NAS rears its head again [Archive] - Page 5

Howabout

31st May 2010, 06:31

If what Coral has to say is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it - sounds better informed that me - what's the odds of a zero hour, minus 1 minute, NOTAM deferring implementation to sometime in the future?

I had a look at the AIP Supp for YMAV and it seems that 'Class E+' is pseudo C regarding the requirement for VFR to obey control instructions.

So, my simple question is: Why change it from C to E+ in the first place??:ugh:

As follows from the Sup:

Pilots of VFR aircraft intending to enter the Avalon Class E CTA
Broadcast Area:
a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions; and
c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.

I remain confused.

OZBUSDRIVER

31st May 2010, 06:44

Howabout...item c. bugs me the way it is written. You contact AV TWR and "Broadcast" your intentions and then comply with instructions given? Do you need a clearance to continue...if you continued and then found yourself in conflict after receiving no instructions...is ATC responsible?...It is a minefield!

Jabawocky

31st May 2010, 07:11

.........and updating my Jepps on Saturday afternoon like a good little Jaba, I noted the YMAV airspace was still C over D.

Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for it :confused:

Howabout

31st May 2010, 07:12

OZ, my problem is similar and I think we are pretty close in our mutual confusion.

Mine goes to the following:

c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.

Is the controller responsible for separation in Class E+? - it's not clear. What happens if the controller just decides it's Class E and gives traffic and there's a prang?

Can he/she decide just to let it run? Or is there an absolute responsibility to issue 'ATC instructions?'

I just don't know.

CaptainMidnight

31st May 2010, 07:53

and updating my Jepps on Saturday afternoon like a good little Jaba, I noted the YMAV airspace was still C over D.

Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for itI think the way it works is that for June maps etc. ASA release the data to Jepp and others sometime in Feb/March I think. There was also an AIC (H02/10) published back in mid-April that mentioned the change.

3.4 Avalon Airspace changes
AVALON Class C CTR is reclassified to Class D with surrounding Class
E airspace during hours of tower operation, and Class E airspace
replacing the CTR outside of tower hours. Refer to CTA/R airspace
amendments.

Contact Jepp and see what they say -

Howabout

31st May 2010, 08:08

Captain,

I get the drift, but it's hardly an acceptable outcome if Jepps haven't been updated so close to zero hour in order to get the right information out..

Are you telling us that because Jepps hasn't had the lead time to update their pubs then it's their fault?

That's just my interpretation of what you've said in your post. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

CaptainMidnight

31st May 2010, 08:30

Howabout

No, I'm not defending or blaming anyone, just stating the situation re the timing of normal data releases as I understand it. Why Jepp hasn't reflected it in their data is something for them to answer :ok:

Howabout

31st May 2010, 08:51

Thanks Captain, and I am not trying for a stoush.

But, surely, if a reputable supplier of aeronautical information has been caught on the hop, then there's something wrong.

World-wide, commercial, passenger carrying ops rely on Jepps. And it seems, in this case, that they've got it wrong.

I just ask why.

Capn Bloggs

31st May 2010, 09:36

Coral,
Looking at that SUP (Why 30 Jun and not 3 Jun BTW?)
3 June, by my lookings. :ok:

Jabawocky

31st May 2010, 11:51

Captain 1400 :)

I think the way it works is that for June maps etc. ASA release the data to Jepp and others sometime in Feb/March I think.

Yes thats exactly my point.....and I think you have hit the nail on the head.

My point was.....Sounds like planning was rather.......well ........ someone will have a word for it http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Ratsh!t.............

Now there is a ppruner we have not seen in a while, and I bet if he lurks out of his hole he would have a scathing comment as well.

ARFOR

31st May 2010, 12:05

LeadSled
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
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.
Annex 11 - Chapter 2

2.6 Classification of airspaces

2.6.3 The requirements for flights within each class of airspace shall be as shown in the table in Appendix 4.
Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc.
In a 'lateral' boundary sense, inside CTA/R it is generally half the applicable standard i.e. 2.5nm if the standard applicable is 5nm [surveillance based] from the lateral boundary. Australia have a filed difference allowing half of the 3nm standard [where applicable] i.e 1.5nm from the lateral boundary.

Aircraft in G [and former GAAP, soon to be ICAO D in VMC] can operate up to the boundary of the laterally adjoining CTA/R airspace.

As for the rest [SID's and Mapping] No further comment is necessary :hmm:

peuce

31st May 2010, 14:00

As to operating to the top (including the CTA LL) of Class G, I have seen the following quoted:

AIP ENR 1.4 paragraph 1.1.7

I don't have a copy with me, so someone might have to check it out.

peuce

1st Jun 2010, 00:56

Okay, back to the AIP SUP.....

a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions;

The ICAO Definition of a "Broadcast" is:

A transmission of information relating to air navigation that is not addressed to a specific station or stations (ICAO)

So, by definition, our VFR's broadcast goes out and a response is not required .. as it isn't directed at anyone.

Then, our VFR has to maintain 2 way comms with AV ... but no procedure for establishing 2-way comms has been published. :confused:

By mixing their terms, they are trying to get around the fact that they have established D/C ... not E.

In fact, what they have done is created an utterly unacceptable ambiguity.

What happens if the VFR doesn't get a reply from AV TWR, which, according to ICAO, he shouldn't expect anyway?

What they need to do is re-write the AIP SUP to say ... you must "Contact" the TWR.

You can't have it both ways CASA.

superdimona

1st Jun 2010, 02:24

Wow, I just wanted CASA to allow the RAA to issue controlled airspace training+endorsements. Instead they've bent over backwards to rename controlled airspace class E. Now I can fly in it and legally I don't even need the extra instruction! :ugh:

Jabawocky

1st Jun 2010, 02:40

Yeah....a big benefit there....Class E:rolleyes:

Frank Arouet

1st Jun 2010, 05:27

NFC 172/04 (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/172/download/nfc172_04.pdf) - Preamble
Annex A (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/172/download/nfc172_04_a.pdf) - Summary of Responses
Annex B (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/172/download/nfc172_04_b.pdf) - Final Changes
Annex C (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/172/download/nfc172_04_c.pdf) - Safety StatementNotice of Final Change – NFC 172/04
Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures

Background

On 19 February 2010, CASA released for public comment NPC 172/04 Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures.
The objective of the NPC was primarily to seek comment on proposed changes to regulations and aeronautical information relating to:

introducing Class D procedures styled on those used in the United States of America at existing General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) aerodromes;
aligning procedures for existing Class D aerodromes with those to be introduced at the former GAAP aerodromes;
addressing findings of the 2008 ICAO USOAP audit with respect to wake turbulence and visual separation requirements; and
correcting a number of obsolete or non-standard entries in MOS Part 172.The period for public comment on the proposals contained in the NPC closed on 19 March 2010.
Purpose

The purpose of this NFC is to provide details of comments received on the NPC, to provide CASA’s response to those comments, and to list the final changes to be made to MOS Part 172 and the Australian AIP, resulting from the NPC consultation process.
Additional information

Contact Jan Goosen, MOS Part 172 Project Manger

Capn Bloggs

1st Jun 2010, 05:47

When will you sycophant fundamentalists ever get the message:

bla bla bla... moves Australia
even closer to the proven USA system of airspace management at controlled aerodromes.
It's been proven to be proven!! :}

peuce

1st Jun 2010, 08:13

After a brief reading of the NFC, a few observations pop into my mind:

4.3 CASA intends to follow through with the proposal to apply common standard procedures for all Class D aerodromes; be they former GAAP or original Class D. CASA believes there will be a positive safety and operational efficiency outcome from this decision by virtue of standardisation and fewer variations in operating procedures between different locations.

Just like their standardisation policy at Avalon and BRM/KTA Class E Airspaces

Based on statistics from the time (ed: when 500ft from cloud was required), GAAP aerodromes handled as many if not more aircraft than is currently the case. This seems to imply that changed VMC criteria does not automatically imply a reduced operational throughput at former GAAP aerodromes.

That could not possibly be due to changes in GA activity or economic times?

Under the proposed change, ATC response could (but not always) be as simple as instructing the pilot to report at a particular location. The proposal does not eliminate the availability of the traditional method where indicated, but provides an abbreviated clearance option for use where there exists mutual pilot-ATC understanding of a proposed course of action.

Maybe I'm just slow, but I can see the potential for misunderstandings and ambiguities. Have I just got a clearance? Should I wait for a full one?
Why can't they bite the bullet and just say " a clearance shall be assumed to be received when a Class D Tower Controller provides you with an onwards instruction"... fullstop. They always want to have 50c each way.

....to provide pilots with greater operational flexibility by allowing aircraft to approach a Class D aerodrome from any direction rather than having to approach via a particular point which may require the pilot to deviate off the direct track. The option exists for ATC to dictate a particular arrival route; however, CASA expects that this would only occur when actual traffic conditions dictate, rather than because it is the ‘standard way’.

Two issues ... (1) when will I know that I'm going to be re-directed back to an approach point ... when I have just navigated 10nm around to a more appropriate entry point for my operation?

(2) Fifty bucks it very quickly becomes the 'standard way'

I'm becoming too cynical, I know,:= and I hope it all works as planned. Time will tell.:(

OZBUSDRIVER

1st Jun 2010, 08:50

As far as GAAP to D, I just wish I had an old VFG. The new procedures sound so much like the old pre-GAAP secondary aerodrome procedures.

Now here is where I do want a clarification. At MB, because of the two fingers of hangar line taxiways. I do not need a taxi clearance until I want to access Alpha or Golf taxiways...is that correct?

Because...the tower cannot see me?

Howabout

1st Jun 2010, 09:49

Oh, how predictable, as predicted some time back:

Annex C - Safety Statement (posted by Frank above)

1. Executive Summary
1.1 In better aligning rules and procedures at Class D aerodromes (including those
using General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP)) with those used in the USA, Australia is moving towards the proven USA National Airspace System (NAS), whilst standardising the two disparate sets of rules which exist for Class D airspace in Australia. (my underlining).

As I stated in a post way back (10 April), Blind Freddy could have seen this one coming. I think that the language that relates to the 'proven' USA blah, blah is a dead-set giveaway. My 10 April post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next stage, and this is just my take and my reading of the tea-leaves (but we got it right on 'standardised' Class D), will be the conversion of overlying C to overlying E in the interests of, you guessed it, 'standardisation!'

LeadSled

1st Jun 2010, 12:32

ARFOR,
From memory, the "700' below" is in Annex 10, Vol.2 as a recommendation, not a standard, and thus, what I have said is not inconsistent with what you have quoted.
Tootle pip!!

Dog One

2nd Jun 2010, 09:12

My simple view, with 30+ years of RPT experience, is that the airspace system is wrong. The current Avalon mess will be the final straw, where innocent people are going to be hurt. E outside of radar is an attempt to standardise E airspace. The ridiculous size of the D control zones for jet operations to mix with VFR light aircraft show's a lack of operational experience in the design phase.

