NAS rears its head again

[Frank Arouet]

A multi-tonned aluminium tube carrying 120 fare paying passengers, versus a bugsmasher that can turn on a dime

The PA28 was in fact a T28 if I get the drift. A 200 knot 14tonne aircraft doesn't quiet fit the bugsmasher that can turn on a dime Different size windscreen perhaps?

Owen Stanley, Ah yep, fraid some of em are. must mean we have some common ground because by definition "some of them are obviously not.

Does "some" mean a "few" or the "majority"?:ok:

EDIT to congratulate you on your EDIT. Well done and and in the nick of time. But I captured the "guts" of your first.

[CaptainMidnight]

KONSTANTIN No opinions, no hearsay, no end-state policy preferred positions - doc reference(s) thanks.

Although in parts AIP may say to the contrary, radio and/or transponder is not mandatory in Class E for all aircraft. Some sports aviation types including gliders have been exempt for many years, and operate in Class E.

Some references (my bolding & italics, and some paras not relevant have been deleted):

AIP GEN 6.1.2

All aircraft, except aircraft operating to the VFR which are not fitted with an engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering a transponder, must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C, or Mode S, SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.

AIP ENR 20.1.11
Gliders are encouraged, but not required, to monitor the Area VHF when operating above 5,000FT in Classes E and G airspace.

Civil Aviation Order 95.8 (as amended)
Section 95.8 (Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — hang gliders)

3 Exemptions

3.1 A person is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of the Regulations while he or she is associated with the flying of a hang glider if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsection 4:

(b) subregulation 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment; [use and operation of aeronautical VHF radio]

4 Conditions

4.7 Except with the written permission of CASA, and in accordance with any conditions set out in the permission to minimise hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground or water, a person must not fly a hang glider:
(e) except in:
(i) Class G airspace; or
(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.;

CIVIL AVIATION ORDERS PART 95
SECTION 95.4
EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 —
GLIDERS, POWERED SAILPLANES AND POWER-ASSISTED SAILPLANES

3 EXEMPTIONS

Under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 CASA exempts aircraft to which this section applies from compliance with the following provisions:

(d) subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment; [use and operation of aeronautical VHF radio]

Talk to any glider pilot and they will tell you they use aero VHF to talk to each other and their base, but not normally ATC even in Class E. And you'd be lucky to find a hang glider pilot who has aero VHF. At best it's UHF CB, and of course none are transponder equipped.

And these and other sports types operate up to 10,000 or so in G & E. That is well known by CASA, and they have got around the issue in some cases (e.g. Avalon) by declaring a Broadcast Area or temporary restricted area and specifying the conditions of access e.g. that aircraft intending to fly in the area must have a working transponder and communicate with ATC.

As Leady said, most should & shall type things in AIP have a head of power somewhere in CAR/CAO etc. CASA have the power to grant exemptions and also specify additional requirements. I haven't located the HoP behind AIP GEN 6.1.2 but there's one somewhere. That particular one applies to many light sport aviation types.

[rotorblades]

For fear of sounding like Im sitting on the fence,
I believe there is plenty of space in this world for both RPT & GA.

I can see where the RPT are coming from, they are running fare paying passengers and as such are responsible for getting them there safely & timely.

GA also provide a valuable asset to the aviation industry. You need GA to do flight training, for example.

All it needs is better understanding from both sides and better co-operation. If your on a training flight it doesnt hurt to hold off for 20secs while an RPT comes by, RPTs you dont rule the sky (ATC do:O) if you want a sequencing service fly into controlled aerodromes only.

On this carriage of radio in E. If you are flying and listening watch and your hear traffic being passed on you to an IFR, it would be nice to announce yourselves. We (ATC) can then verify mode C if need to and better assess confliction. You may see the IFR but the IFR may not have seen you.
I had an interesting one today with an airbus descending through E to WLM and an unknown VFR climbing towards him (6000descending vs 4600climbing), I dont know whether either got visual in the end but they missed, thankfully as I was on line-check!

Having said that hats off to the westpac helicopter who announced himself on the area frequency (whilst in G) when i gave traffic on him (unknown VFR)to an IFR OCTA.:D

There are now a lot of high-performance GA aircraft out there. ranging from the Lancairs (cessnas now) & Cirrus' (whats the plural of Cirrus is it Cirruses or Cirii?) to L-39s & JetProvosts mixing it with RPTs, be wary of whats around, especially as ATC cant always see whats low(er) level you maybe flying into conflict with.

[peuce]

Some more observations:

No. 1:

....must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C, or Mode S, SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.

Are they required to have it ON ?

And, out of interest, here's a direct question to Frank Arouet .... if it wasn't compulsory, would you turn yours on?

No 2:

ROTORBLADES ... in the proposed Class E in the NW, it's no use asking VFRs to speak up, if given as traffic ... because you will never see them on your scope.... so you will never be passing them as traffic.

[Frank Arouet]

if it wasn't compulsory, would you turn yours on?

Despite the requirement for a transponder in class E airspace, and the requirement that if a serviceable transponder is fitted it "must" be used in any airspace, and including the obvious- (there are no non TSO'd transponders), mine always has been, and will continue to be turned on in any airspace when I have one fitted to the aircraft I am flying.

I am at a loss however with the ADSB requirement for a capability to turn that gadget off. Why have a switch? Why don't we all get a microchip implant in our heads to prevent the "rouge" VFR- PPL "idiots" from being let loose amongst us?

Come to think of it, why do transponders have a switch?

[Jabawocky]

frank......:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

So you can turn it off on the ground ......which I forget to do a bit....but its better to be on than OFF :ok:

[Jabawocky]

NEWS FLASH

My inbox tonight contains the biggest heap of codswallop in a long while.

OAR...what have you been smoking? :=

And Dick and Leady wanted the US NAS.....well they will be upset then, coz it sure ain't that either.

Well this oughta confuse the :mad: outa the locals.:ugh:

Bloggs take all you leave until they get radar or wamlat in mate.....its going to be fun:}

Anyone else get the email?

J:cool:

[konstantin]

Captain Midnight

Thank you (on behalf of all/most here!?) for the detail and effort, the AIP stuff re gliders etc I`d seen before but the fine print of the CAOs re exemptions should be good background info for all. Can`t do anything about the adhoc SPA but as you say TRAs do come in handy otherwise.
A slightly different local option, AS C-over-D is reclassified to G when the gliding areas are active, a few ways to skin a cat for advance notice ops.

Rotorblades and Peuce

Arising from your remarks rather than responding to them, the proposed E-over-D in the NW (non-radar of course) is exactly why so many people feel there should be compulsory radio for all in non-radar E. The only way a VFR will know they should self-announce is if they hear the TWR or IFR talking to each other...which leads me to...

Jabawocky

I have been out of the "hands on" loop for just over a year now, a link or directions if possible please, sounds like it should make interesting reading? Is the drug-taking session you alluded to anything related to the matter at hand and the NW of Oz by the way?

[Capn Bloggs]

Anyone else get the email?

Let the battle begin! :}

[Capn Bloggs]

Ledsled,

Quote:
Since I'm a bit slow and you are on top of all this comms stuff, precisely what is meant by VFR requiring "continuous two way comms" in E, apart from my previously quoted "should maintain a listening watch on the ATC freq and advise when in conflict"? Continuous with who and saying what?

Answer? Or don't you know?

So, no answer. What are you doing, Ledsled, madly running around trying to work out how an un-American, un-ICAO rule slipped through the crack, or perhaps AIP is wrong?

Dick, you can pipe up here too. What is your take on continuous two-way comms for VFR in E? You have made much of your personal creation of the mandatory transponder rule in E. Why did you not mention that radio carriage and use in E was also mandatory?

[Jabawocky]

Konstantin

There is no link and I am not sure if I am at liberty to publish its contents, I do know who else it was sent to as we were all copied in rather than Blind copied. To say the least I do not understand why I was included in the distribution list...but there ya go even the bottom of the food chain gets a look in at times.

What I can tell you is that it seems a crazy set up indeed. A mismatch of airspace and if anything when the charts come out it will be apparent that while the locals and regulars will learn to work with it, any once a year to BME/KTA folk who fly their 172 from their farm in outback NSW on a little WA holiday could well be .....Boeing fodder! :uhoh:

The thing most folk on here forget and the folk in Canberra, is that while we understand changes and its discussed a lot and while we understand how something should work in the ideal world, there is plenty of folk who never hear about this stuff despite the CASA mailouts and so on. They are lucky if they do a BFR in some cases.

Now Leadslead is going to shoot me down here with statements of ...You can't say that you are talking about anecdotal evidence...where are your facts boy! Well I am sorry Mr Leadslead...you have just been guilty of spraying anecdotal stories as fact so its about time you believe some of others.

You guys who do not see it can not say it does not exist. Others see it. Just like a few centuries ago everyone believed Swan's where white....after all the only Swans they had ever seen in Europe were white....so all Swans are white. Then some fine Englishmen came to the land down under and bugger me they found Black Swans :ooh:.
So folks.......when I say I believe there will be plenty of good well meaning folk blundering into this "Scrambled Egg Airspace", you can believe me they exist. Its just a matter of when.........Ohh yeah they are meant to call the tower, and thats marked on the chart they don't even know exists!:ouch:

J:)

Blogs.......its all yours!:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just got a copy:eek::eek::eek:

Is OAR serious?

Even they cannot see a way for procedural E to work...why even attempt it?

So many "work rounds" If it was a program it would be back to the developer to remove the bugs before release. BRMv2.01a is a dud!:ugh:

[peuce]

Without having seen this new news ... from the vibe I'm getting, it appears to be a case of ideology over rationality for sure.

When you have to bodgey up something so much to make it work ... you give the impression that you want that thing in ... no matter what.

However, I'll hold off on a formal appraisal until I see it.

[konstantin]

Jabawocky, ta anyway - constraints understood. Am awaiting with bated breath a cut-and-paste from someone else...who may have seen it fall off the back of a truck somewhere...?;)

[peuce]

Interesting post on another forum, from an Overseas Pilot:

..Having returned recently from overseas I would have to say that Australia is a very challenging environment to fly in. Australia in my opinion rates behind many third world countries in ATC and approach aids, mix that with some very odd rules and regulations that at times are totally opposite to practices everywhere else and I am suprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.../... many of the practices in Oz do nothing but line-up the first couple of layers of swiss cheese.

Well, get ready for some more challenges ...

[Jabawocky]

Well clearly it will eventually fall off the mail rack....but I am not the one to do it....yes a chicken!

Peuce.....When you have to bodgey up something so much to make it work ... you give the impression that you want that thing in ... no matter what.

Outstanding review.......without even seeing the document! :D

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I guess the rest of us 'mere mortals' who haven't been 'flicked' the almighty 'missive', will just have to wait until said document becomes 'official'...??

Unless.........

(A 'PM' would be gratefully received.....)

[OverRun]

Here it is, in case you have been left out. And don't worry if you weren't on the list and maybe they haven't listened to you, because they haven't listened to anyone that was on the list either.

And don't expect the safety study to be posted, because there isn't one.


Broome and Karratha Airspace Model

• Class D CTR 0 - A025 to 7 nm from runway THR or 8 nm DME radius,
• Class E airspace above 700 feet AGL out to 11 nm DME radius,
• Class E airspace above 1200 feet AGL between 11 and 31 nm DME (so as to include RNAV holds),
• Steps of Class E to FL180 to contain 2.5 then 3 degree descent profile,
• LL7500 31-45 DME, LL FL115 45-57 DME, LL FL115 57-70DME,
• Laterally limited beyond 31 nm DME to only contain published routes and diversions plus nav tolerances - i.e. Class G out to sea.
• Class D and E up to A045 controlled by Broome Tower (A045 as proposed by Airservices)
• Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower * (see note)
- VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry
- Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)
• Tower closed - Tower-managed CTA will revert to Class G *(see note)

*(note) Transitional arrangement only until ATC surveillance is established.

[Capn Bloggs]

LL7500 31-45 DME, LL FL115 45-57 DME, LL FL115 57-70DME
Ooops.....

Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower
Not necessary given VFR requires continuous two way radio IAW AIP which in turn given a head of power by the regulations, hey Ledsled? :D

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower * (see note)
- VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry
- Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)


THAT is a class E work round!

[Capn Bloggs]

E Plus! I love it! :ok: :D

[OZBUSDRIVER]

There you go, Dick.
Class E airspace above 700 feet AGL out to 11 nm DME radius,
Hope you are happy:ugh:

Class E down to the MDA...with no radar...what a hero!

[Jabawocky]

And once above A045 VFR no need for contact at all.....regardless of any surveillance installed?

Its OK Bloggs.....up to A045 you will be fine..........:ok: Coz they will all be seen and heard:uhoh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Many Thanks - U know who U is - TA!!

:ok::ok::ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well Done Mr 'Over'......

'Old age is something we should ALL aspire to,
The alternative is 'cold and dark'....some say..!!'

That sketch sort of reminds me of one of those 'Doctor' movies of the 50's or whenever.....
The Filing Cabinet in the office said
DIE-HERE......It too, was a comedy......:uhoh:

[Capn Bloggs]

And once above A045 VFR no need for contact at all.....regardless of any surveillance installed?

Its OK Bloggs.....up to A045 you will be fine.......... Coz they will all be seen and heard
I've worked it out. 320 at 4,000 (should get there by about 15nm) then vertical climb with fingers in the ears, eyes closed and seat down behind the panel until reaching the safety of C at 245. :ok:

[peuce]

Initial observations:

1. Aircraft will need Radar Altimeters to ascertain CTA boundaries ( unless that is just a preliminary description and the final layout won't be designated in "AGL")

2. VFRs will have to broadcast within 31 dme of Broome, when above 1200 agl and under A045 ( not much change from now) .. however, I assume they will have to provide updated position information to the Controller. What will the Controller do with that info if the VFR is above A025? Give traffic to the inbound IFR(as per E requirements), or just seperate (easier)?

3. VFRs will be able to go over the top at 4500 without talking to anyone

4. Tower will do a mixture of D & E ( in all likliehood, they will just revert to D(easier)

There still seems to be a big gap between A045 and A100 ... where unknown, unseen and unheard VFRs can roam.

So, the important question is ... is it an internationally compliant improvement at a cost benefit? :confused:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re;

"I've worked it out. 320 at 4,000 (should get there by about 15nm) then vertical climb with fingers in the ears, eyes closed and seat down behind the panel until reaching the safety of C at 245".......

Meanwhile, the cabin crew, some of whom face to the rear in their seats....
struggle to breathe as the seat belt almost cuts then in two, with arms and legs flailing....
And the 'lil fat bloke' in seat 3C wants his coffee, and he wants it..NOW!!
And the poor old pax in the rear who was hit by a flying mintie released from the startled pax in 3C, is expected to recover from his concussion before the flight lands at PH.....

[LeadSled]

Last time I looked RPT had priority over General? Owen,

Legislative reference please, for operations in G, please. Have a look at the CAAP for June changes.

Gee, was that all on one day? Or over a period of time? I spose this is all supported by fact and stats. Or is it just anecdotal? Go re-read my post.

All in my files, and many drawn from incident reports. Or referred to me by one of the persons involved. NONE are anecdotal, I can put names and flight numbers/registrations to each, but I am certainly not going to put them on pprune. If you are half smart, some can be found on the ATSB web site or Flight Safety.

Read the CAAPs for the June changes, and read between the lines --- as I have already suggested.

wait for it, a very, very, senior CASA executiveOwen,

Just to help you out a bit, for "very senior public servant" take it as a CASA Branch Manager/General Manager, for other Departments, a member of the SES, Branch Director/General Manager/ Assistant Secretary , or any rank on the tier below Secretary and Deputy Secretary, so apply that to the above very very. As for a pilot's boss, take that as a Chief Pilot by whatever name in a particular airline.

I thought that's what you wanted big boy, eh, eh?Well, you thunk very wrong. If you had ever bothered reading any of my public submission on the subject, you would know that your "assumptions" about my views on the subject are no more than the product of your preconceptions and prejudices.

Strange as it may seem to you, I have always worked for airlines that required (by SOPs and company policy) to slow up to minimum speeds in a visual circuit, with absolute maximums, depending on the type, with strict adherence to the Rules Of The Air.
Any pilot who exhibited tendencies to do otherwise would be jumped on from a great height by the Standards group.
Any pilot who behaved as some of the Regionals crews do on the radio would have found themselves in serious trouble --- from their peers, let alone company operations managements.

Applied Common Sense (aka Airmanship) was the over-riding requirement in any operational decisions, any suggestion of compromising safety for commercial gain was about the biggest crime you could commit against company policy (and, this was more than one airline).

Again, re-read the CAAP for the June changes.

But they can comprehend AIPIzzatso, at least one such regular poster here has demonstrated comprehensively that he did not understand radio requirements in E, ( and, I would guess, not aware of the very limited exemptions) and is trying to obfuscate about the meaning of "continuous two way". And, as I pointed out, there is only (legislatively) VFR, with two available criteria.

Bloggs,
I note your continues bleating, please continue, I find it amusing, but I am not going to engage in a line by line contest with you.

As much as I would like to see as much compliance with ICAO as makes sense (would we want to wipe out non-Annex 8 aircraft for non-compliance --- of course not) progress in ICAO can be slow ( Annex 1 changes for the MPL being a remarkable exception --- and an example of how individuals, even in CASA (two) can make a difference), GA doesn't get much of a look in with ICAO, despite Official Observer status for IAOPA.

