercial flights of which 1095 are the regular services, wow 157 pax per flight...every flight...figures are looking a bit rubbery there, mjbow2. Methinks you will find the majority of pax come in on their own aircraft. 12723 flights every year. GA...

Now what do we know about GA in the US...they much prefer to stay away from controlled airspace...according to the zealots...so for GA class E is a damn fine deal pardner

EDIT- AA appears to connect through DEN using a CR7 with UA so may even be less flights.

ARFOR

12th Apr 2010, 09:23

mjbow
I understand your burning desire to only list those airports that serve aircraft of Part 121 carriers with 31 seats or more. This is an unfortunate, misguided and deliberate attempt to mislead the unsuspecting reader.
No burning desire [I’d suggest the ‘burning’ is elsewhere in this debate], rather ensuring that readers have the ‘full’ picture on which to consider the relative merits or otherwise. There is nothing misguided in raising these comparative points. Misguided is to suggest E over D without surveillance, without approach and departures controllers [TRACON], without tower services resourced as they are in the USA. The deliberate nature of that assertion put by the NAStronauts can only be considered misleading to the unsuspecting reader.
And by the way, I don’t know why you care what airports aren’t in the contiguous U.S but you might check the location of Long beach California (LBG).
I think you do. I am glad you picked up on Longbeach, did you note the class C airspace serviced airports above and below Longbeach.

LGB - Long Beach /Daugherty Field/ Airport | SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/airport/LGB) [note the Airport Services comments]

SkyVector.com - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning (http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.817777083,-118.151651&chart=114&zoom=3) [note the class B airspace above A050, A025 to the North, Los Angeles, and Los Alamitos AAF next door]

Here is the next ‘comparison’ point I knew you would want to discuss:-

LONG BEACH TOWER: 119.4(RY 30 APCH RY 12 DEP) 120.5(RY 12 APCH RY 30 DEP) 257.6
LONG BEACH GROUND: 133.0 257.6
SOCAL APPROACH: 124.65 316.125
SOCAL DEPARTURE: 127.2 269.6
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 118.15
F.S.S HAWTHORN

That’s 4 VHF tower frequencies [including clearance delivery] and 2 VHF Approach and Departures Radar frequencies.

Longbeach and the associated Radar Class D,E,B airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?

Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons! ;)
Part 139-airport class classification, has absolutely NOTHING to do with airspace determination.
Correct, however the overwhelming evidence proves that most RPT/PTO serviced airports servicing Part 121 >30 pax seat capacity aircraft in significant number in the US have CLASS C or B airspace associated. FACT!
Part 139 details airport specifications for airports wishing to serve air carrier operations. Simply put, Class 1 for Part 121 > 30 seats, Class 2 for Part 121 < 30 seats.
I’m glad you are finally acknowledging the fact.
Many class 1 airports serving high capacity RPT jets in the United States are in fact CTAF and Class E over D towered airports.
Wrong.

The busiest US Class D [without Terminal Radar Service Area rules] with E above in the US in 2008 was:-

Joe Foss Field [FSD], Sioux Falls, South Dakota

FSD - Joe Foss Field Airport | SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/airport/FSD)

It recorded 8,745 Air Carrier movements 2008

The Class D [Sioux Falls] is equipped with:-

SIOUX FALLS TOWER: 118.3 257.8
SIOUX FALLS GROUND: 121.9 348.6
SIOUX FALLS APPROACH: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
SIOUX FALLS DEPARTURE: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
F.S.S.: HURON

Sioux Falls Class D, E Radar airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?

Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons! ;)
I WILL REPEAT THIS FACT:
Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers.
Assuming your figures are accurate, a simple division of the number of Class D [including those with TRSA] that have any Air Carrier [including those smaller than 30 pax seat capacity] which is around 140 smaller airports according to the FAA. They move on average 1,428 Air Carrier Op’s [Turbo-prop and piston mostly] each per year
Your post compares some of our bigger airports that have similar aircraft movements to ones in the United States. It shows admirably that we have Class C appropriately allocated to these busy airports when compared to the U.S. Well done.
That’s the point, most of the Australian towered airports servicing Hi-Cap RPT are moving the same numbers of these aircraft as US Airports protected by Class B or Class C airspace [as well as all the other services such as radar and TRACON]
Here is another accurate comparison, like for like as you say.
Broome CTAF
36,162 movements, Aprx 410,000 pax 2007 (CASA aeronautical study)
Eagle/Vail non radar, E over D
36,417 movements 430,686 pax 2008 (FAA/ KEGE airport)
Pretty similar aren’t they?
Not really

Eagle County Regional

EGE - Eagle County Regional Airport | SkyVector.com (http://skyvector.com/airport/EGE)

Airport 6548 feet AMSL [Class D up to A090AMSL and a bit]

Most Air Carrier during winter [VFR moves during Winter would be?]

Much of Eagle’s movements are Mil helo training below 1,000ft AGL [see airport notes bottom of the linked page]

They record the Air Carrier/Commercial moves for 2009 as 2,724

The FAA record the Air Carrier moves for 2008 as 3,352

AND;
CLSD TO UNSKED ACR OPNS WITH MORE THAN 30 PSGR SEATS EXCP PPR CALL AMGR

Broome

Has no winter [VFR reductions] or altitude/topography limitations

Air Transport moves as at 30 June 2009 of 13,300 [all year round]

Your Pax figures for Eagle include all operations, not just Scheduled Air Carrier. Broome numbers are for Air Carrier only. Big difference wouldn’t you say.

Notwithstanding the above differences, the biggest difference:-

ATIS: 135.575
AWOS-3: 135.575 Tel. 970-524-7386
EAGLE TOWER: 119.8
EAGLE GROUND: 121.8
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 124.75
EAGLES NEST: 41.75
CTAF: 119.800
AWOS-3 at 5SM (25.1 SW): 126.075 970-384-3380
ATIS at ASE (25.3 S): 120.4
AWOS-3 at 20V (35.5 NE): 118.425 970-724-9659
Remarks:
• COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDED BY DENVER RADIO ON FREQ 122.2 (EAGLE RCO).
• APCH/DEP SVC PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQS 128.65/282.2 (KREMMLING RCAG).
• CLEARANCE DELIVERY PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQ 124.75 WHEN ATCT CLSD.

One in, one out service??

The two examples you cite mjbow are about as similar as Howler monkeys and Minky whales :D
One country's airspace has been assigned on the basis of a scientific Cost Benefit Analysis. Can you guess which one?
Airspace requires a little bit more than a guess. How about you ask the CASA if they have a design safety case furnished from the FAA for US Class D. In the meantime, do you disagree with the numerous Aeronautical Study/Airspace reviews conducted in recent months on Australian Regional Towered Airports? That’s scientific!
Projected cost of lives lost over 15 years (at Aprx USD $1m per life) divided by the cost of saving those lives by upgrading the airspace. Obviously the cost of upgrading the Eagle airports class D to Class C is significantly less than 1 when divided into the projected cost loss of lives.
An admirable attempt at to appear well informed, and reasonable. As already discussed, Eagle County, due lack of VFR traffic during winter, the fact that the class D reaches almost to A100 due airport elevation, and the lack of Scheduled Air Carrier when VFR are likely to be operating [summer] would make it somewhat unique as far as airspace management needs go. I suppose that is why you have twice tried unsuccessfully to put it forward as an example to be followed in Australia.
Why you rant on and on about TRSA surrounding class D in the U.S. is perplexing. The first TRSA was established back in the early 1980’s prior to the FAA using the ICAO class A-G airspace classification and prior to the FAA adopting their current scientific Cost Benefit Analysis.
I don’t rant mjbow, just provide the factual information to those who would otherwise be ‘mislead’. Class D was the category implanted within TRSA. It is a fact that if you compare the locations that had TRSA at the time of alphabet airspace inception, many have been reclassified to class B or C.

Last but not least. By jove mjbow, I think you have finally worked it out. You said today:-
Some class D airports get upgrade to class C only after a Cost Benefit Analysis has been performed weather there is an existing radar facility (TRSA) or not. Just like Class C airspace will be upgraded to Class B when traffic levels justify it.
Quote of the day – that is two in two days for you chaps! :D

Proper process is what the industry in Australia is demanding. Safety Case, Cost benefit analysis, what a great idea.! Amazingly, you agree! :ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

12th Apr 2010, 09:40

ARFOR...you looking over my shoulder?:}

ARFOR

12th Apr 2010, 09:49

:D hahaha ;) it seems more than a few are waking up to the NAStronaut guff :ok:

LeadSled

12th Apr 2010, 14:36

---- chances of meeting a light aircraft VFR no details

Chimbu,
Who said light aircraft VFR, the aircraft I have had close encounters with over India were VFR military aircraft, and certainly not "light" --- and they do not generally talk on civil frequencies.
Tootle pip!!

LeadSled

12th Apr 2010, 15:09

Thanks for the admission that there's a wider agenda.

Howabout,
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.

As to appropriate "processes" to justify any particular airspace design, again refer to ICAO compliant methods of justification, I don't really think there has been any lack of "process" in the OAR, just because the answer doesn't come out as a few of you believe it should, does not mean the processes are deficient or absent.

If it is all such a disaster in waiting, why not all band together in a spirit of public protection, pool your resources (crudely called "put your money where your mouth is") and seek a Federal Court injunction restraining the OAR/CASA/Department from acting in an unsafe manner, just think of all the "safety" headlines the media would generate ---- or go on strike and refuse to operate the system, if you so passionately believe it is "not safe".

Chimbu, are you the one who said you have never flown "around the world" except in A,C or C ??? And you have been flying from where? to Jedda. Please look very carefully Indian airspace divisions, unless they have changed radically since my last set of charts, which are admittedly about 12 months out of date.

As to those of you who now want to attack my qualifications to comment: wonderful, play the man and not the ball. Do I have an ATPL, yes. Is it current, No, due medical, but hopefully it will be again quite soon.

Being up to date in a cyclic training or other CAR 217 training system has nothing to do with up to date knowledge of CNS/ATM systems.

Any more than being a Regional Captain implies any special knowledge of CNS/ATM systems, beyond operating within the system, anymore than being such implies a detailed knowledge of aircraft structural design/certification, beyond that needed to fly the aircraft in question ---- or, for that matter, that being a licensed ATC implies an in depth knowledge of CNS/ATM design.

But do carry on, and soon we will all know the final outcome in Broome and Karratha. Obviously I, for one, hope the OAR stick to their guns, and the intent of their enabling Act --- and not once again give in to possibly well intentioned but ill-informed sectional pressure groups.

Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER

12th Apr 2010, 18:37

Leadsled

once again give in to possibly well intentioned but ill-informed sectional pressure groups.

And exactly what do you three think you are...a very small ill-informed pressure group.

You only think that you can get E over D up over Broome and Karratha is because there is nothing there now except a "detested" UNICOM in a CTAF.

If the threshold for establishment of a tower has been crossed then , by all means, go to a class D...However, establish the exact same airspace as would be implimented in the US, Class C.

Scientific studies have been done on similar EXISTING airspace. Not one study approves downgrading C to E For the Alice, Launi, Tamworth, Coffs or Rocky...In fact page 34 of the Alice study shows exactly where Broome and Karratha sit for the triggering criteria.

Reading through all this material...what it comes down to...you guys think class E will be safe because transponder requirments will allow TCAS equiped aircraft to detect a conflict....TCAS cannot be used for traffic mitigation....this is starkly bought into light with the Hyder review for Geraldton..That report considers nominating a ‘Designated Transponder Area’ (DTA) in Class G
airspace to formalise and extend the Traffic Collision Avoidance System
(TCAS) protection afforded to PT aircraft from other aircraft that are fitted with transponders. CTAFs do not require any aircraft to be transponder equipped. Although AIP (ENR 7.1.2) specifies that ‘Unless advised otherwise by ATC or in accordance with para 7.1.9, pilots of Mode 3A or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft operating in Australian airspace must activate their transponders, and where a Mode C capability is also available it must be activated simultaneously with Mode A’. PT stakeholders have reported many instances where aircraft operating within the CTAF(R) were not transponding.

Another mechanism for requiring transponders would be to reclassify the airspace above the aerodrome as Class E. However this would require further in-depth safety studies.

Now why would class E be thought of this way?

Leadsled, I have had this argument tooo many times with you...If you want this type of traffic mitigation then push for ADS-B fitment...at least then those crews get protection from being able to ACCURATELY depict conflicting aircraft in both azimuth as well as elevation. TCAS is too blunt and NOT TO BE USED for this purpose.

OZBUSDRIVER

12th Apr 2010, 18:59

Going back to this link-

http://files.aea.be/Speeches/Operators_Harmo.pdf

and going again to page 2...The Europeans are coming from a system unified from patched together systems of civil and military ATMs...yet..as a group..these guys consider the way the US does it is just downright dangerous

US ATM system faces safety issues

! TCAS RA’s
" AEA members flying to the USA have analyzed TCAS RA’s
on approach comparing major US airports with European
major airports " The rate at some US airports (Newark, LAX, Denver,
Philadelphia, SFO) is 100 times the rate at major European
airports (LHR, CDG, SPL, FRA etc)

! Compliance with ICAO

" Various serious safety incidents linked to the US ATM
environment with loss of separation or near collision. In
light of the Ueberlingen accident, all TCAS RA’s have to
be complied with (ICAO), a modus operandi which is not
fully understood in the USA

! US ATM safety issues need to be tackled with urgency

This is not hot air blowing off, the European Airline Companies have serious issues with the US ATM....and we just want to blindly copy them..

I have a prediction...The US FAA will move to two levels of airspace with the coming full implimentation of Free flight...No points for guess whoes airspace it will resemble....And that sad joke is that it's just history repeating:ugh:

Howabout

13th Apr 2010, 06:50

Lead,

In my opinion, you are dead-set wrong and I suspect you know it. From where I stand you are perpetuating myth old chap; but nice try at obfuscation when there's no supporting facts. You state as follows:

Howabout,
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.The Airspace Act 2007 states the following:

The Minister must make a statement (the Australian Airspace
Policy Statement).
Note: Generally, CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions
in a manner consistent with the statement: see section 11A of the Civil
Aviation Act 1988. My underlining.

The Act has absolutely no reference to US NAS; nothing, nada, zip!

Let's look at the Airspace Regulations 2007:

Not a single reference to US NAS. Jeez, this is getting really frustrating; I was sure I'd have found a reference by now, going on your post.

On to the Airspace Policy Statement. There's this little gem:

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.And, finally, it does actually include a reference to US NAS as follows:

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.Is this all you are hanging your hat on Lead? Say it isn't so Joe (for baseball fans). 'Considered and implemented if appropriate!'

Furthermore, I refer you to the line 'Such as the..' What does that entail? How does that compel us to slavishly introduce US airspace?

If you follow the thrust of the full statement, the US NAS is being used as an example, not the epitomy of 'international best practice.' Indeed, the way this singular reference to NAS is phrased, the Outer Mongolian system could be implemented if it constituted 'best practice;' or, possibly, the superior Lapland system; hell, even that employed in Borat's home country could be considered. You could insert any system, any country, in those brackets and it would not mean a thing as regards government direction - other than the OAR considering the merits of other international systems.

Lead, are you seriously telling me that this is all you've got to go on? That the identified sections of the Act, Regulations and Policy Statement seriously and unequivocally mandate US NAS airspace?

In short buddy (US terminology) there is absolutely nothing that supports your contention that either Act, Regulation or Policy Statement give credence to your argument. In particular, your claim that:

It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the modelLead, assertions, particularly assertions that have the potential to affect the safety of 'passenger transport services,' which remain the 'government priority,' cannot be based on such thin (non-existent) justification.

In short, there is nothing in the Act, Regulations or Policy Statement that supports your contention that US NAS must be the Australian end-state.

Nice try though; but you get an F.

In the interests of even-handedness, I'd be happy to hear your response.

ARFOR

13th Apr 2010, 06:55

LeadSled
It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model
Mischievous at best! :=

The summary [on page 10] at the below link, sums up the Legislation, process and expectations.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/408230-nas-rears-its-head-again-10.html#post5589697

The US NAS is not ’the model’
As to appropriate "processes" to justify any particular airspace design, again refer to ICAO compliant methods of justification, I don't really think there has been any lack of "process" in the OAR, just because the answer doesn't come out as a few of you believe it should, does not mean the processes are deficient or absent.
If the processes are not deficient or absent, where is the ‘publically’ available safety work for the information and consultation with industry stakeholders? I challenge you to post anything remotely resembling these ‘required’ documents. An ACP for Broome and Karratha at 1 minute to midnight [so to speak] is not proper process, particularly when the ACP clearly ignores the YBRM, YPKA, and all other 'like type' Airspace studies, and the mitigations explicit in the Instruments. :=

Further, the CASA instruments [date 13 Nov 2009] for both Broome and Karratha make no mention of Class E, only Class D

Broome

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/miscinst/2009/casaoar192.pdf
Subsequent determination foreshadowed
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
and;

Karratha

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/miscinst/2009/casaoar193.pdf
Subsequent determination foreshadowed
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
Both instruments go on to say:-
Logistical requirements for publication and data distribution mean that airspace design and development work must be completed by June 2010
And;
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 of the LIA has been undertaken with AA. Before the arrangements for Broome [and separately] Karratha are finalised, relevant airspace users will be notified of the proposals and consulted about them. Any representations made by the users about the proposals will then be taken into account by CASA.