The time has come for a Royal Commision into the whole sorry affair, especially to account for the wastage of public money and the lack of safety for the travelling public.

Howabout

2nd Jun 2010, 09:53

Just my take, but it seems the original report has been re-written subsequent to 'industry feedback' - I still have the original.

What is intriguing is a reference in the (apparently revised) report that lists the following feedback from 'industry' - for the life of me, I cannot imagine which section of 'industry' made the comment referenced below. It then goes on to record possible, future CASA options with respect to E over D. As follows:

That the study did not address the Governments policy to pursue reform of the airspace as detailed within the AAPS 2007. It was considered by the
respondent that the existing airspace design surrounding the aerodrome,
without adequate means of surveillance, was ineffective in addressing the
level of risk and that the study required further review to incorporate
comparison of the level of safety that Class E airspace might offer over
existing Class C airspace. (My underlining and bolding)

And the CASA response (this is in the Executive Summary) is as follows. Keep reading, it gets interesting:

The opportunity to review the Alice Springs airspace architecture in
accordance with the AAPS 2007 remains. As detailed in the AAPS 2007
the Government requires CASA to assess the remaining United States
National Airspace System (NAS) Characteristics for application in
Australian airspace and determine an implementation plan. For Alice
Springs this broadly requires review of the safety benefit of existing Class
C airspace steps overhead Alice Springs versus possible reclassification
of those steps to Class E airspace. Below any proposed Class E airspace
the Class D control zone (CTR) would also be subject to review to a lower
level than currently exists......Well, well, and to quote Gomer Pyle, SURPRISE! SURPRISE! (Sergeant Carter).

Now, bear in mind that this AS report was released in January this year and, it seems to me, amended to take account of 'industry feedback' some time later. I have absolutely no beef with that process - that goes to consultation and transparency.

However, the report was released in January and justifies the 'possible' reclassification of C over D, to E over a reduced D, based on the Airspace Policy Statement from 2007.

That statement was superseded by the statement effective from 1 January 2010, and released on 16 December 2009, which stated the following:

The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government's airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
Nothing, nada, which says NAS must be the end-state. Only that NAS must must be considered as part of the mix - French, German, NZ, Upper Volta, Ethiopia, etc, etc. It is merely an example in the 2010 document as to where we should look for 'best practice.'

My question is as follows:

Why does a CASA report, released in January 2010, and (it seems to me) subsequently amended, refer to the 2007 Airspace Policy Statement as the authority when the Minister released a revised statement on 16 December 2009 that was effective from 1 January 2010?

The CASA release date on their study is 21 January 2010, a good 5 weeks after the revised statement was released, yet the only reference to direction is the 2007 statement. There is not a mention of the 2010 statement.

I'll give you all another prediction. The first cab off the rank, in the interests of 'standardisation,' wont be AS; it will be YMAY. Why? Because it's regional, out of the way, and will be judged to cause the least grief to prove the 'concept.'

Howabout

2nd Jun 2010, 11:16

Thanks Coral,

You're dead right.

I post again what I said 5 days ago:

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.

peuce

2nd Jun 2010, 12:21

Below any proposed Class E airspace the Class D control zone (CTR) would also be subject to review to a lower level than currently exists......
Are they saying that they are thinking of downgrading the AS Control Zone?
If so, ... what would they downgrade it to? Class G?
Is it that quiet there?

Don't the NASTRONAUTS say that the airspace above can't be a higher category than the terminal one ... as that is where the greatest risk is?

mjbow2

3rd Jun 2010, 05:10

Peuce you seem so caught up in hysterics that you cannot see the blatantly obvious.

You class E deniers have become so myopic. Just because an airport is not Class D it does not mean it has to be Class G. How about class E?

Capn Bloggs

3rd Jun 2010, 05:29

How about class E?
Let's do it. IFR stuck with procedural separation on the ATC freq whilst self-segregating with VFR on the CTAF. What planet are you calling from, MJBOW2?

Why on earth would anybody want E over an airfield if there wasn't enough traffic to justify D?

You NAStronauts have nothing credible to base your arguments on except "that's the way they do it in the US".

At least the boys at CASA have seen through you lot and are inventing their own airspace structure to keep the "show on the road".

peuce

3rd Jun 2010, 07:11

Peuce you seem so caught up in hysterics that you cannot see the blatantly obvious.

Because I had already discounted the blantantly stupid.
But, in hindsight, that may have been an error :ugh:

CaptainMidnight

3rd Jun 2010, 07:21

Just because an airport is not Class D it does not mean it has to be Class G. How about class E?Class E not permitted for Control Zones (ICAO).

For obvious reasons .......

That nips that one in the bud.

Pat Mcgroin

3rd Jun 2010, 07:55

Class E not permitted for Control Zones (ICAO).

Bazinga!!!!!!:D:D

Jabawocky

3rd Jun 2010, 08:00

E should be for Eradicated! :}

peuce

3rd Jun 2010, 10:04

Okay, at Alice, if D is out and E is out, then, in line with recent CASA decisions, here's my prediction:

Class G Zone
Including a "Broadcast" to ML Centre requirement
Including a continuous 2-way comms with ML Centre requirement
Including DTI from ML Centre on all known aircraft (that's everyone)

Some people, like Griffo, might call this an AFIZ ... but I wouldn't :O

Ex FSO GRIFFO

3rd Jun 2010, 10:48

Gee Mr 'P',

I just lurved the smell of an AFIZ in the morning.............

They worked - didn't they?
Everyone knew where everyone else WHO MATTERED was....and all with the minimum of fuss.

Can't see 'them' doing it tho, - 'they' would have to employ more staff, and pay them at ATC rates accordingly, so t'would be
'same ole service' but at an inflated cost...........:}

Rotsa Ruck Guys & Gals..:ok::ok:

LeadSled

3rd Jun 2010, 15:05

TCAS was only mandated in the USA in 1993
Bloggs,

Check you history books.

All QF, and many Ansett and Australian Airlines aircraft were fitted with early models of TCAS long before it was mandated anywhere. An AATA policy decision, because of the high rate of ATC error in Australia. The now long gone B747 "Classics" had the VSI needle presentation, a retrofit. Every glass cockpit aircraft that I have flown has the RA command on the FDH/ADI/ EADI/name of choice command bars.

All QF B767/744 came factory fitted with TCAS ---- and that is a long time ago, check the delivery dates. Check the date of "Revison 7", which was just about the definitive TCAS 11

Seems to me that you could update quite a lot of your "knowledge" -- and get your facts straight ---before you start criticizing the knowledge of others.

Tootle pip!!

The oldest B767-338 in the QF fleet is about 20+ years old, the now disposed of B767-238 several years older, at least, so there is your 20+ years.

Delivery date: 20/10/1988 for VH-OGB (http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b767-24316.htm), as quoted on another web site, so the first seven B767-238 were delivered well before that, starting some time in 1985, starting with VH-EAL, then -EAJ and on.

89 steps to heaven

3rd Jun 2010, 20:32

An AATA policy decision, because of the high rate of ATC error in Australia.

Lets see the proof of that claim. Perhaps it was because pilots make mistakes too.

QSK?

4th Jun 2010, 01:29

OZBUSDIRIVER:

As far as GAAP to D, I just wish I had an old VFG.

I've got two old VFGs in my bookshelf; one from 1968 and one from 1971.

Wotdoyawannaknow?

mjbow2

4th Jun 2010, 01:42

CaptainMidnight

Class E not permitted for Control Zones (ICAO).

Like The United States, we do not need ICAO permission to do anything.

By the way, when a tower closes at night or at a non towered airport, its called a CTAF not a control zone.

Capn Bloggs

You state
Why on earth would anybody want E over an airfield if there wasn't enough traffic to justify D?

Because it provides IFR-IFR protection in IMC conditions. Its fascinating that you cannot see this simple fact.

You NAStronauts have nothing credible to base your arguments on except "that's the way they do it in the US".

Finally you admit that the US example is credible. It is credible because airspace classifications are assigned on scientifically validated data from tens of millions of flights across all airports. From the busiest to the least busy CTAF.

I find it amazing that you pass blind judgment on an airspace system that you have obviously never had the benefit of using. You clearly are absolutely clueless on how class E would work when arriving into a CTAF despite being told repeatedly.

You state the same garbage again...

IFR stuck with procedural separation on the ATC freq whilst self-segregating with VFR on the CTAF.

And again I will tell you that situation does not exist. If it is VMC you can conduct a visual approach from 30 nm out. You will never be cleared into the airport vicinity if other IFR aircraft are still present. You will not be given the same kind of ridiculous close in procedural separation you get at places like Launy or Maroochidore. You will be separated (from other IFR) well in advance of your arrival into the CTAF area if it is a non radar environment. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

I understand that you might think there is no way around the unique Australian tracking and altitude requirement for a visual approach but regardless, we should copy the United States, Canada and New Zealand etc and allow a pilot to track however they see fit, once cleared for a visual approach (unless the visual approach clearance is given with a restriction... ie follow xyz aircraft, No 2).

mjbow2
NASTRONAUT

ARFOR

4th Jun 2010, 02:24

You will never be cleared into the airport vicinity if other IFR aircraft are still present.
Why might that be? Is it because visual separation [i.e. a standard] and related is not applicable to remote offsite ATC :hmm:
You will not be given the same kind of ridiculous close in procedural separation you get at places like Launy or Maroochidore.
Ridiculous? Application of any number of 'international' [including US NAS] separation standards such as visual separation and safe segregation monitoring by ATC eyes onsite is why aircraft can be safely 'separated' into the circuit and then all the way to the gate.

clearly you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS ;)
I understand that you might think there is no way around the unique Australian tracking and altitude requirement for a visual approach but regardless, we should copy the United States, Canada and New Zealand etc and allow a pilot to track however they see fit, once cleared for a visual approach
In Class E, the difference between visual procedures is:-

1. an IFR pilot in VMC who cancels IFR [elects to cancel their IFR category/flight plan] becomes invisible like all other VFR
2. an IFR on a 'visual approach' as per normal IFR and ATC procedures retains separation from other IFR in E

In D, C or B [if permitted], if the pilots elects to cancel IFR, they will still receive an ATC service [separation, segregation or DTI] with regard to ALL other traffic IFR and VFR.

The difference in service to IFR [who retain their IFR status] in VMC in any of the countries mentioned would be what exactly? :hmm:

I'll help you ..... NONE

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS :=

peuce

4th Jun 2010, 03:32

I'm gobsmacked ...The Dodgey Brothers Construction Company is at it again:
Like The United States, we do not need ICAO permission to do anything.

... moving the bleeding goalposts:ugh:

The whole premise upon which Dick initiated the AMATS/Airspace 2000/NAS changes, and upon which the Minister has published his Policy, was that...