If we have a good enough reason for a difference, let us, by all means, file a difference. But, unfortunately, with some notable exceptions (GAAP for one) most of the "differences" we have seen over the years in Australia are unjustified restrictions, often the result of one issue pressure groups or "regulators" with a personal barrow to push.

C over D is a good example, it has never been justified, as a difference to ICAO.

Before you jump in on my GAAP comments, I support the move to D, but strongly believe the VFR weather criteria should have remained as per GAAP.(dare I say it: reduced VFR)

I will be interested to find out just what OAR have come up with, it will be in my IN box.

Tootle pip!!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

However,...

I wonder just why the horizontal boundaries were selected as 7nm from rwy threshold or 8nm DME...and not simply 10nm or 15nm from ARP..??

I realise that in practice it doesn't matter that much, but if I wanted to be 'a pain' I could simply say I am maintaining 7.1nm from the rwy threshold - whichever rwy was 'in use' at the time - and therefore remain in E...

And when 'they' change the rwy in use at around mid-day or so, when the sea breeze gains momentum.....and the 'datum' is now from a different threshold, is I 'in', or is I 'out', whilst orbiting at the same location....

The broadcast at 31nm is same as now - virtually, except that the call now is a directed call to 'Broome Radio', and as such, gets an acknowledgement...

[B]Peuce, [B] You are correct in that an overflying acft above A045 will not have to talk to anyone....I guess the 'saving grace' here is that MOST acft would be landing at Broome, whilst the 'overflying' for PD - Derbs e.g., would be, usually, around 16nm to the SE from memory....
Just about over 'Thangoo' - 'Barn Hill'...
But, close enough to be 'in the way'...

And, I can see the twr staff wanting to revert to just D, just as we continued to pass tfc info for quite a while after acft had reported 'changing to MBZ or CTAF' at the time...until we were TOLD to quit, as we could be seen to be 'overstepping' the legal boundaries of the time, and THAT was considered 'dangerous' to management...
But then I heard BN Centre passing tfc to acft operating at BRM whilst both acft concerned were in the MBZ and on the MBZ freq....
(Yep. We used to monitor BN centre so we would have a 'heads-up' on 'who' was coming 'when'...)
So, I guess the temptation is still there....to ensure 'safety'...and enable us to sleep at night...

But, your last question is the all important one...
What is the COST BENEFIT / Safety Case??
Why not simply a FIXED Dimension D, with C above..??

I can see VFR's still being told to hold at Willy Creek or wherever.....whilst the ATC looks over his shoulder to the Northern direction to see if he can sight 'the incoming', coming down the beach...ONE at a time...

Cheers

[konstantin]

FWIW a few 2c pieces in italics - not that it will make any difference. Unfortunately I had no choice but to second-guess the intent of some of the statements - and apologies if someone has beaten me to it with a comment or two above.


 Class D CTR 0 - A025 to 7 NM fm RWY THR or 8 DME radius,


Bite size extended circuit area CTR for associated D airspace procedures, all the rest E...ah, the “model”...sigh...


 Class E airspace above 700 feet AGL out to 11 DME radius,


3 nm E airspace buffer surrounding D, A007 to A012. Not sure why but anyway...ah, must be standardisation for A007 step distance from the ARP – but an 11DME radius for a D CTR is obviously out of the question, once again for standardisation purposes? As was making it all D CTR airspace up to A025 or, lord help me with my heresy...A045?


 Class E airspace above 1200 feet AGL between 11 and 31 DME (so as to include RNAV holds),


23 nm E airspace buffer surrounding D, A012 to A025, then straight up to A075. Yeah, pay that one on balance. I think.


 Steps of Class E to FL180 to contain 2.5 then 3 degree descent profile,

LL7500 31-45 DME, LL FL115 45-57 DME, LL FL115 57-70DME,
Presumably something like LL F145 57-70DME? We`ll take that as a typo.



Laterally limited beyond 31 DME to only contain published routes and diversions plus nav tolerances - i.e. Class G out to sea.
Presumably a full segment of CTA steps, not the old CTA/OCTA step corridors of old?
 Class D and E up to A045 controlled by BRM Tower (A045 as proposed by
Airservices)


Yep, A045 vertical boundary is king, the “model” eh? So the enroute non-radar controller is now effectively doing abbreviated procedural approach down to A045, outbound aircraft still may be setting course depending on the departure runway, unable to positively separate reference any known VFR above A045...wonder what the inbound frequency transfer level will actually end up being.

Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower * (seenote)
Great for A/G time usage considerations

VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry


Presumably “entry” to Class E below A045 being the inference? Too bad a clearance cannot be delayed to a VFR for separation purposes, nor any separation action taken with a VFR outside 8DME and above A025?



Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)
Is that “ATC” including above A045, ie the sector controller? Presumably so, there`s your E+ workaround, boys and girls. Then again a point above states that VFR shall establish contact with ATC TWR prior to entry – if it`s just VFR frequency monitoring above A045 then VFRs will be invisible to both sector and tower until they call the tower “prior to entry”. Perhaps something like “VFR flights to establish comms on the appropriate ATC frequency prior to entering Class E airspace” was the intent? Hope so...
 Tower closed - Tower-managed CTA will revert to Class G *(see note)


Thus E airspace active above A045 to F180 outside TWR hours...um...why? Particularly when one considers there is thus no after-hours CTA Class E “protection” below A045 for approaches and holds? And once an IFR passes A045 on descent they are on their own in Class G/CTAF anyway until centre receives an arrival report.


*(note)Transitional arrangement only until ATC surveillance is established.

[Jabawocky]

often the result of one issue pressure groups or "regulators" with a personal barrow to push.


"Hello Pot this is kettle"........for you Dick and others :}

I did not see you on the distribution list Leadsled but I am sure they hade a preferential list for good folks like yourself that the rest of us were not on. There is not much to it you have not read on here already though.

Now onto serious things,
if it`s just VFR frequency monitoring above A045 then VFRs will be invisible to both sector and tower until they call the tower “prior to entry”

If they are above A045 the tower will not know about them because they do not have to report to anyone. The Tower is interested in them up to A045, above that its for the Centre folk to deal with....if you read that closely that means above the 4500' VFR will be invissible until radar is installed. Unless I am mistaken.:uhoh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Ledsled,

All in my files, and many drawn from incident reports. Or referred to me by one of the persons involved. NONE are anecdotal, I can put names and flight numbers/registrations to each,
In what capacity did you obtain names of the crews in these incidents? :cool:

I note your continues bleating, please continue, I find it amusing, but I am not going to engage in a line by line contest with you.

That's because you don't know the answer to my question, or do know but are too egotistical to say anything about it.

C over D is a good example, it has never been justified, as a difference to ICAO.
And the ICAO SARP would be?

As for your (and Dick's) efforts in the CAAPs re telling RPT to be nice, I find it a rather odd way of educating "us". An abuse of process IMO, having a good old lovey-dovey ramble in a CAAP. Put it in a mailout, by all means, but not in a publication that was designed to help the aviation industry comply with regs. The next thing you'll do is have put into CAR 166 that bullying of GA by Eastern (oops did I say that, Jarse?) is an offence of strict liability. :yuk:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

konstantin

A007 to A012. Not sure why but anyway...ah, must be standardisation for A007 step distance from the ARP – but an 11DME radius for a D CTR is obviously out of the question, once again for standardisation purposes?

A007 is the circling height for the MDA on all the approaches into BRM. This is Smith's little experiment to show everyone how the yanks do it. Until there is surveillance, it is a crap shoot. In IMC the lad will say that VFR will be excluded and the TWR can practice one in, one out with a clearance...just hope there aren't any scud runners out there.

Just to add....with E down to the MDA...Centre/Tower must guarantee separation and terrain warnings if the aircraft strays outside the profile. How the hell they do that without a means of monitoring it is beyond me....The general idea Smith gleaned from the BLA incident.:ugh:

[Howabout]

At the risk of being classified a stirrer, wouldn't C over D be more practical?

In one fell swoop, it appears that CASA has managed to confuse everyone. That takes talent. So much for solving the 'Galapagos airspace' issue.

Just my call, but it probably went like this:

We have to do something at BME and KTA.
OK, whadawe do?
E over D because we have to placate the feral elements.
But that won't mitigate risk to the extent that R/T requirements do now in CTAF/Class G at BME. We are getting significant industry push-back on E over D, and they have a point on radio at BME.
Bugger, didn't think of that. OK, recovery strategy - we make it E over D, but make R/T obligatory. Brilliant, problem solved -jeez I'm good.
But what about VFR above A045?
Bugger, didn't think about that one.
Whadawe do?
Ahh...Erm; glossy brochures - do you think that would work?Message to the OAR: Your prime responsibility is to passenger carrying RPT, as per the Australian Airspace Policy Statement. Get a grip, recognise that priority and, with that priority in mind, don't try to compromise. You'll just repeatedly get yourselves up that creek without a paddle. IMHO, this is a classic in trying to please everyone, particularly the squeaky wheels, and avoiding the heat.

[peuce]

Konstantin,

Just a point ...
The way I read it, VFRs only have to maintain 2 way comms within "Tower Controlled" airspace ... not all Class E.

P.S. Dick, I would welcome your thoughts on these new proposals ... even if it's only to gloat:E

[peuce]

GRIFFO,

Yes, you may be correct in that there aren't too many VFR overflyers ... but I'd still like to see the figures.

Another situation in which VFRs may infringe the "link vacuum" might be climb and descent. Is it fair to assume that some VFRs may climb through A045 within the Broome or Karratha desent profile of a jet?

Could a VFR be on desent from, say, A095, into Broome ... and conflict with a Jet above A045, also on desent or climb?

These may be scenarios that will never happen ... BUT, I'd like to see the "science"... to quote a too often used term.

P.S. I'm getting worried that I may not be able to visit North Cable Beach again ... until they sort this out :O:O

[Blockla]

C over D is a good example, it has never been justified, as a difference to ICAO.I believe there would be more countries using this arrangement than E over D. ICAO has never prescribed 'layering' of airspace (or dimensions), it is the choice of the member state.

I wonder if any ATC will go to Broome now? Who would volunteer to 'administer that rubbish'; the liabilities are endless and the blame game that is ASA in the event of a 'fark-up' will be endless.

Good luck to anyone doing that game...

[CaptainMidnight]

The way I read it, VFRs only have to maintain 2 way comms within "Tower Controlled" airspace ... not all Class E. & Jabawocky:

I believe you are correct, as a result of what I assume will be in the broadcast area declaration Instrument i.e. aircraft must establish comms with the TWR prior to entering the broadcast area Class E and notify intentions, maintain two-way comms and follow any directives given in the broadcast area Class E.

Outside the broadcast area I assume normal Class E procedures apply i.e. no need for contact with ATC [AIP ENR 1.1-33 17.3.2 "....VFR flights entering and operating in Class E airspace should (not "shall") .... monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict" etc.], and no radio requirement for some aircraft types who are covered by exemptions.

It is odd to say the least that someone has an obvious concern re the shortcomings of Class E to the extent that they feel declaration of a broadcast area is justified for that portion below 4500, but no such concerns above that level.

So we have:


normal Class E down to 4500
Class E+ below
some E handled by the TWR
the rest by Centre on another frequency
Dear oh dear ..........

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day Peuce,

You are 'correcto' on the VFR's infringing the RPT profiles....especially on descent.

T'was not uncommon for the 'paper plane gaggle' of 6 or so acft to be inbound on the 200 Radial, BRM inbound from NWN- so to speak , (we all know there's no VOR at BRM, YET, but, you all know how this works...), at around A100, with a Jet on the drop at around 30nm on the 200R, also at or approaching A100....or thereabouts....And this happened quite regularly on Saturdays when the gaggle went down to NWN to get the papers, and all, including the Jet, arrived back at the same time...with the jet usually overtaking the 210's etc on the drop.

Whoever spoke first got the traffic first.

Some jet captains would call approaching FL150 on the drop - Req TFC.
LUVLY. No dramas. Most jet capts learned to call early - whether this became a SOP or not, I can't say.

Jets on the way 'out' were generally no problem.
They rotated, climbed out over the 'ogen' or the bay, and disappeared into the ether....waaay above the GA tfc.

Not many movements PD-DBY or vice versa, direct, when I was there.
RFDS was the major one, and we were all 'friends' in that they spoke to Broome Radio early, and it all worked fine....and as they are IFR, no problemo.

The 200R inbound passes right over Barn Hill, at 30DME, which is where the outbound direct Derby to PD flights exit the 30nm arc as well.

Still, when on descent between A100 & A045, I'd be standing up on the seat to 'improve the view'.....:}


Last time I was at N. Cable....there was not much 'buoyancy' in the 'local produce'....you might say, the standard of things seems to have dropped - to a more 'mature' level..??:ok:

[ARFOR]

Australia is really setting the standard to avoid:-

- ICAO G that is actually ICAO F

- ICAO D that is being sold to the unsuspecting as FAA D [ICAO service rules with a few token FAA ism's, W Turb, Runway Sep, VMC, and Parallel Runway displacement triggers]. Who knows where the SVFR pearl came from.

- ICAO E that is actually FAA D [lite]

And to top it all off:-

- Procedural [non-surveillance equipped] Towers with Class E
[pilot gab fest self separating VFR/VFR and IFR/VFR on the same frequency as ATC are attempting to separate IFR/IFR and provide a class D service A025 and below]

- Huge Enroute Sectors providing procedural E approach combined.

This is obviously believed to be worlds best practice [who else does this], [B]and ICAO compliant? Yes? no!, righto then, because no one is buying that wool, nor using it as an over the eyes sun shade :=

Cost and Safety

Less safe, costs more, and apparently requires surveillance.

Mr Smith is on record demanding the Surveillance C directive [Anderson] must be followed. It must therefore be the case [according to Smith law] that:-

Surveillance is necessary, therefore it must require allocation of Class C airspace :ok:

Presumaby Mr Smith will rabidly follow up the erronious allocation of Class D and E airspace with the political machine men and demand Class C [just like they use in the US].

Good for you Messer's Smith and LeadSled. The SCC and other records will come in handy in the aftermath :D ;)

[ferris]

Perhaps someone is going to launch an injunction, until the airspace follows the governments stated policy? :hmm:

How will this be mitigated? Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 1995 - A95H0008 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1995/a95h0008/a95h0008.asp) Looks like a remarkably similar set up.

[Capn Bloggs]

Griffo,
The 200R inbound passes right over Barn Hill, at 30DME, which is where the outbound direct Derby to PD flights exit the 30nm arc as well.

Still, when on descent between A100 & A045, I'd be standing up on the seat to 'improve the view'.....
Fortunately, we now have segregated in and out tracks to both BME and KTA, which means virtually no nose-to-nose for IFRs at the mid - to low levels. The downside is that it is now even more difficult for VFRs to work out where we are, as we track via doglegs, not straight in or out.

The NAStronauts can, of course, just say "avoid the IFR routes" but I suspect that your average jo-blow lighty pilot, unless he sets up his secondary plan on his moving map, will have a difficult time doing said avoiding.

Also, I don't see any suggestions/requirements in AIP that IFR start making broadcasts for the benefit of VFR in E...yet. That should help clog up the now controlled-airwaves...

ARFOR,
You really will have to stop this recalitrant fundamentalism! := :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Ferris,
There are so many lessons in that report that it is unbelievable that the NAStronauts could want to foist E on us. Shame on them.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Tks Cap'n,

Ref BRM,
Yeah, I did see the inbound is now in from the S, that's just a little closer to the DBY-PD Direct, where you would cross it at around 19DME S of BRM.

Not many VFR's there either.......Unless...(Do Ya Feel Lucky.....
:}:}Cheers

[konstantin]

Peuce, I understand what you are saying but can I just clarify my assertions/interpretations in the light of the following;


VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry Refers specifically to TWR comms but says "entry" without clarification - inferring the entering of CTA (ie E or D) but it is an inference only. Badly worded. Also note the use of the word "prior", it seems like a version of calling for clearance prior to entering C CTA for instance. Okay, this is (sort of) clear, but...





Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)This gets more ambiguous and the ramifications more convoluted the more I think about it. The VFR would obviously maintain radio watch in E above A045, but doesn`t the "maintain communication with ATC" seem to apply to tower and sector by inference, do they thus have to positively establish comms, does this have to be done not later than entering E at any level by inference (re "all traffic is known"), Tower will have to coordinate outbound VFRs to Sector to facilitate the "known", ditto the reverse notwithstanding that an inbound VFR has to contact Tower "prior to entry" anyway, there will probably have to be a directed frequency transfer between the two controllers both in and out as a result of the "all traffic is known" proviso, this will necessitate effectively Full SAR procedures on VFRs outbound until they report leaving E and inbound from when they enter E until they land...etc, etc, this is just crap!

Not necessarily arguing with your premise purely based on your reading (as opposed to my reading) of this gem of a document, just suggesting that there is a lot of ambiguity with the precis of the procedures at this stage. They could have been a lot more specific even at this juncture - otherwise we would not have made the last post each, eh?

Anyone else get the impression they are making this up as they go along - like the weekly procedure changes in the lead-up to the eventual 11th hour cancellation of the "Remembrance Day"1993 supposed-demise-of -FS debacle?