Thus the ACP recently closed.

Asked over and over again [not only on PPRuNE], where is the CBA and Risk analysis for E over D verses C or D over D? Particularly, if the final determination needs to be made and locked in by June 2010.

You seem to be the only ones that cannot or will not acknowledge this glaring omission.
Obviously I, for one, hope the OAR stick to their guns, and the intent of their enabling Act --- and not once again give in to possibly well intentioned but ill-informed sectional pressure groups.
3 Quotable quotes in 3 days. Not a bad effort from you three! :ok:

Howabout

Apologies for doubling up :} ... quite funny really :)

CaptainMidnight

13th Apr 2010, 08:52

The previous Airspace Policy Statement (2007?) did make some reference to adopting the U.S. NAS, but that was amended in the current one to state this below. For good obvious reasons.
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. And that airspace changes must follow due process:

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.

41 The airspace strategy requires transparency so that the aviation industry has clear insight into the way in which airspace administrative decisions will be developed, taken and implemented including industry and agency consultation. The strategy does however recognise there will be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative.

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.
I suspect that if the FAA had a blank sheet of paper, they wouldn't adopt E airspace in many current locations. Now that it is there it would be difficult to change without major objections from various parties.

Howabout

13th Apr 2010, 09:05

Post 427, old Buddy. I'd really appreciate your response before I atrophy.

Dick's views would be good as well as regards 'Government intent.'

ozineurope

13th Apr 2010, 13:17

Damn 2 weeks on an island in the Med and this is still going on!

None so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Class C - procedural or radar - is able to be done for the same cost as E.

Ideology has no place in aviaiton safety. :-)

ozineurope

14th Apr 2010, 13:07

Correct - Class C protection. In fact a friend of mine here from a LCC has stated that they do not want to ever fly in E and dont as it is dangerous for them!

Frank Arouet

15th Apr 2010, 08:45

After a weeks holiday to reflect on my ignorance, (my apologies for anybody named Darwin or whatever the name and his/her awards but I won't mention it again despite now knowing what the bloke's first name is).

The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss just as in the low level ADSB debates.

they do not want to ever fly in E and dont as it is dangerous for them!

They would really hate class G airspace.

Howabout

15th Apr 2010, 08:50

Lead,

Regardless of our differences in this debate, and I want to keep it civil, can I please have a response? A response based on fact in reference to your assertion that:

Howabout,
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.

I believe that I asked asked a reasonable question, regarding the Act, Regulation and Statement, in response to what was a reasonably strident assertion on your part. Once again, see post #427.

PS Frank, my computer does not have a Braille translator

peuce

15th Apr 2010, 08:56

Frank,

They would really hate class G airspace.

That might very well be the case .... but we are debating E versus C

ozineurope

15th Apr 2010, 09:43

Doesn't every IFR B738 hate Class G?

No destinations serviced by RPT, or the equivalent, have less services than D.

le Pingouin

15th Apr 2010, 09:57

They would really hate class G airspace.Given that E isn't any different to G as far as the presence of unknown VFR is concerned......

Capn Bloggs

15th Apr 2010, 10:26

Frank,
The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss

The thread, I think, has been quite well behaved (maybe it's just you who stirs us up:E). What has been made abundantly clear is that, apart from Leadsled's safety studies (which he refuses to either provide or give us a link to, rather childish IMO), there is NO justification for E over D, and the reducing attempts to justify US NAS for us have been comprehensively beaten down by ARFOR. The lingering question, that of cost benefit, has not been addressed by either yourself or the other Nastronauts.

The only sane and logical conclusion is that E over D is indeed unjustified.

As to your comment
They would really hate class G airspace.
Of course they would. But equally, I sincerely hope that you are not implying that such as situation applies here in Oz. If you are, you have no idea about the characteristics of airspace we have. Label it what you like, our "class G" is nothing of the ICAO sort. I have maintained for years it is Class F, and all you Nastronauts can trot out in defiance is "Class F is a transient airspace to a higher class"; clutching at straws....

Frank Arouet

15th Apr 2010, 10:36

Struth:ooh:

Howabout

15th Apr 2010, 10:53

Frank,

I don't know whether it's true or not, but a religious person once told me that 'Struth' (corrupted into 'strewth') is slang for 'God's truth.'

So what passes the 'Struth' test in this debate? Facts-based argument, or opinion-based emotion?

Howabout

15th Apr 2010, 11:31

Lead,

You have prosecuted your arguments with gusto, but you are now silent.

Why?

Capn Bloggs

15th Apr 2010, 12:48

He's at the Nastronauts last-ditch strategist's meeting in Terry Hills! :}

LeadSled

15th Apr 2010, 16:15

Bloggs,

How droll, a bit like your mate Owen.

Obviously the CASA CEO and the head of OAR haven't read you chaps forensic dissection of the legislation, and are still working under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.

Who knows??, we will see the final outcome soon enough, who knows, with all your so clearly illustrated shortcomings of the US system, with bodies raining from the sky on a regular basis, maybe they will give you A over B for Broome and Karratha.

Surely, nothing but "the safest" is good enough.

Tootle pip!!

mjbow2

16th Apr 2010, 01:03

Howabout

Why should we accept E, when positive, guaranteed, separation can be provided with C? It's just not logical.

Why not A? Why not B? We could cover the entire continent with class B because it is 'safer' than E. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? We simply don't do this because it costs too much.

Better still. Lets make it illegal for any aircraft to take off. This is the only way of guaranteeing no aircraft will ever collide with other traffic or the terrain.

Apparently Owen Stanley thinks this is the best idea because it's clearly the safest by far.

Some controllers here have been arguing that the US cannot provide class C in the enroute environment because the level of VFR traffic is far too great. The system would grind to a halt. Of course they are right, it would grind to a halt and it would cost billions more to staff the extra ATC sectors to cope with the extra responsibilities were they to use enroute Class C.

You controllers have two irreconcilable positions on Class E. That is, we should use enroute Class C, because we can but only until traffic levels reach that of the United States, then we should downgrade it to Class E so we don't run into grid lock. Extraordinary!

I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable.

Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.

If Civil Air were right then the FAA could divide up their enroute Class E into tiny sectors, reclassify it Class C and employ thousands more controllers at no extra cost to handle the 5000-7000 VFR aircraft pottering around US skies each day. Wow! Which voodoo mathematician worked that one out?

The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D Howabout is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?

I could vaguely understand using Class C at the airport, class D in the 'link' airspace and class E at say 20nm or 30nm. At least that model follows some kind of logic.

Pat Mcgroin

16th Apr 2010, 01:21

MJBOW2

I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable

This is simply because you have no idea what ATC do and what services they provide. :ugh:

mjbow2

16th Apr 2010, 01:24

Pat Mcgroin

Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.

Pat, do you disagree with this statement?

Pat Mcgroin

16th Apr 2010, 01:53

MJBOW2(stroke)Dick

Yes I do disagree. Once again you have NO understanding.

Jabawocky

16th Apr 2010, 02:07

mjbow2

You have answered it yourself.....yes 10 or twenty or even 100 a day are probably (I am guessing just as much as you are) managable without extra ATC's, and thats pretty much all we have. If it ever gets to 1000........then we need to revisit it.

You shot your own argument in the foot mate! :ouch:

peuce

16th Apr 2010, 02:12

mjbow2,

You made a lot of statements about US airspace and how you think we think it should be doine. That's of no interest here, we're talking about Australia...so I'll ignore those sections.

Why not A? Why not B? We could cover the entire continent with class B because it is 'safer' than E. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Not really. But over the whole contineant? But as a replacement for E, yes, why not . Except for the exclusion of VFRs in A .. that could be an issue. But there's no reason we couldn't have B over D at Broome, for the same cost as E

Better still. Lets make it illegal for any aircraft to take off. This is the only way of guaranteeing no aircraft will ever collide with other traffic or the terrain.

Now you're just being silly :p
You know that all we want is for it to be safe as reasonably possible at a realistic price.

Hypothetically, would you be happy is we could provide C for the same price as E?

If not, why not?
If yes, can you provide us with an explanation of how you think it costs more to provide C than E.... because the Controllers have stated otherwise. Obviously you must have data that they are not privy to.

squawk6969

16th Apr 2010, 02:36

When are the proponents of the Class E debate going to answer the questions asked by Mr Bloggs/ARFOR/Stanley/Howabout/Ozbusdriver etc?

Unfortunately there seems to be a smug resistence to do so, and knowing the way government organisations work, this deal will no doubt get up despite not having had the studies done and in conflict to the reports from other Class D airports.

So just humour everyone and answer the questions or just confirm the proof/studies do not exist.

SQ

peuce

16th Apr 2010, 02:39

mjbow2,

The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D Howabout is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?

I re-read your post and you, in fact, did state your objection to Class C ... above.

My answer ...

the only reason we are having ANY controlled airspace further out is because CASA/OAR said we will. Can't say I've seen any justification either.
So, if we are having a Controlled Airspace link, then, presumably, it has to be safer than what we have ... Class G(F) with a 30nm MBZ.
Is Class E safer than that? No, as IFRs will be required to descend down through unknown VFR aircraft.
Is Class C safer than the status quo? Yes, positive separation between all aircraft
ATC have stated that they can provide Class C for the same cost as Class E

Seems quite logical to me:}

ARFOR

16th Apr 2010, 02:49

mjbow
I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable.
Not preposterous at all. Existing class D and C towers utilise the same number of tower staff [for each specific location] whether they have overlying C to A085 or not. Simply put, the workload in the D is such that the additional C is no impost or saturation risk, particularly when having that approach/departures airspace enables the tower to ‘tactical plan with out the additional workload associated with a separate remote controller [either en-route or approach/departures] that requires a dialogue between tower and centre or TRACON for every movement, more importantly, assignment of separation responsibility where a conflict occurs close to the boundary of the airspace parcels.

Simply put combined tower/approach reduces complex co-ordination in the terminal area, which reduces time lost to other tasks [scanning, separation, VHF], and removes the ability of a ‘combined’ controller to tactically plan traffic solutions, enact them, and re-evaluate, monitor, re-evaluate in quick time without having to bring an adjoining controller in to the thought process and agreement loop.

The other side of this equation is of course the workload, training and co-ordination complexity for the overlying airspace controller [en-route or approach] who, in Australia will not be a TRACON/approach controller, rather a sector en-route controller with huge swathes of high level CTA, OCTA FIS and related workload already.

If you add low level Terminal area CTA to these airspace services, it is not rocket science to understand the exponential increase in diversity of responsibility, complexity, and most importantly possibility for distraction/error or otherwise unnecessary delays. This no reflection on the en-route controllers in Australia who are already providing very complex, busy and non-stop [listen to their frequencies on any given day] ATS services from the surface CTAF’s at KickaBobalong through to vector sequencing, time and speed control, STAR delivery etc into arrivals airspace to capital cities.
Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.
Of course it will Notwithstanding the first answer in this post, the thing you Nastronauts seem incapable of understanding, is that the volume of traffic is part of what determines the classification, the primary driver is passenger transport volume, and all of those aside, what determines the ‘appropriate’ classification to service the previous mentioned is of course the ATS infrastructure.

- Tower [how many frequencies and operating positions are necessary]
- Terminal area control CTA [can it be done from the tower, if not how many terminal area positions are needed remotely] etc etc
- Is surveillance available? Is it required?

I can say with a high degree of certainty:-

If the terminal area traffic above the tower zone is too busy and/or complex for the tower to manage, then it will certainly be orders of magnitude worse [incompatible] for a remote en-route sector
If Civil Air were right then the FAA could [U]divide up their enroute Class E into tiny sectors[/U, reclassify it Class C and employ thousands more controllers at no extra cost
A ridiculous analogy. The discussion for Australia is not about dividing up existing airspace volumes, it is about establishing tower services, and separately how best to service the climb and descent areas associated.

Done by the tower? E or C = same number of tower staff!

Done by the Centre? E or C = same number of en-route staff? Maybe not!

It is possible that the TMA airspace above A045 – A085 [if done remotely] will require console positions in the centres be split irrespective of E or C [due the IFR/IFR separation and co-ordination complexity].

The reduction in VFR responsibility in E [via remote centre] is not outweighed when compared with the tower applied C option. Nor is the risk mitigation anywhere even close to that of local tower controllers with local TMA knowledge. Centre based Class E in climb and descent areas above busy ICAO D towers does not fly from a safety, efficiency, or cost point of provision points of view.
The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?
Quite apart from all of the other cost of provision and safety advantages discussed in this thread:-

Services application - C or D over D - Further out, larger lateral ‘separation standard’ options exist. In other words it is easier, safer and with less opportunity for short notice [no tactical options] ‘surprise’ factor of Class E. The pilot-to-pilot-to-ATC impact of additional frequency loading [chatter involved with self separation] with class E is a safety negative to adjoining services [en-route or tower as the case maybe] that should not be underestimated.

peuce

16th Apr 2010, 03:18

What ARFOR said, plus .. for those interested, here are links to:

The Australian Aviation Act 2007

ComLaw Management - Series- Airspace Act 2007 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200730484?OpenDocument)

Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010 (which is a requirement of the Act, every 3 years)

Release of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS) 2010 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/aaps.aspx)

Some of these quotes from the documents have been posted before, but I found them interesting:

CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, and the OAR must approach the development of its advice on airspace regulation on the same basis......

The administration of Australian-administered airspace:
+ shall be in the best interests of Australia;
+shall consider the current and future needs of the Australian aviation industry;
+ shall adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia‟s aviation environment; and
+ shall take advantage of advances in technology wherever practicable.....

Class F: IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive a flight information service if requested. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace. (REALLY????)......

Changes to an existing airspace classification or designation should be the consequence of a clear and consistent risk management process.....

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......

The airspace strategy requires transparency so that the aviation industry has clear insight into the way in which airspace administrative decisions will be developed, taken and implemented including industry and agency consultation......

The decisions taken on Broome & Karattha will ultimately provide eveidence on how well we are being served by our Government.

ARFOR

16th Apr 2010, 04:08

LeadSled
Obviously the CASA CEO and the head of OAR haven't read you chaps forensic dissection of the legislation, and are still working under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.
Quotable Quote number 4 :ok:

Keep em' coming ;)

Howabout

16th Apr 2010, 05:33

Lead,

Obviously the CASA CEO and the head of OAR haven't read you chaps forensic dissection of the legislation, and are still working under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.Cute old fruit.

Given that you could not answer my post on the lack of direction in either the Act, Regulation or Statement (post #427) regarding US NAS, and there is none, I find your approach most disappointing. I did not put you in the category of the Great Benefactor and regarded your contributions as a bit more positive; and honest. Argument 'won on merit' comes to mind.

However, the statement above is a shocker. In short, you are quite happy for the CEO of CASA and the head of the OAR to work under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.And before you jump in, you could not refute my assertions regarding Act, Regulation or Statement intent. However, to achieve your aims you seem to be willing to ignore fact, accept 'misapprehension,' and use that 'misapprehension' to secure your aims.

Deductive reasoning Lead: You cannot refute post #427, otherwise you would have two-days ago; you are willing to perpetuate the myth that NAS is the end-state; and, furthermore, you are happy to have senior officials of CASA act in a state of 'misapprehension' to achieve your goals.

If you can defeat my argument at post #427, my position is is destroyed. Do it Lead. If you can't, then your credibility, IMHO, ain't what I thought it was.

topdrop

16th Apr 2010, 07:19

I wonder how the jet jockeys feel about this scenario:
Class D to A025, Class E above.
VFR traffic requests clearance to transit at A020 but is denied clearance due jet on same track on descent. VFR climbs to A035 and no longer needs a clearance, still a confliction, but it must be safe because the NAStronauts say it is. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Jabawocky

16th Apr 2010, 09:12

Yep the C150 is vannishingly small when obsured by the bug guts on ya B717 windscreen..............until :eek:

Jabawocky

16th Apr 2010, 09:32

And about transponders, the intruder was outputting the wrong altitude?:uhoh:

And this
Investigation and aftermath

The National Transportation Safety Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety_Board) investigation found that N4891F, the Piper, had deviated into the LAX Terminal Control Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Control_Area). It was out of radio contact with air traffic control, which had been distracted by another flight entering his control area without having received clearance.
Moreover, the Piper was not equipped with a Mode C transponder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aviation%29), which would have indicated its altitude, and LAX had not been equipped with automatic warning systems. Finally, apparently neither pilot sighted the other aircraft because neither attempted any evasive maneuvers, even though they were in visual range. When an autopsy revealed significant arterial blockage in the heart of the Piper's pilot, there was public speculation that he had suffered a heart attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocardial_infarction), causing incapacitation and contributing to the collision; however, further forensic evidence discounted this, and error on the part of the Piper pilot was determined to be the main contributing factor to the collision.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498#cite_note-OutofSight-4)
As a result of this accident and other near mid-air collisions (NMAC) in terminal control areas, the Federal Aviation Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) required that all commercial aircraft be equipped with traffic alert and collision avoidance systems (TCAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Collision_Avoidance_System)), and required that light aircraft operating in dense airspaces be equipped with "Mode C" transponders that could report three-dimensional position.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498#cite_note-7)
A jury ruled that the Aeroméxico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico) plane bore no fault, instead deciding that Kramer and the FAA each acted equally negligently and had equal responsibility. U.S. District Judge David Kenyon agreed with the notion that the FAA shared responsibility.