WE MUST ALIGN WITH THE ICAO AIRSPACE MODEL

Now the nastronauts are telling us that ... we can do what we like, if it suits us:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

If that's the case, then lets stop wasting our time and go back to CTA/OCTA ... which worked:{

Capn Bloggs

4th Jun 2010, 04:49

Ledsled,
Seems to me that you could update quite a lot of your "knowledge" -- and get your facts straight ---before you start criticizing the knowledge of others.

All I said was:
Given that TCAS was only mandated in the USA in 1993 and the rest of the world in 2000, justify your claim that you haven't flown that presentation "for in more than 20 years".
What are the wrong facts here? You are a bit touchy, aren't you?

PS: Oh fount of all knowledge, how's that defintion of "Continuous Two Way" for VFR in E coming along?

MJBOW2/Dick Smith,
IFR stuck with procedural separation on the ATC freq whilst self-segregating with VFR on the CTAF.

And again I will tell you that situation does not exist. If it is VMC you can conduct a visual approach from 30 nm out. You will never be cleared into the airport vicinity if other IFR aircraft are still present. You will not be given the same kind of ridiculous close in procedural separation you get at places like Launy or Maroochidore. You will be separated (from other IFR) well in advance of your arrival into the CTAF area if it is a non radar environment. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
I am well aware of how E airspace works. It's not rocket science. It's just dumb. If the sky is gin-clear from miles out, I don't need E airspace. If the sky is really cloudy all over the CTAF, I still don't need E airspace. I self-segregate. Affordable safety. No-radio lighties flying over the top of Broome or Karratha at 4500ft in E, I don't need!

And yes, there are plenty of scenarios when I am not VMC (or am not willing to accept a change to VFR) during the arrival when there are VFR aircraft below the cloud in the CTAF. So yes, I will be constrained by procedural ATC standards when in G I could do my own thing in concert with the other IFR after being given that very un-American service called DTI.

YOU just don't understand that See and Avoid is not just "OK, I hear you on the radio so well miss each other".

Capn Bloggs

4th Jun 2010, 05:42

Ledsled,
Every glass cockpit aircraft that I have flown has the RA command on the FDH/ADI/ EADI/name of choice command bars.
Is that so?

From some reasonably current FCOMs:

717:
FD bars disappear during RA

737:
Note: Do not use flight director commands until clear of conflict.

767:
The flight director is not affected by TCAS guidance. Therefore, when complying with an RA, flight director commands may be followed only if they result in a vertical speed that satisfies the RA command.

777:
Note: Do not use flight director commands (integrated cue)/flight director pitch commands (split cue) until clear of conflict.

Airbus:
I believe FDs are to be turned off during an RA.

That's progress, Eh? :cool:

Ajax57

4th Jun 2010, 06:40

Late entrant into the NAS by stealth etc argument i know.

The fundamental difference between the system as proposed here and as it runs in the US is that in BME and KTA you aver a 100NM from the nearest radar. THAT is what makes the US airspace a lot safer than the crock that is being visited on us here.

If all RPT or even if all IFR hve TCAS is irrelevant, since none of them are the slightest good if the vfr in question does not have a functionig transponder, dont forget that most of the VFR aircraft flying into BME have just come off a dirt strip, only takes a stone sometime since the last time it was checked.(Checking usually comes about when an RPT (WHO ONLY KNOWS ABOUT HIM BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN GIVE TRAFFIC) fails to pick him up on TCAS.

A 737 cockpit at 10 miles ibound is a busy place, (as is that of an E170/190, Fk100 etc), throw in a bit of cloud at A035 and you are flying an RN/RNAV/NDB approach and the very last thing you want is some un-notified VFR traffic who is not yet on the tower frequency to ruin a lo of people day. Can't happen?? How many mid-airs have happened in just that scenario in the US?? and that is WITH radar coverage!!!!

Unalerted see and avoid is putting a lot of confidence in TCAS....if it is that good why do we even have controllers??

I feel sorry for the controllers who will have to work these zones, they are being set up for a catastrophe which will not be of their making. They know the system that they are being asked to implement is unsafe, even CASA knows it is unsafe, that is why they will not do a safety audit on it. It is also unnecessary, CASA's own review of the Brome airspace, released less than 2 months before CASA DEMANDED that AsA put in a tower by 18/11/2010, stated that the current sytem was working well and would continue to do so for the next 5 years or until movements increased by another 10,000 movements. Please note that there was NO consultation with ANY of the stakeholders before this decision was taken. What kind of organisation goes against the results of its own review? This decision is an idealogical one only.

One last point, how many mid-air collisions have there been between two aircraft who were in reciept of a directed traffic information in Australia???? Find this number and compare it with the number of mid-air collisions in contolled airspace.....

Safe flying everybody, just dont expect it around BME after November 18

CaptainMidnight

4th Jun 2010, 08:03

mjbow2

You said:Just because an airport is not Class D it does not mean it has to be Class G. How about class E?Because the topic of discussion was the current airspace architecture at Alice Springs I, like everyone else assumed you were referring to the control zone.

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you are suggesting - disestablish the control zone and Tower and make the airspace Class E?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

4th Jun 2010, 08:53

Re Peuce's comment;

"If that's the case, then lets stop wasting our time and go back to CTA/OCTA ... which worked.."

You're getting c l o s e r ......:ok::ok:

rotorblades

4th Jun 2010, 15:48

mjbow
Because it provides IFR-IFR protection in IMC conditions
I know you like to get a little picky, so Ill pick back. Not just in IMC, IFR is separated from IFR in all weather conditions in E airspace.

You will never be cleared into the airport vicinity if other IFR aircraft are still present
Thats an incredibly vague statement, IFR aircraft still present? where, taxiing on the ground?.
So, you then end up loitering in a holding pattern away from the airport for hours on end.

I'm still yet to hear a *convincing* argument as to why have E as opposed to a higher class.
And just saying "because the US does it" really doesnt cut the mustard, and is the least convincing argument in the world. I thought everyone would've learned by now to just say no to blindly following whatever the Americans do (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).

ARFOR
In Class E, the difference between visual [cancelling IFR]
I may have missed your/the point with this statement.
By saying visual (with ref to the ground) doesnt mean an automatic cancel of IFR, if meant visual with an conflicting aircraft then separation will still have to be 'assigned' from ATC to the pilot (and not an immediate cancel of IFR).
And from what I can see in the 'books' even if you are doing a visual approach from 30 or miles out in VMC doesnt automatically mean a cancel of IFR, and ATC still need to separate.

peuce

4th Jun 2010, 23:03

One last point, how many mid-air collisions have there been between two aircraft who were in reciept of a directed traffic information in Australia???? Find this number and compare it with the number of mid-air collisions in contolled airspace.....

I believe the answer to the first question is NIL
To the second, some.

The point, I believe, is that ALERTED see and avoid has worked well for us in Australia.

To implement un-surveilled Class E ... in an area that's busy enough to require IFR seperation ... is a retrograde step.... as it introduces UNALERTED see and avoid.

Bodgying part of it up with Broadcast Areas proves the wariness of the Regulator ... yet they still proceed with it.

Dog One

4th Jun 2010, 23:10

mjbow

Quote:
Because it provides IFR-IFR protection in IMC conditions

In C airspace, we get protection from all aircraft, in E in IMC we have the unnown VFR traffic to contend with, who might not have a servicable transponder, who might not understand or want to understand minimum distances from cloud etc etc etc.

E outside of radar provides no protection at all to IFR, so why have it. C provides protection at similar costs to all.

mjbow, you have yet to convince me!!

ARFOR

5th Jun 2010, 00:03

rotorblades

I worded that bit poorly. Have amended to clarify. :)

OZBUSDRIVER

5th Jun 2010, 03:51

If anyone saw last post..appols. Bit over the top..

Griffo, I will keep saying this until I die. FS was cut from the tree long before its best fruit was produced. If the two airspace model continues and with remote basing and the proper use of TAAATS FS would have become world's best practice for service outside of what is now Class A/B/C airspace.

NAS without ALL of the US facilities, procedures and developed culture is exactly the same as a Cargo Cult!

man on the ground

5th Jun 2010, 05:22

Ledsled,
Quote:
Every glass cockpit aircraft that I have flown has the RA command on the FDH/ADI/ EADI/name of choice command bars.
Is that so?

Go easy on him Capt Bloggs; if that's the version of MS Flight Sim he his using, that's all he knows!

Frank Arouet

5th Jun 2010, 06:00

Why aren't you Victorians watching the AFL instead of making mischief on the forums? Carlton are flogging Melbourne, so that's newsworthy at least if you give a toss either way.

You all should leave your body to science. Perhaps then, we can find out what the fixation with the God given right you assume to inherit about absolute Australian intellect is all about.

man on the ground! a highly qualified jet penguin perhaps. Do you have any input except amateur sniper?:mad:

OZBUSDRIVER;

I missed your last. Must have been a doozy for you to apologise. As an avid collector of your bile, can you PM me a copy if you still have the doc?:D

Capn Bloggs

5th Jun 2010, 06:11

Oh, it's hard to soar like a Eagle when I'm surrounded by NASturkeys! :}

Man on the ground, best laugh I've had all day! :ok: :D

PS: What's the "AFL"? :confused:

desmotronic

5th Jun 2010, 06:27

Avalon E over C/G should be interesting... throw in a few random vfr students, a couple of english as a second language airline types, and a gaggle of jetstar 200hr cadet copilots..... all in close proximity.. :8

LeadSled

5th Jun 2010, 07:43

Bloggs,

In future, I will be more careful in my phraseology, so that you don't confuse RA Commands ( which are often but not only two horizontal bars) with FD Command Bars.

I note you are silent about further arguing about when TCAS was widely adopted, as opposed to being mandated, and your claims that my "20 years" must have been wrong --- I say again, get your facts straight.

What, no argument about the delivery dates of the first QF B767, or what they had fitted at delivery --- almost 25 years ago??? Surely you know better than those of us who were there at the time???

Folks,
I note the snide comments about MS Flight Sim, it will undoubtedly distress some of you to know that MS Flight Sim is the basis for several quite advanced Synthetic Trainers approved by CASA per. CASR 60.

Indeed, several of these "four and six degrees of freedom" devices even has specific (CAR 217) approval as a Flight Sim, their demonstrated results are so good, even though they do not meet a number of normal technical certification criteria as a full flight sim.

The visuals on the above devices ( including 230 lateral degrees of view --- no problem with certification for visual circling off an NPA) make many "CASA approved" flight simulators more like the toy ----- these blokes ( and they are not the only ones in Australia doing it) make the visuals on a number of CASA certified sims look like the toys, not the other way round.

Come to think of it, I must be one of the few pilots in AU who has never owned a copy of MS Flight Sim, maybe it is time to rectify that omission.