[peuce]

Konstantin,

I hope you are right and I'm wrong ... at least your scenario would be the better of two evils .

However, my interpretation was based on the format of the original document. All the VFR contact and broadcast stuff is located in the "Broome Tower Controlled Airspace" paragraph ... which might not be as obvious in the cut and paste version.

Yes, it's a badly put together document, but I'm going to cut them some slack at the moment ... as it was just a heads up to Industry partners. I will assume the official "decree" will be more clearer.

Am I assuming too much?

[peuce]

Okay, all you Tower Controllers out there ... riddle me this:

Are you really going to change your procedures for a VFR flight as he climbs through A025 on departure?

Will you really change your procedures as he descends through A025?

Scenario

An IFR and a VFR are inbound from around the same direction ... both on descent from 10ish thousand. Will you try to calculate where the confliction will occur and, if calculated as at, say, A030 .... provide the IFR with traffic... and then as they pass A025 seperate them?

My feeling is that you'll seperate them all the way down ... from A045 of course.

What we will probably end up with, by default, is a Class D Tower up to A045.
Why on earth didn't they just promulgate that?

Ideology perhaps?

[konstantin]

Peuce, roger your last - I`m just working off the info that`s been posted here on p.45, not in receipt of anything else being an ANSP "ex-parrot" as Cleese would say...and fingers crossed on your early-days sentiments.

EDITED - and our posts crossed. Naah, you couldn`t be possibly right about ideology:ugh:
I`ll see your D to A045 by the way, and raise you C above with a sector/tower boundary at A085, the C steps being closed down at night...now where have I seen that work well before?
Then again, ideology and "future directions"...

[Capn Bloggs]

Ideology perhaps?
Pure and simple.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well I don't know about you Owen,

But in THIS case, The Canadian report, your

"Vanishingly Small"

Became a "Direct Hit"......thanks to the accuracy of GPS ..apparently....

I recall an even more 'vanishingly small' example if there is such a thing...

Off the coast of Namibia if I recall correctly, twas a mid-air of two large jets at right angles to each other, one climbing out to the west over the ocean, and the other on a track south bound, whether on descent or still in the cruise I can't recall...
But, they 'got' each other none-the-less.....

And there have been numerous examples of similar occurrences over time.
The Constellation and the DC-6B over the Grand Canyon being one of the most notable.
That accident was the cause of a huge 'review' in the U.S. ATC system, and 'made it what it is today'...

Are you prepared to accept 'vanishing small' as a risk factor, when with a little more thought, it could be avoided altogether??

The truth can be stranger than fiction - our 'saving grace' is that it generally doesn't happen 'that' often....so some 'risk mitigators' are inclined to statisticly 'write them off'.....

But, then I would hate to be the one that causes such a 'historic' event......
(Although, I guess that after that first milli-second, I wouldn't know much about it....)

Regards.....

[peuce]

Since much of the Broome Solution relies on the "Big Sky Theory" and the vanishingly small chance of an IFR and a VFR being in the same place at the same time ... above Broome ... i.e. CHANCE .... here is a true story that has played a part in forming my opinion of the BST.

Many moons ago, whilst working traffic, amongst the aircraft I had on board were these two ( can't remember the exact dep points):


IFR ... South of WA to Northern WA A070
VFR ... BRM (or Derby) - Alice A065


Two aircraft departing hundreds of miles apart, and I calculated that, in about 90 minutes time, they would cross at the same specific point, way out in the GAFA, at exactly the same time. Who woulda thunk it?

Gave traffic to the IFR early and he (sniggeringly) accepted it. As the crossing point got closer the IFR got a little bit more interested (he must have done his own calculations). Although this was in the VFR Full Reporting age (so VFR level holding was a bit more precice) he elected to pop up another 500ft ... till they passed.. just in case. They never saw each other.

My point ... the sky ain't that big when Murphy's involved, so I don't believe chance should play so much of a part in any mitigation strategy. Controllers aren't permitted to use ... "they probably won't hit" ... as a separation standard, but are required to provide assurrance.

The only way Assurrance for RPT saftey can be provided in the "Link Vacuum" is by ensuring all participants are known.

Yes, that isn't the case now over Broome, but aren't we attempting to provide an improvement?

[Frank Arouet]

the resulting carnage

An un-emotive description similar to when NDB's were introduced and every man and his dog had an ADF.

The countryside from memory was going to be littered with aluminium around these beacons. They attracted aircraft like moths to a light.

How did that pan out historically?:rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

the resulting carnage

An un-emotive description similar to when NDB's were introduced and every man and his dog had an ADF.

The countryside from memory was going to be littered with aluminium around these beacons. They attracted aircraft like moths to a light.

How did that pan out historically?

Probably quite satisfactorily, Frank, because the aircraft involved knew about each other and were able to keep a safe distance apart. That will not be the case in Class E, except in the Broadcast Area (unless of course the expert on all things Airspace, Ledsled, can confirm that the statement in AIP that "Continuous Two Way Comms" are required by VFR in E in the AusNAS is in fact correct).

That is more than we can say for the Tobago and 737 at Launy. Carnage was close then, and for absolutely no extra cost, it wouldn't have been that way.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

TKS for that 'Owen '......

Sorry 'bout that....
Your 'image' is restored.......:ok::ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day Peuce,

Many examples of events like that one...

One of my recollections was an aircraft tracking North to South in Western WA - was it Telfer to Kalgoorlie - and another tracking across that track, the operator at the time did a 'quick' calculation and decided they were adequately apart - however.....not only did the pilots see each other, it was fortunate they were mates and actually spoke to each other, 'socially' at first, - then 'operationally', and one actually took evasive action and reported his 'lack of tfc info' to the FSO concerned....

When the situation was 'examined', it was found that a revised EST for the next REP point by one of them would have been 'in order'...but.....the situation remained.
Evasive action was taken!!

I guess we all have many such tales to tell......

However, Truth can often be 'better' than fiction....and the 'Big Sky' theory can be just that, a theory that no-one (in their right mind...)really wants to put into practice..

And THE POINT IS.....

All that is to happen, is that a 'Safety Case' be examined, and for NO EXTRA COST, it could be made SAFER..!!

P.s. I just may have to get a seaplane, and just taxy all the way into Cable Beach from that '7nm from the RWY Threshold'..- NO confliction with anybody - NO clearance required....I'm a BOAT!! :}:}

[Frank Arouet]

Anecdotes, OK;

I’m flying 190 degrees at 4500ft VFR in class G airspace. I hear a call departing a nearby airport- C182 IFR at 4000ft tracking 270 degrees in CAVOK crystal clear air. I broadcast my call sign, position, height, track. MB Centre comes up and identifies a 1200 “unknown” traffic will intersect in about 5 minutes. I again identify myself saying I am that “unknown” traffic and offer to climb if there is a problem. ( I am flying a PA22 with 108 HP). The 182 asks where I am because he can’t see me and MB Centre advise, (in due course), we have passed each other. In all the interaction I applied “alerted see and avoid” to my VFR airmanship. (I did see the 182 and there was no conflict). The IFR bloke didn’t know what was going on, (why he would fly a short, 40 mile, leg IFR in Indian territory is still beyond me), but what stuck with me was the ATC bloke refused to acknowledge I even existed. Hemispherical separation standards worked.

Sometimes it isn’t the “rouge” VFR causing the trouble, but the refusal by ATC to interact with subspecies such as VFR traffic which would both ease any apprehension on both parties or give the traffic “not in the system” an acknowledgement that they exist and someone is watching both IFR and VFR.

Perhaps there is a demarcation line on a radar screen?

Perhaps there is a different rule for RPT?

[ferris]

what stuck with me was the ATC bloke refused to acknowledge I even existed This is the very reason that people like you, Frank, should have input into the design of the system- BUT SHOULD NOT BE THE DESIGNERS.
- Was the controller required to speak to you? (airspace class). If not, how do you know what else they were doing at the time? This is a major reason why "workload permitting" is a crock. When someone like you might find the advertised service very useful, it isn't available- BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IT ISN'T AVAILABLE.
- Could the controller hear you? (radio coverage). How do you know?
- Did you over-transmit another call on another frequency, which may or may not be re-transmitting on the freq you are on? Ad-hoc services really have no place in a safety critical environment.
- How do you know that YOU were the unidentified target being referred to? You just don't know.

Anyway, don't want to derail the thread too much trying to point out to people how much they don't know.

Re the Canadian accident- it was pointed out to me by a canuck friend whilst we were having a discussion about what was being proposed in oz, and the canadian experience. He wondered how many a/c of the type of performance of chieftains and up use GPS, because of it's affect on the "vanishingly small" argument.

[peuce]

Frank,

Firstly, let me applaud you for making yourself know ... not everyone does.
Secondly, the problem with your argument ... which you hear quite often from the VFRs ( even the one in the Maroochy altercation, from memory, ... "I saw him, there was no conflict"

Problem is ... do you know the IFR's next move?
He could be just about to hit a turning point or, as someone suggested, commence descent ... or climb.... or hold ... or any one of a hundred manouvers. If he knows your exact whereabouts, and intentions, he can adjust or manouver accordingly.

Perhaps, in your particular situation, the Controller thought it more prudent to give real-time radar updates to the IFR ... maybe due to the urgency of the developing situation ... rather than have you and the IFR enter into a prolonged discussion.

Every situation is different.

[Frank Arouet]

Had the controller advised all concerned (but he was not obliged to talk to pissants like me), of the situational position, self separation/ awareness in class G airspace would have been no problem. The thing was, the IFR bloke had lost that perspective. I hadn't. And I did offer to climb despite the effort of doing so in a Colt being a major undertaking.

I'm not taking the piss, simply pointing out that whatever comes about with airspace, over which I have no control, we can and must work within what we are saddled with.

Simply put, I'm not going to stop flying when Bloggs wants to be where I may be at the same time in our 7,500,000 sq kilometers of Australian landspace plus hemispherical levels. He is as much of a danger to me as I am to him. If we all can't talk where is the "alerted see an avoid"?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If we all can't talk where is the "alerted see an avoid"?

There is hope!:D

[Capn Bloggs]

Simply put, I'm not going to stop flying when Bloggs wants to be where I may be at the same time in our 7,500,000 sq kilometers of Australian landspace plus hemispherical levels. He is as much of a danger to me as I am to him. If we all can't talk where is the "alerted see an avoid"?
And that, Frank, nicely encapsulates the whole topic: the failing of E airspace and the beauty of D. In D you are not "the unknown". You are guaranteed to be part of the system so that if, by chance, you and I do end up in the same piece of our 7.5m sq kms of airspace, you and I will know about each other and in all probability the controller, having the big picture, will suggest a mutually acceptable outcome rather than just letting us work it out for ourselves.

Re seeing and avoiding, spotting a 182 in good time is one thing, but I would wager that more often than not when/if you pick me up, it'll be too late to do anything about it, just as happened in Canada (and the other times that lighties have creamed jets - only in the USA). As for me picking you up, my cockpit is like peering out of the windscreen of a car...whilst sitting in the back seat, there is so much ironmongery in the way. Don't hold your breath expecting that RPT pilots will pick up all and sundry at 50nm. It just ain't gunna happen.

[Dog One]

Add on a screen full of insects from the last take off, and flying into the setting sun!

[max1]

Frank,

Everything Ferris said in his post. How do you DEFINITELY know you were the traffic? And from your post, how do you DEFINITELY know that ATC was reading your broadcasts?
And luckily, if it was you, you were under some type of surveillance.

[Howabout]

What confuses the hell out of me is why no one has purloined 'Vanishingly Small' as a Login.:)

Although I imagine that to adopt such a handle you'd have to favour those great modern-management-speak terms such as 'going forward,' 'efficiency and effectiveness,' 'low-hanging fruit,' self-licking ice-creams,' strategic fit,' 'drill down;' and I could go on ad-infinitum.

'Vanishingly small' is a BS term that means absolutely nothing in the context of aviation, other than your ass being toast when the BST (inevitably) fails; as it has on numerous occasions, with associated loss of life.

[peuce]

Some interesting excerpts from the CASA Broome Aeronautical Study ... suposedly the basis for the implementation of this "ICAO+Fries" airspace:

...important to note that although the provision of a Directed Traffic Information (DTI) service had a noticeable effect on IFR to IFR aircraft conflicts, the risk levels for these types of conflict were sufficiently low for the DTI service to have little effect on reducing the overall risk level. (Ed: :confused:)

IFR to VFR aircraft conflicts remain the main concern and focus.

....

It must be mentioned that the ARM cannot accurately estimate the impact of a Class D tower and it is therefore important to note that all reasonable mitigators continue to be considered to guarantee that Broome remains ALARP.

...

The requirement of pilots to broadcast is reduced in Class D airspace in comparison with Class G/CTAF(R) procedures.
Not now buddy !
....

The study reveals that the largest risk in the Broome airspace is a collision between a VFR and an IFR (H).

I'm not filled with confidence:}

[Frank Arouet]

max1;

Everything Ferris said in his post. How do you DEFINITELY know you were the traffic? And from your post, how do you DEFINITELY know that ATC was reading your broadcasts?
And luckily, if it was you, you were under some type of surveillance.

The IFR 182 and I were the only two in that part of the world at the same time. I heard the 182 departure call and MB CTR acknowledge giving area QNH. (which I checked with mine). I then saw the 182 and he and I had communication with each other. MB CTR could talk with him. I could talk with him. I could hear MB CTR (5). MB CTR refused to talk with me. My radio worked fine and did before and after an annual shortly after. (it was King gear). We were in class G airspace and my transponder was being swept.

My bitch is about a courtesy thing, like, you know, "airmanship".

And Max, it is obvious the "IFR" traffic was under some type of surveillance. But we will never know if "I" was will we?

Howabout;

Reminds me of a similar expression coined by a well meaning but corrupted organisation that habitually said "membership was trending upwards", (as it probably was in the preceeding 24 hours), but annually was decreasing at an alarming rate.

This was "spin" as opposed to a description of a possibility of an event that was un-quantifiable in mathematical analysis. BS is not a term that would even the equation. But I admire the emotiveness of the sentiment.

[KeepItRolling]

Having read the 48 or so pages of this thread, I feel the need to re-iterate something I have said in previous threads on this subject:

While ASA returns $100million to the Gummint anually, the status qou will essentially remain.

I recently did a flight across northern Victoria, and I was struck by the fact that I could hear traffic on the low sector in the circuit at Portland, Griffith, Mildura and Broken Hill, all the one ATC voice on around 4 different frequencies.

As an ATC, if the book says class C/D/E or whatever, fine and dandy.

BUT you will need around double the radar heads and double the ATCs to do it properly and effeciently.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! IMHO anyway.

[rotorblades]

ATC to interact with subspecies such as VFR traffic
pissants like me

Someone has an inferiority complex. Its attitudes like the above that fosters illwill. Most ATCers will provide what service they can within the limitations of the rules.

And I did offer to climb despite the effort of doing so in a Colt being a major undertaking.

Couple of notes - I'm just gonna assume you were in class G or E where VFRs dont require an ATC service. As an ATCer when dealing with VFRs we have to be doubly careful because if we say something to influence your flight and you crash into something (mountain, tree, clouds or another aircraft etc), we get our asses kicked. If you want to get a separations service go IFR in class E or above, or if you want fuller TI whilst VFR ask for a RIS(when in radar coverage).
If you offered to climb its between you & the IFR to self-separate, or if you think the IFR has lost situational awareness and you think on current profiles you are gonna hit then just climb or do whatever you feel is necessary. Dont wait for ATC to tell you to climb when you are not under a control service, you'll be waiting a bloody long time.

Dont complain about effort of climb in a Colt, get a better aircraft that has more power than my hairdryer:O

IFR 182 and I were the only two in that part of the world at the same time
How do you definitively know that? could you see in all directions at once?
There may be aircraft without radio, or not listening/broadcasting.

[Frank Arouet]

Geezus get handle on what has been said mate.

MB CTR were working an IFR C182 at 4000ft in G airspace.

I got in the way within 500ft vertically, but hemispherically where I should be.

OK so far?

The 182 lost situational awareness. I hadn't.

I offered to implement "alerted see and avoid" because MB CTR didn't want to talk to me. I offered to climb.

I was in "Indian territory". The 182 was there because he "could" be there and he was in "the system".

How much sky do these blokes need?

get a better aircraft that has more power than my hairdryer

I own my aircraft. Do you own your hairdryer?

If I have an inferiority complex, you mate, have an elitist fixation. And what's with the hairdryer? Are you AC or DC?

"THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE WORLD"
(only if that's OK with you that is).

BTW. My latest aeroplane has less power than the Colt. Get used to it.:uhoh:

[Capn Bloggs]

I own my aircraft. Do you own your hairdryer?

If I have an inferiority complex, you mate, have an elitist fixation. And what's with the hairdryer? Are you AC or DC?

Geez Frank, lighten up. He put a smiley after his hairdryer comment.

[rotorblades]

elitist fixation
I dont think anything I wrote was elitist, nowhere did I say ATC or IFR were holier than thou.

I got in the way within 500ft vertically, but hemispherically where I should be.OK so far?
Yes

The 182 lost situational awareness. I hadn't.
I offered to implement "alerted see and avoid" because MB CTR didn't want to talk to me. I offered to climb. I was in "Indian territory". The 182 was there because he "could" be there and he was in "the system".
And? Its still upto the aircraft in G to avoid each other. Its still not upto ATC to separate you from him or vice versa.