So for those wondering about survellance being important, how about we ask Bloggs and friends?

Howabout

16th Apr 2010, 09:48

Lead,

I don't want to screw up a progressing thread; so, I'll just say Lead:

Post #427 and post #457.

Earth calling Lead.

Answer the questions, Please Lead, shatter my credibility.

ARFOR

16th Apr 2010, 10:05

As a result of this accident and other near mid-air collisions (NMAC) in terminal control areas, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all commercial aircraft be equipped with traffic alert and collision avoidance systems (TCAS), and required that light aircraft operating in dense airspaces be equipped with "Mode C" transponders that could report three-dimensional position.
Sad isn't it that some countries need corpses before they act.

This [in this thread] from a junior NAStronaut
The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss just as in the low level ADSB debates.
Silly people!

ADS-B not only enhances on-board anti collision systems, it also provides an ultra low cost ATS tool for [amongst other things] ensuring transponders are on.

That said, without primary radar, no-radio/no TXPDR VCA's cannot be totally ruled out.

I would like to see TXPDR's [including ES ADS-B OUT] wired in to all aircraft with an air switch, and a pullable circuit breaker only [in case of malfunction or fire] to minimise switch on omission. By doing so, whilst masters are on, the ADS-B is outputting the required ground signals, and when at flying speed, outputting required airborne signals.

Frank Arouet

16th Apr 2010, 10:40

The ADSB debate in question was whether or not the gullible believed in "tooth fairy" promises of free installation. Not "commo" misinformation about junor NAStronauts?

I don't recall anybody being against the principle as an evolutionary progression from mode C transponder where it is currently required.

it also provides an ultra low cost ATS tool

Which it is.... For Airservices. But only if the poor bloody aircraft owner pays for ADSB OUT. (refer "tooth fairy promises before going off about how it could have been).

I would like to see TXPDR's [including ES ADS-B OUT] wired in to all aircraft with an air switch, and a pullable circuit breaker only [in case of malfunction or fire] to minimise switch on omission. By doing so, whilst masters are on, the ADS-B is outputting the required ground signals, and when at flying speed, outputting required airborne signals.

And we should all have a microchip implant in our brain so we can be charged $$$$'s for the privelege of someone "watching" someone who doesn't want to be watched in the GAFA.

need corpses before they act

Probably is why there is no ATC at Goodooga. Obviously a breakdown in duty of care responsibilities by your reckoning.

ARFOR

16th Apr 2010, 10:52

Mr Arouet

This discussion thread is regarding CTA/R operations, not ‘Goodooga’ or ‘KickaBobalong’ in remote area class G.

TrafficTraffic

16th Apr 2010, 11:09

So Frank,

If I understand correctly - you subscribe the 'affordable safety' party?

So if the Government (read CASA, AsA and the RAAF) were to provide every aircraft in Australia with an ADSB-out fitment at zero-0-no cost to you (the owners) you would be happy with that?

I am not talking about toothfairies or dicksmithfairies - lets be sensible - yes or no?

Simple question..

TT

peuce

16th Apr 2010, 12:07

TT,

I think Frank has answered that question:

...the privelege of someone "watching" someone who doesn't want to be watched in the GAFA.

TrafficTraffic

16th Apr 2010, 12:18

Thank-you Peuce,

Yes perhaps Frank could explain why anybody would not want to be watched?

Perhaps if he was on a Chinese Coal carrier taking a shortcut I could understand....

TT

Chimbu chuckles

16th Apr 2010, 12:53

As long as there is a CB to pull when I don't want to be watched.

This thread is NOT about big brother intrusion into our flying across the broad spectrum of aviation pursuits - or it shouldn't be - its about controlling the airspace where larger aircraft full of fare paying passengers travel. We have enough to worry about in terms of our freedoms to fly for fun without a MAC between an aircraft with 170 bums and one with 2 providing politicians:yuk: with an opportunity to strip any more away in the name of dredging for votes.

IFR (mostly but not exclusively) GA MUST be able to avail itself of 'the system' when it wants to/needs to BUT GA must fit in with the big end of the industry rather than the other way around.

What is so terrible about wedges of class C steps funnelling RPT aircraft into Class D towers and Class C above say 10000'?

Personally I find the attitude of people like DS, et al, to be amazingly arrogant. I also find it utterly STUNNING that such a small group can be so instrumental in causing SO MUCH grief over so many years.

OZBUSDRIVER

16th Apr 2010, 12:58

someone who doesn't want to be watched in the GAFA

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is THE agenda that has driven this gang since the eighties.

ARFOR

16th Apr 2010, 13:00

Concur 100% Chimbu chuckles :D

Chimbu chuckles

16th Apr 2010, 13:06

Oz more a matter of not wanting to be watched over YBBN,YSSY than the GAFA.

Remember the light aircraft lane over LAX being used as an example of 'worlds best practice' and "why cant it happen over SY"?

OZBUSDRIVER

16th Apr 2010, 13:17

Yes CC, far safer to overfly YSSY than that dirt road airspace up the lane from Brooklyn Bridge and having to share with trolls who use their radio too much.:suspect:

Maybe, the quote should be changed to "Do not want to be watched ANYWHERE" .....that about covers it.

No Further Requirements

16th Apr 2010, 13:33

I think we are getting closer the mark here. My feeling is that the Class E advocates are acting on behalf of a group who is afraid to call ATC for a clearance. They use the 'But I might get knocked back or delayed' as an excuse. It boils down to confidence and knowledge (ie, taking the time to research the required R/T) of how to operate in a controlled environment.

Some people on here bang on about delays or clearance denials 'this one time'. How about the hundreds that are issued daily through Class C to VFRs? I can't think of a time I have ever knocked back a VFR in Class C, whether it was into an international terminal area to land, a busy capital airport terminal area with terrain issues, or a very dubiously "radar covered" area sector surrounding a D tower.

Is it just the terry-towling brigade trying to get Class E so they don't have to use their radio to call ATC because they don't know how?

Cheers,

NFR.

PS. I don't use my real name on here for varied reasons. Many people know who I am and what my background and experience is -Dick is one of them (and I have asked him to keep it under his hat, which he has done, to his credit). My personal belief from working Class E and Class C is that, given the current traffic levels and the forseeable increase in the medium term, Class C protection can be provided for ALL airspace users for the same cost as Class E in the current setup of Class D towers.

superdimona

16th Apr 2010, 14:08

Is it just the terry-towling brigade trying to get Class E so they don't have to use their radio to call ATC because they don't know how?

I'm not so sure I agree with this theory, but there are thousands of RAA pilots out there who would _welcome_ a chance to be trained to operate properly in class C/D - but we're not allowed to! Nevermind a 10 hour GA student can do his first solo in controlled airspace, class C/D is too tricky for us. :ugh:

Jabawocky

16th Apr 2010, 21:47

Superdimona

You can have that, of course it requires a bit of training, its called a PPL, and for those of you who want to it will only take about another 5-10 hours I guess to achieve (for the most part).

I have a pretty good idea you know who I am so come over to my hanger and have a chat if you want it explained further, otherwise wander up and see Bryan.:ok:

PM me if you wish I'll send you my phone number.

J:ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

17th Apr 2010, 00:13

NFR, on the money.:ok:

The argument that if we change our airspace design we will become the meca for aviation training is a furphy! CC is correct and he has used the argument many times...IF ATC disappears, GA is not affected. However, RPT is severly constrained. ATC is a tool evolved to facilitate the rapid and safe transit of heavy RPT. Heavy RPT pays for a service. In class E RPT and IFR is paying for a service that they do not receive.

At this level I can understand...Under the IFR, you fly by reference to your instruments. Your position in the sky is derived solely from information deciphered from your panel..On steam gauges this is not a direct depiction...mental effort is required to calculate and deduce your ACTUAL position in space. In IMC it is your lifeline in how good you can manipulate this raw data in real time. Because its IMC receiving a traffic service from ATC is also part of that lifeline. You are protected from unknown VFR because the conditions preclude VFR flight.

Change the story to a perfect VMC day Same IFR, same ATC service. Excepting now, you are maneuvering your aircraft for arrival by those same reference to those instruments, still requiring the same attention to deduce and maintain your track , but now you must spend a considerable time with your attention outside the cockpit scanning for UNKNOWN VFR....and your paying for this service?

But the heavies have got TCAS, they can see the mandated transponders of VFR flying in the same airspace. I asked this very question when I was planning and investigating my first ever trip away. I investigated EVERY possibility for that trip...even down to try and work out the timetable for airlines arriving at my destination so I could work out if I would not be in conflict...analy retentive, you might say. One person actually responded that as long as I had my transponder on they would see me...as long as I had my transponder on......by default we are using a last line of defence device for something it was never intended for...trafffic mitigation!

Its OK to have class E in non-surveilled airspace, not by default but mandate transponder equipped VFR become visible to TCAS equipped HVY RPT. To the plebs reading this for the first time..TCAS does NOT depict where a converging conflict realy is in space. TCAS will always show a collision risk DEG45 off the nose, even if the conflict is at your one oclock or eleven oclock position in reality....This is why TA or RA the pilot is told to climb or descend. Azimuth? the thing doesn't know where it actually is, only that the algorythm says its going to hit you......and this is what the bean-counters are going to tell the crews and ATC that there is a vanishingly small risk and no need for class C airspace...and the "traffic mitigation device" will say one thing and you will look out the window and see something else???

Go back and look at the threads regarding Hamilton Island airspace and Williamtown Airspace and how VFR are ALWAYS held at the boundaries. Ask yourselves, why is Smith pushing so hard for class E? Its not for the safety of paying passengers:ugh:

Frank Arouet

17th Apr 2010, 00:22

So if the Government (read CASA, AsA and the RAAF) were to provide every aircraft in Australia with an ADSB-out fitment at zero-0-no cost to you (the owners) you would be happy with that?

I know where this is heading but the short answer is YES!

To qualify this answer, I would like to see the cash BEFORE the screams for a MANDATE like last time. Have you forgotten the lies and broken promises already?

There has never been an agenda that I know of to fly without being "watched" where being "watched" is a requirement.

There HAS been an agenda that I support, which recognises the very very very great possibility of those in the GAFA copping air nav charges for being "watched".

If being "watched" where there is no requirement to be "watched" means I will have to pay for an installation to be "watched" and then a TAX for being "watched", then I'm against it.

Understand?:rolleyes:

peuce

17th Apr 2010, 00:25

I have been racking my brains, long and hard, trying to work out why the Nastonauts are so dead set keen on Class E airspace.

Lets assume for a minute that most of us have got it wrong and it does cost (marginally) more to operate C than E. Is it so much of a difference that a reasonable person would trade off the added safety of C? I don't think so.

So, are they VFR operators who are scared of talking to ATC? The characters on here are pretty forthright ... I couldn't see them being too backward in coming forward.

There appears to be only 2 options left:

They are VFR operators ... who don't want to be seen ... and don't want to be bothered with clearances to do what they want:suspect:
Or, they have a religious-like fervor that Class E is the redeemer of all things evil in airspace management:*

To, me, both illogical reasons, and I suspect the real answer is a mixture of both.

Is it possible to "turn" them? Is there anything we can do to change their attitude? Perhaps an intervention? :E

I suspect that something along the line of old dogs and new tricks might be appropriate here.:ugh:

LeadSled

17th Apr 2010, 06:00

Folks,
I am going to put my final two bobs worth in, on this subject, by coming back the the basic principles of ICAO airspace design, and that is achieving the design separation assurance standard at the lowest airspace classification, starting with G.

Again, by definition of the design principles, once the separation assurance standard is achieved, higher classes of airspace will not achieve a real reduction in risk, because the separation assurance standard is already so high. Whether you agree or not is immaterial, that is no more than your personal opinion.

Indeed, several orders of magnitude higher ( lesser risk) than losing a complete aircraft on an auto-couples Cat II/III approach, or the probability of an aircraft CFIT (without regard to GPWS) during an approach (or departure) designed to current PANS/OPS standards ---- all the above have had a core element of risk management built in for many, many years.

Clearly, I am quite happy to accept the ICAO approach to risk management.

That the basics of ICAO airspace design is not accepted by a range of pilots and ATC individuals in Australia says more about Australian aviation attitudes to modern risk management, than it says about the veracity of the basic ICAO risk management standards.

Strangely, pilots don't complain about the hazard levels in instrument procedure design, but the inherent hazards and the mitigators employed to reduce the final risk, still leave a level of risk that is not ALARP, as most of you interpret ALARP. Indeed, there is no such thing as a SID or IAP that would not be "safer" with a higher minima, but that is not the way such design works. In fact, if you employed the same logic applied here to C over D versus E over D, there would be no low weather minima approaches, and probably no 200' CAT 1 ILS. We would revert to a minimum of 300 or 400', as was the case in Australia back in the '60's and early '70s, long after the rest of the world has adopted CAT 1/200' as the basic ILS minima.

As one example, we continue to kill pilots with monotonous regularity, during asymmetric training, because we have not adopted a proper risk management approach, either at a regulatory or field level.

Whether you like it or not, CASA is bound to use a risk management approach across the board, witness the work being done by Aerosafe as a consultant to CASA, putting the meat on the bones of the basic policy of risk management.

I have not the least concern about "being seen", indeed all my own aircraft have had ARINC standard transponders, either King or Collins, all of that nonsense about "stealth" operations is a red herring, as far as I am concerned.

We simply must adopt the best risk management standards in aviation, will we ever?? I don't know, but I have been pushing such adoption since well (years) before AS/NZ 4360 Issue 1 was even published.

For those of you who want to have a bit of fun with the statistical term, "vanishingly small", it may be the equivalent of zero in maths, but "vanishingly small" is never "nil", or in other words, risk can never be nil, short of abolishing the activity. If you decline to understand/accept that, it is no skin of my nose, but it does make the probability of your arguments being accepted ( in a technical, not political sense) , dare I say it, vanishingly small.

That you might succeed at a political level, by scaring the beejesus out of politicians, does not invalidate ICAO airspace design principles, it just proves how hard modernization of anything to do with aviation is in Australia.

As to mandatory ADS-B/C, that has been done to death, but essentially nothing has changed, since the "recommendations" of a group that had neither fiscal or real world responsibility for their recommendations, were dropped like a hot brick by Government.

Tootle pip!!

Howabout

17th Apr 2010, 06:39

Lovely Lead,

Can I now have an answer to post #427? Mate this is like pulling teeth. I have asked you again and again, but it just seems to be an 'inconvenient truth.' Let's not let the facts get in the way of driving through 'airspace reform' at whatever cost. Your latest missive was merely a diversion.

Frank introduces the red-herring of ADS-B and we get a tome that is totally unrelated to the argument at hand.

mjbow2, sorry, I don't monitor this 24/7. However, as regards your comment:

You controllers have two irreconcilable positions on Class E. That is, we should use enroute Class C, because we can but only until traffic levels reach that of the United States, then we should downgrade it to Class E so we don't run into grid lock. Extraordinary!

Who actually said that? In context and with references please.

Lead, you continue to dodge, weave and live in self-denial.

Post #427 Lead and post #457.

That's the problem; when the argument continues in a rational vein, the irrational retreat.

peuce

17th Apr 2010, 08:07

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I can understand what Leadsled is saying.... and, in theoretical and statistical terms, I believe he is correct in what he is saying.

HOWEVER, and it's a big however, a lot us see the product of those methods as rubbish.

So, not only do your methods need to be "by the book" ... they have to provide a "reasonable" outcome.

If we see the fruits of your loins producing a product that says it's more appropriate ( forget about more safer) to "pretend" that VFRs don't exist ...then you have to understand that we are going to question your methodology.

Do we have a realistic chance of changing ICAO Methodologies? ... not in the short term! So, our only avenue in getting what we believe is "appropriate" is to scare public servants with ... dare I say it ... a common sense approach.

Hopefully, that will trump your statistics.

ferris

17th Apr 2010, 08:29

It is usual form that the Nastronauts will try attacking the man, the anonymity furphy, and straw-man argument after they lose the debate based on facts and sound argument. Then they slink off. This will go quiet now (until the next tilt).

Your silence on the pertinent questions, Lead, is deafening.

Your last sweeping 'big-picture' post is instructional. Slavishly applying ICAO-based modeling etc. and disregarding the fact that a higher level of safety is possible (even if not 'required') in Australia for the same spend smacks of either breath-taking stupidity, or a hidden agenda.

Chimbu chuckles

17th Apr 2010, 09:05

once the separation assurance standard is achieved, higher classes of airspace will not achieve a real reduction in risk, because the separation assurance standard is already so high

E over D/around C with aircraft potentially invisible to the system = 0 assurance of anything.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::rolleyes:

Howabout

17th Apr 2010, 09:20

Earth calling Lead.

Posts #427 and #457.

Lead, I know I am being a pain, but you can make the pain go away by simply answering the questions.

How easy is that?