As to my statements about ATC errors, I note the standard knee jerk reaction, but if you really want to know ( as opposed to basking in the glow of rose colored glasses) the facts, apart from stuff produced by BASI/ATSB, try some of the conclusions of one or more of the following: Bureau Veritas consultants/Roake Manor Research/Ratner Associates/Chavkin/UK NATS/several other reports over the years whose names don't come immediately to mind.

You do your own homework and self-education, I have my facts straight. Most of the above, plus various other papers on the subject will turn up with an internet search.

As to AATA policy decisions, talk to anybody who was in on the policy at the time, there are plenty still around. Anybody who knew Reg will know he didn't spend one brass razoo, unless there was an extremely convincing reason ---- look at the history of airborne weather radar.

Tootle pip!!

Ex FSO GRIFFO

5th Jun 2010, 08:02

Thanks for that Mr 'Ozbus'......We were actually working towards something like that - with a 'thing' called 'FISADS' - I've forgotten just what the acronym stood for - but it was an 'automated' system of displaying all traffic on a screen, based on aircraft flight planned times between points and an actual DEP time.
It was probably morphed/developed into TAAAAATS..??

Imagine what it could have become with say, ADSB... - a real LIVE tfc info and advice service..!! (Cant' say with a RADAR feed for those OCTA acft...NO NO...Naughty thoughts....):=:=

However, after ALL of those $$'s - rumoured to have been spent by the 'MILLIONS'....we have what the 'idealists/evangelists' ALMOST wanted.
AND - THEY haven't got there yet..!!:yuk::yuk:

I've indicated before that we were told the Canadians liked our AFIZ so much that they imported the idea for some of their less busy 'remote' areas, closed the ATC Tower facility and installed a 'comparable' FS service...
T'was the level of service required and at a 'cheeaper' rate utilising less facilities etc .....

Well, as Mr Peuce has predicted...we' re nearly there....AGIN!! :hmm:

Rotsa Ruck...Boys and Gals..:ok::ok:

Capn Bloggs

5th Jun 2010, 08:14

Ledsled,
In future, I will be more careful in my phraseology, so that you don't confuse RA Commands ( which are often but not only two horizontal bars) with FD Command Bars.

WTF are you on about? Please post a pic of this "two horizontal bars RA command". I am now beginning to believe the MS thing...

I note you are silent about further arguing about when TCAS was widely adopted, as opposed to being mandated, and your claims that my "20 years" must have been wrong --- I say again, get your facts straight.

What, no argument about the delivery dates of the first QF B767, or what they had fitted at delivery --- almost 25 years ago??? Surely you know better than those of us who were there at the time???

To be honest, I can't be stuffed, but I'll take your word for it. Now you can stop carrying on like a dipstick ripping into me just because I question your statements (and I never accused you of lying about 767s [WGAF when they arrived]). You must have been a real pleasure to fly with. Did the FE keep a points tally between you and the poor FO?

BTW, what was wrong with my post about the TCAS "Monitor Vertical Speed" response?

I notice that you are silent on what "Continuous Two Way Comms" means for VFR in E. You don't know, do you?

And while you're there, where's the CBA on E over D: there isn't one, is there? Ideology rules, eh?

peuce

5th Jun 2010, 09:51

FISADS (Flight Information Service Aircraft Display System) cost under $500,000 from memory. The biggest cost was the PCs to install it in, back in those days. I saw it in action at Brisbane and it was brilliant by all accounts. Some of the FSOs reckoned that they could handle 3 times the amount of traffic using it ... as it removed the mental gymnastics required in using cardboard strips.

It was capable of taking a "feed" from any source ... ADSB, Radar, Flight Plans etc.

On the eve of its full rollout, after most of the money had been spent, .... guess who pulled the plug?

By my reckoning .... you could have incresed FS efficiency by about 50% and, with a bit of tweaking and finesing, it could have been a fairly useful ATC weapon, albeit without all the bells and whistles, for about 1/1000th of the cost of TAAATS.

Go figure ...

Jabawocky

5th Jun 2010, 10:34

So there is a long history of keeping Oz Aviation and airspace in the dark ages hey.....by the promoter of technology :D

Laugh my A$$ off there lads. This must have been before my time. ahhhh a rat in a rat wheel!:}

LeadSled

5th Jun 2010, 11:48

WTF are you on about? Please post a pic of this "two horizontal bars RA command". I am now beginning to believe the MS thing...Bloggs,

Once again, to try and help you understand that there is a whole world out there beyond (rather obviously) your knowledge and experience --- and a few others on this thread.

For very nice color illustrations of the red RA Command displays that you seem to believe only exist in MS Flight Sim, herewith a reference ( and this goes for the rest of you who seem to doubt what I have said):

Honeywell Corp.
Publication Reference: C28-3841-02-04
TCAS 11, Pilots Handbook.
Appendix C,
TCAS EFIS DISPLAYS.
Pages C-1 through C-5.

Incidentally, the publication date is well before TCAS became "mandatory".

The obsession of certain Australian groups we all know of about, with "mandatory" as a precondition to anybody doing anything "safe" is well known. Witness the rubbish talked about "recommended" leading to non-compliance, whereas "mandatory" will ensure "compliance" that will result in "safe" ----- despite every study that shows otherwise, and including CASA CEO/DAS well informed remarks to the Senate Estimates Committee.

You really really should get your facts straight.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Appendix D of the same publication helpfully lists a more or less complete list of the regulatory compliance documents for TCAS 11, including:

FAA Advisory ( Note: not Mandatory) Circulars,
TSOs
RTCA/SAE Docs
ARPs, various and
Some very interesting studies on NMACs and TCAS.

OZBUSDRIVER

5th Jun 2010, 12:50

Yep, history has a nasty way of coming back and biting those who try and rewrite it. The removal of FS was needed BEFORE TAAATS became active. If FS was still operating and with the equipment that Griffo has so kindly related to...what a weapon it would have been. Coulda sold it to the world!

Now, this IS interesting! If the forerunner of TSAD was only minimally priced with the dearest item being the PC to run it...and it would prove to improve effficiency by at least 300%...and scaleable with emerging and even not yet designed technology..where does the argument come in that FSUs were going to cost aviation mega millions to continue running???? If anything, it was going to save heaps more in efficiency. More information to be saddened about:(

Ex FSO GRIFFO

5th Jun 2010, 13:38

Many TKS 'Peuce'....the 'ole memory glands seem to be deteriorating in direct proportion to the current 'red'....

And although the WCE did a magnificent job tonite....we didn't actually win the 4 points...but 't'was GOOD anyway...

You've got the drift Mr 'Oz'......:):)

And, I'm SURE Mr 'Peuce' is well aware as well....:):)
Boo Hoo Hoo.........

And ALL of that 'vast' experience and 'local knowledge' Down The Drain..!!:yuk::yuk:

And, You've guessed it!! The original intent WAS to market the 'Airspace Management' to the rest of the world - starting with our 'nearest neighbours' in the Pacific....Would have been an excellent income for OZ economy. :yuk::yuk:

But, now yas get nuthin'..... except 'when workload permits'......:=:=

Cheers Guys & Gals........:):)

:ok:

Capn Bloggs

6th Jun 2010, 04:57

Ledsled,

Honeywell Corp.
Publication Reference: C28-3841-02-04
TCAS 11, Pilots Handbook.

Couldn't find it on the net. What model Boeing is this display fitted to and I'll continue my research.

Odd that the FAA did make it MANDATORY instead of "recommended".

BTW, what was wrong with my post about the TCAS "Monitor Vertical Speed" response?

I notice that you are silent on what "Continuous Two Way Comms" means for VFR in E. You don't know, do you?

And while you're there, where's the CBA on E over D: there isn't one, is there? Ideology rules, eh?
Still waiting for answers.

OZBUSDRIVER

7th Jun 2010, 13:48

Seriously, Plumbum. Relevance! The member must make his answer relative to the question! Plumbum!

Why is there no study that promotes a change from C over D to E over D? Why is there a "Broadcast Zone" instigated in class E? Why are VFR urged to call to and obey instructions from ATC in, effectively, class G airspace?
Are VFR pilots expected to maintain two-way communication in class E or just monitor the frequency? Where else on this planet is class E operated in such a fashion...and why are these "changes" required to be enacted?

Dogs breakfast! Hope it tastes good the second time down?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

7th Jun 2010, 14:56

So they can call it an 'E-FIZ'.....

Well, the effect is the same!!!:}:} Almost.........:ok::ok:

peuce

8th Jun 2010, 00:57

The OAR/Industry meetings are due in BRM/KTA in "early June".
Should be interesting ....

Capn Bloggs

8th Jun 2010, 12:56

Dear RAPAC,

P**** C*******, Executive Manager Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group, and I will be conducting industry briefings in Broome and Karratha during June 2010. The briefings are in regards to the airspace changes at both locations. Details of the briefings are as follows:

Location: Broome

Date: 15th June 2010

Time: 1700 - 1900hrs

Venue: The Mercure - Weld St. Broome

All welcome. Hope to see you there.

Location: Karratha

Date: 17th June 2010.

We will be making ourselves available to anyone who wishes to discuss the proposals on the morning of the 17th and plan to visit as many operators as possible. If anyone wishes to book a particular time please contact me via the addresses/no's. below.

Kind Regards

G***** R*****
Operations Manager
Office of Airspace Regulation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Ph (02) 6217 1413

It takes two days to get from BME to KTA because the ambulance carrying the two gentlemen will be limited to 30kph due the extensive injuries sustained by the industry beatings at BME! :ouch: :)

rotorblades

8th Jun 2010, 16:05

E over D
http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/violent/violent040.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

This is what it feels like trying to get plausible arguments from nastronauts
http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/guns/guns012.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

just a bit of fun
http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/laughing/laughing004.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Capn Bloggs

9th Jun 2010, 02:25

peuce

9th Jun 2010, 03:34

Seriously can someone briefly fill tell me what these changes are all about, as I am pretty sure that noone in EK has any idea about them. I hope we don't have to lob into Alice Springs one night

For those who don't have the time, or stomach, to read through the thread ... here is my take on it:

It is CASA's attempt to de-harmonise Australia with the rest of the aviation world

They wish to implement non-surveillance Class E Airspace above Class D Towers ... initally Broome, Karattha and Avalon

That means that IFRs are separated from each other ... and VFRs are unknown (and therefore "not there")

CASA eventually saw that non-surveillance Class E may have some problems ... with high capacity Jet IFRs descending through invisible VFRs and Controllers directing IFRs into the path of invisible VFRs

CASA, using some exceptionally lateral thinking, found a way around it ... they created Class E+ .... in which VFRs are required to broadcast to ATC and follow all ATC instructions.