I broadcast my call sign, position, height, track
If you dont use the centre callsign i.e. "Melbourne Centre, VH-AAA" the controller may not know you were directing the broadcast at him and not at the IFR 182.
If a VFR broadcasts on my area frequencies without indicating he is calling me specifically, as opposed to just broadcasting into the ether (which happens a lot), they wont get an answer from the centre.

Do you own your hairdryer?And what's with the hairdryer? Are you AC or DC?
1/ Yes (I think most people do rather than renting them)
2/It drys hair, funnily enough (name says it all really)
3/Not really any of your business but I am heterosexual (sorry to disappoint you), I am confident in my sexuality that I dont have to prove my manliness by not owning a hairdryer. I draw the line at manbags & lipstick though.:}

[Frank Arouet]

Was more like a grin Bloggs.

But I do apologise for getting "uppity":)

rotorblades;

I did use the callsign MB CTR. I was ignored. That is my point. (from one heterosexual to another).

Its still upto the aircraft in G to avoid each other. Its still not upto ATC to separate you from him or vice versa.

But you could if an IFR was involved. Isn't that what the thread is all about?

[rotorblades]

Frank,
the original hairdryer vs colt remark was tongue in cheek, obviously picked the wrong smiley. on the smiley note why is there an al-qaeda smiley (:suspect:)?

I did use the callsign MB CTR
Then ATC should have responded to you, unless something else was going on behind the scenes which none of us will ever know.

But you could if an IFR was involved. Isn't that what the thread is all about?

In theory an IFR could be turned or climbed/descended but it is not usual practice nor necessarily recommended, still have to be mindful of such things as LSALT/MSA, other conflictions, etc etc. In G it is see & avoid airspace, even with radar coverage & one aircraft IFR.
I cant speak for the controller in question, can only give some possibles on what he/she/it might have been doing:
There are several useful tools we have on the console and it may have been assessed that you would both miss and so didnt update until after you had passed (but ATC may have passed the TI as it looked like it may be close - i..e you'd see each other and then grumble that no TI was passed).

ATC may not have heard your transmissions due to poor coverage, aircraft on another frequency, telephone call (only single earpiece headsets so both phone & R/t come through same hole).

I'd rather have more VFR calling for a RIS (especially whilst flying through E) than relying on 'see & avoid' with RPT traffic. (a lot of controllers will probably grumble at me for saying that, but then a RIS can always be denied).

[le Pingouin]

I did use the callsign MB CTR. I was ignored. That is my point. (from one heterosexual to another).
You've mentioned MB CTR several times. Do you mean MB tower, ML centre or what? Not trying to be funny but if you make a broadcast on a frequency & use something other than the correct name you are likely to be ignored. Not because we're being snobby but because we aren't listening for it.

[peuce]

Frank,

The phrase about having ones cake and eating it too comes to mind.
You wish to be FREE IN E, yet you have a problem with being ignored.

The facts are ... you were VFR in E. The Controller's responsibility is the IFR. The Controller's priority is IFRs ( not only the one you interacted with, but the other dozen on another frequency). You say the IFR lost SA (your judgement). Well, do something about it. The Controller will never direct you to manouver in E ... so don't seek his direction.

You have your independence in E ... use it.

[Frank Arouet]

The facts are ... you were VFR in E

It was "G" not "E". But your point is noted be it either.

And it was Melbourne Centre that I directed my calls to.

[peuce]

Yep, sorry, you're right .... wonder why I'm fixated on E at the moment.

But same rules apply.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, your wishes for VFR services. In G what services would you like to be provided?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Let 'moi' offer a thought on this one.........

DTI, FIS, Weathers on request, refuelling messages....and the list, including coffee on arrival, goes on and on.............:}:}:}

[peuce]

Get back in your box Griffo, you're just being childish now :ok:

[peuce]

Leadsled (if you're still there),

Considering your position is that ... when a particular volume of Airspace becomes "safe" , with a particular Classification in place, it's illogical to go to a higher classification ... as it's already "safe". (except for the naughty words I've used, I think I've summarised your position. Let me know if I'm incorrect) ...

How do you reconcile the Broome ... Class E with Fries ... situation?

If they considered that Class E was not "safe enough" as is, don't you think they should have gone up to the next classification?

Isn't that why we have a Classification System?

Or, do you think that we should continue with this "Peculiar to Australia" method?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

When senior bods at AirServices start acting to ensure the paying public is being protected. It shows very starkly, the error of TRUSTING the protection provided by flying in Class E controlled airspace-

Broadcast Area...mitigating against unknown aircraft!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Griffo:ok::ok::ok:

Francis, would dearly like to understand what you believe would be appropriate services for VFR in G...all ears!..well..eyes:rolleyes:

[peuce]

This what you had in mind Griffo?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/sosvideo/FSConsole.jpg

[Frank Arouet]

OZBUSDRIVER;

When did I request any "services"? The last "services" I got was from "Flight Service" and came in the form of a cup of coffee. But then that was in 1969 and I was paying Air Nav Charges. But you wouldn't know about them would you?

My posts are about being ignored when I was attempting to interract for the sake of safety with IFR traffic that was being worked by Melbourne Centre. Of the 7.5M sq kms of Australia, a C182 and myself found each other in intersecting circumstances but with 500ft of vertical separation.

Are you suggesting that advising someone of one's position is a "service"?

Are you suggesting acknowledging that is a "service"?

I suppose asking for Area QNH is a service, but I haven't done that for years in case I get a bill. Perhaps I should just not say anything?

peuce;

Your subtleness is not wasted.

[Jabawocky]

Frank...while your isolated bad experience is a great yarn......and I love a cheeky thread drift like the next guy.....do you think we could get back to the cockup of a plan for the two new D zones?

J:ok:

[peuce]

My fault ....

And I'll bring it back ...

I have this bee in my bonnet about getting chatted by the Nastronauts about getting with it, about forgetting our custom airspace system and about moving on to the "World's Best Practice " . The Minister has also shoved that down my throat ...

The Government expects that CASA will continue the reform of Australia‟s airspace and move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice.

The Government fully supports the use of the internationally-recognised ICAO airspace classification system (Class A to G airspace) in airspace administration.

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

Yet ... here we are with the Dodgey Brothers from OAR dumping the Cryllic Alphabet based E with Fries on us .... because they couldn't possibly let anyone else have their way.

P.S. The Nastronauts have been pretty quiet too. Come on, Jessica Watson has arrived home safely ... now back to work you guys ... come and throw some punches!

[Frank Arouet]

Jabawocky;

Good idea. People are reading things that were not written.:(

It wasn't a bad experience. There is no anger. In fact it was an example that proved alerted see and avoid works whether in or out of any radar environment when "three way" communications break down. It also highlights the need for "out of the system" traffic to be noted and acknowledged if they can be seen. Ignore them and they will probably not give advice in the future. Simple as that.

With the new D zones, what happens at Alice Springs now when the tower shuts down? Doesn't it go to G? Perhaps we should discuss this with any recorded problems there? Is there radar at Broome and if not, why would a transponder be a requirement? You don't need one at Bankstown do you?

Owen Stanley;

Talking of Dick. He is open to a tower tour last I heard. Whatever happened to that offer?:hmm:

[Jabawocky]

No worries Frank

but See and Avoid only works...WHEN it works. I am constantly amazed how often even with radar advice how hard a threat is to see. When in IMC and arriving at say YCAB, you get very good information on what is happening in the area, you get visual and then start looking.....it is quite amazing what you can not find quickly and often it takes another pair of eyes :eek:

What happens at most D towers I imagine....G. See and avoid works well between 10pm and 6am:ok:.

No there is no Radar at BME...yet...but there may be something one day if you read between the lines.:E

Why a transponder........well it helps with TCAS .....and future Radar/Wamlat.

And last I heard Owen is not in a tower, but I reckon his ML CEN experience would be a worthwile thing!

[Spodman]

Frank said:a C182 and myself found each other in intersecting circumstances but with 500ft of vertical separation.
Will it roon your day to hear you were separated plenty enuf for this to happen in class C airspace. Nobody had to climb, move along.

[Dog One]

Frank

Ever departed a non-towered aerodrome with a few hundred trusting pax on board, and you make all the necessary calls, get airborne to find you have six or seven TCAS returns, some as close as 5 miles, which is traffice thats heard your calls, but haven't responded. We are climbing at 250 kts below 10,000 with a body angle of about 15 degrees. It makes see and be seen very hard, and TCAS becomes our first and last line of defense, which is dependant on target aircraft having and using a servicable transponder.

It would sound like you haven't a transponder in your Colt. The visibility out of a Colt is not great, and you would be fairly blind to the rear, so a overtaking jet on descent might have trouble seeing you visually and if you don't have a ransponder......................!!!!

[Jabawocky]

Exactly Dog One :ok:

Your comments echo my thoughts on everything from Trikes to A380's having a transponder. RPT let downs in IMC to a cloud base of say 1400 of OVC and you find all sorts of things in the circuit area..... YHB and YBUD or YBNA spring to mind.

Hang on I am about to start a thread drift to other well thrashed out topics....with a common thread, ASA/CASA and the Guvvmint have screwed them up too!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis, not requested....PROVIDED!

OK....so...the premise of your argument. You directly contacted the conflicting aircraft and arranged your situation. You say you were ignored by ML centre....yet, you do not feel woried about arranging your own separation....Now, where else does VFR say nothing unless they feel they are in conflict....?:rolleyes:

AirServices ARE instigating a broadcast zone for non-surveilled class E to eliminate "unknown traffic"

Good try, Francis:=

[sunnySA]

Frank Arouet wrote

Are you suggesting acknowledging that is a "service"?


Funny, with class D acknowledging is a clearance!!

Often when you call a Tower controller on final all you get is an acknowledgement but you are certainly getting a service.

When you were "ignored" did you ring Melbourne Centre to put your point of view? Perhaps better to have done it at the time rather than harp on it later.

[Frank Arouet]

Dog One;

The Colt was two aircraft ago. It had a certified functional King transponder with mode C.

OZBUSDRIVER;

Read my previous again. The IFR 182 was the one having difficulty with the situation, not me. I saw him from shortly after he gave his departure call. MB centre called unidentified traffic, at exactly where I was.

The 182 and I had communications between us and he had communications with MB centre.

MB centre ignored my input into the situation.

AirServices ARE instigating a broadcast zone for non-surveilled class E to eliminate "unknown traffic"

Oh! golly gosh. Inside information. Will this be a CTAF, CTAF (R), or MBZ MK2 or a control zone that fits in with the ICAO push, or a technophobe's desire for more knobs to play with by newer mandated gadgetry put there by poor bloody owners who have to pay for your fantasy's.? Do you fly a 3000ft per minute aeroplane which "can" be in "Indian territory" for 3 minutes at a time on climb or descent? Does that 3 minutes terrify you so much that you can't bear to look out the window?

You give me the $hits. Fair dinkum. Talk too much and you get "thingy" or don't talk at all and you want us mandated to talk. And you, the quasi professional wannabe RPT jockey/ ATCO and all. Struth, blokes like you ARE still the problem.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I would take that as confirmation of your intentions:E

[rotorblades]

MB centre ignored my input into the situation
Although they should have answered your call, what were you expecting them to do?
G is see & avoid airspace, you said you saw him on his departure call & were in comms with the other aircraft.
If you are VFR in G, ATC are not going to take positive control over you. I'm struggling to see the actual point of your argument (beyond not getting a "roger" answer), it sounds like you've just got the sh*ts wth ATC.

The gadgetry, Im assuming you mean radios, transponders, mode-s (ADSB) etc. Is all designed around increasing safety. (no different to seatbelts, airbags, ABS in cars). The more ATC can see the better the service. What price safety?
In the UK its mandatory for most aircraft to have at least mode-s elementary (and Ive seen aircraft made with just newspaper & badger spit carry it)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/810/gen.pdf
If its expensive then its the suppliers you should be griping at not CASA. Mode-s is far superior to radar - more accurate, cheaper to install & maintain (ATC side).

And if it wasnt for all the nay sayers it would have been implemented much sooner and it would all be second nature to everyone, and would not be looked at any differently to radios or engines. Dont be so resistant to good change.

[LeadSled]

As for your (and Dick's) efforts in the CAAPs re telling RPT to be nice,Bloggs,

Dick had nothing to do with it at all. I certainly had an input only.

The final outcome is as a result of the CASA Operational Standards Sub-Committee of the SCC recommendations, and the data in both the Ambidjii and PCH reports plus at leat one ATSB report and (probably) some of the ATSB incident and other reports, such as under the new ATSB Confidential Reporting rules.

I would guess (but don't know) that the CASA DAS/CEO (who flies his own aircraft, when he gets the chance) probably also had an input and influence. He certainly understands the issue and associated generated air safety problems.

Why was I in receipt of the reports I have--- none of your business, but don't even try and suggest it was anything other than entirely above board.

Still a bit miffed at showing you didn't understand comms requirements, are you. I (and most people I know personally) will back my knowledge of the Australian rules set, or for that matter, other ICAO countries, against you, any day of the week.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

---- but See and Avoid only works...WHEN it works.

Folks,

That applies to any airspace classification, "controlled airspace", by whatever name, with "all traffic known to the system", does not make "absolute safety". As the collision record clearly shows.

That some of you continue to suggest that a risk level of "vanishingly small" is still too higher risk are only broadcasting your lack of knowledge of very elementary statistical method.

As for the term "vanishingly small", have fun, but understand that ICAO (or any other that I am aware of) separation assurance standards (by whatever name) are NOT vanishingly small.

Put another way, no airspace design standard requires the residual risk to be vanishingly small, to determine the airspace classification.

Other than that, I have made my views on the subject clear enough often enough.

Tootle pip!!

[peuce]

Leadsled,

Still interested in your thoughts ...

Leadsled (if you're still there),

Considering your position is that ... when a particular volume of Airspace becomes "safe" , with a particular Classification in place, it's illogical to go to a higher classification ... as it's already "safe". (except for the naughty words I've used, I think I've summarised your position. Let me know if I'm incorrect) ...

How do you reconcile the Broome ... Class E with Fries ... situation?

If they considered that Class E was not "safe enough" as is, don't you think they should have gone up to the next classification?

Isn't that why we have a Classification System?

Or, do you think that we should continue with this "Peculiar to Australia" method?

[Capn Bloggs]

Ledsled,

the CASA DAS/CEO (who flies his own aircraft, when he gets the chance) probably also had an input and influence. He certainly understands the issue and associated generated air safety problems.

Been in the job 18 months and obviously has plenty of first hand experience with being bullied around the sky by intimidatory RPT pilots. Right.

Still a bit miffed at showing you didn't understand comms requirements, are you.
Your inability to explain what is meant by "Continuous Two Way comms" for VFR in E demonstrates your lack of knowedge of the system, despite carrying on like an expert.

That applies to any airspace classification, "controlled airspace", by whatever name, with "all traffic known to the system", does not make "absolute safety". As the collision record clearly shows.

The collision record clearly shows that we have NEVER had a midair involving RPT despite millions of hours and decades of operation including in in so-called "dirt road" airspace, because the system is set up to include everybody. On the one hand you continually harp on about statistics validating the safety of airspace and then you come out with that claptrap. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

That is about to change over Broome and Karratha, for no cost benefit, and for that you and your NAStronaut mates should be condemned.

Nobody is after absolute safety. All we suggest is cost-effective safety, a concept that you obviously cannot come to grips with, given your inability to produce one iota of evidence that terminal E over D is more cost-effective than C over D (or D over D).

[Frank Arouet]

[QUOTE]The collision record clearly shows that we have NEVER had a midair involving RPT despite millions of hours and decades of operation including in in so-called "dirt road" airspace[/QUOTE

Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D?

Just asking.:)

[Capn Bloggs]

Frank,
Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D?

Fair question. The answer, of course, is "of course, depending on the traffic levels".

However, I think G over D is more trouble than it is worth, because no sooner than I have left FL180 I have to get another clearance to enter the D CTR. It would be unusual to have a very heavily-trafficked circuit requiring a tower with no traffic in the mid, link levels, hence nobody is suggesting G over D. If a D tower is required, then some sort of controlled airspace would also be necessary in the link airspace.

We contend that that should be either D or C, since the cost of providing D, C or E will be the same (or close enough to be insignificant). The cost to VFR certainly is the same (radio and transponder required), so there is no skin off anybody's nose (apart from Dick's, who believes in "Free in GE, don't talk to anyone") and everybody gets the benefit of separation (C) or VFR traffic (D).

Win win, I say. :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Gee Peuce....am now going thru 'withdrawal symptoms'......:{:{

And, sorry Owen - that bloke has more hair...and is better lookin'...But TKS for the thought...:ok::ok:

Now back to 'bizzo'....Frank, re yr:
"Therefor is "dirt road" airspace like G over D more cost effective than E or C over D? " (sic)

Certainly IS!!
In 'G'...NO 'dedicated' controller looking after airspace - just the SECTOR guy/gal working the aircraft in CTA above, for which they are primarily responsible....
and ALL 'other' requests ='When Workload Permits'...
therefore, in my reckoning,
cost of 'G' = NIL!
Can't be more 'cost effective than that..!! :}:}

(Well, almost NIL, I know 'Flightwatch' still there manning HF & briefing etc..)