PS I feel far more comfortable with Chimbu's take on things. Chimbu; next time I shell out my hard earned readies to take Mrs Howabout OS, I'd like you up front! Plus, I prefer going with Mr Boeing in the best piece of kit ever made!

superdimona

17th Apr 2010, 09:50

Hi Jabawocky,

Yes I do remember you :)

You can have that, of course it requires a bit of training, its called a PPL, and for those of you who want to it will only take about another 5-10 hours I guess to achieve (for the most part).

Without derailing the thread too much, I've done a fair bit of research, and sadly it's much more of a pain then that. I've had GA schools want to start me back at Straight and Level :ugh:

Why do I need an ASIC ($), a medical ($) lessons in an expensive to hire aircraft that I do not to intend to fly after training ($$$) and another big flight test at GA rates ($$$$) just to transit the odd bit of class C/D? I just don't see why we are forcing people to spend thousands of dollars extra. Most people fly RAA because they can't afford the expense of GA. They may have to go over tiger country or through bad weather OCAS when they could have easily zipped through class C.

Literally _today_ I got stuck somewhere when my planned route home was clouded in. I was in an aircraft with a transponder and reliable 4-stroke engine, capable of doing 100 knots (not a chair with wings, powered by a lawnmower engine). If I was allowed to do a 'Controlled Airspace' endorsement (which was almost in the bag but our new CASA leader decided to knock back) I could have easily have cut through some class C and been home perhaps 5 minutes late.

Instead, because CASA (who are supposed to only make rules on safety grounds) won't let me train for class C, I had a choice between scud-running overwater with low visibility at 500-1000 feet (bugger that) or diverting to another airfield and waiting it out. Several hours and multiple 'go and see' flights later I managed to be home.

I've spoken to controllers before, and they didn't see a problem with a properly equipped and trained RAA pilot flying through class C - they encouraged me to always ask for help if I needed it. I'm happy to get the training but they goverment won't let me receive it. Why do the RAAs 9200+ members need PPLs when Glider pilots don't :mad:

PM will be sent.

cheers

Chimbu chuckles

17th Apr 2010, 10:08

Yeah - well if it aint Boeing I aint going.....either:ok:

LeadSled

18th Apr 2010, 14:33

Folks,

Re. #427 and #457, have any of you had a look at the Minister's Charter Letter, aka. the current Civil Aviation Act 1988 Minister's S.12 direction, or any of the other Government policy documents that bind CASA and the great majority of Commonwealth Government departments and agencies. Did you carefully check the Minister's Second Reading speech for the Airspace Act 2007???

Perhaps you have done CASA and OAR a great service re. NAS ----- no longer referring to US NAS ---- but maybe that doesn't really change much.

Judging by the whole Class D towers issues, including the draft determinations for Broome and Karratha, or the statements of John McCormick, in many venues, such as Senate Estimates, it looks to me like US NAS is still flavor of the month.

I am not going back to re-read the White Paper, but memory says there were some interesting comments there about airspace.

The reality is that, given the totality of the Air Navigation Act 1920, Civil Aviation Act1988, the Airspace Act 2007, the OBPR mandatory requirements, the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, and Productivity Commission "mandatory guidelines", and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, the outcome should still look pretty much like US NAS.

But, as I have said several times, the final outcome will be determined by how successful the efforts by the troglodyte lobby.

Universal A, that's what we need, that will eliminate a very high percentage of fatalities and injuries. Of course, it will only do this by eliminating most of GA and small airlines, and make the rest of Australian aviation a luxury mode of transport for the very wealthy.

But!!! Hey, you can't put a value on human life, can you!!

Drop all this techno economic rationalist affordable safety nonsense about risk analysis and cost/benefit justified regulation, ignore the High Court definition of "safety", go for the big prize, unaffordable safety, why not even absolute safety.

Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs

18th Apr 2010, 14:54

Spare me please! :{

Political and bureaucratic nonsense, Ledsled. We had two airproxs within 3 months of your fabled E airspace being implemented here. And your rambling on about...the Productivity Commission? You're joking aren't you? What on earth (or in the sky) would it know about C verses E?

Your problem is that you're trying to hide behind verbal diarrhoea and rubbish printed on paper. You and your fellow Nastronauts are desperately scratching up any titbit of text (mostly created or influenced by Dick) that might support E via the USNAS. But you know very well that C provides a safer service than E for the same cost, that VFR doesn't pay a cent in C and that they hardly ever get dicked around (pardon the pun) by ATC. I think I might get Luke Skywalker to pay you a visit; maybe you can be rescued from the dark side. Then again, maybe not...

Jabawocky

18th Apr 2010, 21:19

Leadsled,

The simple answer to your "tongue in cheek" but serious comment is this.

You are in the market for a new car, your budget is fixed with a sensible limit, and a Kia is looking about right, until you discover a nice little C180 Mercedes Benz, you find the price is only $500 more and still within budget. You have read all the research on car safety and the crash tests etc and there is a demonstrated benefit in the Benz, and its effectively the same cost. The choice is simple.

J:ok:

mostlytossas

18th Apr 2010, 21:50

Except for the on going maintenance cost ofcourse.

mostlytossas

18th Apr 2010, 22:03

For the first 5 years only then may as well throw the euro trash away!
But enough of this, best get back on track:ok:

peuce

18th Apr 2010, 23:38

LEADSLED,

In the old days, Dick used to call the "non believers" luddites. Now we have a new name:

But, as I have said several times, the final outcome will be determined by how successful the efforts by the troglodyte lobby

Perhaps to dispell the Nastronaut myth that all Australia aviators and Controllers are just change averse, here are some PPRUNE quotes from a few years back. Note what they are talking about is SURVEILLLANCE Class E:

CrocDundee
4th August 2007, 22:00
Friedrichshafen (EDNY) and also St. Gallen Airport (LSZR) are very close to each other at the opposite shores at Lake Constance, southern Germany and north eastern Switzerland. Both Airports are growing, especially the IFR traffic. Unfortunately the approach airspace around the two CTR's is classified to E. Means a holy bunch of unknown VFR movements, especially on weekends. Numerous encounters of IFR-VFR almost every day... and obviously the hell for an APP ATCO to vector acft for approach thru all this VFR hell... if in any way it is somehow possible... just pure luck nothing serious did happen til today! And the German authority is not willing to change the airspace classification...!!!

Do we really need another accident in order they finally change this airspace classification?

NorthSouth
6th August 2007, 18:30
What separation do you try to apply between your IFR traffic and unknown VFRs in Class E? In the UK there's no requirement for separation, only provision of traffic information. Then again there's very little Class E left in the UK and a substantial chunk of it was re-classified as Class D a couple of years ago as a result of an airprox between a 737 and a microlight.

CrocDundee
6th August 2007, 20:45

There's as well no requirement for applying any separation. IFR arrivals and departures are either being vectored just around the visible VFRs on screen (sometimes that's just a nice try...), or simply to let them fly own nav on SID or STAR (procedural arrival). Of course, trf info will be provided as long as possible. And last but not least: The app atco needs a hard shell! ...and the flight crews good luck!
As I said before, there were numerous reported airproxes, some of them hottest category, and the authority still doin nothing against it.

Bring back Tridents
7th October 2007, 17:00
Sorry for being late to this discussion. Glasgow and Edinburgh have the same problem in the Scottish TMA with the Class E between them . It makes for some interesting moments on Glasgow Radar as several usually launch southwards from Cumbernauld without talking to approach. And then there's Mr Microlight :mad:Thankfully something's being done to change the classification to D.

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Apr 2010, 00:39

Leadsled, here's something else for you to ponder...as you are so fond of how things are done overseas...2015 in Europe (http://www.eurocontrol.int/airspace/gallery/content/public/documents/Airspace%20Operational%20Concept%20Strategy%2028FEB08%20Agre ed%20at%20SCG7.pdf)

Interesting! Neither a concept or idea but a plan for future direction. Flexible Use of Airspace. Flexibility requires capacity and resources. Resources include surveillance. Capacity requires bums on seats to re-configure airspace as required in real time....just need more runways and apron space to take advantage of the airways benefit.

How much of this has been taken into consideration in Australia?

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Apr 2010, 00:56

DNS...that's exactly what the gang of three and a half want us to do..throw our collective hands in the air and surrender:ugh:

Capn Bloggs

19th Apr 2010, 02:18

DNS,

Keep up the fight, lad. Bad things happen when good men do nothing.

LeadSled

19th Apr 2010, 02:52

Folks,
At the risk of repeating myself:

I continue to support the ICAO Risk Management approach to CNS/ATM resources allocation. For those of you who want to be the only soldier in the battalion in step, march to your own drum, or whatever, be my guest.

I have also said, time and again, that aviation regulatory reform in Australia (and that includes proper risk analysis) has been blunted and reversed time and again, by sectional pressure groups, with the results for all to see.

When was Australia last held up as a shining example of aviation regulatory efficiency. (And please don't quote TAAAAATS, after all, it is only a not very up to date version of Eurocat)

One thing Mick Toller (former CASA DAS/CEO) was right about, was his description of Australia as: "An aviation Galapagos, where all sorts of strange mutation have developed in splendid isolation".

Our rather poor safety record (compared to US), including near hits and collisions, rather does suggest that that such splendid isolation/isolationism doesn't produce the best safety outcomes. All it reflects is our isolationist inability to learn from other, often (ie: the US) with vastly greater ( might I even say: statistically significant) experience.

If any of you understood the background of the modern risk management approach to operation/technical issues you would understand; NOT using risk management analysis can, by definition, ONLY produce less than optimum results, and WILL result in both higher risk and economic waste.

Quite frankly, your continual assertions about "C must be safer than E", in risk analysis terms, are meaningless, if for no other reason than "Safe/Safer" are dimensionless terms, and to use an overworked expression, "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it". It's not as simple as that, of course, but that will do for a start.

Once you have achieved a 5E-9 probability of collision, no additional resources/higher class of airspace is going to make the slightest difference to the likelihood of a collision.

I note that nobody had taken up the point that the design risk criteria for instrument procedure design and losing an aircraft due to CFIT during the departure/approach is several orders of magnitude greater than the probability of a collision, ie: the separation assurance standard.

How many aircraft/lives have we lost, in Australia, during departure or approach phases of flight??

Interesting piece of psychology, that those of you with a window seat happily accept this (much higher) risk, but become as unhinged as the media about a midair.

Why am I not surprised that you don't want to take that one up?? You do understand the (statistical) reasons for the shapes of the current obstacle clearance envelopes in instrument procedure design (compared with the previous shape), don't you ???

Damn, there I go on again about statistics.

Tootle pip!!

Incidentally, the design risk for an unknown volcano pipe destroying a high level nuclear waste repository, with the widespread threat to life and health that would entail, is only 1E-8.

I wonder what that tells us about hysterical media/aviation pressure groups, where aviation is concerned. That a mid air, although tragic for all concerned, should be regarded as more important (ie: greater protection measures must be taken) than for an event likely to cause widespread nuclear fallout.

Ref: <http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUSM.V14A..06C>

Capn Bloggs

19th Apr 2010, 03:33

Ledsled,
Quite frankly, your continual assertions about "C must be safer than E", in risk analysis terms, are meaningless, if for no other reason than "Safe/Safer" are dimensionless terms, and to use an overworked expression, "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it". It's not as simple as that, of course, but that will do for a start.

"Dimensionless terms"? Rubbish! It was measured, in the three months after NAS 2b was introduced, with two airproxs. Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the statistics?

How many aircraft/lives have we lost, in Australia, during departure or approach phases of flight??

Interesting piece of psychology, that those of you with a window seat happily accept this (much higher) risk, but become as unhinged as the media about a midair.

Why am I not surprised that you don't want to take that one up??

What on earth are you on about? No losses (or concern) during App/Dep due robust procedures (which, for NPAs, I might add, we regionals have forgotten more than you and your international experts will ever know; some of us Australians were decades ahead of the rest of the world when it came to CDA NPAs).

On the other hand, I'm worried about a midair in E because THERE ARE NO DEFENCES OR PROCEDURES, only the big sky theory.

Once you have achieved a 5E-9 probability of collision, no additional resources/higher class of airspace is going to make the slightest difference to the likelihood of a collision.

Show me ONE post on Prune where somebody is suggesting we go higher than C. IMO, you and others get a gee-whizz feeling out of C>B>A, when in fact practically speaking there is no difference. YOU mob are the ones who don't have a handle on practicality or reality. It's either CTA or OCTA with the half-pregnant E jammed in the middle. Get rid of it.

One thing Mick Toller (former CASA DAS/CEO) was right about, was his description of Australia as: "An aviation Galapagos, where all sorts of strange mutation have developed in splendid isolation".
Typical Septic Tank attitude. Following on from my comments above, without the help of anybody, we developed a first-class airspace system that both protected and facilitated development. Fair enough, the need for mandatory VFR full-reporting had passed it's use-by date, but on virtually all other aspects of aviation in the last 15 years, most of the changes have been unnecessary and costly, and have turned pilots off aviation. Yes, you and your ICAO "nuts" have done the job, as well as unnecessarily endangering fare-paying pax with your Free In G (I'm glad that failed) and now Free in E campaigns.

Jabawocky

19th Apr 2010, 03:50

I note that nobody had taken up the point that the design risk criteria for instrument procedure design and losing an aircraft due to CFIT during the departure/approach is several orders of magnitude greater than the probability of a collision, ie: the separation assurance standard.

How many aircraft/lives have we lost, in Australia, during departure or approach phases of flight??

Interesting piece of psychology, that those of you with a window seat happily accept this (much higher) risk, but become as unhinged as the media about a midair.

Why am I not surprised that you don't want to take that one up?? You do understand the (statistical) reasons for the shapes of the current obstacle clearance envelopes in instrument procedure design (compared with the previous shape), don't you ???

Damn, there I go on again about statistics.

OKAY

I will bite. the reason is that humans are prepared to accept higher risks when they are in control of themselves and their surroundings. An RNAV into some rather hilly areas for example Lockhart River or even the RNAV or ILSinto Hobart for that matter is possibly a good example of what you are talking about?

Now when you are in control of your destiny, you are prepared to take on managing and mitigating against those risks. You know where you are, you know there is a surveyed approach, you know where the nasty bits are, and you know what to do in the MA. You also know if you cock it badly, you die!

On the other hand Captain Bloggs and co....(just to coin a phrase :ok:) he is happy no doubt dealling with those risks, its the ones he has no idea about, no control over and are not consistently in the same spot and he can't see that has him a little less than happy.

So yes I can see why he is happy dealling with some approaches Vs unknowns. this is not unique to the world of aviation either Mr Leadsled, have a look around industrial safety, sports such as motor racing etc.

Cheers:ok:

J

Howabout

19th Apr 2010, 07:26

Lead of the Sled,

I get it now. At the subsequent class action, the relatives of the deceased will be told that:

Once you have achieved a 5E-9 probability of collision, no additional resources/higher class of airspace is going to make the slightest difference to the likelihood of a collision.The lawyer(s) - read stacks - for the plaintiffs will ask a relatively simple question:

"So Mr Lead, you achieved 5E-9, 'whatever that means M'Lud' (as a well directed aside to the jury), yet we had a fatal mid-air collision.

"Would you mind explaining how this came to pass when my information, from current and competent air traffic controllers and pilots (I'd like to enter these affidavits for the record M'Lud), suggest such a tragedy could have been avoided with Class C airspace. Class C airspace at no, or minimal, extra cost, would have guaranteed separation between this aircraft and the light aircraft that collided with it. Wouldn't it have Mt Lead? Wouldn't it have?"

"Not necessarily; you see 5E-9 is a theoretical metric beyond which.."

"Excuse me, you are telling me that this is theoretical, that you actually based your decision on theory, that people died because of theory?

"But, but, we achieved 5E-9"

Etc, etc.

Lead, it just wont wash when it's revealed that passenger carrying RPTs are playing dodgems with unknown VFRs. Any proponent that signs off will be toast in the event of a (God forbid) mid-air that was avoidable.

But I suppose you are safe because your signature won't be on the paperwork.

You might label us troglodytes, but self -interest (as alluded to) doesn't come into it. We are genuinely sh*t-scared that people are being put at unnecessary and, avoidable, risk.

LeadSled

19th Apr 2010, 07:40

"Dimensionless terms"? Rubbish! It was measured, in the three months after NAS 2b was introduced, with two airproxs. Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the statistics?Bloggs,

All that statement illustrates is how little you understand risk management ----- perhaps you would like to tell us all about numerical values of "safe" ----- in fact, why don't you start by defining something called "safe" ---- what is "safe".***

Perhaps you could point me tho the Australian/New Zealand Standards for "safe" management ( as opposed to AS/NZ 4360).

As to the two NAS 2b incidents, they didn't measure anything, but clearly you don't understand that. As I have said in a previous post, and if you were capable, re-read the whole reports, not just the reports of the RPT Captains involved --- you might just find alternative interpretations ----- but I don't expect you will.

In particular, the NAS 2b incident north of Brisbane, have a very close look at the actions of the RPT crew, and I mean a very close look, and ask yourself, if you are, in fact, an RPT pilot: Would that have been your response to a TA followed by an RA, or would you, perhaps, have done something different, and perhaps avoided the RA.

As to accepting the "risks" during departure/approach phases, there is certainly something of the acceptance of risk when a person thinks "they are in control" unjustified self confidence, and lack of knowledge of what might be out of your control.