The silly amongst us thought that, instead of stubbornly sticking to their near religious idealism, CASA might have been better off making the airspace Class D or C

CASA will be holding meetings in Broome & Karattha on 15th & 17th June ... to take questions.

kam16

9th Jun 2010, 05:17

By having the meetings in Broome and Karatha it will keep those pesky Airline crews away to ask questions :ugh:

Frank Arouet

9th Jun 2010, 07:03

For those who don't have the time, or stomach, to read through the thread ... here is my take on it:

It is CASA's attempt to de-harmonise Australia with the rest of the aviation world

They wish to implement non-surveillance Class E Airspace above Class D Towers ... initally Broome, Karattha and Avalon
That means that IFRs are separated from each other ... and VFRs are unknown (and therefore "not there")
CASA eventually saw that non-surveillance Class E may have some problems ... with high capacity Jet IFRs descending through invisible VFRs and Controllers directing IFRs into the path of invisible VFRs
CASA, using some exceptionally lateral thinking, found a way around it ... they created Class E+ .... in which VFRs are required to broadcast to ATC and follow all ATC instructions.
The silly amongst us thought that, instead of stubbornly sticking to their near religious idealism, CASA might have been better off making the airspace Class D or C
CASA will be holding meetings in Broome & Karattha on 15th & 17th June ... to take questions.

So CASA is "the" NASTRONAUT. It's singular, not plural!

Somehow I was thinking that a few individuals were so influencial that they were dictating matters to the regulator. Just goes to show how one can misread threads.:ugh:

peuce

9th Jun 2010, 07:18

Frank,

No matter who or what influences an airspace decision ... the actual decision is ultimately CASA's responsibility.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Jun 2010, 07:39

Francis...that is what we call you-
"the" NASTRONAUT:ok:

Jabawocky

9th Jun 2010, 09:51

Coral

Is this out of YBAF? Or are you talking about YMAV where the E over D has started?

I do not imagine YBSU....hard to get used to that....is all that much different, or is it?:confused:

Jabawocky

9th Jun 2010, 11:52

How on earth was this supposed to be better?

Because it was NON STD..........ohhh crap...thats BME & KTA too:ooh:

missy

10th Jun 2010, 12:50

Interesting reading.

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

p3. The airspace classification system to be used in Australia ...
p5. The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration

sunnySA

10th Jun 2010, 13:24

Missy, not sure that your link is working. And I think you are pointing at this section, is that correct?

The airspace classification system to be used in Australia is specified below:
Class A: IFR (instrument flight rules) flights only are permitted. All flights are provided with an Air Traffic Control (ATC) service and are separated from each other.
Class B: IFR and VFR (visual flight rules) flights are permitted; all flights are provided with ATC service and are separated from each other. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace.
Class C: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are provided with an ATC service and are separated from both IFR and VFR flights. VFR flights are provided with an ATC service for separation from IFR flights and traffic information on other VFR flights.
Class D: IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided with an ATC service. IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and are provided with traffic information on all VFR flights. VFR flights are provided with traffic information on all other flights. All flights are separated during take-off and landing.
Class E: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are provided with an ATC service and are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information on VFR flights as far as is practicable. VFR flights are provided with a flight information service, which includes traffic information, as far as is practicable.
Class F: IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive a flight information service if requested. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace.
Class G: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR and VFR flights receive a flight information service which includes directed traffic information to IFR flights on other IFR flights and known VFR flights.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

10th Jun 2010, 15:55

Mr Peuce has got it right .....
" ....and VFRs are unknown (and therefore "not there" ).....

The original concept of the NAS was to delete services to VFRs as they contribute nothing to the ASA Income generation of $$'s.

Way back prior to the changes of 12.12.91, much 'discussion' was had by the proponents of the changes that even IFR acft, operating OCTA, when flying in VMC, would no longer be classed as IFR, in that they were operating in IFR category/VFR procedures - so, OCTA, they would be regarded as VFR.

When flying OCTA, there were NIL Air Nav Charges that could be levied - so services were to be 'deleted'.

However, due to Industry pressure, services to IFR acft by Flight Service were retained.

This was the 'first cut' of the 12.12.91 changes - NIL services to VFR's.
Flight Service no longer held strips on VFR acft - even SARTIMES were held by BN SAR office - or whatever it was called at the time.
Weather info etc was 'on request', 'one time' at that time.

Fast forward....
Class 'E' is the logical extension of this concept.
VFRs are 'INVISIBLE' - therefore NO services to be provided from Centre ATC - except 'as workload permits' - i.e. when the ATCer is NOT earning by providing the CORE BUSINESS Services to IFR acft.

'Beancounter thinking concept'....which is what we've got!

The original concept behind the TAAATS was to develop for use in Aust CTA, and also to EXPORT the computerised Airspace Management to IFR in CTA only ( think 'Heavies' at so many$'s / Tonne / N.Mile ) - to our Pacific near neighbours, and thus generate huge income streams for ASA, the Govt. - AND the managers bonuses!

This was the 'main business plan' - Income generation from IFR in CTA only!

The 3 'Stakeholders' - being The Govt., ATC, and The Industry were supposed to 'share' the income, and eventually, as the income stream rose, the charges to the Industry would be lowered accordingly.
"It will cost you less"......

What came after was an 'inconvenience'.....IFR Regionals etc going into OCTA destinations simply had to be serviced.
So came the destination 'D' with 'Location Specific Pricing'......

Fast forward again -
Now we are talking about 'E' over busy locations like BME KTA etc - Politically, I am told, 'location specific pricing' has been 'put aside' as in these locations it would probably send the local operators seeking an income elsewhere - IMHO.

Well, I hear that's the current policy for the construction costs of the towers etc at least.....and BME gets a new Fire'es stn as well.:D

But....the VFR's are still an issue - hence the 'Broadcast / call the Tower' (Which is it??) requirement.....but still - NO services provided to the VFR from the Centre ATC....Not their job. = No $$'s in it for ASA.:=

That's how I remember it, the 'guts' of it anyway.
But then 20 years is a fair while.......and I may have got some of it 'out of context'......But I don't really think so.....:=

'E' = ENJOY.......(The Challenge..) :ok::ok:

Question - Are the ongoing 'operating costs' of the respective Towers etc going to be passed on to the Industry..local operators..? (Staffing, accomodation, etc ), in addition to the Airport Operator's Landing Fees?

Frank Arouet

11th Jun 2010, 01:33

OZBUSDRIVER;

Francis...that is what we call you-

Quote:
"the" NASTRONAUT
Why?
I have previously stated, and you have responded to the fact, that I am a private VFR Day pilot who hasn't flown instruments for over 20 years. I am not qualified to talk on this subject and only enter debate if I see something that could effect my flying, which is 99.9% in class G airspace.
Unlike your consummatory behaviour which you assume allows your similarly gifted qualifications to be on a higher plane of intelligence and grants you special privelege to personally attack those who have either achieved something in their lives or are qualified in some way to make a comment by either having flown all over the world in all airspace or having a professional background as a pilot or risk mitagator.
I've followed your Socialist antics on several forums and your repetative attacks on Dick Smith as one example, lead me to believe you have a personal grudge against any achiever.
Are you a Troll?:suspect:
On the matter of this subject, have you taken it up with your pilot organisation who look after "your" interests? Why haven't they posted here on the subject? Have they said anything in their magazine or received any feedback to support or reject your asertions? Have they made any public announcements regarding policy on the matter? Have they said anything to garner support from their "thousands" of members, and why haven't the general public heard this roar of apathy?
I think you doth protest too much!:*

peuce

11th Jun 2010, 02:17

Frank,

In part of your post, you make a fair comment.
I, myself, will not be directly affected by changes at BRM/KTA in the near forseeable future and neither am I an RPT Jet Captain.

However, I do reserve the right to express my opinion on issues that may have a broader impact on the Industry that I love.

I also acknowledge that my opinions are just that ... and that they will be accepted or rejected based on the rationality of my arguments.

I also believe that PPRUNE is probably not the place for Organisational involvement ... they have other more formal forums available to them.

However, my hope is that the people who make, or mould, decisions will read some of the thoughts on here and maybe take a second look at their own beliefs.... just as others most certainly hope that I will change my tune.

I also believe that making personal attacks on here only dilute one's position and I try not to be involved ... although I'm only human and I daresay I have been guilty to some extent. I guess all these issues are dear to each of our hearts and we tend to get a bit heated.

In the end, the law makers have to sift through all the conflicting positions and make a command decision.

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jun 2010, 05:32

Well...A socialist....now that is one name I have never been called:hmm:

Attack? Smith? He is the one doing the attacking..if anything, I am defending a position.

Like Peuce, what happens in WA does not affect me one single iota. However, what happens at AV DOES! I have implimented my workround for AV...I treat it like going into EN without the code. Call the TWR wait for a reply and REQUEST entry. If they get upset then so be it. I would rather this procedure than be caught in conflict with an RPT because I assumed something.

I see this adaptation of class E as very dangerous. I can see this version of class E aligning modes of failure that can be catastrophic. I, for one, do not want to be the victim of such an event. Because ,surely, a VFR cannot be at fault if they are minding their own business and monitoring the radio.

Francis, ask yourself who allies with you in arguing for the NAS on this thread. An amateur, an amateur's pilot, yourself(I hope you still do not carry a grudge), a retired skygod, and a telecom entrepeneur of questionable character. Not one single professional pilot or ATC has come on this site and "believed" that NAS is a good idea. The only people who come on here and say they "believe" are, essentaially private VFR types like ourselves..because they can see something for nothing and that is not how the system remains safe for all users now, if that means being a socialist...then maybe, in some twisted way..I am (A Socialist? I bet Michael would like to hear that one...)

Frank Arouet

11th Jun 2010, 05:35

peuce;

I have it on fairly good authority that "the decision makers" do read PPRune and use this forum as an indicator of "industry" comment. I also believe it is a fair and reasonable forum to express opinion.

To that extent I leave it to the experts to debate the various merits or otherwise. Note. I am not an expert, but believe as a "player" in the big scheme of things, my opinions or input should not be ridiculed, vilified or howled down by those with more "expert" qualifications whether real or imaginary.

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jun 2010, 05:57

Mr Griffo...another piece to the puzzle..the story is fast becoming one very, very long game of chess.

The genesis? The players? The goal? All for a higher return into consolidated revenue? Mercenary..and socialist?

The crash/crash through policy. The airspace experiment that lasts two decades. The decimation of services. The change in attitude wrt aviation. I hope I am not too cynical...The train driver really did win.

Frank Arouet

11th Jun 2010, 06:37

OZBUSDRIVER;

Socialist sounds better than rabblerouser.

There are two other forums to which you contribute but Dick Smith does not that I can put up to refute your "defending a position".

I take your point on Avalon, but like your take on WA, I don't care, because I don't fly there.

I see the whole matter as a "dog's breakfast" that many don't understand and have given up on the assumption that the matter will sort itself out after "industry" input irons out the bumps. Personally I wouldn't fly in any airspace I didn't understand, but then again, I'm not a professional pilot and I don't need to fly there.

ask yourself who allies with you in arguing for the NAS on this thread. An amateur, an amateur's pilot, yourself(I hope you still do not carry a grudge), a retired skygod, and a telecom entrepeneur of questionable character. Not one single professional pilot

Get it through your head, I am not arguing "for" the NAS that has evolved and is the subject of this thread. I agree, I was once part of an organisation that supported by policy, the NAS in it's then form. Your organisation from memory.