I could go on about the 'services' offerred in the past, like when we were cut down and then 'self-managed' from a total staff of around 138 in late 1991 in PH FSC, to just 38 in late 2000 and still managed to provide a 'service'... but there's really no point.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Would have to be a fairly huge reinvestment in facilities- eg VHF outlets to replace the ones reallocated to ATC use - 3 'spares' left in WA which were surplus to ATC reqs, therefore became VHF Flightwatch freqs, ARG, PD and Kalamunda - LOTS of space in between to be filled now....and that's only in WA! :sad::sad::*

BUT - WHO would WANT 'G' in such an area as BRM or KTA?? :=:=

Regards....:ok::ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Problem is Bloggs, that I, and about 10,000 others have opted out of the system. I personally don't give a rat's, but those 10,000 others can't access controlled airspace because they represent a "minority fringe".

Good riddance you say?

BTW. What is the AFAP membership (excluding CASA Dudes), these days?

It will be a win/ win situation when those 10,000 can access a through clearance (at least), albeit with a transponder if you think things will be better for the poor ignorant travelling public.

I harp back to Alice Springs.

Also I still ask the question why a 1200 paint would be ignored where radar is currently feasable, operational and, again, positively, the need to debate the pro's and con's about say, the Benalla matter WRT impediments to the safe flow of IFR traffic in whatever airspace. I don't know what level radar is set to these days but it is obvious a duty of care exists to safeguard all concerned whether in or out of the system.

PS to Griffo.

Some of my fond memories are those interactions with FS. Given some of the Government waste seen of recent, that loss is exactly that... A loss which I wish was reversible. However the need for full reporting was overtaken by evolutionary technology in the form of better VHF comms.

It's a pity the ADSB mob don't just let things happen like that.:ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Frank,
those 10,000 others can't access controlled airspace because they represent a "minority fringe".


It will be a win/ win situation when those 10,000 can access a through clearance (at least), albeit with a transponder if you think things will be better for the poor ignorant travelling public.

I don't understand. Are you talking about RAA Aus members?


Good riddance you say?
Absolutely not. I, on behalf of my pax, just want to know where they are so I can avoid them.

Also I still ask the question why a 1200 paint would be ignored where radar is currently feasable, operational and, again, positively, the need to debate the pro's and con's about say, the Benalla matter WRT impediments to the safe flow of IFR traffic in whatever airspace. I don't know what level radar is set to these days but it is obvious a duty of care exists to safeguard all concerned whether in or out of the system.
I don't understand. Sorry.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day Frank,

Re:"However the need for full reporting was overtaken by evolutionary technology in the form of better VHF comms."

Nah! Not really. That was a 'political decision' to remove a part of the 'service' - initiated 12/12/'91 - so that would require LESS FSO's to be
paid - by you, the consumer according to Dick at the time, and so - part of the 'mantra' - "Your Safety Will Be Enhanced and It Will Cost You Less"....

Remember when the 'fuel tax' was disposed of?
That was supposed to make VFR OCTA flights cheaper.

By cutting the 'Full SAR' or Full Reporting option to VFR PVT & AWK, (and the mandatory for CHTR acft, and acft in the Designated Remote areas sans EPIRB), that being one of the first trench cuts, we were able to start 'shedding' staff early 1992, when the first of our 'managed demise' accepted their 'redundo offer'.

The 'outstations' were closed by bringing the Sat. Link VHF's back to PH - and similarly in other states - so that we 'worked' places like BRM, KTA, PD, Kal etc etc from the PH Centre, and THAT move alone saved enormous amounts of $'s.
So we already had the 'evolutionary tech'...

A small point I know, but, to the best of my ever-fading recollection, a part of the history of the times.....

Cheers :ok:

And Bloggsy is quite right - all he wants to do is to know where they are - so he can avoid them!
Now, whaddya reckon is the BEST way of achieving this??

T'aint 'G'.....No cost but no service.
Could be 'E' - costs but 'limited' service.
Could be 'C' - SAME cost as 'E', but much improved and safer service. (IMHO)

:ok::ok:

[Frank Arouet]

"Call me Captain"- Capn Bloggs;

1) Yes.

2) Radio and TXP, no worries. I would think some RAA Dude would be more worried about being a feature on your windscreen.

3) Probably Owen Stanley himself can tell us what angular level the line of sight radar is set to in the E and G curve and beyond. The Benalla accident appeared to go off the screen, yet where I was, (West Wyalong), they had coverage enough to direct IFR traffic at 4000ft.:)

EDIT for Griffo;

I know, I know. I was talking about the 70's. The fuel tax was overtaken with inflation AND "taxes" by any name you want to call it. It seemed better than Air Nav Charges at the time.

This also highlights why private GA is buggered beyond repair and RAA is flourishing. Have you seen the cost of an ERC (L) + ammendments and wonder why they put frequencies on them if nobody gives a rat's if they talk or not. At least they were free in my day.:(

[Capn Bloggs]

Frank,

OK, I am not up with the RA Aus situation; correct me if I'm wrong, RA Aus cannot access C or D? If that is the case, from a safety point of view they probably shouldn't be allowed into E where the only separation tool is radio, where the RA Aus pilots are expected to listen and determine whether I am a threat?

Whatever they don't have (experience?) that stops them operating in D or C would, I expect, also preclude them from E, given that it is more demanding on the VFR operationally. In D or C, they (us as well) just get told what to do. Easy.

Re Alice specifically, if ATC won't let them thru, chances are it's because there's too much heavy metal in the way, and Class E won't remove that heavy metal, it just makes it less visible (until it hits you).

[Frank Arouet]

Capn Bloggs;

1) correct, up to your expectations.

2) If they have a radio and transponder why not?

3) Experience? What makes you think they are all rag and bone cowboys? Most of my contempories have thousands of hours. Some of the modern RAA mob have "plastic fantastics" that make your FAR 23 "tin" aeroplanes from America look pale. I have 45 years experience, I fly a 75HP "tin" aeroplane that can maintain 2 miles per minute and I certainly don't want my wife (yes Alice it's a 2 seater), to come to grief at my hands.

4) Re Alice. After Tower after hours if it goes to G, why can't they fly through?

OK, I am not up with the RA Aus situation

Perhaps you should. It may either frighten you or give you an appreciation of what goes on around you.

Like I said. If they, and the low end GA are ignored, they may not bother to speak up again and so "you" perpetuate the problem.:uhoh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Frank, why don't you grow up and stop attacking me? You are carrying on like I set up the CASA rules about RA Aus. Talk to Jmac if you have a problem. Until then, I'm going to ignore your rantings. Now wonder this airspace debacle never gets anywhere.

[Howabout]

Bloggs,

In reference to your statement as follows, I take serious issue:

We contend that that should be either D or C, since the cost of providing D, C or E will be the same (or close enough to be insignificant).

Please do not include me in 'we.'

I would never contend that the difference is 'close enough to be insignificant!'

My position is that the difference (if any) would be 'vanishingly small.':E

[Capn Bloggs]

Howabout this for an idea: I think it'd be a good idea if the NAStronauts "vanished" into space! :}

[Jabawocky]

Frank

A few thoughts on questions you have raised.

1. The collission record may show we have not had a MAC in these regional places with an RPT, but you must remember the amount of RPT in and out of these places has increased quite a lot and now in bigger faster aircraft which makes the comparison a little unfair.

2. RAA in E, well the rules are in controlled airspace, and E is controlled airspace, its just that VFR do not need a clearance and they must do certain things. So on the basis of its Contrlled airspace the answer is NO. Should they? well when I see and hear the amount of stuff I see and hear, I would say no. For example, chatting to some folk on Saturday, I quizzed them about being on BN/ML CEN especially above 5000' and for that matter in and around major regional ports.....what for they say?:ugh:As for using class E near a major port :eek:.

3. Yes the RAA have many RPT captains and many of the folk that wind up like the Drifter pilot discussed on another thread. So your point is invalid. The highly experienced folk who have been RPT pilots still hold their CASA licence as a general rule and are legally entitled to use Controlled airspace. They are not the ones Bloggs should be concerned about.

Back to BME/KTA............

[Howabout]

Unfortunately Bloggs, the fundamentalists and zealots will continue to peddle the clap-trap that, ultimately, comes down to reliance on the BST. Amazing, isn't it, that people who are otherwise intelligent and articulate prosecute their argument on an underlying assumption that chance will save your ass?

Frank, I might be out of step here, but I am not anti-RAA - far from it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why an RAA aircraft cannot access airspace that others can. The only proviso is that they are visible to the system and operate with the necessary degree of professionalism (and I don't say they don't).

As I understand it, this is a CASA ruling that RAA cannot operate in controlled airspace - particularly control zones. Beats the hell out of my why. In short, RAA exclusion is not RPT driven; it's regulator driven.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

RAAus, why not argue for land rights for gay whales...as much relevance!

[Icarus2001]

Dick, we have not heard from you for a while. I guess you are still here. How about an answer to my question and a second one now that we have more detail?

1. Why do you maintain that C over D must be operated by the overworked controller in the tower but E over D can be run by centre?

2. If E is so "safe" then why are we being given a broadcast zone :confused: at Broome between 2500 and 4500?

Awaiting your reply.

[Howabout]

OZ, it's just a personal opinion. As I stated in a post ages back, I have seen some very professional operators. I am not advocating RAA operating in high density zones. But I do question why they can't operate, with segregation, in some of our regional airspace.

Launy is a classic - check out the segregation available south of the highway, which would not impede RPT one iota. Instead, RAA have to fly around the zone.

Once again, it's personal opinion and I'm not out for a fight. I just question the logic when there are avenues, from my perspective, that may assist everyone and not diminish safety.

[peuce]

Okay, I'm networking for my next job as graphic artist with CASA...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/sosvideo/BroomeAirspace-1.jpg

It's very stylised (doh!) but I'm trying to show 2 aircraft with the same ETA Broome .. coming from the south.

I'd like to know how the VFR will be handled.
By the E with Fries book, this is what should happen:


The IFR will be seperated from any other IFRs
The VFR will be unknown to ML CENTRE
As the VFR approaches/desends through A045 (TWR's airspace) he will broadcast and will be given to the IFR as traffic
As the VFR passes A025 on descent, the IFR will then be seperated/segregated from him


Does that seem workable or safe to you guys?

What might really happen is that , as soon as the TWR hears from the VFR, they will seperate/segregate him from the IFR (Class D) and all will be good.

The next thing we will hear from CASA is that everything is working fine at Broome ... what were you worried about?

Can anyone suggest another method by which this might work?

[konstantin]

Pretty picture, peuce!

Just a little addendum to your thoughts - re the Broome procedures doc statement;

"Maintain communication with ATC (All traffic is known)"

Is there anyone out there with more info (and the liberty to share said gumph) in relation to which airspace that statement actually refers to, and what procedures are to be followed (ie it certainly ain`t smelling like the generic E "monitor and self-announce") -

Tower only up to A045?
Sectors up to, say, transition altitude or maybe F180 (ie base of existing E)?

The statement is a tad "open", would be nice for everyone to be on the same page - any more-informed oracles out there than we the great unwashed?

[Howabout]

Get real Peuce,

The bit in the middle is entirely misleading. As everyone with half a brain knows, the chances of a collision are way, way overstated.

Bloggs will look out his window, pick up that speck while turning into a setting sun and execute see-and-avoid. And, if he doesn't, the chances of a prang are vanishingly small.

Get it through your head Peuce that 'vanishingly small' is an acceptable justification for doing less than you're capable of doing for the same cost.

[peuce]

Konstantin,


You're right ... I buggered up the Class E link. Fixed now.

And yes, I still think the requirement is to broadcast ONLY when approaching TWR Owned Class E.

Hopefully, someone will clarify in due course.

[Jabawocky]

Peuce........according to the doc's seen so far that is correct. :ok:

And for all the folk wondering. RAAus are welcome in any CTA providing the pilot has a PPL or higher with NIL airspace restrictions, and the RAAus registered aircraft is equipped accordingly. things such as approved engines, radio's, transponder etc. This covers the majority of Jabiru's Tecnams and other fancy machines in the RAA fleet.

It does not cover a Warp Borer MkII with a VW conversion engine, even if it has a VHF radio. And even if you have a current ATPL.

If you have a Tecnam or Jab with VHF and Mode C Transponder, great, but not if you have an RAA licence only.

Does that clear that up a little in plain engish.

J :ok:

[superdimona]

Bloggs:

Whatever they don't have (experience?) that stops them operating in D or C would, I expect, also preclude them from E, given that it is more demanding on the VFR operationally. In D or C, they (us as well) just get told what to do. Easy.

RAA are allowed in E. We are not allowed in C or D, even though it is 'easier', because CASA will not allow RAA to give suitable training. A CTA endorsement was virtually done (after years of lobbying) until Glorious Leader knocked it on the head.

OzBusDriver:


RAAus, why not argue for land rights for gay whales...as much relevance!

If the RAAus was allowed to safely operate in C/D (just like recreational pilots are allowed to do in NZ, the US, the UK, France etc) then perhaps less people would support E everywhere - because E opens up massive amounts of airspace that is unfairly locked to ~10,000 RAAus members at present.

CASA allowed GLIDERS, including motorgliders, in C and D. Why not Jabirus, Tecnams and Cessna Skycatchers?

[Frank Arouet]

Just let me get this right.

To date class E airspace is that part above 8500 ft that is designated so. A deal worked out by AOPA.

So below 8500 at Gladstone QLD and most of the "G" curve is class G???

Class E airspace at Broome and Karratha is different to this? Because? (no radar perhaps)?

Class E airspace is "controlled airspace"??? but ATC don't talk to everybody flying there even if they can see them like in class G???

RA-Aus are not allowed into any "controlled airspace"???

In class G airspace it is OK for IFR traffic to be worked with radar backup?

Is class G airspace "controlled then by definition?

If so, by deduction the problem must be ornithopters, gliders, GA Charter, flying training, balloons, kites and UAV's. Oh, and whale watching gay people who's motives become a concern for our backseat vocal busdriver in the big scheme off things and.... land rights in class E and G airspace which should all be "controlled".

[le Pingouin]

Massive amounts of airspace locked up in C & D? That's the funniest thing I've read on this thread.

[FL400]

So what happens when the tower is closed? Is it really going to be A down to F245, E down to F180, G down to 4500, E again down to 700 AGL, then G again down to surface?

'Leave then enter and leave control area on descent'

or if there is a IFR flying an approach in the lower CTA: 'Leave control area on descent then remain outside control area'

And if Karratha is going to be the same, the controller controlling something like 1/5th of the world's airspace will also be responsible for procedural approach airspace down to the MDA. What was that about overworked tower controllers being distracted?

[ARFOR]

Goodness me :hmm:

Mr Arouet
Just let me get this right.
Yes, best you get this right
Class E airspace at Broome and Karratha is different to this? Because? (no radar perhaps)?
No. As has been pointed out, the CASA have determined [how exactly is anyone’s guess] that the class E below A045 [as per peuce's diagram] will include a mandatory VFR broadcast area [prior to entry, and during]

Issues here:-

1. It makes the tower E not E, and not D, but a no-mans land
2. It gives ATC a duty of care [known VFR traffic] without the tools [Class D] to fix it re: IFR and other VFR.
3. If ATC cannot fix it, your [Alice in WL] C182 in MB airspace [it is ML centre BTW] scenario comes in to play sort of. The difference:-

a) At YBRM or YPKA, the IFR C182 is subject to a clearance [not a FIS as in Oz G - ICAO F]
b) The VFR is not on radar [or ADB-B], but is talking [known]
c) ATC cannot provide 'separation' [or safe segregation] because the VFR can do what they like [as far as track and altitude is concerned]
d) The end result is IFR and VFR talking to each other [on the Class D tower frequency] at the same time the ATC is trying to operate a service [where is Mr Smith on this frequency/chatter loading the tower ATC issue???? sold the farm for anything labelled E is my bet :=]
e) The conflicting IFR [in this case the C182, although it could be Bloggs in his kero-burning aluminium missile] is going to level off until he can be sure he has missed the VFR, in the meantime, trying to talk with the VFR to make sure he/she is not going to do anything unexpected, and at the same time fecking up ATC sep with other IFR that were 'going to be' separated before Bloggs rightly levelled off [and missed his vertical separation requirement] until he knew the miss with the VFR was guaranteed.

And, before you crap on about IFR Air Carrier being 'nancy boys and girls', what do you suppose they have to do [insurance/duty-of-care etc] with known traffic threats? Bloggs has the ability to do something [play verts], ATC does not! Do you get the basic concept? :ugh:
Class E airspace is "controlled airspace"??? but ATC don't talk to everybody flying there even if they can see them like in class G???
No, there are no ‘clearances’ in G [very difference liabilities for ATC]
RA-Aus are not allowed into any "controlled airspace"???
Which includes E! or does it?
In class G airspace it is OK for IFR traffic to be worked with radar backup?
Worked, Radar Back-up, Frank you have NO idea of the ramifications [legal quagmire] that sits with ATC in different classes of airspace [with different sovereign legislation in each country]. Do not insult Australian ATC’s and Pilots by presuming you know better, your diatribes here prove you do not! :=
Is class G airspace "controlled then by definition?
See previous
If so, by deduction the problem must be ornithopters, gliders, GA Charter, flying training, balloons, kites and UAV's. Oh, and whale watching gay people who's motives become a concern for our backseat vocal busdriver in the big scheme off things and.... land rights in class E and G airspace which should all be "controlled".
A stellar example of your professional, intelligent, and worldly :rolleyes: view of the subject matter you regularly display.