It doesn't, however, have anything to do with the system design risk for procedure design, which is all about assessing the reliability of the components of the system (including the pilot) ---- and arriving at a final set of criteria which are nothing more than a compromise ------ with the pilot flying having little or no knowledge of compromises.

The number of approach or departure phase accidents, versus mid-airs, tends to illustrate the point.

Once again, it is revealing of Australian attitudes that the implicit assumption is that the "professional" will always behave in an appropriate manner, and in the case of the dreaded VFR "Terry Towling Brigade Bug Smasher", it will always be that pilot who is the collision risk threat. That it is always "the other pilot" who is the threat.

However, the record doesn't support such a proposition, see the various reports available, Ambidjii being only the latest. Indeed, the "might is right" attitude is not limited to "professional" v. "private", we have several very interesting incidents where pilots of larger turbo-props have attempted to assume priority over smaller turbo-props -----

Tootle pip!!

*** There is a very useful High Court definition of "safe", which does absolutely nothing for your desired/assumed definition of safe.

Capn Bloggs

19th Apr 2010, 08:08

Sled,
In particular, the NAS 2b incident north of Brisbane, have a very close look at the actions of the RPT crew, and I mean a very close look, and ask yourself, if you are, in fact, an RPT pilot: Would that have been your response to a TA followed by an RA, or would you, perhaps, have done something different, and perhaps avoided the RA.

Red herring. The fact is that these two aircraft came as close as they did because of the airspace that you and Dick claim has a vanishingly small chance of a MAC. That claim is obviously rubbish, or are you going to trot out the "well, they missed, didn't they?".

And yes, I have read both ATSB reports and I see no problem with the behaviour of the RPT crews. All I see is that these two incidents demonstrate the fundamental failings of E airspace. Take the blinkers off and get out from behind your risk analysis spreadsheet.

Once again, it is revealing of Australian attitudes that the implicit assumption is that the "professional" will always behave in an appropriate manner, and in the case of the dreaded VFR "Terry Towling Brigade Bug Smasher", it will always be that pilot who is the collision risk threat. That it is always "the other pilot" who is the threat.

However, the record doesn't support such a proposition, see the various reports available, Ambidjii being only the latest. Indeed, the "might is right" attitude is not limited to "professional" v. "private", we have several very interesting incidents where pilots of larger turbo-props have attempted to assume priority over smaller turbo-props -----
Please stop peddling this nonsense. 1/I have a healthy regard for my inability to constantly be looking out the window from FL245 down (why do we have E above FL200 when CARs prohibit it? :cool:) to the top of the zone and 2/I am very aware of the inability of a VFR pilot to see and avoid an aircraft such as mine, especially when I am rapidly closing on him from behind his wingline. Unalerted See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK.

As to VFR doing the right thing, the ONLY reason you guys want E is so you don't have to participate; I am therefore not holding my breath for VFR to hop onto the ATC freq announcing where he is or whether he will be a confliction to me (as he is required to currently do in G above 5000ft).

ozineurope

19th Apr 2010, 09:22

This just goes on and on doesn't it?

Lead - why do you want E if C is available at the same cost?

peuce

19th Apr 2010, 09:23

Leadsled,

As Bloggs said, it doesn't matter if it's the Nitro's fault or the Glycerine's fault ... once you put them together in the right situation .... KABOOM!

As we've continually said .. no matter what your analyses, statistics or theories produce, nor despite how correct they may be, there always has to be the final "common sense" test.

At the moment, your product fails the common sense test ... and that, I believe, is how 12 ordinary men and women would see it.

Chimbu chuckles

19th Apr 2010, 09:32

Leadsled is matters not one wit whether the mistake is made by the RPT pilot or the GA pilot. Humans make mistakes hence we design systems that mitigate those mistakes, ergo, controlled airspace.

If two aircraft come together in controlled airspace there has been serious, most probably serial/multiple, human failings but its not a system design fault.

You're touting a system that can produce aluminium rain without human error. The GA pilot may have assiduously turned the transponder to mode C and in good faith believe its working properly - that doesn't mean it is.

le Pingouin

19th Apr 2010, 10:18

Precisely CC. E is specifically designed to allow aircraft to come within close proximity in an uncontrolled manner.

And Leadie old fruit, it doesn't matter whether pilots do something stupid or not in any airprox - the pilots are human & will handle things less than optimally at times. That has to be allowed for in any modelling.

E airspace is specifically designed to allow them to get into that position in the first place, allowing the mistakes to have serious consequences.

Apply your vast statistical skills to analysing the actual data around Launceston when they had E over D. Probably closer to 1e-4 than 5e-9. Strikes me as a severe failure of the modelling. It is totally nonsensical to apply average risk figures to a specific locale - it assumes an homogeneous environment with minimal variations. A very large & unjustified assumption.

Capn Bloggs

19th Apr 2010, 10:18

The fundamental differences here were demonstrated to me recently. On the new Perth to Bunbury highway, a major intersection was built, no doubt using all the appropriate risk-management and design principles ie "world's best practice". It was, in my view, a very easy intersection to negotiate from all directions.

However, serious accidents quickly started occurring at this intersection, probably causing some gnashing of designer's teeth. The result? The speed limit was in one direction on the highway was quickly reduced from 110kph to 80kph. No doubt there were some "Dick Smiths" on the road who said "WTF are we doing 80?! bla bla bla". The rest of us said "fair enough".

That's what we're saying to you, Ledsled and fellow Nastronauts. There's a problem, regardless of what your studies show, and for you to ignore it when there is no major benefit to be lost by implementing C instead of E, you will be negligent. But then again, as has been said before, you're not signing the paperwork, are you?

ferris

19th Apr 2010, 10:25

Baffle them with bull$hit. Lawyering 101, right Leadsled?

What is your agenda? You must have one, because your stated reasons thus far are not reasonable. Continually demanding a certain level of service, because that is what the risk modeling demands, even though a higher level of service (and thus, safety) is available at the same cost, is not reasonable. No matter how obfuscation and smokescreen is used.

Imagine if all this effort was used for good instead of evil? "The charging regime", for example. Imagine AsA being directed to use a tried system- worlds best practice etc. etc. on........moving to The US charging regime.

Do you/Dick ever look at the big picture and wonder what actually needs fixing? Instead of the platitudes/weasil words etc being used for this E crap?

Howabout

19th Apr 2010, 10:46

Lead,

Given your influence and your profile as a B744 captain, and as a risk management expert, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that you'd be asked to explain why 'risk management' didn't work.

We came with in a poof-teenth of serious prangs under that atrocity called 2b. The history is there, and you want to repeat that episode?

I'd start compiling my explanatory brief now - like tonight.

mjbow2

19th Apr 2010, 11:22

Chimbu Chuckles

If two aircraft come together in controlled airspace there has been serious, most probably serial/multiple, human failings but its not a system design fault.

Is this why you don't want to classify the airway corridors into Orange (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/aair/aair200604222.aspx) and the Canberra (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/aair/aair200604222.aspx) terminal area after hours as class E?

You controllers can rest easy about these RPT near misses can't you, as they happened in class G. Not your responsibility is it?

What public position will you Class E deniers take had these RPT incidents resulted in fair paying passengers deaths especially when families are told it could have been avoided by implementing Class E back in 1995?

Capn Bloggs

19th Apr 2010, 11:28

MJBow, could you fix up the Canberra link? It currently points to Orange as well.

ozineurope

19th Apr 2010, 11:33

mj - do you have any idea of what you speak? If an IFR aircraft is collected/collects another aircraft in G airspace the controller could find themselves in front of the coroner for failing to pass a traffic alert and suggested avoiding action to the IFR.

For you to say that G absolves the controller shows that you have no idea of the rules that ATC operate under in Australia.

The Chaser

19th Apr 2010, 11:44

More misinformation from the NAStronauts

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1361820/aair200604222_001.pdf
In response, the pilot of the Baron turned his aircraft to the right and off the published missed approach procedure, reaching 5,200 ft shortly thereafter. The pilot of the Baron indicated that the right turn was as a result of his previous training, including the conduct of a right turn in order to avoid conflicting traffic. That was also consistent with the collision avoidance requirements of Civil Aviation Regulation 162 (2). The pilot in command of the SAAB reported that:

• the minimum distance between the two aircraft that was displayed on the TCAS was between 500 and 1,200 ft vertically, and 3 to 4 NM horizontally
• neither a TCAS TA nor RA was received on the Baron.

The SAAB continued the runway 29 straight-in RNAV GNSS approach and landed. The pilot of the Baron conducted an NDB approach procedure and landed on runway 29.

The crews of both aircraft reported that neither had considered their self-separation requirements if they or the other aircraft were required to conduct a missed approach.
The airspace in the vicinity of Orange Aerodrome was structured in accordance with the National Airspace System (NAS). In addition, the provision of mutual traffic information by air traffic control to the pilots of both aircraft was in accordance with the requirements of the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS).
Contributing safety factors

• Neither flight crew considered their self-separation requirements if they or the other aircraft were required to conduct a missed approach.

Other key findings

• The airspace in the vicinity of Orange was structured in accordance with the National Airspace System (NAS).
• The provision of mutual traffic information by air traffic control to the pilots of both aircraft was in accordance with the requirements of the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS).
• The flight crews of both aircraft complied with the published common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) communication procedures.
So now you are baggin' the NAS you NAStronauts want?

Make your minds up :ugh:

And anyway, the relevance to busy airspace above class D would be???????????? :=

jaded boiler

19th Apr 2010, 13:19

From a purely utilitarian and rational perspective, would anybody care to elucidate, in a clear and unequivocal fashion, the precise benefits that class E airspace, as opposed to class C airspace, would afford the vast majority of Australian airspace users, i.e. the fare paying public?

Accordingly, could it also be explained how this majority is therefore being disadvantaged by the maintenance of the status quo.

Howabout

19th Apr 2010, 13:32

Now, now, OS, we have our frustrations.

From a purely utilitarian and rational perspective, would anybody care to elucidate, in a clear and unequivocal fashion, the precise benefits that E airspace, as opposed to C airspace would entail to the vast majority of Australian airspace users, i.e. the fare paying public.

JB, great question.

NONE.

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Apr 2010, 14:50

mjbow2...you ARE Dick Smith's pilot!...unreal, a real busdriver that hasn't got a clue.

As for you Mr sled...what's safer, an ILS or an NDB approach? Now, nobody will ever say the NDB is safer. Yet, what you are asking the bureaucrats to sign off on is the NDB approach when the ILS is safer and for the same money...that IS the comparison you are asking us to believe.

Jaba is on the money...those obstacles are SURVEYED, within that MSA is a known quantity....how many accidents on approach or departured are due to the DESIGN of those approaches or departures....answers please!

Icarus2001

20th Apr 2010, 00:58

jaded boiler A good question. I asked a similar question of Dick a few pages back and did not receive a reply. He appears to have gone quiet.

What is the BIG advantage of E of D rather than C over D? What is the difference in cost? Where is the analysis?

Without KNOWING these things we are just talking in circles.

The buying a car analogy is useful, follow it through, would you buy either car without being told the price first, whilst STILL making the decision which one to buy?

LeadSled

20th Apr 2010, 04:03

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1361820/aair200604222_001.pdfThe Chaser,
Very interesting that you should bring this incident up, although its only relation to E airspace is that E airspace would have prevented to incident, because ATC would have provided separation.

Of far more interest is the reason why the Baron pilots turned off the GA path in IMC, and what circumstances resulted him having to make the turn, or put another way, what activities of the SAAB contributed to the (a seen by the Baron pilot) need to make a turn to avoid the potential of a collision.

What could/should the SAAB (above LSA) have done, so that the Baron didn't have to deviate from the published GA below LSA.

Please try and read the whole report with an open mind (unless your mind is open at both ends) and then consider some of the guidelines in the CAAPs for the revised CAR 166.

The are some serious lessons to be learned from this incident, but from my filed observations, I doubt they have.

As to the main topic in hand, I didn't expect any of you to really understand the significance of the NAS2b incident north of Brisbane, and to repeat again that I accept the principles of risk management in all aviation decision making, but particularly in the case of ICAO CNS/ATM airspace classification or aircraft certification standards.

I love the references to ILS v. NDB and "safer", just another example of lack of knowledge of procedure design parameters, and the part played by probabilities.

Needless to say, "pilot technical error" is a significant consideration in the overall risk assessment that resulted in the design criteria.

For just one example, would any of you like to quote the probability of an NDB being available, when an aircraft diverts to a filed served by a single NDB. Or an ILS failing to transfer to backup power in the event of a failure of the primary power source ---- and so it goes on.

And by the way, there is nothing "theoretical" about "risk management", its veracity is long since proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the High Court of Australia has found.

Tootle pip!!

Howabout

20th Apr 2010, 04:40

I think Mr mjbow2 likes comparing apples to oranges and introducing the occasional red-herring. Nothing like diversion and evasion when simple questions can't be answered.

Lead, it does not matter what the 'High Court of Australia has found.' In the case of an accident resulting in 100+ fatalities, 5E-9 will mean squat. The questions will be specific, pointed and go directly to why avoidable deaths occurred. Statistics will not save anyone who introduces a class of airspace that has a level of risk that is higher than an alternative that would have prevented the accident (for the same, or similar, cost).

That's the whole thrust of this thread Lead!

As regards:

Incidentally, the design risk for an unknown volcano pipe destroying a high level nuclear waste repository, with the widespread threat to life and health that would entail, is only 1E-8.

I'll file that one for the next trivia night.

As for your assertion that we can't 'define safe,' cute.

Nobody on here purported that 'safe' is other than a relative, generic term. The majority of us contend, however, that in the terminal environment C is 'safer' than E. I'd argue that a jury would accept that argument as well.

LeadSled

20th Apr 2010, 06:35

You wouldn't old fruit, would you?
Only the highly esteemed Leadsled could couldn't they!My dear fellows,

Actually, I was referring to the team that assessed EVERY reported incident during the 12 months that NAS2b survived, and their considered opinions. The team was made up of CASA, Airservices, Military, FAA and Industry representatives, the latter including some very highly qualified members of the International Society of Air Accident Investigators.

Much as I would like to post the comments here, I am not going to pay $30 for an FOI, which is the only way I could make them available legally. However, a very careful reading of the ATSB report has the information. You need to look at the flight paths of each aircraft very carefully.

Maybe you have all forgotten about this review panel. Almost all the "incident reports" were filed by "professional pilots" in larger aircraft against smaller aircraft --- usually, as it turned out, also flown by "professional pilots".

I don't recall the actual (dreaded) statistics, but my memory says most were rejected as not valid incidents, quite a few were judged to be nothing to do with the characteristics of NAS 2b, and the three referred to here were amongst the only ones investigated in depth.

My memory also tells me there were more RAs in C airspace during the same period, look for it in the ATSB records --- but RAs in C don't , do they, because C is "safe".

Would the High Court take notice of a 5E-9 separation assurance standard?? Be assured they would, because it is an internationally accepted and valid standard. Also because of existing High Court of Australia decisions rejecting damages, in a situation where "a safer outcome could have been achieved" (my words) but the court accepted that the standard applied was "safe", in that it complied with existing standards, and the court made it clear that there is no such thing as absolute safety.

The claim for damages appeal was dismissed by the HCA, that the relevant standard was complied with was accepted by the court. A link to one such decision is already on another thread.

That compromises are an accepted part of establishing a standard are acceptable to the courts, notwithstanding that "higher standards" might be available, but are not mandated for a variety of practical, societal, economic or other reasons.

What you blokes are completely unable to grasp is that, once the separation assurance standard is reached, no additional services will further reduce the residual risk.

That C is "safer" than E, when analysis only requires E, is a devoutly supported myth, but no matter the sincerity of your devotion to the notion, it is still a myth.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Visiting the doctrine of Duty of Care, as the law sees it, as opposed to what most laymen believe is a duty of care, would be well worthwhile in considering the application of risk management standards in the modern world.

Howabout

20th Apr 2010, 08:13

Lead,

Fine and beaut. I understand precisely where you're coming from:

That C is "safer" than E, when analysis only requires E, is a devoutly supported myth, but no matter the sincerity of your devotion to the notion, it is still a myth

That's OK Lead. It won't wash in the aftermath of a disaster, but I still respect your devotion to numbers. As I alluded to before, no amount of verbage related to concepts such as 'vanishingly small' and the association of a human life to some abstract figure called 5E-9 will save the poor dick who signs off on this.

I hope he's an avid reader, because he'll have plenty of spare time.

Jabawocky

20th Apr 2010, 08:50

Yeah..........why?

When I go to Broome I will go in IFR, but if I do some scenics around the traps it will be VFR.......whats in it for me with E?

Just so I know how much money I saved myself.:ooh:

NB: And if and when you guys answer its safe to assume I will be driving the IFR/VFR bugsmasher and not a paying PAX in Bloggsies jet and a local charter .

J http://serve.mysmiley.net/party/party0051.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

homeoftheblizzard

20th Apr 2010, 09:01

Re , ".....quite a few were judged to be nothing to do with the characteristics of NAS 2b....."

Quite rightly put. NAS2b was designed to put hi-performance RPT jets in close proximity of VFR pilots. Anything other than a hit was just the airspace working as it was designed to do. Nothing abnormal about aircraft missing to the left after planning to pass on the right?????