1) An amateur.
2) An amateur's pilot.
3) Myself.
4) Retired skygod.
5) telecom entrepreneur of questionable character.

Not one single professional pilot.

OK sunshine, if I have a take on who you are "fingering".

An amateur who has flown around the world several times in both fixed and rotary wing, has thousands of hours on turbines, an IFR pilot multi engined, studied airspace in various countries, done more to encourage aviation in this country and held senior positions on regulatory and industry boards, a very honoured philanthropist and successful businessman. (As opposed to our encumbant government who has nobody with any qualifications to run anything), but still run a country (poorly).

An amateur's pilot. Well I don't know, but you could be "outing" someone here if you think you know who you are talking about.

Myself. Yes, what about me? A deadbeat with 45 years flying experience and still alive somehow, an owner of 5 previous aircraft and a current owner, now retired and fed up with users, liers, betrayers, con-men, quasi experts, bureaucrats, (I think I just said that), and red tape.

Retired skygod. Would that be an ex Qantas International senior pilot with thousands of hours, owner of many GA aircraft and donor of many unpaid hours to various organisations, chairman of several boards, someone succonded to many regulatory review committees, because of an encyclopedic mind, and industry recognised risk manager ? Man's obviously an idiot and has no qualifuications.

Telecom entrepreneur. That could be a bloke who owns at last count 3 or 4 high and low performance aircraft, an IFR business jet pilot, does his IF renewals at Flight Safety in the US, a business leader who is also multi board chairman and seconded to Federal government industry consultative committees, but of questionable character?? I would question where you arrived at that conclusion, but I probably already know. The same mob who can't post here because they were caught in criminal activities involving identity theft, misleading and deceptive conduct in a public company, lies and bush lawyerism.

Not one single professional pilot.

But people should listen to you.....why?

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jun 2010, 07:23

Like you, my friend..like you.

A wise ex-ALP politician who didn't have the ticker for the job once said...never discount the views of a farmer just because he is a farmer.

May I come out and say that you are the only one drawing parrallels with persons on these threads. Maybe it is you that is outing certain persons. I only drew reference to yourself:ok:

Dog One

11th Jun 2010, 08:42

I am affected by the changes at KA/BRM. I firmly believe that the application of E airspace is flawed. It is becoming complicated (refer AV), where E is becoming defacto C in that location, and probably at KA/BRM. I really believe that the 180 passengers I fly into these ports are going to be put at more risk if the AV experiment is put into place. We now have the unknown traffic, confused traffic, and the unsure traffic all trying to get into a 8nm diameter control zone.

When the near miss (Launceston type) or worse occurs, who will stand up and say, sorry we were wrong, the theory didn't work in practice.

Icarus2001

11th Jun 2010, 09:33

When the near miss (Launceston type) or worse occurs, who will stand up and say, sorry we were wrong, the theory didn't work in practice. I think someone has already posted words to the effect that certain parties will ALREADY have the argument ready...

* The pilots did not do what they should have done. They do not know how to use the airspace as designed.

* The airspace is not to blame, it works fine in the US with ten times the volume of traffic.

* ATCO s are recalcitrant and caused/almost caused, contributed to the airprox/disaster.

* OAR/CASA/ATSB will launch a full investigation. Contributions from those that are the architects of the mess.

Come on Dick, you have gone VERY quiet of late...what do you make of the "broadcast area" requirement?

ARFOR

11th Jun 2010, 09:52

It is quite easy for most readers to discern which inputs to this discussion are from pilots of various qualification, experience and recency. It is also very easy to discern inputs from those who hold or have held licences and endorsements for the provision of related air traffic control and flight information services. Each have a point of view, few are qualified to comment beyond testing the strength of a fact, statistic or point of view, even fewer understand the full implications [operational and legal] for pilots and air traffic services staff.

As for the 'whose appendage is bigger' attacks that relate in no way to the subject matter, take them to jet blast please, as I am sure the moderators are a wake up to the attempt to have this thread closed or deleted by [those who would like it to disappear from public view] introducing spurious 'industrial', 'conspiratorial' [or any other fleeting flaming] ideas to achieve that end goal through intentional use of bad behaviour. :=

Dog One

From afar, it seems the old game of point and shoot after the fact is being relied on. Obviously the courts will have to determine whose fireproofing was the most ineffective. I know who I would not be standing next to, :hmm: that is of course anyone in Canberra on a government payroll who is involved in these 'unfunny' processes, decisions and implimentations :=

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jun 2010, 10:05

Out of 1264 posts There have been 71 posters in the negative and 6 in the affirmative with 14 an undetermined vote...the motion is carried in the negative.

Class E over D is defeated!

I just wish it was that easy to kill this STUPID experiment

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jun 2010, 10:11

OR with a sample of 91 respondents.
78% opposed
6.5% agree
15.5% undetermined.

To the people of OAR...this is one poll that costs you nothing. The people who must use this airspace overwhelmingly disapprove of the experiment!

peuce

11th Jun 2010, 11:20

Dog One brought up an interesting point:

When the near miss (Launceston type) or worse occurs, who will stand up and say, sorry we were wrong, the theory didn't work in practice.

What is proposed is a theory, is a trial, is an experiment ...

Whereas, if we were to introduce a regulation that had been proven to be safe in the U.S, CASA would not be required to do a full safety assessment or safety case or whatever...

As E+ is not done anywhere else (that I know of) it is an experiment ... we are the guinea pigs ... and I believe more thorough Safety and Design Cases need to be completed and found to be reasonable.

Have they been done? Is there one for Avalon?

Hand up everyone who wants to be a guinea pig? And don't forget to put your hand up , on behalf of your passengers also!!!

Ex FSO GRIFFO

11th Jun 2010, 12:39

Hey Peuce,

I saw a 'doco' on SBS about South America - Peru I think it was -

They EAT Guinea Pigs......:uhoh::eek:

:ok:

konstantin

11th Jun 2010, 13:46

Lead and Dick

It might be appropriate for everyone on this forum to be appraised of your views given recent events - I am asking the question in the hope that (particularly) you two can give a considered opinion at this juncture.

The one-sided spleen venting is almost getting to the "yadda, yadda" stage, a touch of "debate" might be appropriate?

Just a`sayin...and I would like to think you know I`m not "fishing";), you would certainly be aware as to where I stand given my previous posts.

In the event of a response hopefully this leads to some (quasi-civil???) discussion? Y`all?

OAR, watch this space...

Capn Bloggs

13th Jun 2010, 13:11

Pottering through Casa's airpsace design manual A C 2 5 1 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100020/2_5_1c.pdf) (as you do on a Sunday night...) I found this little gem:

15.4.1 Class A airspace is not intended to provide a higher level of safety than Class D airspace per se.

Which would indicate that OAR has Ledsled working in their drafting team.:rolleyes:

In fact, the whole of section 15.4 (Cost Benefit) is farcical. Class D not appropriate for Melbourne. You don't say.

konstantin

13th Jun 2010, 14:42

A few more from AC251, some bolding by moi (comments and elaboration probably superfluous) - I think they inadvertently left out the new "E+" airspace category???

15.3.6 Those portions of airspace wherein it is determined that an air traffic control service
will also be provided to VFR flights shall be designated as Classes B, C or D airspace.

15.3.7Note that an ‘air traffic control service’ does not imply a separation service.

15.3.8 The particular criterion differentiating CTA classes is the provision of ATC service
to VFR flights. If it is NOT intended to provide ATC to VFR, then the options are:
• Class A airspace (such as in high level CTA), which excludes VFR (the exclusion
of VFR could be due to the deliberate policy choice, or because the available VFR
aircraft lack the performance to access that airspace); or
• Class E, which is usually used for lower level CTA (i.e. below F180 in Australia).
VFR flights are permitted, but only receive traffic information ‘as far as is
practical’, i.e. the unit providing ATC service need not and may not be resourced to
routinely provide traffic information.

15.3.9 Class E must not be used for control zones, i.e. airspace extending up from the
surface, usually associated with aerodrome traffic.

15.3.10 If an ATC service is to be provided to VFR flights, classification options range
from Class B down to D:
• Class B - VFR flights are treated the same as IFR, and all flights are separated;
• Class C - VFR flights are separated from IFR flights; and
• Class D - only IFR flights are separated.

15.3.11 The defining element is the degree to which visual ‘see-and avoid’ is integrated into
the airspace traffic management plan. This dictates the degree to which traffic information
and collision avoidance advice is prescribed to support clearances in preventing collisions
and expediting an orderly flow of air traffic.

15.4.2 The class of airspace chosen will be that which best reduces the level of risk to As
Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

15.4.3 The role of risk assessment in the CTA design/classification process is such that:
• quantitative (and qualitative) analysis must support the introduction of an ATC
service on the grounds of reducing unacceptable risks to an acceptable level; and
• the nature of the hazards, and the resulting risks, in specific areas will largely
derive from the traffic mix, and will indicate which class of airspace will best
reduce the risks to an acceptable level.

15.4.4 The class of airspace dictates the nature of the ATC service provided.

15.4.8Generally, a higher classification requires more resources which results in higher
costs. Cost Benefit Analysis calculates whether the expenditure is matched by a reduction in
risk, and is a first step in ensuring that the residual risks are ALARP.

peuce

14th Jun 2010, 00:18

15.4.2
The class of airspace chosen will be that which best reduces the level of risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).

That really leaves it open, doesn't it?
How do you define "best"?
I bet we all have our own definition of that.... easiest? cheapest?

I think they inadvertently left out the new "E+" airspace category???

It's not there beacuse it's an ... experiment!:*

peuce

14th Jun 2010, 00:22

They always give themselves an out ...

6.2 Airspace design not derived from these principles may be approved by CASA, if it is demonstrated that an acceptable level of risk can be maintained and the variation will benefit airspace users

peuce

14th Jun 2010, 00:33

15.1.1
The designation and classification of controlled airspace must comply with the
Airspace Management Principles, which derive from the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Airspace Act 2007, and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS). They are detailed in the OAR Operating Manual, and include:
Safety: Regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010 goes on to say:

26. 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.

......

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

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

Where are we heading ...?

Capn Bloggs

14th Jun 2010, 00:34

That's the whole point, Puece. There's actually no process. The rules (which they wrote) allow them to do anything they want and they are accountable to no-one.

peuce

14th Jun 2010, 01:44

Although, if I'm not carrying my logbook ...???

Icarus2001

14th Jun 2010, 02:13

Although, if I'm not carrying my logbook ...??? There is no problem at all.

Although, if I am not carrying my licence and medical or wearing my high vis vest!:ugh:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

14th Jun 2010, 02:25

You're getting 'warmer' Cap'n.......