Might I politely [in the nicest possible way] recommend you stick to Bundy Rum and Flight Sim designed for the ‘Colts’ of old regret?! ;)

[konstantin]

d.n.s - try Quasi-D

"Meester Fawlty, ees not rat...eet ees hamster!"

Or to put it another way - when a preferred airspace model meets practical realities there are certain adjustments required in order to facilitate "going forward".

Let me get my crystal ball out here - within 12 months of Broome/Karratha Towers being commissioned Alice will also go "modified-E-over-D".

[ARFOR]

BULA - SH1T

It is one thing to spin enhancing G _CTAF to Dick E. :ugh:

It is entirely another to downgrade C to Dick E

IDIOTS!!!!!

[Frank Arouet]

ARFORchristsake;

My post was riddled with question marks, ????????

Some may say they invite a response to a question.

Some may say they indicate the person who put them there is not an expert and invites expert reply.

Some may say your response is reminiscent of past players on this forum who see ridicule, name calling and vilification as justification to win a point with their little agenda. IDIOT's indeed. Both you and Bundy Rum make me sick.:yuk:

[ARFOR]

Mr Arouet

No need to be precious. I was not suggesting you were an idiot [like you do with others], rather the people who have put this rubbish togther.

Which reminds me, has anyone read the 'safety statement' for the Class D changes? :E

[Capn Bloggs]

has anyone read the 'safety statement' for the Class D changes?
What? Where? Who? Gimme Gimme!

[Capn Bloggs]

Puece,

Your scenario isn't the worst. The worst is where the lighty is in front but has a later ETA, which means I am going to pass him. The current E Plus between 2500-4500 feet will just make life even more dangerous, as by that stage, I will probably be on the tower (or in the process of changing over), busy organising my approach. Will we get traffic on the lighty who has just popped up in the broadcast area on MEL CEN?

Unless there is a radar/WAMLAT handoff with VFR previously known to all, then a low-altitude tower will never work when it needs to. As is often the case, on paper, the plan looks OK (apart from the fact that it it unique and therefore confusing) but in reality, it won't work and therefore reduces safety.

A similar situation exists during departure. On a bad day, my machine climbs at over 2000fpm. Unless I get traffic before I roll, I will be blasting into totally unknown-traffic airspace, with a frequency change to CEN to boot at very low level. Or will the tower coord with CEN on traffic in low level E? Do I hop over to the CEN freq (whilst still on the runway), do a broadcast to alert any VFRs about, perhaps organise some segregation - no, hang on, I'm IFR on a clearance - and then takeoff?

The whole thing is getting more ridiculous by the minute.

CASA, make it D up to 8500ft and be done with it!

[peuce]

Capn Blogs,

Will we get traffic on the lighty who has just popped up in the broadcast area on MEL CEN?


According to my reading of the document, ML CEN has no broadcast area ... only in the Tower-owned airspace
If you mean, will the TWR pass the traffic back to the Centre ... to pass on to you? ..... probably will have to ... but what a mess

[Jabawocky]

Just to add to the confusion.......I was WRONG!

AIP suggests that Class E is controlled airspace and no specific exemptions. You would assume that of course. But.....after superdimona piped up and said RAA is OK in E I had a little read of the RAAus Ops manual and specifically CAO95.55.

After you wade your way through yet another set of aviation blurb, you discover that Section 5.1 (d) says the following.
(d) the aeroplane must only be flown in:
(i) Class G airspace; or
(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.;
Note Class G and E airspace are as defined in the Air Services Regulations.

So on that basis it would seem if you meet the radio and transponder requirements you are allowed to truck on through at A025-A050 over BME or KTA.

The rest of the Class E around the country is outside the A050 limit (which everyone seems to ignore while monitoring 126.7 / 123.45 :ugh:) with maybe some high country area's in southern NSW and VIC. So this is not so relevant.

J

[Frank Arouet]

I was under the impression that class E airspace was that airspace above 8500ft and was subject to a transponder and radio being functional. So that below, except for CTA, is G?

Is class E airspace "controlled" or not?:confused:

[Jabawocky]

Class E is we.. E for Effluent?

Yes Class E is controlled airspace. Hence my initial belief from AIP being so. However RAAus who operate under a vast array of exemptions seem to have that as part of their exemptions. Read CAO95.55.

You are correct about the radio and transponder requirement (Aust anyway). As for the 8500' bit thats just where we have it down to at the moment.

Why do the OAR want to make it even more complicated.:ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

I get email from CASA on a daily basis and most regarding International Airlines operate under "exemptions" of one sort or another. This doesn't make RA-Aus special.

AOPA brokered the 8500ft deal. What have they got to say about the state of play now?

I'll play it safe in class E until I read definitive direction, but in the meantime, I'll keep my mouth shut in class G except for CTAF requirements, as will many others who don't want to play this game until we define such things as "duty of care" and where VFR traffic, in their thousands, fit in.

My advice for you "professionals" is don't fly in "Indian territory" if you can't handle the perceived threats, or if you do so, keep your climb and descent profiles so you are there for the bare mimimum of time. Cracked cylinders are your problem unless you have a turbine.

Am I flying in "controlled airspace" if I have radar coverage????????

Why do I need a transponder if nobody wants to interract with me??????

I guess this will all change with ADSB when we are "noticed" and "watched" and we can be seen when we go "off screen" like in the movies?

Remember your "grass roots" Jabawocky.:ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

Gee - I've been quoting these radio and transponder exemptions for some sport aviation types in Class E for about the last 2 years and recently gave specific references ......... why you no listen Cookie Boy(s)?

For the last time (no, it won't be I know):

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/296255-congratulations-raaa-tcas-cost-savings.html#post3638553

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/386673-merged-ambidji-report-casa-should-get-their-money-back-10.html#post5164366

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/408230-nas-rears-its-head-again-44.html#post5688382

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Part 95 - Exemptions from Provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91048)

If in doubt re the applicability of any of the exemptions - ask CASA.

Purely due to the broadcast areas to be declared over Broome & Karatha, access to Class E 2500-4500 will be restricted to radio-equipped types with specific communications requirements. Above the broadcast area it is my understanding that "normal" Class E procedures apply, with the various exemptions outlined above.

It is also rumoured that from 3 June AVV will also have a similar broadcast area declared, with the same communications requirements as well as mandatory transponder operation.

[Icarus2001]

Am I flying in "controlled airspace" if I have radar coverage????????

Why do I need a transponder if nobody wants to interract with me??????
Frank you asked this before and it WAS answered. You need a transponder so that other aircraft with TCAS/ACAS can see YOU, so that you do not INTERRACT with a loud BANG.

Don't get hung up on controlled vs uncontrolled, we now have to think in terms of the level of service provided/required for each letter/type of airspace.

EDIT to add: Think of the soon to vanish GAAP sites, MB, BK, JT etc. Is it controlled? Then why is the PILOT responsible for separation not the ATCO?:cool:

[CaptainMidnight]

Don't get hung up on controlled vs uncontrolled, we now have to think in terms of the level of service provided/required for each letter/type of airspace. Exactly :ok:

Gee, I'm glad we are standardising with the rest of the world ........

[ARFOR]

Captain Midnight

Re: RAA in Class E

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao95/9555.pdf

Is my reading of the CAO correct that:-

5.1 (d) [Class E and G airspace] is accessible to all RAA aircraft and pilots, And;

5.2 (a) thru (f) [Class A, B, C and D airspace] applies to only some RAA aircraft, and pilots with a PPL or better

If that interpretation is correct, then why is carriage and use of a transponder listed in 5.2. for A, B and C airspace, but no such clause exists in 5.1 for Class E airspace?

Does this mean RAA in Class E [below A050] are exempt from transponder carriage and use? Surely that will need amending now that Class E exists below A050?

[peuce]

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Dodgy Brothers have thought too much about the implications of their BRM/KTA proposal:*

[Icarus2001]

Dick, this is where you come in to tell us how the "dirt road" broadcast area above the D zone is supposed to work...

Australian idiosyncratic.

[CaptainMidnight]

ARFOR

Let me say up front I'm not a RA-AUS type so I'm simply interpreting the regs and exemptions as they stand (with some experience nutting out CASA regs), and my knowledge of various ops with these and other aircraft types.

The way I read CAO 95.55 I believe your interpretation of 5.2 & 5.2 is correct.

If that interpretation is correct, then why is carriage and use of a transponder listed in 5.2. for A, B and C airspace, but no such clause exists in 5.1 for Class E airspace?I suspect it is because Class E is Clayton's controlled airspace i.e. effectively only controlled airspace for IFR, because of course VFR do not require ATC clearances or even communication with ATC providing they comply with various requirements as specified in CAO's relating to their specific types including exemptions. As such E is really enhanced G, where IFR are separated etc. I recall reading a while back the justification for one of the CAO 95 sport aviation type exemptions was specifically to permit access to Class E airspace, to which gliders have had access to for some time earlier.

Clearly CASA has to re-think some of these aspects, and I'm assuming they have declared these broadcast areas to get around the no radio/no talkie/no transponder scenarios.

Transponders are required in E for those aircraft types with an engine driven electrical system capable of powering one though. There is a directive somewhere on the CASA website that says that, and also something somewhere that says for all classes of airspace, if a transponder is fitted, it must be activated. But if like gliders, hang gliders etc. you can't power one, a transponder isn't mandatory for ops in Class E.

It doesn't help trying to suss out the situation when you have to interpret a bunch of separate documents :rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

Frank....I remember my grass roots....YCA is mostly Grass...apart from one TDZ.

Icarus2001......Frank just asks silly hypothetical questions all the time that he knows the answers too, but wants to bait you on...yep I bite from time to time. And 8500...I think Dick was behind that, he had his hand up A.O.P.A's ar$e at the time I reckon.

peuce........ Mate, you nailed it again :D. Its my shout for you at the Brekky Ck if ya game!:ok:

[ARFOR]

Thanks CM :ok:

I agree, trying to work out what applies when and where is difficult.

The question I suppose is, does the CAO exemption [transponder ommission in 5.1] apply to the exclusion of all else?

To put VFR broadcast requirments on Class E [with or without surveillance] to attempt to mitigate the IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR risk indicates the classification allocation is wrong to start with, let alone the implications for pilots and ATC in this 'new' non-ICAO, non-anywhere else airspace classification.

Like Bloggs said [as has been said at numerous juctures in this discussion] why not Class D to A085?

[LeadSled]

Worked, Radar Back-up, Frank you have NO idea of the ramifications [legal quagmire] that sits with ATC in different classes of airspace

ARFOR,

Only because Australia, as always out of step with most of the rest of the world, chooses to have it that way ------ and the asserted liability (as opposed to real world liability) had been a very effective political/industrial line from Civilair since the 1980s, despite more recent favorable High Court judgments around liability issues.

In the US, liability of FAA or individual controllers is a non-issue, just as Rec. pilots are a non-issue in E.

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Ledsled,

"Out of step"? That'd be the Class E Plus proposed for BME and KTA would it?

Still working on your answer to my question "what is meant by Continuous Two Way Comms for VFR in E"?

Does seem a bit silly on CASA's part to put in a Mandatory Broadcast Area when VFR has to be in continuous two-way comms in E anyway, don't you reckon?

[Showa Cho]

In the US, liability of FAA or individual controllers is a non-issue, just as Rec. pilots are a non-issue in E.

So if the controllers aren't worried about liability, and only traffic information is to be passed on VFR in class E, why do controllers in the US and Canada vector IFR aircraft around VFRs?

[rotorblades]

They might not 'get you' on liability, but if anything happens they'll sure as sh*t get you on duty of care

[ARFOR]

LeadSled

Nice try, but no Cigar :=

The ICAO 'Air Traffic Control Service' requirements [which is the world standard] make quite clear the 'legal' state of play. The ANSP [not Civilair, nice try though] OoLC made the 'legal requirements' quite clear for Class D controllers. The halfway YBRM and YPKA airspace does not provide either pilots or ATC a clear road to compliance or 'duty of care'

The GAAP annexes provided US style protection for ATC to facilitate high volume operations in VMC [pilot responsibility for collision avoidance in VMC]. Those cease to exist on the 3rd of June. Who is responsible for that?? Not Civilair, not the ANSP, no, the small band of fundamentalists and the D.A.S.

Try as you might, this is nothing to do with associations, industrial or out of left field legal wedges. FACT. You have NO idea of the 'legal' lay of the land for Australian controllers post incident or accident [they do based on recent examples].

[Dog One]

Well spoken Direct No Speed. It will be interesting how many of the fore's will put their hand up when it all goes wrong. The dust on the horizon will be the only clue that they had been around except for the letters to the editor saying if they had been in charge of the project, it wouldn't happen.The only benefits so far mentioned decrease safety. There is no benefit to IFR or RPT aircraft with the proposed changes.

[Capn Bloggs]

Am I a bit slow or off track? It seems to me that the great big push for E is to look after RA Aus, because they are not allowed into C or D. :confused:

[superdimona]

Not from me, and I'm sure it's not the 'official' reason. RAAus pilots are one group who stand to benefit by widespread adoption of E, but I think that's mainly an unintentional side-effect.

[Frank Arouet]

It wasn't so long ago that RA-Aus were not allowed to cross a road, let alone fly above 5,000ft. Now, if the aircraft is suitably equipped, and it can fly above 8,500ft, what is the problem with flying through the same airspace at 4,500ft?

If there are still problems with containing the angst about RA-Aus to fly in CTA, why doesn't the Director of Aviation Safety give way to some concessions WRT training standards to allow this so everybody has a Pvt GA CTA standard, or issue an OCTA licence/ certificate only?

I know a lot off GA pilots that are OCTA only and it is mainly of their own choice.

Owen Stanley;

What if it doesn't go wrong. 50/50 odds if you are tossing this coin. Will you be then wallowing in relevance deprivation land :ugh:

I can't imagine why anybody would need, or want a tragedy to prove a point.:( Lets all hope it never happens.

[Howabout]

I tend to agree with superdimona. I don't think it's 'part of the plot' Bloggs, just a potential side-effect.

Someone a bit back hit the nail on the head. If standard E isn't regarded as good enough to mitigate the risk, which was presumably identified in the risk management study (not that I've seen it), then why are we going for non-compliant E+ when compliant C or D is available at no (or vanishingly small:E) extra cost?

Why do we have to unnecessarily complicate things when comparatively simple solutions are available?:ugh:

[peuce]

Howabout,

I have been asking that question of the Nastronauts for some time ... alas, without response.

Perhaps it has Leadsled perplexed as well, and he's a bit embarassed by it.

I expect that Dick has been silent because he is probably busy "going through channels" trying to get the Broadcast Requirement recinded.

How Can It Be Fixed?

There's the proper way. Either:


Class D to A045 .... Class C to the bottom of current CTA; or
Class D ... ground to bottom of CTA


Or the Band Aid way:


Class D to A045 ... Class E to bottom of CTA .... Broadcast Area within 30nm BRM/KTA .. (why on earth would you have it covering from A025/A045 only); or
Class D to A025 ... Class E to bottom of CTA .... Broadcast Area within 30nm BRM/KTA


Or, they could leave it as proposed .... the "suck it and see" solution.:uhoh:

[peuce]

Howabout,

I've been rummaging through my supply of analogies and metaphors and the best I can come up with is ...

The Brisbane Airport Roundabout .... God bless it ...

The Roundabout was not working... too many prangs and delays ...so they added Traffic Lights to it ...WTF .... "we'll make this sucker work, no matter what!"

It didn't .... they are now completing a flyover ...

[konstantin]

Howabout

A cynic might suggest as reason for the current approach either the terms Matter of Principle or Paradigm Paralysis - I of course would do no such thing...:rolleyes:

Peuce

Your Option 1 rings a bell from somewhere in central Australia - but it is (obviously) not working well enough to utilise it elsewhere! :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

peuce........thats GOLD :D......another round of beers at the Brekkey Ck :sad:

Now, if the aircraft is suitably equipped, and it can fly above 8,500ft, what is the problem with flying through the same airspace at 4,500ft?

Lets get the facts straight.....RAA a/c can fly up there, and up to any VFR level with a CASA PPL equipped pilot. RAAus still have the 5000' rule for now. And again when you can convince me and CASA that my previous comments a few posts back are totally unfair and not true (And you can't) well then I will be more than happy to see the rule changed. If there was a seriously large campaign on education, then it might work, until then......leopards and spots come to mind.

[CaptainMidnight]

Some further thoughts re why this airspace model.

At BRM, ERSA says:
FLIGHT PROCEDURES
1. During published HRS CAGRS is provided to aircraft operating within the following designated broadcast area:

a. Horizontal limits: 30NM radius centred on YBRM/DME
b. Vertical Limits: ground level to any height above the AD at which an aircraft may conflict with another aircraft that is arriving, departing or carrying out local operations at the AD.

2. Pilots of arriving aircraft shall broadcast on the CTAF at 30NM
3. Pilots of outbound aircraft shall monitor the CTAF until 30NM
4. Refer to CASA Instrument 490/05 for broadcast requirements at AD when a CAGRS is in operation.