Truly inspiring airspace design, Joseph Heller would be proud.

Howabout

20th Apr 2010, 09:03

DNS, Don't get the sweats about posting that one again and again. And again!

It sums up beautifully the question we all asked in regard to NAS that the proponents could never answer.

'What is the actual problem that we are trying to solve?'

OZBUSDRIVER

20th Apr 2010, 09:07

love the references to ILS v. NDB and "safer", just another example of lack of knowledge of procedure design parameters, and the part played by probabilities.

You jave gotta be freakin mad...establish quality system procedures and 95% confidence levels....Leadsled, I would love to be right seat when you give your approach brief....I have a 95% confidence that the data presented by my equipment is of a high enough integrity level to give us a very high probability of intercepting and maintaining an uncorrupted glideslope. Upon reaching minima of x feet I will look up and if there is a very low probability of actually visualising the surrounds of the runway that I have interpolated my approach around the hysterisis of the guidance wave...if this is actually the case that it is proven the probability of locating said runway is unlikly as in less than 50% confidence I will then call "data is corrupt" and proceed to then have a 95% confidence level that all four Rolls Royce RB211's will actually spool up to rated power that can be expected on 95% confidence level of uncorrupted data that power will be restored.......

Word for word 2.1 Aeronautical data

2.1.2 Contracting states shall ensure that integrity of aeronautical data is maintained throughout the data process from survey/origin to the next intended user. Aeronautical data integrity requirments shall be based upon the potential risk resulting from the corruption of data and upon the use to which the data item is put. Consequently, the following classification and data integrity level shall apply;

a) critical data integrity level 1x10-8 there is a high probability when using corrupted critical data that the continued safe flight and landing of an aircraft would be severly at risk with the potential for catastrophy

b) essential data, integrity level 1x10-5: there is a low probability when using corrupted essential data that the continued safe flight and landing of an aircraft would be severely at risk with the potential for catastrophy; and

c) routine data, integrity level 1x10-3; there is a very low probability when using corrupted routine data that the continued safe flight and landing of an aircraft would be severly at risk with the potential for catastrophy.

Leadsled...this is quality control for data!

Everything else is designed to a tolerance far greater than can be achieved by on board navigation equipment. I do not understand your interpretation of tolerance inclusion in the design of minima and "probability"

Just show me the quote in Annex 14 that says the design of an approach has a probability level of "X" and I will shut up.

Capn Bloggs

20th Apr 2010, 09:10

Ledsled,

You ARE a stuck record
...a very careful reading of the ATSB report has the information. You need to look at the flight paths of each aircraft very carefully.
Pray tell us what your thoughts are on this. There is nothing untoward about what either crew did.

Maybe you have all forgotten about this review panel.... Almost all the "incident reports" were filed by "professional pilots" in larger aircraft against smaller aircraft --- usually, as it turned out, also flown by "professional pilots".
Irrelevant. Stop your Dick-Smith "I think all RPT crews that are not Skygods are w@nkers" rants and stick to the topic.

My memory also tells me there were more RAs in C airspace during the same period, look for it in the ATSB records --- but RAs in C don't , do they, because C is "safe".
Who said? This has been covered before in the thread. You have obviously forgotten. Oh and yes, you talk about statistics. How about you advise the volume of unsurveilled C around Australia vs the volume of E? Maybe that's one of the reasons there was more RAs in C?

What you blokes are completely unable to grasp is that, once the separation assurance standard is reached, no additional services will further reduce the residual risk.
Stating the bleeding obvious again.

That C is "safer" than E, when analysis only requires E, is a devoutly supported myth, but no matter the sincerity of your devotion to the notion, it is still a myth.
Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that your "analysis" includes the two E airproxs, still resulting in a "vanishingly small" collision risk, is breathtaking.

Josh Cox

20th Apr 2010, 10:08

Have just spent the last hour reading through this thread, geezuz !!!.

Please correct me if I mis-understand, some here are saying that:

"E" over "D" is safer than, "C" over "D" ("D" = old GAAP for example JT/BK etc etc ?)

Now "E" over "D" would probably be cheaper, no argument, but safer ?, how do you work that ?.

LeadSled

20th Apr 2010, 10:27

Josh,
I have never said that E over D is "safer" than C over D, what I have constantly said is simple, if E over D achieves the separation assurance criteria, going to C does not make it "safer", because the standard is so high that a risk reduction, in a real world sense, just doesn't happen with the move from E to C.

Whoever produced a few standards for data reliability, thanks for that, at least somebody understands that there are probability standards behind a lot of ICAO docs.

Chimbu,
Was it you who said they operated widely internationally, and never operated in other then A, B(?)C. Have a look at the extract from the Indian AIP below.
The highest class of airspace in India is D, and that is TMAs.

<http://www.aai.aero/public_notices/aip/cont/AIP/AIP/aip/enr/enr1/le_ENR_1_4_en.pdf>

Tootle pip!!

PS 1: I have never minded being in the minority, fortunately air safety is not a democracy, as the record over many years has shown, particularly in Australia. Remember the blanket (certainly a majority) opposition to the introduction of weather radar by Ansett and TAA. That is just one example.
PS 2: Clearly most of you cannot comprehend that the whole point of CNS/ATM classification is that services are related to traffic, so every class of airspace achieves the design separation assurance standard. Ergo, is equally "safe".
PS 3: Anybody who has flown with me will testify that my approach briefings are short and to the point, the minimum required by SOPs ---- with a company that encouraged same ---- but somebody from ATC would probably (that word again) not understand that.
PS 4: One man bands went out with the retirement of the WW11 generation --- but a few of you can't help yourselves, you have to attack an individual who will not fall in line with your groupthink.

OZBUSDRIVER

20th Apr 2010, 11:40

Short, brief and to the point!

Please explain how there can ever be separation assurance criteria in E space with no surveilance?

Who supplies the assurance and by what means...all ears, Leadie!

Dog One

20th Apr 2010, 12:09

Leadie

Explain in simple terms why VFR aircraft can operate in E airspace without a clearance, where as, IFR aircraft require a clearance, but only receive IFR traffic. What benefit is this airspace to RPT operators, who pay most of the aviation charges.

Why can't VFR aircraft use their radio and request a clearance to enter CTA. If they are well trained pilots, surely they must be able to use a radio. I mean, I hand over my controls and the lives of a couple of hundred passengers to these people, trusting that their transponder will give me a final chance to avoid an aluminium shower.

Why should the people of Broome and Karratha be treated as second class citizens because they live on the wrong coast. Why should they be exposed to a higher risk than passengers flying out of the east coast?

Capn Bloggs

20th Apr 2010, 12:51

I have never minded being in the minority, fortunately air safety is not a democracy, as the record over many years has shown, particularly in Australia. Remember the blanket (certainly a majority) opposition to the introduction of weather radar by Ansett and TAA. That is just one example.

Is that so? I have read that the Tech Committee of the AFAP supported the installation of weather radar.

The highest class of airspace in India is D, and that is TMAs.

Sounds good. At least we'd get traffic on VFRs.

Icarus2001

20th Apr 2010, 14:36

So what PROVIDES the much mentioned SEPARATION ASSURANCE between an IFR aircraft in E and a VFR aircraft in E.

Leadie I think you are stuck in a circular argument and risk vanishing in a puff of logic.:cool:

In A, B, C and D there is positive sep. In G VFR are required to use radio above 5000'. In a CTAF(R) likewise. Which leaves E as the bastard child.

Where are these studies? Where does it say E is cheaper than C?

Blockla

20th Apr 2010, 16:59

I love the TCAS RA's reported in Class C argument; Leady how many were where a standard didn't exist?

I have had about 20 TCAS RA's reported to me in my career so far (touch wood), including a multiple event in a holding pattern, but not one of those was where a standard didn't exist. TCAS can be twitchy where rates of closure are high; particularly in the vertical plain where only 1000 ft vert is going to be used.

Sydney SID/STAR integration in particular has a TCAS RA happen once or twice a month (possibly more) just because of the rates of vertical closure; but there is always going to be 1000ft applied TCAS just doesn't know it.

Class E IMHO costs more than Class C; because it distracts ATCs from other primary tasks and costs RPTs more in track miles and/or changing vertical profiles away from CDA type flight. The only "winners" are the VFRs who now don't need a clearance from those nasty ATC who may ask them to fly somewhere away from there preferred course if they choose to give them a clearance at all... PS I've only said no twice to VFR aircraft clearances in 20 years, so I personally don't think there is any reason for this at all.

What role does the ICAO ATM plan have in Australian decision making (airspace design), are you busting your hump to position yourselves behind ICAO again? Don't for a second believe that airspace reforms are not included in Nexgen. Is Australia prepared to follow the USA all the way? Or are you just going to pick and choose again.

How are the characteristics going that have been implemented already? Merging target procedure and VFR on Top comes to mind?

Chimbu chuckles

20th Apr 2010, 20:52

Chimbu,
Was it you who said they operated widely internationally, and never operated in other then A, B(?)C. Have a look at the extract from the Indian AIP below.

The highest class of airspace in India is D, and that is TMAs.

Yes I said that and I am happy to admit I was wrong. I was going to wait until I operated up to DXB-LHR last weekend and pour over the enroute charts but that aint happening for obvious reasons - so I decided to have a read of the Indian AIP earlier today - I must be precedent or sumfink?

Yup India has only D,F and G airspace - but as with all good stories it just aint that simple - some Indian AIP excerpts;

ENR 1.1 General Rules

2. Flights on ATS routes

2.1. Introduction 2.1.1.

Area of responsibility for the control of flights on ATS routes and the units providing this service are shown in subsection ENR 2.1.

2.1.2. Separation is based on- 2.1.2.1. Estimated and/or actual times over reporting points

2.1.2.2. Radar identity

2.1.3. As position reports are most commonly used it is important for estimates to be revised and notified to ACC, if more than 3 minutes in error.

2.1.4. The pilot-in-command shall maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate air/ground frequency.

2.1.5. While operating in controlled airspace, only direct controller-pilot communication is permitted. Radio-telephony communication through interpreter shall not be permitted.

ENR 1.2 VFR

3. VFR flights shall not be operated between sunset and sunrise, except when exempted by air traffic control for local flights* and such training flights of flying club aircraft as may be cleared by air traffic control. *Local flight is a flight wholly conducted in the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome (Aircraft Manual (India), Volume I, page 113, Schedule IV, Rules of the air)

4.VFR flights shall not be operated-
4.1. Above FL50 (typo - do they mean 5000' or 50000'? Surely if the later it would be FL500) :confused:
4.2. At transonic and supersonic speeds
4.3. more than 100NM seaward from the shoreline within controlled airspace

ENR 1.10 Flight Planning and Notification

4. Local/Training flights

4.1. For local training or test flights conducted by scheduled/non-scheduled operators, a flight plan shall be submitted as laid down in para 3 above.

4.2. For training flights conducted by flying clubs within aerodrome traffic zone, a flight plan may be submitted on telephone giving the following information:
i) Aircraft Identification
ii) Flight rules
iii) Name of pilots and trainees if any
iv) Number of persons on board
v) Duration of flight
vi) Endurance

Note - On aerodromes where no Aerodrome Traffic zone is established or no airspace has been reserved for local flying, a circular area of radius 5NM, centered at the Aerodrome reference point and vertical limits up to 3000Ft AGL shall be treated as the vicinity of Aerodrome for VFR flights.

4.3. Flight plans for cross-country flights conducted by flying club aircraft and general aviation aircraft from airfields where ATS reporting office does not exist, shall be submitted to the FIC on phone giving the information as specified in para 4.2 above.

Airspace within ATS route segment is classified as ‘F’.

• Airspace outside ATS route segment and controlled airspace is classified as ‘G’.

• Airspace within controlled airspace is classified as ‘D’.

Mumbai Airspace

FL460 / FL070 up to 100NM
FL460 / FL150 between 100NM to 150NM
FL460 / FL200 beyond 150NM

Airspace is Classified as 'D'

Bloody big TMA's:hmm:

Every decent size city across the country has similar 'TMA' not just Mumbai - and NO ONE moves without a flight plan and full reporting.

When I cross India its mostly at night (no VFR allowed at night) and always on the airways system obviously (Class F and D) above FL300. A good % of the time on the northern route we use (L301) we are under positive radar control but still required to report at various places. In the southern route to Jeddah we are further than 100nm from the coast (except for a very brief period near Trivandrum) so no VFR traffic.

ICAO airspace.

Class D: Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. All flights are subject to ATC clearance. Aircraft operating under IFR and SVFR are separated from each other, and are given traffic information in respect of VFR flights. Flights operating under VFR are given traffic information in respect of all other flights.

Class F: Operations may be conducted under IFR or VFR. ATC separation will be provided, so far as practical, to aircraft operating under IFR. Traffic Information may be given as far as is practical in respect of other flights.

In my defence from the point of view of a pilot crossing the Indian FIR above FL300 it does look, sound and feel like (horribly dysfunctional) Class C. Its a disgrace that it isn't.

Given the highly constrained nature of VFR GA in India and incredibly small numbers of aircraft outside a couple of aviation colleges producing airline cadets any airspace based MAC potential comparisons is mute. In a previous life I flew more 'domestic' sectors in India and Pakistan than I care to remember (Corporate jet) and the ONLY GA aircraft I ever saw in India was a beat up old B1900 that came and went while I was on the ground at Bubeneshwar for several hours and Mig17s doing circuits at Quetta while I was sat on the ground there one day for 4 hrs. The only thing you ever see or hear on the airways is other Boeings/Airbus and the odd Tupolev. I have seen a Mig 21 over Syria and heard plenty of RAF and USAF fast jets over Iraq when we first started flying that route a couple of years ago - but they were all below FL200 where we were not allowed. Never anything like that over India - they have HUGE restricted airspace over central India so I guess they play in there mostly.

You're in Class D LONG before you get to TOPD inbound to Mumbai et al and in Class D all the way down.

Even that, as imperfect as it is, is its better than Class E in a country where there is LOTS of VFR GA activity.

Hey if ya wanna have Class D around Broome to FL460/150nm and everyone, VFR included, on flight plans/full reporting I am sure Capn Bloggs won't complain:E

Josh Cox

20th Apr 2010, 21:22

Leadsled,

Thanks for the response.

E, for me, will never provide me any assurance whilst ever there are aircraft ( mainly VFR ) operating without the same level of situational awareness, particulary WRT IFR waypoints and be on the correct frequency.

C, well everyone has to have a clearance and is separated, pretty simple.

If all aircraft were ADSB-out, sure E might be a go'er, but lets not ignite that little gem.

I'm just wondering, would you seriously see anything other than full separation as acceptable ?.

OZBUSDRIVER

20th Apr 2010, 21:59

Thanks for the insight on India, CC. As always it appears the truth doesn't match the BS used as an argument.

Still waiting on those answers, Mr Sled....use of probability and who supplies the assurance and by what means.

Jabawocky

20th Apr 2010, 22:32

When I go to Broome I will go in IFR, but if I do some scenics around the traps it will be VFR.......whats in it for me with E?

Just so I know how much money I saved myself.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif

Whats in this for anyone????? Who has any significant gain? local charter guys perhaps?

If its going to cost the same for ATC.....Who gets a better deal?

Capn Bloggs

20th Apr 2010, 22:39

if ya wanna have Class D around Broome to FL460/150nm and everyone, VFR included, on flight plans/full reporting I am sure Capn Bloggs won't complain
:ok::ok::ok::D:D:D

As for those recalcitrant Indians, of Class F, it "should not be of a permanent nature, but rather should be used only as an interim measure until such time as controlled airspace (Class A, B, C, D or E) can be established",

I shall be reporting them immediately to the International Court of Dickus Smithus for prosecution for not implementing ICAO airspace as they should! :}

Josh Cox

20th Apr 2010, 22:59

In the case of Broome, E over D would have to be better than G over CTAF.

C over Broome might be a bit of over kill.

There are lots of bug smahers ( fixed and rotary ) in that area that are presently not transponder equiped.

Capn Bloggs

20th Apr 2010, 23:14

Josh, you need to read the whole thread. But, in a nutshell:

Transponders are required by all aircraft above 10k in any airspace, and in E at any level. The original plan was for E above 2500ft. Hopefully we have knocked that on the head.

The only advantage of E is that IFR aircraft are separated. VFR do not participate in the system (nor are they encouraged to), nobody knows where they are, and everybody flies around looking out the window hoping to spot each other prior to colliding.

Most here are arguing that because class C can be provided for the same cost as E, and that C raises the safety to an acceptable level, class C should be implemented, given that the only reason for the airspace "upgrade" is because of increased traffic levels (VFR and IFR).

Of course, the NAStronauts say:

- E provides a suitable level of safety - we say rubbish, the two airproxs demonstrating that E is not safe enough (unalerted See and Avoid is a dumb way of ensuring the safety of fare-paying passengers);

- C must be provided with radar, which is of course again rubbish, as we operate quite happily with non-radar C now (and have done in the terminal area for decades).

- VFR should be free to go about the sky talking to no-one and not being hindered in any way. Selfish, arrogant, and unprofessional. Just like insisting on taking the horse and cart down the freeway because they want to.