It's all about the $$'s.......

It's always been about the $$'s.

The 'Core Business' is the 'servicing' of en route air nav chargeable CTA - Because that's where the biggest $$'s are....and to do that function as 'automated' as is possible is the 'manager's dream'....

Re quote; "If it is NOT intended to provide ATC to VFR, then the options are:
(15.3.8 Konstantin)
"the unit providing ATC service need not and may not be resourced to
routinely provide traffic information."

Self explanatory IMHO. VFR do not generate income.
Except in very small areas where the en route charges may be imposed -

e.g. - 'E +' - where the VFR is required to broadcast or contact the tower administering that airspace. (?)

But not serviced from the Centre.

Only serviced from the local attached tower where 'location specific' charges may be levied.....

Let's see how that pans out......:}

The Chaser

14th Jun 2010, 11:03

Nice day for a punch-up on cable beach tomorrow :E

My money is on Bloggs et al :}

eeeewww ... I know .... lets not fire up the mincy indians and all that :E

FIGHT FIGHT :}:}:}:}

peuce

14th Jun 2010, 12:03

And it probably won't be broadcast on Foxtel ... so we want a blow by blow call of the action please ....

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/sosvideo/boxe06.gif

The Chaser

14th Jun 2010, 12:12

.... didn't know Bloggs wore goggles :} ..... :E

Some gits on here should alert [7.30 report, et al] :ok: :E

Capn Bloggs

14th Jun 2010, 12:52

7.30 report
Been there, done that, happy to do it again, as long as THE DOG comes with me! :ok:

The Chaser

14th Jun 2010, 13:01

... had a word with the dog tonight ;)

To say he is feral would be an understatement .... when and where ... the dog is there :ok: .... ;)

konstantin

14th Jun 2010, 13:41

Fait accompli - the standard CASA response to the majority of comments submitted in relation to the OAR Airspace Change Proposal for Broome and Karratha;

CASA Response
Airspace changes are required to be made in compliance with the principles contained within the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010. Whilst safety remains paramount the airspace access and efficiency need to be taken into account. The risk assessment at these locations indicate that the airspace model proposed provides adequate safety for the operations involved together with improved access to VFR aircraft whilst allowing ATC to operate efficiently. The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence.
The airspace model conforms to all the requirements to contain the operation of Category D aircraft within the control zone. The surrounding airspace is also designed to capture RPT jet aircraft operations, including holding patterns

Airservices’ argument that their model of Tower services to 4,500 ft AMSL delivers the required efficiencies is supported in principle by CASA in this instance. The airspace classification should not change this situation.

Please refer Advisory CircularAC 2-5-1(0) and the AAPS 2010

And this is the template response with respect to the last few comments submitted;

CASA has accepted in principle Airservices’ airspace management model for the airspace, namely, that their model of Tower services to 4,500 ft AMSL delivers the required efficiencies.
Airservices’ will apply their SMS to the implementation process to identify and mitigate identified risks.

It`s all there in terms of ideological principle.
Sorry, no link.

The Chaser

14th Jun 2010, 14:01

Yep, the regulator [CASA], whilst re-writing the rules to suit the political agenda, have sucked in the fools in suits at the ANSP to wear the fall out.

So they think ;)

The GM ATC [like the GM Safety.. ] is not that silly .... we hope :hmm:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

14th Jun 2010, 15:27

Well done Mr 'K',

Re "The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence."

A 'tempo' measure pending improved surveillance = Tower RADAR later??

And in God we Trust.....that all of the 'locals' are fitted with serviceable transponders....

Lodown

14th Jun 2010, 18:20

In my opinion, NAS is the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Despite claims that Class E is copying the USA airspace classification, to my mind there are some fundamental issues with flying in the USA that aren’t replicated in Australia. First, I can’t think of one airport in the USA with Class B or Class C airspace where VFR flights are not available within that airspace. Phoenix has VFR passageways over the top at low level. LAX is the same. Request access to any particular region within Class B and C airspace in the USA and the controllers seem to go out of their way to meet your request.
Yet, here in Australia, capital city controlled airspace is so inflexible at low level that it is a VFR no-fly zone. I’ll go one step further and say that unless you’re landing or departing from the central airport within that control zone, then getting clearance through the airspace in the immediate vicinity of that airport for any aircraft VFR or IFR is almost impossible. The effect of this is devastating to the GA industry centred around capital city primary airports, which seems to account for much of the GA industry in Australia. NAS will do nothing at all for the plight of GA operators. The political expediency of noise abatement tracks is killing GA by saturating blocks of airspace with airline traffic. Australian ATC around capital cities can’t accommodate GA operations and NAS will do nothing to change this and possibly even exacerbate it.
The proponents for NAS make a big deal about US ATC smirking at Australian traffic levels and airspace procedures. Let’s put a block of Australian noise abatement tracks and procedural requirements to “share the noise” over similar US airports and see what the outcome would be with VFR accommodations. Noise abatement procedures are in place at many US airports, but at nowhere near the extent or complexity as similar airports in Australia. Compare apples to apples.
The ability to fly VFR, no clearance required at altitude over Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, etc? Big deal! There are very few pilots who will be in a position to take advantage of this. It doesn’t help out the operators under the airspace in any fashion at all.
As for Class E in rural areas: ask yourselves who benefits from this. Airspace that was Class G, uncontrolled airspace, is now going to Class E, controlled airspace. And this benefits General Aviation how? Oh! Class E is uncontrolled for VFR. Yeah right! Don’t kid yourselves. The only beneficiaries of this change are the airlines, despite the rhetoric.

peuce

14th Jun 2010, 23:53

"The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation

Do we really see surveillance ( radar or ADSB) going in at Broome any time soon?
Even if it was possible .... where is the Cost/Benefit for that? ... as opposed to TW,AS,RK,AY,CH....?

...and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence."

Note that, contrary to ICAO policy, CASA is still using TCAS as a risk mitigator... when it suits them.

And from "The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2007" ( before Dick starts cranking up):
While collision avoidance is not part of separation provision, and collision avoidance systems such as TCAS are not included in determining the calculated level of safety required for separation provision, they are considered to be part of ATM safety management and must activate when separation mode has been compromised.

Bugger me ...

peuce

15th Jun 2010, 00:42

From CASA's Airspace Design Manual:

Australian regulations do not require instrument approach procedures, standard instrument departures (SIDs) or standard terminal arrival routes (STARs) to be protected with CTA steps or Class E airspace.”

From CASA's "Broome Airspace Precis":

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

More inconsistencies .... no wonder we are confused .. :confused:

Jabawocky

15th Jun 2010, 00:58

I am sure I have said this before about BME/KTA being the thin edge of the wedge......

Casa is also in the process of standardising Class D procedures across Australia. The airspace surrounding Class D will be progressively reviewed and classified appropriately.

So watch out for E over D and an aerodrome near you!

J:uhoh:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

16th Jun 2010, 04:26

So Guys and Gals in Broome......

How did the big 'meet' go??

Anything any clearer??
E over D?
RADAR or 'other' surveillance in the near future?
Didja getcha tea & bikkies??

Cheers:ok:

Capn Bloggs

16th Jun 2010, 13:57

Well, there was plenty of argy bargy, BIFFO! POW! WHACK! :ouch: :ouch: But goggles still intact, Chaser! :ok:

The industry reps were united in their strident opposition to Class E with Fries. :D

Everybody went away "acknowledging" the other side's position. :{

Everybody left on a handshake so it was pretty well-mannered, considering the "heat" of the topic. :D

Pity Ledsled and RHS weren't there. Then it would have got real interesting. :}

Jabawocky

16th Jun 2010, 21:59

So would it not just be easier for all concerned to adopt C over D as per all the others. :ugh:

peuce

16th Jun 2010, 23:57

Capn,

Everybody went away "acknowledging" the other side's position

What is their position?

Do they see surveillance coming in ... anytime soon?
What was their reasoning for bringing in the Broadcast requirement ... when they, presumabaly, decided standard E wouldn't work?
Why didn't they just go to D or C?

I've already heard the Nastronauts' opinon, but I'm genuinely interested in the Regulator's thought processes.

Capn Bloggs

17th Jun 2010, 00:15

Do they see surveillance coming in ... anytime soon?
Nobody had any idea about when surveillance would appear. The floor suggested many years, CASA said it might only be a couple, "you never know".

What was their reasoning for bringing in the Broadcast requirement ... when they, presumably, decided standard E wouldn't work?

That's it. D was not acceptable because it unduly restricted VFR entry to area. The floor told CASA that there was hardly any overflyers at Broome, and so D would not realistically inconvenience anyone and be a darn lot simpler. It wasn't stated, but it was obvious that CASA believes standard non-surveilled E is not safe enough and that VFR traffic had to be "known" to the system via radio to raise the safety level enough. It was also mentioned that E had the transponder requirement: I got the distinct impression that CASA is relying on this as a mitigator. They also imply as much in OAR's written response to submissions made to the original March proposal. The floor then suggested that transponders be required in D to achieve the same aim.

Why didn't they just go to D or C?
VFR Access. :*

Very disappointing.

Jabawocky

17th Jun 2010, 00:36

Is VFR Access the only issue.....They have to be kidding.

If VFR have to pipe up on the radio anyway what more is there to it?

All this waste for what?:rolleyes:

peuce

17th Jun 2010, 01:02

The cynic in me thinks they are attempting to please everyone:

Dear Nastronauts ... Look, it's Class E ... yeah!
Dear Fundamentalists .... Look, all traffic is known ... yeah!

Methinks they have managed to displease everyone, whilst, at the same time, proving their ineffectiveness.

They should have made a judgement, made a decision ( based on standard Airspace classifications) and then stuck with it. No matter which way that went, I think it would have ellicited more respect than their wishy washy proposal.

Capn Bloggs

17th Jun 2010, 01:23

That's it in a nutshell. Nobody has the balls to stand up to the NAStronauts and say a 2500ft D CTR in unsurveilled airspace doesn't work, given that there is now a CAR - effective only 2 weeks ago - that mandates radio carriage and use at every "proper" airport in Australia. Hardly a consistent position to then allow a no-radio VFR to swan over the top of an RPT CTR at 2500ft not talking to anyone.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

17th Jun 2010, 02:18

I think many would 'jump' at the chance of working in Sunny Broome 'all expenses paid'.....

The 'Vicarious Liability' clauses will protect the workers - providing they do the job exactly as per the book.......

Whatever 'the book' may say......
:ok:

ARFOR

17th Jun 2010, 05:45

Nice location, sure, the rules and liabilities?

How do pilots and air traffic controllers do their jobs by the book, when the book is not part of the international series, and the pages within are a misprint from Biggles Flies Unhinged?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

17th Jun 2010, 10:22

To protect the workers, the 'book' need not conform to anything elsewhere.

All that is required is that - whatever 'it' is - it's 'in the book' as written by the employer for the employee to carry out as instructed.