In short, currently all traffic within 30NM is known, because radio carriage and use is mandatary for all aircraft within 30NM.

So putting in a Class D tower and "standard" Class E overhead would actually be a degradation from what is the case now. All traffic within 30NM would no longer be known, and in particular "standard" Class E would mean no communication required with ATC for VFR - only at best monitoring - and as previously outlined even no-radio types could be in the E.

Either CASA OAR recognised this degradation in service or it was pointed out to them, and to get around the problem they'll revise the broadcast area Instrument to make the E 2500-4500 Class E+.

However this upper limit of the broadcast area being 4500 is interesting, given ERSA item 1b above :)

[Dog One]

I have no problem with RAS aircraft suitably equipped being in E, as long as they have a clearance and we have traffic on them. But you will all say, the marvellous design of E doesn't require them to have a clearance, they are free to fly as they please. It is a bit like moths attracted to a light and their death, isn't it. RAA aircraft are hard to see at the best of times due to their size.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, "Not so long ago, we were inbound to a CTAF(R), we had broadcast on the CTAF frequency at around 35DME, and again at 25 DME. We were then tracking for one of the IAF's to conduct a GNSS (RNAV) approach to the duty runway. There were no responses to our inbound calls and no other calls were heard. As we approached the IAF, we got a TCAS return of a target descending and crossing over the IAF at approx the same altitude we would have crossed it as. Becoming visual we turned and tracked visually to overhead the aerodrome, whilst trying to establish comms with the target. We had preset the next Center frequency for our departure, and we heard this aircraft giving an inbound call. Because he was low, Center where not copying his calls. We suggested the correct frequency to him, but could not visually see the aircraft until he was in the circuit and we were on the ground. The only thing that saved there lives and probably a heap of innocent people was the servicable Transponder, Without that he could have been match wood, or if we had missed him our wake turbelence would have put him on his back and into the ground.

Hence my very strong opposition to the airspace proposals at Broome and Karratha. The present proposal will end in tears, the safety of innoncent people is at risk. If the general public were fully aware of the risk factor they would be facing, I am sure the hue and cry would rattle the Government's cage!

[Icarus2001]

Another quote from you Dick, a few pages ago, before you spat the dummy...

Yes, I know G without a transponder requirement is OK at places like Broome and Ballina - but upgrade the airspace to E and add a mandatory transponder requirement and it suddenly becomes unsafe.

Get Real!

How does that fit with...

In short, currently all traffic within 30NM is known, because radio carriage and use is mandatary for all aircraft within 30NM....in relation to Broome?

How is it an upgrade?

We have gone from NO unknown traffic to an unknown amount. How is that an improvement?

[konstantin]

From the Alice Airspace Study by OAR earlier this year;

1.4 Recommendations
1.4.1 CASA to reinforce awareness of the Aeronautical Information Regulation
and Control (AIRAC) cycle, to allow for improved planning when requesting
updates to aeronautical publications.
1.4.2 Based upon stakeholder feedback and supported by risk assessment and
modelling, the OAR has concluded that the current airspace design and level of
air traffic services provided are adequate in addressing the level of risk that exists.
Therefore the OAR does not propose to make any change to the current airspace
architecture or level of ATS provided.
1.4.3 In order to address the requirements of the AAPS 2007, CASA to review
its implementation strategy in considering the proven international best practice
airspace systems, including the outstanding NAS characteristics. This strategy
must take into account changes being proposed to airspace at General Aviation
Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) aerodromes and where possible standardisation
of airspace at all aerodromes with Class D Control Zones (CTRs). The
implementation strategy will be finalised by CASA’s OAR in 2010.


Just FYI...

[Dog One]

What typical CASA rubbish. Shows a lot of intelligence doesn't it, lets standardise on CLass D zones. Lets see, one size fits all, from Cessna 150 to Boeing 737. Then we add a bit here, and a bit there to accomodate those blasted jets that won't conform to the Cessna 150 circuit size. Its a bit rude really, because, on my flightsim, I can fly a B747 tighter than a 150. Whats wrong with two or three frequency changes, or flying a holding pattern with unknown traffice.

I just hope that Airservices have got some spare portable radars ready to install a la Launceston.

[Jabawocky]

Dog One

In my opinion EVERY aircraft should have a minimum Mode C transponder, and if its a PA display type two year checks and the old blind type 12 months check.

As for Launie that radar is about to be removed......Ohhh but before you all break out in tears the WAMLAT is working well :ok: The Retard Vehicle was clocked at 180 knots with it:}. (Will not say who was driving at the time though):suspect:

J

[Dog One]

Forgot to reduce power to cruise, eh Jabba?

[Jabawocky]

Does this answer the question....'... keep the taps open .. track direct to short final .. number one'

[Capn Bloggs]

Jaba, come over to the West in Nov and Scurvy can set up a race to 3nm final! :}

"Calm down Bloggs". :=

[peuce]

Notice there's an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP 03-10) befor OAR ... to have Class E Airspace lowered throughout the country.

Guess they're waiting to see how BRM/KTA goes first ...

[Capn Bloggs]

Is it down to FL145? How many more sectors will that require? Greg Russell must be rubbing his hands together with glee! More bonuses, as Dick always says.

Drifters to FL145. Yikes!

[peuce]

Don't know ... can't get access to the ACP.

Perhaps it's 700AGL ... the end game since 1991

[Jabawocky]

Where can I buy one of those tactical radars like the military boys have? :confused:

hang on...might be a business opportunity here :oh:

Want to order one Bloggs?

[Capn Bloggs]

Want to order one Bloggs?
What's cheaper: one mil radar or 3 wamlats? :D

[Jabawocky]

Noooo the you beaut radar the MIL boys have in the nose..... take out the wx radar and put one of them in! :}

[rotorblades]

The Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) would be nice, covers 37,000km2!

But is a tad expensive: has cost approximately $A1.8 billion

I dont know about you but i dont have that much spare change, its a lot of 5c pieces:eek:

[le Pingouin]

I dont know about you but i dont have that much spare change, its a lot of 5c pieces:eek:Give it a go! We had a Radar For Tassie fund raising box on sector 3 & we eventually got it :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

1991..almost twenty years!

The end game is controlled airspace for Broome and Karratha. ICAO D towers work and have been working since BEFORE they became ICAO D towers. All our D towers are surrounded by class C airspace to protect RPT.

Why are Broome and Karratha receiving a tower service? To regulate the tourist GA VFR industry or the growing RPT industry? Why install a service that is hamstrung wrt VFR yet must provide total separation for RPT. If Broome and Karratha are surrounded by class E or even E with a broadcast zone...ATC cannot provide a separation service for RPT. ATC do not have control over where VFR go in E...if they have no control they cannot separate...it is that simple. ATC do not provide information to pilots to enhance their situation awareness...ATC SEPARATE PILOTS to maintain a standard...Flight Services provided pilots with information that enhanced situational awareness and they did a bloody good job! Stop confusing the situation. Air Traffic Control control!!!! they do not advise!!!!

If the top guys in the CASA and AirServices cannot explain this change to the system?...you have to ask yourself....why change it in the first place?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"Idealogy Evangelistic Zealots......"

I know that's not a sentence, but, after 19 years, with no suitable replacement of services, what else can one say..??:ugh::ugh::ugh:

We are back to the days of the 'Southern Cloud' - in that in many parts of OZ, which are quite busy aviation wise, there are now no services except for some mish-mash of 'when workload permits' - IF one can make contact that is! :{:eek:

Even the HF 'service' ain't what it used to be.....:=:=

And just to 'rub it in' .....It ISN'T safer, and it DOESN'T cost us less..!!:}:}

[Icarus2001]

ATC SEPARATE PILOTS to maintain a standard
Stop confusing the situation. Air Traffic Control control!!!! they do not advise!!!!
Except in G.

[Capn Bloggs]

Icarus, you've quoted selectively. Oz next said that Flight Service provided information to pilots (to allwo them to self-segregate). His point is that E airspace is a hotch-potch of the two systems.

Given that there is no Cost-Benefit Analysis for E over D, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is being introduced because of ideological dogma, aided by political interference in the policy-making process of the Government.

[LeadSled]

You have NO idea of the 'legal' lay of the land for Australian controllers post incident or accident ARFOR,

Actually, I do, and obviously quite a bit more than you are prepared to give me credit for ----- and that is the whole point of my last post.

Because of the way Australian law has been constructed, ATC persons here are at much greater personal and professional legal risk than in many countries, with which we would compare ourselves. My reference to Civilair was not a mistake.

Sadly, the same goes for pilots and LAMEs, with out complex, convoluted and contradictory framework of criminal law ( and the ridiculous extensions of "strict liability" beyond any reasonable traditional concept of criminal behavior) surrounding just about everything we do.

Direct No Speed

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

Owen,

Why don't you try to make a constructive contribution, instead of you usual snide remarks, and you pathetic attempts to play the man and not the ball.

Bloggs,

All Government policy making is political, that's how the system works, and always has done.

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

you pathetic attempts to play the man and not the ball.

Love ya work, Leddie.

Where's that CBA?

[ARFOR]

LeadSled
Because of the way Australian law has been constructed
And whose fault would that be?
ATC persons here are at much greater personal and professional legal risk than in many countries
Not if proper process and ICAO rules sets are followed i.e. G that was G, F that was F, E that was E [and only used where invisaged in SARP's], and D that was D [not the scramble for GAAPism's so the GAAP's don't come to a stand still because of their proximity to Primaries] and GAAP was GAAP with the same protections that existed for ATC in that environment ... all gone!
with which we would compare ourselves. There is no comparision with the mess you amateurs have created. A bit like the 'Show Cause' system :=
My reference to Civilair was not a mistake.
I'm sure it was not. The fact that your reference was wrong is the important bit
and the asserted liability (as opposed to real world liability) had been a very effective political/industrial line from Civilair since the 1980s, despite more recent favorable High Court judgments around liability issues.
Give us one example of the controllers association asserting anything other than reality [with regards to airspace services]. WRT Liability, the ANSP interpretation is EXACTLY the same interpretation as the high court in Australia.
In the US, liability of FAA or individual controllers is a non-issue, just as Rec. pilots are a non-issue in E.
Yes, and only the deaf, dumb and blind would not see the difference in infrustructure, service rules [US pilot collision avoidance responsibility in VMC in ALL classes of airspace], and airspace and ATM regulatory differences between the two.

I understand why you and Mr Smith [past form] would want to push the 'industrial' line [run outa puff and fluff on everything else] so:-

Show ONE example of what you are accusing the ATC association of!

As for All Government policy making is political, that's how the system works, and always has done.
Nice try, but again no Cigar. This is not about policy, the policy is clear [as reported and linked in this thread], this is about abuse of process and political interference in policy adherence and legislated process. We could perhaps couch that as re-election expediency

If you cannot see the difference, then perhaps you have pulled your Tootle Pip one too many times ;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And now we enter the crux of the argument...a political imperative!

Not because it's safe, or cost effective...because it is political.

Who applied the pressure? Whoes policy is it? Certainly not Anderson, or Albanese. They do not know a SODPROP from a TURBOPROP unless someone tells them..as is always with Parliament.

Ego is a dirty word...especially if it is all that drives a "Policy Change":E

Why would the OAR institute a broadcast zone for class E?...Why the workround...if the program needs a work round then it needs rewriting or scrapping and reverting back to what works. FAA D towers of the same level of activity as BRM have approach radar services.

Please Mr Smith et al..point me to an aerodrome in the US that is as busy as Broome that has non surveillance E and no approach...what is it called..a TRACON facility..an aerodrome that I can verify as same.. a hint..we already know the number of movments for RPT into Broome. If you use the same formual as the FAA what would be the level of service provided for the environs around this D tower...it certainly will not be E.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Icarus2001

When in G and when requested and when work permitting...and only if there is a surveillance facility.

If you refer to IFR? it is only other IFR as traffic and known VFR...not many known VFR doing flight following in G. Outside of surveillance, it's a pig and a poke for your penny:ugh:

[Icarus2001]

My point was that ATC do not ALWAYS separate or control. As you well know.

Dick, still waiting for an answer to my question.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Yes...but....ask for a "snapshot" and what is the last words that ATC say...Services terminated!

[ARFOR]

Interested readers might like some US examples to ponder whilst considering the like for like of the US NAS and Australia's Broome and Karratha

Class C airspace [one of the quieter ones]

SPI - Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport | SkyVector (http://skyvector.com/airport/SPI/Abraham-Lincoln-Capital-Airport)

RADAR Tower, RADAR Approach

Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2008-12-31

Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 133
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 29
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 6
Helicopters Based on Field: 2
Military Aircraft Based on Field: none
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations: 46
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 8012
Annual Military Operations: 3280
Annual GA Local Operations: 9141
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 16419

Full RADAR Class C services, why is CASA not following the reference system and applying the model as used at Abe Lincoln Capital?

OK, lets find some Class D and E examples:-

Class D and E Airspace [one of the busiest with [U]Commercial operations]

MSO - Missoula International Airport | SkyVector (http://skyvector.com/airport/MSO/Missoula-International-Airport)

RADAR Tower, RADAR Approach

Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2009-12-31

Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 92
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 20
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 11
Helicopters Based on Field: 14
Military Aircraft Based on Field: none
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations: 4551
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 9208
Annual Military Operations: 577
Annual GA Local Operations: 14216
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 10665

Sounds promising? No, look at the AD elevation, and surrounding terrain LSALT’s

No, OK lets keep looking:-

Class D and E airspace [another example of busiest with Commercial operations]

SWF - Stewart International Airport | SkyVector (http://skyvector.com/airport/SWF/Stewart-International-Airport)

RADAR Tower, Radar Approach

Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2009-12-31

Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 8
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 7
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 26
Helicopters Based on Field: 8
Military Aircraft Based on Field: 31
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations: 2366
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 8485
Annual Military Operations: 3017
Annual GA Local Operations: 8203
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 16149

That last one looks promising? Oh dear, well not really - RADAR Tower and RADAR Approach:-

Comparing all of the above to Broome and Karratha, the US examples [above] have:-

- Substantially less Air Transport operations
- Full RADAR Tower and Approach services

Compared to the two Australian airports in question

YBRM - 12 months to 30 June 2009

- Movements - 36,800
- Air Transport – 13,300

YPKA – 12 months to 30 June 2009

- Movements – 29.901
- Air Transport – 10,928

- NO RADAR
- NO separate surveillance based Approach Services
- D tower with no surveillance
- D tower with unsurveilled Class E
- High level En-route Sectors providing unsurveilled Class E services to A045

The CASA model for YBRM and YPKA is US NAS compliant how exactly?

Even if surveillance was available [now or in future], the services at YBRM and YPKA [no dedicated approach services] and the airport traffic levels are not compatible to US style Class D and E. The most common application in the US [to these sorts of airports] is Class C

Mr Smith, perhaps you could provide us with a US example of:-

- A 'small zone unsurveilled Class D [with or without unsurveilled tower Class E]
- With unsurveilled Class E above [centre, not dedicated approach]
- That is even close to the conditions apparent at YBRM or YPKA i.e. similar figures and infrastructure as listed above.

[Capn Bloggs]

ARFOR, you must be effing joking? Are you saying we've been sold a pup all this time about the US NAS?

Dick Smith categorically stated in this post (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/415644-dick-smith-broome-airport.html#post5704122) that 50% of the 350 US Class D towers have non-radar E!

Who are we supposed to believe?

[ARFOR]

:E I'd like the proponents to tell us why this proposal is not a pup with parvo ;)

Who to believe? Thats easy:- FACTS, DATA, and EVIDENCE, they speak for themselves

The 'I believe' squad don't like F.D.E :E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ARFOR...:ok::ok::ok:

Dick et al...all ears...just hit us with your best shot:hmm: Just one single aerodrome, any one...there must be hundreds from the 350 you purport to misrepresent.

FDE...hmmm works in GPS too...fault detection and exclusion...how apt!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well Done and well presented Mr 'A'.....

In reality, (the 'Real World'), your presentation would be / should be examined and appreciated.

:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just think what it would have been like if we had the internet back in 1991.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ARFOR, just a back up..

SPI service is three CRJ and 2 ER4s a day to and from Chicago.
MSO is 3 DH4 to Seattle, 3 CRJs to Salt Lake City and 2 CRJs to Denver.
SWF has 3 CRJs and 2 DH8s to Philli,1 CRJ to Atlanta and 2 CRJs to Detroit.

[ARFOR]

Which brings us squarely back to the need for:-

1. A Cost Benefit Analysis - [Classification, Surveillance, local tower based approach combined verses remote radar approach services]

and;

2. A Design Aeronautical Study process which is based on much more than 'ego' and 'ignorance' ;)

Anything less is negligence!

[Howabout]

Nice stats ARF. The silence from the fundamentalists has been deafening. Ditto your comments on the CBA and DAS.

It's now been 3 days. There seems to be a tendency, on the part of some, to run away and hide when confronted by facts and not fiction.

Does a lot for rational debate when the fundamentalists take their balls home.

[Jabawocky]

Give as good as I get Lead :ok:

Do you a deal mate, you discontinue your superior attitude, your condescending put downs of professional pilots and ATC's and provide the FACTS, DATA & EVIDENCE of your argument?

And I'll................listen :ok:

Seems Owen, for all his comical but well assessed remarks has hit the nail on the head.