E over D would have to be better than G over CTAF.
Not necessarily. The tower will improve safety, for sure, at a cost to all concerned. However, comms-wise, G/CTAF is better, as the Broome CTAF is a CASA-mandated large area ERSA refers), and with VFR required to be on-freq and talking above 5000ft in G, at least RPT jets have a chance of finding out where the VFR is to self-segregate. This will not occur in E (it's certainly not designed to, anyway).

peuce

21st Apr 2010, 01:25

Leadsled said:

Much as I would like to post the comments here, I am not going to pay $30 for an FOI, which is the only way I could make them available legally

And that just about sums up the reason that we are sceptical, suspicious and paranoid about Airspace decisions. The mandated transparency does not exist :=

But on the other hand, we are required to accept all the rest of the "mandated" policies ...without question :(

Josh Cox

21st Apr 2010, 02:49

Capt Bloggs, IMHO, WRT to Broome,

No doubt C over D would be safer ( clearance / separation etc etc ).

Without RADAR, C over D would still be safer than E over D.

As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:

E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.

C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.

With a higher number of movements, I would guess the controllers will be doing a smaller area per controller due to increased workload......

Places like JT must have C ontop.

peuce

21st Apr 2010, 03:16

Josh,

As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:

E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.

C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.

Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, and all opinions are welcome here, I think the majority of ATCs on this thread would disagree with you. I assume you are a pilot and might not be too familiar with ATC procedures ( behind the scenes).

Strangely, it can be much easier to control an aircraft than to provide traffic ... or ignore it. Let's look at the Broome example. All IFRs will be separated from each other ... whether E or C. The big difference is in how VFRs are treated.

In E, they will be unknown (to ATC). IFR pilots may become aware of them ... either by sight or TCAS. The pilot, if in conflict, will want to take appropriate manouvers to miss the VFR. This will entail, if time permits, coordination with ATC ... and a subsequent "game change" all round. Big workload. If time doesn't permit, an immediate change of trajectory ... which again, will cause extra work "downstream".

In C, the Controller will have a prepared "game plan" and all aircraft will be processed within it. That is much easier than "cleaning up after the mess" .

So, what might sound like less work on the surface, may equate to more work/time/cost (for everyone) when you dig a bit deeper.

Josh Cox

21st Apr 2010, 04:45

Peuce,

Thanks, yes pilot, so will happily defer to an ATC persons opinion on workload of C and E being same/similar etc etc.

If E and C cost around the same to operate, yet no one could seriously argue that C is not the safest option, why have E at all ?, i.e. apparent less safety for the same cost ?.

cbradio

21st Apr 2010, 06:06

why have E at all

bingooooooo!

Frank Arouet

21st Apr 2010, 07:51

As a spectator for most of the time on this thread, all I can say is I now understand why some in the animal kingdom eat their young.

LeadSled

21st Apr 2010, 08:16

Is that so? I have read that the Tech Committee of the AFAP supported the installation of weather radar
Bloggs,
You need to read further (and not only about ICAO CNS/ATM airspace classifications), the AFAP only changed its position after the loss of the Viscount into Botany Bay.

Another example was the refusal to wear shoulder harnesses on T/O and landing, until a DC-4 was lost.

Remember the demands for 3 pilot crews on B737?? The strike at TAA ??

And so on, a long history of Australian domestic pilots resisting development ----- don't forget I was on the AFAP Tec. sub-committee (as it was than) for quite a few years ---- until we could no longer live with the AFAP, and formed AIPA.

As you may recall, the AFAP demanded E/Os on B767, we simply would not go along with such arrant nonsense. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

D in India is only for towered airfields, you will find E,F and G in the airway system, you can verify that from the link provided. Hundreds of large aircraft fly through that airspace every day ---- probably greater than the number of RPT in Australian domestic airspace in any 24 hour period.

Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs

21st Apr 2010, 08:29

Josh,
As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:

E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.

C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.
You highlight (as we have done numerous times before) the paradox of E.

When the VFR traffic levels are low, they can (and should be) "in the system" ie C/D so RPT pax get the safety they deserve.

When VFR traffic levels get so high that they cannot be accommodated "in the system" and more controllers are required (increase in expense for C airspace) and E is theoretically the only ICAO airspace type that would "work" as VFRs have disappeared from the system, this means that the risk of IFR midairs with unnotified VFRs is so high that the risk would be unacceptable and therefore C would be needed to protect IFR.

My point: E airspace is a furphy and has no practical or safe application as far as protecting IFR aircraft from midair collisions with VFR.

LeadSled

21st Apr 2010, 08:29

---- Indian FIR above FL300 it does look, sound and feel like (horribly dysfunctional) Class C. Its a disgrace that it isn't. Chimbu,

As I have previously posted, you find all about what it all really means in India after an incident, as I have found from personal experience. All care and no responsibility.
I have a lot of experience (not just overflying) in the area, sadly it is not going to change any time soon. The impenetrable bureaucracy makes ours look good.

As an airport manager told me, one day during a particularly ridiculous delay, and I quote: Ahhh!!, Captain Sahib, it is all your fault, because it is all about bureaucracy, and it is you British who taught us how".

In the real world, as we ( and I am certain this includes you) all put a lot of effort into keeping a plot of anything around us (+/- 20 mim & +/- 10,000') it probably doesn't matter what the nominal classification is. I can nominate A airspace in the general area, where the classification may as well be G, for all the difference it make.

All you can guarantee is that, whatever happens, it will be the Captain(s)'s fault(s).

Tootle pip!!

Josh Cox

21st Apr 2010, 08:46

So:

Peuce is of the opinion that C and E cost the same to operate and C is safer.

Capt Bloggs is of the opinion that C is a problem as it will cost more than E, i.e. will cost more than E where there are great numbers of VFR movements, due to an increased workload for they controller, requiring more controllers and C is safer.

So the problem really lies in the actual facts regarding actual operating costs between C and E in a high volume VFR area/aerodrome ( which Broome for example is ), would C and E still cost about the same to operate when there is a great amount of VFR traffic ?.

I am not a controller, and am speaking from relative ignorance, I can not imagine C in a high VFR movement area costing the same to operate as E in a high VFR movement area.

Jabawocky

21st Apr 2010, 08:59

As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:

E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.

C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.

As a pilot...not an ATC, but have a few mates that are....when you consider the RPTs are in pre planned bursts of activity, they are well planned and managed. The other 2000 VFR's spread over the rest of the month would equate to about 5.55 per hour, just enough to stop them going mad or to sleep:ok:.

The system works well and the very reason why Rockhampton's recent survey said to keep C over D backs that up. And I wonder how much VFR they have compared to Broome?

Capt Bloggs is of the opinion that C is a problem as it will cost more than E, i.e. will cost more than E where there are great numbers of VFR movements, due to an increased workload for they controller, requiring more controllers and C is safer.
Bloggs has never said anything like that :eek: You may have just made some typo there I think?

Capn Bloggs

21st Apr 2010, 09:00

Josh,
would C and E still cost about the same to operate when there is a great amount of VFR traffic ?.

I've answered your question in my previous post. With lots of VFR, C will be more expensive. Do not forget, though, that C is still required, because of the increased traffic, to protect against Midairs. I will hit a VFR just as hard as an IFR. Metal on metal doesn't differentiate between flight categories, as would occur in E.

In E with lots of VFR, I will probably hit one without knowing it and there are no defences against a midair apart from eyeballs out.

However, at Broome and Karratha, the VFR levels are low enough to allow C instead of E. If they get too high, then E is not the answer; a C with a radar (or ADS-B) is the answer.

The irony: with low numbers of VFR, E is not necessary. With high numbers of VFR, E is not safe (Ledsled if you don't get the context of what I mean by "not safe", too bad). Therefore, what's the point? The point is that E allows Dick and Ledsled to career through the airspace doing their own thing. That's all.

Jabawocky

21st Apr 2010, 09:03

Frank
As a spectator for most of the time on this thread, all I can say is I now understand why some in the animal kingdom eat their young.And now I understand that some escape!

J:cool:

peuce

21st Apr 2010, 09:38

Josh,

Rule No 1: The NASdebate does not always make sense
Rule No 2: The NASdebate is full of statistics, models and analyses (many hidden from prying eyes)
Rule No 3: Statistics, models and analyses don't necessarily make sense

But to put another slant on your confusion ...

Given the traffic figures we have available for Broome, many Controllers ( as well as their Union) believe that C can be performed for basically the same cost as E.

Yes, if you significantly increase the VFR traffic levels, then either more Controller positions or installation of surveillance equipment would be required ... which is an extra cost.

But, as Capn Bloggs points out, if it got to those levels ... E could not possibly be an option ... without significantly increasing the risk to IFR aircraft .

And remember, we are discussing a specific volume of airspace here. Bring another area into the equation and we might have a totally different point of view.... taking into account traffic, facilities, geography, weather, airline movements etc

Frank Arouet

21st Apr 2010, 09:48

Bloggs;

With lots of VFR,

Quantify that please.

EDIT to add for the Jabawocky post.

Yes the strongest!

Capn Bloggs

21st Apr 2010, 10:22

Capn Bloggs

21st Apr 2010, 10:26

Frank,
Quantify that please.
Ledsled will be able to help you there. He's the expert on risk analysis and allocation of alphabet airspace.

The value doesn't actually interest me, because whatever the VFR traffic level, E is either not required or too dangerous. There is no in-between.

Jabawocky

21st Apr 2010, 12:11

EDIT to add for the Jabawocky post.

Yes the strongest!

No that is not what I was suggesting but you knew that, along with a few others.:}

mjbow2

21st Apr 2010, 14:40

Howabout

as regards your comment:
Quote:
You controllers have two irreconcilable positions on Class E. That is, we should use enroute Class C, because we can but only until traffic levels reach that of the United States, then we should downgrade it to Class E so we don't run into grid lock. Extraordinary!
Who actually said that? In context and with references please.

This is what Peuce said to Howabout in this (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/383107-casa-boss-confirms-support-nas.html) thread about NAS.

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.

My bolding

Again I ask. Are you controllers all in agreement in your objections to NAS or is your intent to say anything at all, regardless of how ridiculous and contradictory, in your attempts to discredit NAS?

Do you controllers really believe it costs the same to provide Class C as Class E? This is an ill conceived con by Civil Air to resist NAS and it looks like some controllers are finally admitting the truth about the real cost of Class C.

ozineurope

mj - do you have any idea of what you speak? If an IFR aircraft is collected/collects another aircraft in G airspace the controller could find themselves in front of the coroner for failing to pass a traffic alert and suggested avoiding action to the IFR.

For you to say that G absolves the controller shows that you have no idea of the rules that ATC operate under in Australia.

This is an extraordinary statement.

The Baron and the Saab were both IFR operating in IMC, in radar covered class G airspace on the CTAF frequency.

If what you are saying is true, that you do have a responsibility, then how could you possibly not want Class E so you can guarantee separating them, thereby keeping your job safe. Think about what you are saying ozineurope!

The Chaser

You know full well that the statement in the Orange report about airspace at Orange being NAS compliant is false. Completely false!

Go and read the NAS document again. The interim design was to make Class E corridors into selected airports.The end state design of NAS was to have all radar covered airspace a minimum classification of Class E. On both counts this included Orange as the radar coverage is close to the ground.

The Chaser. It is a fact that if Orange had Class E this near collision in IMC would not have happened.

Owen Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling)

I know you blokes are keeping it civil but I'm a kinda 'call a spade a feckin' shovel' type of guy.

What a complete w@nka, don't think I'd come across a bigger tossa if I had two life times.

A self professed expert suffering relevance deprivation syndrome (as well as dementia)

What a w@nka

I would rather be called a NAStronaut please. :-)

OZBUSDRIVER

mjbow2...you ARE Dick Smith's pilot!

It is true that I have been seen in a certain Citation, I will admit that. However it was registered in the United States where I was paid to fly it, but not by Dick Smith.

Surely you know that conspiracy theories are looked upon with skepticism and lack any real evidence.

LeadSled

21st Apr 2010, 14:58

Josh,
I will try it one more time ---- G through A are not ascending levels of safety.

Do a bit of basic study on the subject, don't take anything here as gospel, satisfy yourself. Eurocontrol ( for those who are so anti-US that they will not even consider what happens in the US) publish some quite good background material, they also publish their design risk levels in various airspace, and follow up by publishing assessed achieved levels v. the design levels.

With the appropriate addition of services as traffic/traffic mix increases, the intent of ICAO airspace classifications is that any category of airspace, correctly serviced, is equally safe.

As I have said, time and again, the separation assurance standard is the same in each classification, and it is so high that adding additional resources does not "increase safety". The risk level remains the same, just the system costs increase --- classical economic waste.

One of the major problems in Australia, when we moved to "alphabet soup airspace", was that there was no genuine attempt at real reform to take advantage of the new design principles. We just gave our existing "controlled/uncontrolled" airspace names that were close to the new classifications. In short, the miss-allocation of resources continued. Only now are we going to adopt real Class D for non-radar towers, instead of the "D that wasn't D" we have operated for years.

I just love the claim about "the paradox of E" ---- claims made by (I very strongly suspect) alleged pilots or ATC who have little, if any, experience outside of Australia. All they know is what they don't know they don't like.

Only in Australia (and then only in the minds of a few people) is E a "paradox", or regarded as in any way controversial. For any body who has done any serious international aviating, E is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. Outside of Australian, nobody gives a toss about E, they just get on with the job.

But, the "little Australians" know it doesn't/won't work.

The real issue is the resistance to any change in the aviation scene in Australia, at a great cost to the Australian industry as a whole. In many ways it is part of the legacy of the "two airline" era, where "cost plus" ruled, and silly pilot demands (like E/Os on B767) were just lumped on the ticket costs. I don't find it at all surprising that both the airline of the "two airline policy" era, no longer exist.

From memory, there have been about five investigations into Australian airspace management over the last twenty years or so, conducted by highly qualified and respected bodies, such as UK NATS, Roake Manor Research (Siemans), and of course the FAA, there are more, but each one has made essentially the same recommendations, that we should adopt the intent of the "new" ( but its been around for years, now) ICAO approach to CNS/ATM, to ensure that assets are properly allocated, not something we do now.

Given the proven traffic handling capacity of the US system, and also given that it produces the best air safety outcomes, is it surprising that US NAS is the basic starting point for Australia?? ----- but not if the recalcitrants, the little Australian, get their way.

Tootle pip!!

squawk6969

21st Apr 2010, 22:11

mjbow2
You know full well that the statement in the Orange report about airspace at Orange being NAS compliant is false. Completely false!

Go and read the NAS document again. The interim design was to make Class E corridors into selected airports.The end state design of NAS was to have all radar covered airspace a minimum classification of Class E. On both counts this included Orange as the radar coverage is close to the ground.

The Chaser. It is a fact that if Orange had Class E this near collision in IMC would not have happened.

If you would like to turn the vast chunks of RADAR covered G into E, that would be a great idea for those days when its IMC in the backblocks, however I think if you remember this is about much busier terminal areas with high capacity RPT Jets and NO RADAR.

SQ

peuce

21st Apr 2010, 23:42

To The Nastronauts,

Lots of he said and I said and why don't you both say here. Everyone is entitled to their individual opinions ... even Controllers. It's still a democracy and the fact that 100% of Controllers might not agree on a specific issue ... does not the issue prove , or disprove. Everyone has their own knowledge and experience... and thus opinions are formed from those. The challenge for the reader is to sort through all the offerings and form their opinion.

So that we don't continue to go round and round in circles forever, I would like to attempt to encapsulate the two basic opinions here. So, let me know if I've got it worng. Here goes ...

The Nastronaut Argument

Someone, somewhere, has done the maths and come up with the probability of a MAC over Broome and Karattha, if Class E Airspace was mandated, as x.
x is considered to be in the "Safe" zone.
If Class C Airspace was mandated, then the probability would come out at y
Y is also in the "Safe" zone
Therefore, as "Safe" has been achieved in Class E, there is no need to move to a higher, more expensive Class of Airspace ... as minus 60 degrees is just as cold as minus 50 degress

The Fundamentalist Argument

Y will be achieved with absolute certainty ... as positive separation is provided for all
x will be achieved IF the data used to do the sums was correct, if the sums are correct and if "murphy"doesn't poke his nose in it
As Class C costs are similar to Class E costs, why take the chance on x being correct, when y is a certainty?
If we have it wrong and Class C costs more than Class E, why sweat the small difference, if an absolute safety factor can be assurred?

Let me know if I have mis-represented anyone's position.

peuce

22nd Apr 2010, 00:33

It is difficult to warm to your ideas when you publish inconsistencies.
Here is a statement from mjbow2
...The end state design of NAS was to have all radar covered airspace a minimum classification of Class E

Followed by Leadsled's creed:

As I have said, time and again, the separation assurance standard is the same in each classification, and it is so high that adding additional resources does not "increase safety".

On the one hand you appear to be demanding a blanket Class E ... beacause you can. On the other, you say that once safety is assurred ( as in current Class F) it is rediculous to upgrade the classification.

You can't have it both ways ....:=

mjbow2

22nd Apr 2010, 01:22

peuce you clearly do not understand. There is no inconsistency at all.

The concepts expressed by Leadsled as I understand it is that an IFR aircraft flying from an uncontrolled airfield to a major airport should be exposed to the same minimum level of risk from the point of departure to the destination.

Surely you can see that this means than a ground controller is not required at Ballina but is required in Sydney. And that different Classes of airspace are required. As the actual risk increases the level of risk mitigating also increases so the resultant risk is at the same acceptably small level regardless of where the IFR aircraft is.

peuce. We do not have Class F in Australia. There is no IFR to IFR separation even 'as far practicable', we get traffic information.

No one is demanding blanket Class E. I want to see allocation of airspace classifications based on scientifically supported risk assessments. Not based someones Alice in Wonderland type 'belief' that enroute and link airspace are as risky as Sydney airport or in the case of regional airports, more risky than the towered Class D airspace.

peuce

22nd Apr 2010, 01:42

mjbow2,

..Surely you can see that this means than a ground controller is not required at Ballina but is required in Sydney. And that different Classes of airspace are required. As the actual risk increases the level of risk mitigating also increases so the resultant risk is at the same acceptably small level regardless of where the IFR aircraft is.

Doh! ...

No one is demanding blanket Class E
Really? Do you not want Class E wherever there is radar coverage?

From "The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010":

Class F: IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive a flight information service if requested. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace.

If it looks like F and it smells like F ... it probably is F.
Class G in Australia is the figment of someone's imagination.

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 02:00

I find it fascinating that there are two or three Controllers and two or three Pilots who post on this site who are totally opposed to Class E.

Once again, I post the comments by the “Voices of Reason”.

Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible

I dare the Class E doubters to answer this particular post in an objective way.

peuce

22nd Apr 2010, 02:13

Dick,

That old quote was a waste of a lot of forum space.

I think I can say with confidence that no one on this foruim is against Class E Airspace per se.

I can also confidently say that most on here:

Do NOT support Class E airspace ... without surveillance
DO support the appropriate installation of Class E Airspace
Do NOT believe that Class E above Broome or Karattha is an appropriate option

Brow beating, name calling and condesension isn't going to change my opinion. And, from what I read, I don't think you will change your opinion either.

So, it's up to them in high places to make the decision ... and we will all have to live with that decision ... no matter our personal opinions.

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 02:19

Then I trust they will take notice of VOR.

Could it be true that he now works at ????.

ARFOR

22nd Apr 2010, 02:51

The facts rather than the NAStrowaffle – Part 1

ICAO Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services
2.2 Objectives of the air traffic services

The objectives of the air traffic services shall be to:
a) prevent collisions between aircraft;
b) prevent collisions between aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area;
c) expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic;
d) provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights;
e) notify appropriate organizations regarding aircraft in need of search and rescue aid, and assist such organizations as required.

2.3 Divisions of the air traffic services

The air traffic services shall comprise three services identified as follows.
2.3.1 The air traffic control service, to accomplish objectives a), b) and c) of 2.2, this service being divided in three parts as follows:
a) Area control service: the provision of air traffic control service for controlled flights, except for those parts of such flights described in 2.3.1 b) and c), in order to accomplish objectives a) and c) of 2.2;
b) Approach control service: the provision of air traffic control service for those parts of controlled flights associated with arrival or departure, in order to accomplish objectives a) and c) of 2.2;
c) Aerodrome control service: the provision of air traffic control service for aerodrome traffic, except for those parts of flights described in 2.3.1 b), in order to accomplish objectives a), b) and c) of 2.2.

2.3.2 The flight information service, to accomplish objective d) of 2.2.
2.3.3 The alerting service, to accomplish objective e) of 2.2.

2.4 Determination of the need for air traffic services

2.4.1 The need for the provision of air traffic services shall be determined by consideration of the following:
a) the types of air traffic involved;
b) the density of air traffic;
c) the meteorological conditions;
d) such other factors as may be relevant.

Note.— Due to the number of elements involved, it has not been possible to develop specific data to determine the need for air traffic services in a given area or at a given location. For example:
a) a mixture of different types of air traffic with aircraft of varying speeds (conventional jet, etc.) might necessitate the provision of air traffic services, whereas a relatively greater density of traffic where only one type of operation is involved would not;
b) meteorological conditions might have considerable effect in areas where there is a constant flow of air traffic (e.g.scheduled traffic), whereas similar or worse meteorological conditions might be relatively unimportant in an area where air traffic would be discontinued in such conditions (e.g. local VFR flights);
c) open stretches of water, mountainous, uninhabited or desert areas might necessitate the provision of air traffic services even though the frequency of operations is extremely low.

2.4.2 The carriage of airborne collision avoidance systems (ACAS) by aircraft in a given area shall not be a factor in determining the need for air traffic services in that area.

2.5 Designation of the portions of the airspace and controlled aerodromes where air traffic services will be provided

2.5.1 When it has been determined that air traffic services will be provided in particular portions of the airspace or at particular aerodromes, then those portions of the airspace or those aerodromes shall be designated in relation to the air traffic services that are to be provided.
2.5.2 The designation of the particular portions of the airspace or the particular aerodromes shall be as follows:
2.5.2.1 Flight information regions. Those portions of the airspace where it is determined that flight information service and alerting service will be provided shall be designated as flight information regions.
2.5.2.2 Control areas and control zones
2.5.2.2.1 Those portions of the airspace where it is determined that air traffic control service will be provided to IFR flights shall be designated as control areas or control zones.

Note.— The distinction between control areas and control zones is made in 2.10.

2.5.2.2.1.1 Those portions of controlled airspace wherein it is determined that air traffic control service will also be provided to VFR flights shall be designated as Classes B, C, or D airspace.
2.5.2.2.2 Where designated within a flight information region, control areas and control zones shall form part of that flight information region.
2.5.2.3 Controlled aerodromes. Those aerodromes where it is determined that air traffic control service will be provided to aerodrome traffic shall be designated as controlled aerodromes.

2.6 Classification of airspaces

2.6.1 ATS airspaces shall be classified and designated in accordance with the following:
Class A. IFR flights only are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
Class C. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights.
Class D. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided with air traffic control service, IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of VFR flights, VFR flights receive traffic information in respect of all other flights.
Class E. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, IFR flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from other IFR flights. All flights receive traffic information as far as is practical. Class E shall not be used for control zones.
Class F. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.

Note.— Where air traffic advisory service is implemented, this is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control. (See also PANS-ATM, Chapter 9.)

Class G. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and receive flight information service if requested.
2.6.2 States shall select those airspace classes appropriate to their needs.
2.6.3 The requirements for flights within each class of airspace shall be as shown in the table in Appendix 4.
Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc.
ICAO Doc 4444 – Air Traffic Management
2.7 SAFETY-ENHANCING MEASURES

2.7.1 Any actual or potential hazard related to the provision of ATS within an airspace or at an aerodrome, whether identified through an ATS safety management activity or by any other means, shall be assessed and classified by the appropriate ATS authority for its risk acceptability.
2.7.2 Except when the risk can be classified as acceptable, the ATS authority concerned shall, as a matter of priority and as far as practicable, implement appropriate measures to eliminate the risk or reduce the risk to a level that is acceptable.
2.7.3 If it becomes apparent that the level of safety applicable to an airspace or an aerodrome is not, or may not be achieved, the appropriate ATS authority shall, as a matter of priority and as far as practicable, implement appropriate remedial measures.
2.7.4 Implementation of any remedial measure shall be followed by an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measure in eliminating or mitigating a risk.

4.5.1.4 ATC units shall issue such ATC clearances as are necessary to prevent collisions and to expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic.
4.5.1.5 ATC clearances must be issued early enough to ensure that they are transmitted to the aircraft in sufficient time for it to comply with them.

6.2 ESSENTIAL LOCAL TRAFFIC
6.2.1 Information on essential local traffic known to the controller shall be transmitted without delay to departing and arriving aircraft concerned.

[I]Note 1.— Essential local traffic in this context consists of any aircraft, vehicle or personnel on or near the runway to be used, or traffic in the take-off and climb-out area or the final approach area, which may constitute a collision hazard to a departing or arriving aircraft.
If there is ANY risk of not getting the ‘essential information’ to aircraft immediately. How is that resolved tactically early? = Separate
7.6 CONTROL OF AERODROME TRAFFIC
7.6.1 General
As the view from the flight deck of an aircraft is normally restricted, the controller shall ensure that instructions and information which require the flight crew to employ visual detection, recognition and observation are phrased in a clear, concise and complete manner.
If there is any doubt = separate

ICAO Doc 9426 - ATS Planning Manual
2.5 APPROACH CONTROL SERVICE

2.5.1 Whenever it has been decided that there is a justified requirement for the provision of approach control (APP) at a specific aerodrome, or for more than one aerodrome if these aerodromes are located in close proximity to each other and it is therefore more effective to provide this service from a single APP, the following aspects, further to the relevant provisions in Annex 11, need to be taken into account in the planning and operation of such a unit:
a) the co-operative arrangements between APP and the associated aerodrome control tower or aerodrome control towers;
b) the internal arrangements between controllers for the task of providing APP service;
c) measures required to ensure that a possible mix of instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR) operations at and around the aerodrome(s) in question do not impair the safety of flight operations.

2.5.2 One way to achieve flexibility is to provide both APP and the aerodrome control tower(s) with means permitting them to be aware of the traffic situation at each location and assist with appropriate action when the need arises and without the need for lengthy and time-consuming verbal coordination.

2.5.5 Since approach control is primarily concerned with controlled IFR flights operating at or in the vicinity of aerodromes, it will be faced with the problem of avoiding dangerous situations which could be created by the simultaneous presence of controlled IFR flights and VFR flights in the same airspace. While methods to overcome, or at least reduce, this problem to an acceptable level are at present under study, it appears desirable to mention some basic considerations which are already relevant to this subject.

2.5.5.1 One point which needs to be made first, from an ATS point of view, is that the prohibition of VFR flights at aerodromes where IFR flights are conducted is certainly not the preferred solution to the problem of mixed IFR/VFR flights in the same airspace. Such a course of action will deprive certain users of airspace and facilities which should normally be available to everybody on an equal basis. However, it is also evident that, if there is a likelihood of collision risks, a reasonable degree of interference with the freedom of operation of VFR flights must be accepted, be it that pilots of such flights may be required
to have skills not normally required for the conduct of a VFR flight (radio communication and/or certain navigation capabilities) and that aircraft must be equipped with certain radio communication and/or navigation equipment, or that VFR flights are restricted to certain areas and/or routes and required to comply with procedures additional to those normally required when operating at or around an aerodrome.
Vertical Splits
3.2.9 The reasons for the vertical division of airspace as described above can be two-fold:
a) either to split the workload of ATS so that the workload imposed on one ATS unit remains within manageable proportions, both as to its area of responsibility and the amount of traffic it is required to handle; or
b) to apply to air traffic operating in the upper airspace, operating conditions which are different from those applied in the lower airspace and which are motivated by operating parameters which are peculiar to traffic operating in that airspace (e.g. prohibition to operate in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR), use of the area-type control versus the airway type, etc.); or
c) a combination of a) and b) above.

In any case, if such a vertical split is made, it should be ensured that the plane of division, chosen for the reasons under a) above, is not different from that chosen for the reasons given in b) above because it will complicate procedures for pilots as well as for controllers.
Appendix C - Techniques for ATC Sector/Position Capacity Estimation

1. INTRODUCTION
1. Knowledge of the capacity of air traffic control sectors or ATC operating positions is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, for long-term planning, adequate warning is required of any future shortfall in capacity, as indicated by traffic forecasts. Secondly, if there is already a shortage of capacity requiring the application of flow control, it is necessary to know what the capacity is, in order to limit air traffic to a level which does not overload the system or penalize the operators excessively.
1.2 A considerable amount of work has been devoted in recent years to methods of estimating capacity. Of particular interest has been the work proposed by the United Kingdom, Directorate of Operation Research and Analysis (DORATASK Methodology for the assessment ofATC en-route sectors capacity - DORA Interim Report 8818; the application of this technique to current London Terminal Area Sectors - DORA Interim Report 8916; and calibration of the DORATASK Simulation Model on two en-route sectors at the London Air Traffic Control Centre - DORA Report, 8927) and the work by Messerschmidt, BGlkow and Blohm (MBB) of Germany resulting in the development of a procedure to quantify the control capacity of ATC working positions, known as the “MBB Method”.
The essence of both methods was to measure the necessary time for all control working actions and to relate this time to the total time available.

Note.- The most appropriate measure of capacity was likely to be the sustainable hourly traffic flow, rather than daily or annual flows. Such hourly capacities could be converted into daily or annual values.

2. SUMMARY OF THE “DORATASK”* APPROACH

2.1 The proposed DORATASK work centred on the assessment of the workload carried by the radar controller, summing the time spent on routine and conflict resolution (observable) tasks on the one hand, and planning (nonobservable) tasks on the other. In addition to these two interrelated elements of the controller’s tasks, there was a third element - a “recuperation” time. This was a minimum proportion of time not allocated to specified tasks (observable or non-observable) but considered essential for the safe operation of the sector. The controller’s time, therefore, is divided between observable tasks, nonobservable tasks and periods of recuperation. Although the workload was determined by the sum of the time spent in observable tasks and non-observable tasks, the capacity is considered as the level of workload which leaves the controller a safe margin for recuperation.
2.2 Observable tasks are those which can readily be recorded and timed by an outside observer; examples include radiotelephony (RTF) and telephone communication, strip marking and direct-voice-liaison coordination. Routine tasks, for a particular aircraft, are those which must be carried out even if there are no other aircraft in the vicinity. In order to get from “A” to “B”, all aircraft need to contact ATC to be given certain headings and flight level clearances and be handed off to the next sector. The sequence of instructions routinely given to an aircraft will be virtually fixed by the route it takes through the sector and by its origin and destination. The routine workload was, therefore, assessed by assigning aircraft to one of a set of standard flight profiles through the sector; associated with them were fixed sequences of tasks and, hence, a task execution time.
2.3 A simulation model was introduced to utilize the traffic sample to assess the number of occasions on which the controller would consider taking additional action because of the presence of another aircraft, including those not on the controller’s frequency. The total observable workload was the sum of time spent on routine tasks and on conflict resolution.
2.4 The routine workload during (say) an hour’s observation was dependent solely on the number of aircraft in each flight profile that enter the sector. The conflict resolution workload, however, would increase during a peak flow of traffic, as opposed to regular flow.
2.5 Non-observable tasks are those which are carried out almost continuously by the busy controller in parallel with the observable tasks, and which cannot generally be directly recorded or timed by the observer. These tasks, which include monitoring the radar screen and planning future actions, are, however, critical to the business of the sector controller. The non-observable workload was determined by calculating, for each aircraft within the sector area, how many strips it produces and how many other strips already present on the boards must be checked against it when it is first given to the radar controller. This number of checks was then multiplied by a “time per strip check” to give the total non-observable workload. The time for a strip check was not considered as a duration time for a physical task but as a factor calculated when the model was calibrated to reflect the time taken by the whole
planning task. The latter was the main aspect of DORATASK which required more detailed research. This kind of workload would be increased significantly during a peak flow of traffic.
2.6 The workload measure for a given sector and traffic sample was the sum of the observable and non-observable workload times. To arrive at capacity it was necessary to determine a minimum proportion of time that the controller must have for recuperation if the sector was to continue to be operated safely. This proportion was likely to increase with the length of time that a “capacity” flow rate was expected to continue. Initially it was assumed that the sector would operate at capacity for no more than one hour without either the controller changing or the traffic declining. The amount by which the traffic flow was to be set at a lower rate in order for safe operation to continue was studied further. While it was assumed that the time spent per strip check, which determined the weight given to the planning workload, was two seconds, the following conclusions were derived:

“THE AVERAGE WORKLOAD AT CAPACITY MUST BE LESS THAN 80 PER CENT AND WORKLOADS OF 90 PER CENT MUST NOT BE EXCEEDED MORE THAN 2.5 PER CENT OF THE TIME.”

2.7 The calibration of the DORATASK model was carried out in two parts. Firstly, the workload predicted by the model was compared with the observed workload during the study period and the model parameters were adjusted to align the two. Secondly, the workload was plotted against flow for a number of hours for two sectors whose capacity was agreed upon beforehand by other means; the criterion for setting the capacity as outlined in 2.6 above was derived from the results.
2.8 The principles of the DORATASK methodology of airspace sector capacity estimation remain fundamentally the same whether they are applied to the en-route sectorization or to the terminal control area (TMA) sectors. Three notable changes are, however, required in the implementation of the method in TMA sectors. Account must be taken of the workload involved in the control of stacks. The conditions used for identifying potential conflicts must be altered to allow for the additional complexity of a specific TMA route structure. Finally, the method for modelling the planning workload must be altered to reflect the fact that the controller relies principally on the radar screen for conflict detection, rather than on the stripboard.
Mixed IFR/VFR Operations
2.3.8 An experiment with a new type of airspace, which is between controlled airspace (visual exempted) and controlled airspace (instrument/visual), and associated provisions regarding service to aircraft in this airspace, is being conducted at Lyon (France). The Federal Republic of Germany provides an “improved” flight information service to VFR aircraft in controlled airspace below FL 100 and outside those portions of the airspace wherein VFR flights must be conducted as controlled VFR flights.
Mr Griffo will be interested in that last one

ATC’s and ANSP’s have forgotten more about ATM and related than the NAStronauts collectively think they know. Don’t be fooled by their ill-informed pontificating!

More to come!