Then, as long as the employee carries out the written instructions of the employer, as far as I understand it, they are protected.
Vicarious Liability - a Legal delegation of Responsibility.

A 'Legal Eagle' may be able to elaborate if required. :ok:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

17th Jun 2010, 10:24

Any different news / clarification from the guys and gals at Karratha?

ARFOR

17th Jun 2010, 13:02

No contest re VL, but:-

The book/s needs to explain what pilots (VFR and IFR) and ATC are required/expected to do/provide in Class E (V+), and how CAR100 applies [in practice] to VFR and ATC in Class E (V+). Is my point

No book/s [including the actual application and/or operation of CAR100] says that does it! ;)

Capn Bloggs

17th Jun 2010, 13:28

Re CAR 100, to my comment that 99% of pilots would ordinarily think that it would not apply unless you were actually under air traffic control, PC said he had legal advice that any instruction/directive to an aircraft by an ATC would come under CAR 100 regardless of the airspace category. I pointed out that CAR 100 probably pre-dated Alphabet soup airspace by many years (probably decades, actually).

There is a major major disconnect here between commonsense/logic and what OAR is using as it's prime feature to replace simple old Class D. I wouldn't mind betting that any legal action by CASA using CAR 100 would fail pretty quickly.

Jabawocky

18th Jun 2010, 07:15

No wonder Albanese is stinging us all for more Avgas tax - it is probably a fighting fund for the inevitable court costs and damages.

Coral :=

You are assuming they are smart enough to think they have a problem and to plan accordingly.

Not likely! :}

Nautilus Blue

19th Jun 2010, 02:53

... as long as the employee carries out the written instructions of the employer, as far as I understand it, they are protected.
Vicarious Liability - a Legal delegation of Responsibility.

Trouble is, page one in the book is still something like "Nothing in these instructions shall prevent an operator using their own judgement and doing more than required" (words to that effect). It's basically an all care no responsibility disclaimer from the rule writers. The way it was explained to me was if the rules were stupid or inadequate you has a duty of care to realize that and do more.

I've even has an email from my then manager saying a clear cut well defined procedure was in his opinion not ideal, and maybe we should think carefully before using it. Spineless so and so wouldn't actually commit himself one way or the other though!

Lodown

19th Jun 2010, 03:04

Vicarious liability???? More and more when something goes awry, lawyers are suing everyone and everything that had a finger in the pie, right down to the individual and then letting the court sort it out. The 'book' may direct an individual to do something unethical. The company would seem to be at fault, but I would think vicarios liability doesn't necessarily let off the individual for knowingly doing something that a reasonable person would determine to be injurous or unethical. Either way, if named in a lawsuit, the cost to the individual while the court sorts out blame wouldn't be cheap.
"My boss told me to jump in the fire."

max1

19th Jun 2010, 05:00

The lawyers go where the cash is. If a private lightie, for whatever reason e.g. lack of understanding, lack of due diligence, etc, causes an accident there is no big payday for the lawyers. They need to attribute a % of the blame to the entity with the most money/insurance. Then make the total figure payable large enough to make that % of the blame big enough to fund the exercise.

Furthermore, if a controller believes that the procedures they are required to implement are inherently dangerous through which Court would they challenge this. If the controller refuses to work as instructed this would most likely end up in Industrial Court. Who would have exactly what expertise in Aviation? This would most likely have to be funded by Civilair.

The politics in this are astounding.

Dog One

19th Jun 2010, 06:26

World's best practices have turned to brown gravy, and when the fan is switched on, there will be a lot of ducking.

It is interesting to note both CASA and OAR's position in relation to E outside of radar, despite a lot of persuasion and politicking from the Nasuxers, who are pushing there own barrow, rather than the ultimate safety of hundred's of innoncent paying passengers.

Having been necessary to amend the rules to make E airspace a non standard broadcast area shows that instead of simplifying the airspace, it now has become more complicated, a complication that many weekend warriors will forget about and fly right through with out broadcasting.

Now that CASA and OAR have said that E outside of radar is dangerous because of the unknown element, it is time to rescind all E airspace outside of radar. Either make it C or G.

The D zone size is another rather bad joke. What is good for a Cessna 150, isn't for a jet for a number of reasons, including the safety of VFR traffic. With a flight time of less that 1 minute from boundary to the field, at the busiest part of the flight, the crew will have to respond to traffic information, visually scanning the flight path, radio calls and actually flying the aircraft.

One time we had controlled airspace and non controlled airspace. It all worked very well.

Howabout

19th Jun 2010, 06:56

One time we had controlled airspace and non controlled airspace. It all worked very well.Amen, Dog One!

Maybe I'm thick, but still I cannot reconcile E+ with CAR 100. Does anyone have a logical explanation that lets the two sit together without conflict?

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5762042&noquote=1)

konstantin

21st Jun 2010, 13:35

Mr. H, I cannot resist the temptation;

HOWABOUT - Class E+, what is it?

CASA - It is a volume of airspace technically designated as CTA in which compliance with clearances is thus required by inference as per CAR100 - except that VFRs due to alphabet airspace procedures definition do not actually require a clearance to enter said airspace, nor are they required to be separated from IFR aircraft...but that`s not important right now.

mikk_13

21st Jun 2010, 17:57

I hear all this worry is for nothing.

Broome won't be happening due to 'staff availability'

Anyone care to confirm?

Capn Bloggs

21st Jun 2010, 23:53

won't be happening due to 'staff availability'
Call in the Dogs!

konstantin

22nd Jun 2010, 00:26

mikk13, as we speak I can assure you that at least the physical staff transfers to BME are most definitely going ahead. People will be arriving from July for CAGRO famil/orientation and settling in etc.

How things evolve from there during the following months may ultimately be another matter, find a good crystal ball. If the "staff availability" you were referring to was in relation to enroute controller staffing in centres then, if it gets really critical, I am guessing BME will be a sideshow for them in the overall scheme of things.

Hypothetical - if in the worst case scenario the centre controllers can`t receive appropriate add-on training re the new E airspace steps for whatever reason then on an interim (heard that word before?) basis there could be G from F180 down to A045-ish??? Zey haff vays and means...

Ex FSO GRIFFO

22nd Jun 2010, 05:48

G'Day Mr 'K',
A question for ya,

Will the new twr boys /gals at BME have dct co-ord links to BN centre to receive incoming tfc, and dep tfc advice etc?

I guess BN Cenwill be the administrator of the 'E' or whatever it turns out to be above the 'D' of the BME Twr airspace?

Cheers:ok:

konstantin

22nd Jun 2010, 07:30

Griffo

Will the new twr boys /gals at BME have dct co-ord links to BN centre to receive incoming tfc, and dep tfc advice etc?

In this day and age one would surely presume so!

I guess BN Cen will be the administrator of the 'E' or whatever it turns out to be above the 'D' of the BME Twr airspace?

Don`t know which particular sector (not familiar with that enroute part of the world) but that is the general principle - eg the ML sector overlying AS is responsible down to the tops of AS Twr airspace.

Sorry, I can only offer generics on these.
Cheers K

gaunty

22nd Jun 2010, 12:45

Cooda sworn I posted here a minute ago.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Jun 2010, 13:05

You did, Gaunty:

Children children,

Dear dear, Daddy goes away for a bit and the idiotology starts all over again.

In the big kids playground where we have to deal with Uncle Dicks fantasies the big kids work their way around it.

Our good friends at.
"Qantas will be conducting straight in approaches from 5 miles at non-towered airports - not 3 miles as permitted in recent amendments to CAR 166."

but hey what would Qantas know Dick.

In the mean time us big kids will continue to behave like, well, big kids.:cool:

I suspect you overran the "that's where you go/techspurts" line... :}

Blockla

23rd Jun 2010, 07:15

I hear that there are changes a-foot in the current proposed model; but no further amendments possible because of charting "date" issues... Now there is a familiar theme...

Jabawocky

23rd Jun 2010, 07:56

True

And the broadcast zone is dropped :hmm:. But its still on at YMAV, so there is a common approach to airspace :rolleyes::ugh:

And its all temporary until they push through their original plan later on.

Not sure about consultation yielding any results, maybe Bloggs can confirm or deny this from the recent meeting. But I smell a bit of "half baked' deal here. Happy to be shown otherwise.

J

ARFOR

23rd Jun 2010, 08:37

- Flatter profile for the slipperies :ok:
- Tower Class D to A055 :ok: [As a start, an improvement over the earlier 'ideas']
- G below A055 outside Twr hours :ok: [As a start]

- Interim until surveillance :hmm: - cost benefit???????

Just the start of this from my reading. There is still the little matters of lack of process, compliance and standards application ;)

This process has only just begun :) Keep on TRACON'n on :ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

23rd Jun 2010, 08:51

Agree ARFOR..the REAL airspace development starts now. The "surveillance" line is a good start...cost issues?...infrastructure, training, implimentation and revue...at least it will go along the line of resonable change with proper procedures in place rather than change and then write the ammendments to fill in the cracks.

My early exuberance is now mettered by a wary eye on future developments. At least TWR has had a HUGE burden lifted from their perview:ok:

konstantin

23rd Jun 2010, 10:43

- D still laterally embedded within E - so the elimination of the "broadcast area" achieves exactly what in practical terms with respect to assuring IFR/VFR separation?

- Tower now has airspace to A055 (vs A045) - standing ovation material, that one...:ugh:

This seems nothing more than someone demonstrating they have "listened" to stakeholder input.

And they are quite specific about it being an interim measure.

And wait for the PIR, given no "Launy"-style woopsies what`s the bet there will be a rollback to the original proposal before surveillance is implemented?

Tactical "fiddling with the margins" here folks, that`s all.

konstantin

23rd Jun 2010, 11:59

Apologies for the "torrent", but speaking of Launy check out this bit from the recent Launceston Airspace Review. Note that mainland regional centres are "different" - I just wonder whether that includes Broome which is without radar coverage above A045...as opposed to Launceston...:rolleyes:

4.3.1 Class E over Class D for Launceston
Launceston airspace is classified Class D with Class C above 4,500 ft AMSL within 30
DME to the north and south of Launceston. The question as to whether Class E over
Class D airspace would provide a safer and more efficient outcome is simple. Given that
Class E presents a higher risk profile than Class C, without a marked changed in
efficiency, it is reasonable to maintain the status quo at Launceston.

Moving from Class C to Class E classification removes a significant safeguard against a
MAC. It also moves away from the premise of risk being maintained to ALARP principals.

Different from regional centres on mainland Australia, Launceston has significant high
capacity jet traffic and an “unknown aircraft” (i.e. an aircraft not fitted with a functioning
transponder). This presents a risk profile for a MAC of extremely rare probability but a
catastrophic consequence.

With the scenario of high capacity jet PT operations in mind,
the reviewers could not endorse the use of Class E over Class D airspace as enhancing
efficiency or safety.