This debate is not far from that of the Global Warming thread. Those who keep asking for fact based and data backed up logic Vs those who prefer character smearing and dodging the real questions.

Sound familiar anyone?

J:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Idealogy. . . . . . . .

:yuk::yuk::confused:

[CaptainMidnight]

The AIP SUP re Avalon is out. Note the "broadcast area" aspect. Presumably the same will apply to BRM & KA. I understand a NOTAM on AVV will be issued detailing the broadcast area requirements.

http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/current/sup/s10-h30.pdf

[Jabawocky]

So when the cloud base is around 3500' and and one of Owen Stanleys mates wants to fly back to Werribee via Little River International from Barwon Heads (between A025 and A035), and Jetjerks A320 is flying the ILS.........:uhoh:

I guess they get to go around and do it again........:ok:

J:cool:

PS....He does need a clearance to descend to LRV, but if overflying and onto Werribee, he will not.

[CaptainMidnight]

Not sure if he would require a clearance to descend, if he had notified a descent point as part of the initial call/broadcast?

And my interpretation (particularly with respect to CAR 100) is that ATC can issue an instruction to the aircraft e.g. to hold or divert.

[Jabawocky]

CaptainMidnight

He would definately need a clearance to descend through the Class D.

The silly thing is the interim looks like Class D or C almost....you know, C- or D- or maybe E++.

After the interim radio regs, there is RIS....and then my story is seriously real.

This is not FAA or ICAO. :ugh:

What are they thinking. Despite the studies at other D towers with and without radar, i.e Rocky and Alice.

The lunatics are in charge......:rolleyes:

[mikk_13]

Rumour has it that broome won't be getting a tower. they now can not train the staff in the sector above due to recent departures. Apparently they have/will loose upto 50% of the atcs.

[Capn Bloggs]

So here we have an aircraft operating in airspace that specifically DOES NOT require an ATC clearance (Class E), but which is being made to comply with a CAR that obviously applies only to an aircraft in Controlled Airspace under ATC control, all on the premise of what is in an AIP SUPP. If there is a nearmiss/midair under this arrangement, OAR is going to go for a row.

This is ridiculous. Guys, have the guts to stand up to the Lunatic Fringe and make it Class D!

[Ted D Bear]

Why don't we all just pretend the E is really D? Seems that's what CASA wants to do by trotting out CAR100 ...

[ARFOR]

Mr Bear

As a pilot [of any variety] or an ATC licence holder, who sits where WRT:-

Do, I or don't I [in any given traffic conflict], given the conflicting requirements this airspace classification [that isn't] provides.

- VFR not subject to a clearance, yet ATC could/should/might/will/won't give 'instructions'
- VFR could/should/might/will/won't receive 'instructions', yet not subject to a clearance
- IFR subject to a clearance, could/should/might/will/won't receive 'instructions' due VFR

What about NVFR? What about SVFR?

The insurance companies and lawyers will have a field day. :hmm:

[peuce]

It also provides a handy precedence ... the Minister's "Airspace Policy Statement 2010" is obviously only an aspiration ... and doesn't necessarily detail a formal requirement.

[Capn Bloggs]

It also provides a handy precedence ... the Minister's "Airspace Policy Statement 2010" is obviously only an aspiration ... and doesn't necessarily detail a formal requirement.
That what airspace policy has been all along - what HE wants, using ICAO/FAA/AAPS (in various combinations as required) as justification, if they suit at the time.

[konstantin]

From the Policy Statement 2010 alluded to above, don`t ya love it;


21 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals.
22 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, then make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.

23 Following a decision to change the class of a volume of airspace (a determination), that change must be formalised as a legislative instrument, endorsed by the airspace delegate, and published on FRLI. After a change has been registered on the FRLI, it can then take effect on, or after, the day on which the determination is published in the AIP or when notified by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Designations of Prohibited, Restricted and Danger Areas may be published in the AIP or notified by a NOTAM subject to the requirements of the Airspace Regulations 2007.

24 There may be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative and it may not be practicable to comply with parts of this process.

[CaptainMidnight]

I've heard that with respect to BRM & KA CASA OAR have specified that the lower limit of the initial CTA steps away from the zone will be levels AGL not the usual AMSL. Example: not 1500FT AMSL but 1200FT AGL.

Anyone confirm this??

[peuce]

Spare a thought for poor visiting Yanks ... trying to fly through Class E ... stupidly thinking it's Class E :} :uhoh: :ouch:

[ollie_a]

dns, I got the impression that the tower will be providing the RIS and so will need a radar link, not just a TSAD. Maybe it can't be installed before November?

[Howabout]

Jeez OS, what an ugly thought. I have absolutely no desire to witness a scene where you 'stand rooting.'

Jabs, as for this:

So when the cloud base is around 3500' and and one of Owen Stanleys mates wants to fly back to Werribee via Little River International from Barwon Heads (between A025 and A035), and Jetjerks A320 is flying the ILS.........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif

I guess they get to go around and do it again........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I'd add 'they get to do the go-round to do it again if they pick up the bug-smasha in the first place. If they don't the go-round could be academic.'

[Jabawocky]

peuce

Nail on Head:D:D

But add to that all the folk here who ....well just can not keep up with all the changes of BS. Its all right for us and the hand full of folk who go to the seminars and read the literature........but like all things in life we are in the minority. Anyone else thinking otherwise is in a very naive denial of reality.:uhoh:

[Jabawocky]

They have gone to a group hug or something?

Its not what they argued for......its worse :}

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just got back from my club's briefing for the new changes...talked to the CFI about E+....best to treat entry like going into EN. Call AV TWR, wait for reply and then put in the "announcment". Courtesy implies that me will comply with what TWR asks for wrt IFR traffic. Exactly the opposite to what the zealots think how E is supposed to work.

Why would any sane person design airspace that potentially, allows a conflict with non reporting VFR and IFR RPT on an ILS....Even FAA D calls for the protection of approach procedures.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[konstantin]

Hauptmann Mitternacht

In relation to your query a few posts back - I am no expert, but anecdotally the 700/1200 AGL CTA base business may be related to a generic model for IFR CTA containment in relation to approaches/holding?

Lead, where are you - with your encyclopaedic knowledge of these matters?

[ARFOR]

Interesting question d.n.s

In this day and age, it would be safe to assume careful navigation of 'wedge' games/traps is well understood. No doubt lots of experienced minds are focused on the issues and options.

In the meantime ;) a naming convention [acronym] is needed for the unique Australian airspace system. Thoughts :E

[Blockla]

But RHS made a shot across the bows, did anyone else see the RNP-RNAV artical where Albanese was put on notice...

More arrivals per hour if you introduce RNP, really Dick? What about the 80 per hour cap? We all know SY can do better than 80 per hour now, without RNP, don't we???

[peuce]

A suburban Rugby field

John Cleese:
Okay lads, we've decided on a few changes to the game
Smithers:
Yeah, what sir?
John Cleese:
Well, we think these rucks are a bit too dangerous, so we'll now " play the ball" when tackled
Witherington:
You mean, like those league wankers, Sir?
John Cleese:
Don''t be cheeky lad.
Also, those lineouts take too long, so we'll be having a scrum when the ball goes into touch
Bollocks:
Ah, Sir ... that is League
John Cleese:
Don't be impudent. It's still Union ... we're keeping 15 men on the field! And I don't want to hear anything more about it!
Whole Team:
Ahhhhh! ... Siiir!!!!

[peuce]

a naming convention [acronym] is needed for the unique Australian airspace system.

Australian Airspace Classifications

Γ= Whatever you want
Σ= Whatever you want
Φ= Whatever you want
ζ= Whatever you want
λ= Whatever you want

[peuce]

As we're approaching the 20th Anniversary of the Alphabet Airspace regime, and as we are now also about to celebrate the launch of Class E with Fries, it might be timely to put forward an Alternate proposal ....


Spill all OAR positions and recruit some new blood, with the Job Specification to include the requirement for:
(a)balls ( or similar)
(b)common sense
Grap a clean sheet of paper and mark all of Australia Class G Airspace
Determine the Community's general Risk Appetite
Where it can be logically, safely, efficiently and financially justified, re-classify appropriate Volumes as either:
Class D; or
Class C:
Review (using the logic, safety, efficiency, financial and risk appetite tests) the access requirements for Class D & C Airspace, in regards to radio, transponder, license and training


Actually, it looks pretty familiar .... but that's how I see it.

[Jabawocky]

I reckon a panel of ppruners should be able to do that, between the few of us we could sort it out and they can pay us the same bucket load of money thats been wasted so far.

We can all retire! :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Hmmm. Don't see a 3Jun10 Jepp Melbourne Terminal chart showing the new setup at AVV.

No NOTAM for Avalon pointing to the AIP SUPP either.

GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER, BOYS. :=

[Howabout]

Bloggs,

I just hope it isn't reminiscent of that inspired initiative that was dear to all of our hearts - the Class G 'airspace trial.' No sooner had it started than we were hit by a plethora (Paco, what is a plethora? Oh , Guapo, etc) of NOTAMs to correct omissions that weren't previously thought of. IMHO that was a giant cluster and this is shaping up the same.

I remain a sceptic. But, having said that, I'll perform a mea-culpa if this thing actually works.

[ARFOR]

It will 'appear' to work [until the law of averages catches up] because it is psuedo D not E ;) that is of course until someone [either side of the ether] hesitates as it is promulgated in all doc's and maps [and legally] as an E service, not D :ugh:

A bit like '[I]Internationals' and SIMOPS. Despite the sage warnings from those that are licenced and operate the tower/s, after the inevitable, the bean counters and office types [who mostly could not find their own arses with two grabs] said it seemed like a good idea at the time :hmm:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The reference to CAR100 leaves the ambiguity of class E VFR procedures. where CAR99a refers to obeying a direction in a declared broadcast zone. Not doing the CASAs work for them but would we have to comply moreso with 99a than 100?

CAR99a (http://www.austlii.edu.au:80/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s99a.html)

(5) A pilot in command of an aircraft that is operating at an aerodrome or area designated under subregulation (1) must not contravene a direction that applies to that aerodrome or area.

my italics.

[ARFOR]

'Direction' in 99 refers to a 'rule' [book, NOTAM, SUP etc]

100 of course is a 'clearance' or 'instruction' [from ATC]

Subtle, but very different ;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Agree ARFOR...but the direction is to contact or broadcast to AV TWR.

After that, is there a direction to obey ATC instructions...in effect, turning E into D by stealth and applying a broadcast zone rule.

EDIT- E has NO place to be around a control zone at such low levels.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

heard a whisper at the meeting...this whole sorry mess gets changed back to C/D in November when there will be more staffing to turn the airspace back into full radar control....a rumour but a good one:ok:

[peuce]

Folks ... here is a copy of the post I put on the " Jandakot Class D "thread. I think it's quite pertinent to the BRM/KTA/AV situation as well:

However, is it not time that we say .... enough is enough?
Or, are you happy to clean up CASA's mess ... again?

Is it not time that CASA provide its interpretations, on paper, before implementation?

They obviously have a good reason for bringing in the change ... so they obviously would have thought this through ... so they can obviously answer ALL our questions, on paper ... before implementation.

IF NOT ... rethink the change!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

DNS...I know...just passing it on...in true rumour format:}

Either way, the message came across that nobody liked what was about to happen. Please make the call and please help us make this airspace safe.

[Howabout]

OS,

I'm chuckling eveytime I think about it.

Is there a typo in there? I think you may have included an 'L' that you didn't mean to.:}

[LeadSled]

700/1200 AGL

konstantin,
Re. the 1200 AGL, in general terms, ICAO wise, the whole of the volume of any class of controlled airspace is available for aircraft operating in that airspace.

It is aircraft in Class G that are required to maintain a buffer (in this case below) controlled airspace, and the ICAO buffer is expressed in meters, but is rounded off to 700' ( not 500' or 1000').

Thus, you will find the base of a CTA is often 1200 AGL, so that an aircraft can fly 500' AGL minimum and still be 700' clear below the CTA. This is not limited to US.

I cannot give you an answer for the origin of the 700' where there is an IF approach, when I get some time, and as a matter of curiosity, I must search it out. It's probably buried in TERPS design procedures, as a first guess.

Tootle pip!!

[Showa Cho]

Led: Where two airspace types meet, the base level where they meet is classified as the lower airspace type. Which means that where a block of G meets C above, the level where they meet is classified as G. ATC keep a buffer between aircraft in controlled airspace and the lower limit of the airspace step. Aircraft OCTA can operate up to and including the base level as depicted on the map.

For example, if the chart has C LL 5500 (East of Canberra for example), ATC will only drop an aircraft to 6000ft there. An aircraft in the Class G below can operate up to 5500ft without a clearance.

Don't have the specific references with me, but all the info is in the Manual of ATS and the AIP.

Cheers.

[konstantin]

Ta for the above, guys.

So...one could be forgiven for thinking that some bright spark decided that for the purposes of being seen to be conforming to a generic ICAO concept we have ended up with the 700/1200 AGL business.

Notwithstanding the fact that, as we all know, in the sunburnt land of Oz "Base of CTA = OCTA" thus making the ICAO (US?) model effectively irrelevant here albeit "politically correct"?

Someone please tell me I`m wrong...

[Showa Cho]

I think the rule is the same in the UK, but they are that far off ICAO themselves it is not a good example. I will ask some of the guys at work, who come from all over the globe, what happens in other FIRs.

Arigato gozaimas,

Showa-cho.

[CaptainMidnight]

Thus, you will find the base of a CTA is often 1200 AGL, so that an aircraft can fly 500' AGL minimum and still be 700' clear below the CTA. This is not limited to US.In this case, what is the CTA lower limit marked on charts? 1200FT AGL or 1500FT AMSL? Assuming in this case the terrain height 1200 AGL = 1500 AMSL of course.

[peuce]

If they start putting airspace boundaries in AGL on our maps, http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/sosvideo/23.gif I think it'll be time to call it a day http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/sosvideo/12.gif

What, do we all have to install radar altimeters?

[Capn Bloggs]

Peuce, you fundamentalist. This is the way it is done eslewhere. We don't know why E has a base in AGL verses MSL, but that doesn't matter. We're experts, having spent many years on the Bla Bla Bla committees, panels as well as flying through every piece of airspace on earth. So just roll with it. :=

[Howabout]

This is a classic case of what we've seen before...over and over.

It's known under various guises, with which you are all familiar: The Path of Least Resistance, Oiling the Squeaky Wheels, Placating the Noisy, Compromising to Achieve Consensus...blah, blah.

We've all seen this approach in the past and it doesn't work.

The hard decisions (Class C) aren't taken and, in the long run, the pain is much worse than if a bit of courage had been demonstrated from the outset.

As was the case with the G Airspace trial, Airspace 2000, son of Airspace 2000 and NAS - all of which were tried when Airservices had regulatory responsibility - and the latest cluster, when CASA now has that responsibility, grief is the inevitable outcome of what, in my opinion, is of a lack of guts.

Trying to please everyone doesn't work. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that message hasn't got through.

The decision should have been 'Class C; live with it, I'm the Regulator and no correspondence will be entered into.' There would have been an inevitable stoush but, by now, it would be history.

Instead, what have we got? A replication of all lessons from the past that weren't learned, and a larger level of grief than was necessary. And, ongoing dispute that could have been killed off before we got to this state.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Ah Mr 'P'..... I thought you HAD retired.......;)

Well, consider the first publication of CTAFs and MBZs.....Waaay back in '91 was it?
Or was that one of the '93 'improvements' ?
I can't remember no more.....

MBZs....15nm rad., up to and inc. 5,000ft AGL......
CTAFs.... 5nm rad., up to and inc. 3,000ft AGL......

So theeeere we all were, the 'bugsmashers' amongst us that is,
looking at the ELEVATION of those various aerodromes, and adding the appropriate 'AGL' to get the 'ALT' thru which we would pass thru or over....

'Tis still a crock........:}:}

[Plazbot]

That was MTAFs. MBZs were later. Then they were all CTAFs but were still a zone. Then some of the CTAFs become manatory zones. A little G demo thrown in there. At the same time CTAFs became a concept, not thing. Then Dick's biscuits took over. Then Dick's biscuits were removed. Now we have what I am going to guess will be called ETAFs (the mandatory broadcast zones in E airspace).

Um, what was the question again? This is all sounding like a bad dream, a bad dream like EUORVISION which is on tonight OMG!!!!

[Howabout]

GRIFFO,

You are wide of the mark - way wide. Speculation, as to identity, doesn't serve any purpose.

Arguments stand, or fall, on merit. I know you appreciate that. Let's just go with the facts Buddy.

[LeadSled]

OCTA can operate up to and including the base level as depicted on the map.Showa Cho,
You quote Australia, ICAO and the rest of the world is out of step --- again.

As I said, the ICAO SARP is that the whole of the volume of "controlled airspace", right to the boundary, is available to aircraft in that airspace. For vertical buffers, ICAO quote a figure in meters, that is rounded off to 700'.

Our AIP does quote navigation tolerances for aircraft in G to ensure that lateral boundaries of controlled airspace are not infringed. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of many of our airspace boundaries, VCA are a very common occurrence.

In my experience, vertical limits are always in AMSL on charts, not AGL.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Last time I looked at the London area chart, outside the zone, the first TMA base was 1200 AGL to the SE.

[peuce]

Don't worry HOWABOUT, Griffo was just having a bit of fun ... :ok: