Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up? [Archive]

rotorblades

21st Apr 2010, 07:33

As a controller who works the E airspace over Williamtown, I feel my six-pence is worth.
Although Ive never seen an airline bust into E above 4500 without a clearance. There is a much greater danger if they just do it, regardless of whether they are VMC or not, with hitting an IFR going the other way, or already in there.

If they declare IFR pick-up or VFR climb descent. Thats upto them, but they cant just bust into E and not say anything. and at the subsequent board of enquiry say, oh we were VMC - It wont fly.

IFR in E need a clearance. Reading AIP ENR about class E the only remarks I can see about the term 'VMC', Is the transfer of terrain clearance from ATC to the Pilot.

And, Dick stop going on & on about the USA. if its so bloody wonderful over there. Move. This is Australia, airspace & procedures need to be applicable to the traffic situation & requirements for australian aviation.

Not always is it what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

LeadSled

21st Apr 2010, 07:36

----just maybe it's because those airline crews are concerned about the possibility of unknown VFR traffic in the class E airspace.What wonderful logic, you stay at low level in G in case there is un-notified VFR (which will have a transponder) in E --- with no idea what is in G, with or without a transponder.

I also love the proposition that "IFR" is automatically "safer" than VFR, regardless of where you are ----- as if G through A is an ascending hierarchy of progressively "safer" airspace, once again only proving that most of you naysayers simply do not understand ICAO based CNS/ATM ---- and have a manic determination to not understand it.

Tootle pip!!

PS: This reminds me of what was going on, in and out of Ballina, during the "Class G" trial --- the original trials of E. How many of you still remember ----- overflying Ballina, letting down in the firing range at Evans Head, and coming back down the coast at low level in G ---- all to avoid the dreaded E.

Frank Arouet

21st Apr 2010, 07:37

This will probably bring the house down, but can anyone confirm or deny that airline traffic in and out of Heathrow and points therabouts that are subject to a volcanic eruption in Finland, are flying day VFR in whatever airspace?

Day VFR single engine private non owner pilots need not respond.

Capn Bloggs

21st Apr 2010, 07:51

as if G through A is an ascending hierarchy of progressively "safer" airspace, once again only proving that most of you naysayers simply do not understand ICAO based CNS/ATM ---- and have a manic determination to not understand it.

I'm beginning to seriously doubt that Led knows which way he is flying.

Given a certain amount of traffic eg at WLM, of course the higher you go up the airspace ladder the safer it will get! G/No CTAF R is not as safe a CTAF R is not as safe as D is not as safe as C (I won't mention B or A because for all intents and purposes C/B/A are the same; only the gizzmiesters/NAStronauts like to think otherwise).

LeadSled

21st Apr 2010, 07:52

Frank,
I can certainly confirm day VFR only operations in NZ during a major eruption. Although the aircraft were nominally IFR category, they operated to VFR rules, because the track of the aircraft between NZCH and NZAA was unknown, and no conventional ATC IFR clearance could be given.

I am referring to large VH- registered RPT, operating non-standard schedules because of the eruptions. My memory says the offending volcano was Mt.Ruapehu.

Tootle pip!!

Bloggs,
Once again, you demonstrate comprehensible by succinctly, that you do not even have a glimmer of understanding of the principles of ICAO CNS/ATM airspace classification.

Have you ever though of taking your blinker off, and having a look at the big wide word that is out there??

Capn Bloggs

21st Apr 2010, 08:39

That the NAStronauts believe that the system is safe enough to simply change to VFR and blast on up looking out the window when ATC can't give you a clearance in surveilled airspace beggars belief.

Capn Bloggs

21st Apr 2010, 08:45

Ledsled,
Given you said:

Once again, you demonstrate comprehensible by succinctly, that you do not even have a glimmer of understanding of the principles of ICAO CNS/ATM airspace classification.

Please categorically state that this statement of mine in relation to WLM:
G/No CTAF R is not as safe a CTAF R is not as safe as D is not as safe as C
is wrong. Thank you.

Jabawocky

21st Apr 2010, 08:48

Day VFR single engine private non owner pilots need not respond.

Seems we have to qualify to answer your question...Day&night IFR even in IMC to Wallys horror!, Single engine, pvt and owner.......sorry Leadie no ATPL for me....:ok:

So what does that have to do with the topic Frank? :hmm:

ozineurope

21st Apr 2010, 09:28

There have been a few non revenue, non pax carrying flights depart FRA from last night below F200 before the DFS opened more of the airspace to IFR flight.

One LCC refused to operate VFR below F200 due to the lack of ATC service provided in the reclassified airspace, I believe it went to E during the restrictions. And this was only for repositioning flights Cologne to Berlin etc.

Frank Arouet

21st Apr 2010, 10:14

Jabawocky;

The question This will probably bring the house down, but can anyone confirm or deny that airline traffic in and out of Heathrow and points therabouts that are subject to a volcanic eruption in Finland, are flying day VFR in whatever airspace?

Is not directed at you.

Butt out mate, the other bloke probably has an opinion despite his lack of qualification to answer the question.:*

Bazzamundi

21st Apr 2010, 10:23

An airport that caters for as many high capacity RPT operations should not have airspace classification such as Willy, particularly given it is such a busy area for coastal traffic.

greenslopes

21st Apr 2010, 11:06

Oh Dick, you really have lost me this time.
How about we bust CTA airspace because we have not prepared/briefed our departure. At what point do we rely on our professional qualifications and run the operation as safe as possible without "running into a mountain top".
Oh you Wally!
Fact is Dick, there are a good many professionals operating who can accommodate the vagaries of Australian CTA/OCTA. It's not the best, but I'll do the best I can.
A Poor tradesman and all that(blames his tools).

illusion

21st Apr 2010, 11:55

To help Dick to grasp (grasp might be the right word....) the harsh realities of airline flying I think someone should volunteer to take him on a "Four Floors" tour of Singapore.....followed by a full DEbrief at the Paramount.......:uhoh:

Jabawocky

21st Apr 2010, 12:07

Frank....I get it now.

Just because at one or two very rare moments in time the Kiwis and maybe some test flights in Europ have adopted some VFR type rules....on an IFR type flight with very rare and exceptional circumstances, and due to circumstances we may never ever get here in Oz, we should just roll over and accept this should we?

Frank you are either thread drifting or conspiring with others to bate a party to a particular answer to then be used out of context in this debate or others. :=

So far I have never seen you butt out mate, and considering I just barely qualified to respond to your question I did. I am interested to know how this really applies to all day every day operations here in Oz, and for that matter elsewhere, volcano's excepted.

J:cool:

LeadSled

21st Apr 2010, 15:09

-----looking out the window when ATC can't give you a clearance in surveillance airspace beggars belief.

Bloggs,

You better take that one up with the management of a major Australian airline, and Australian CAA/CASA, and NZ CAA, because such decisions are not made in isolation by individual Captains.But, what would they collectively know, compared to a universal expert like you

For us, operating where there is NO ATC is not unusual, even thought if may be a daunting thought for you, to not have somebody to hold your hand.

Tootle pip!!

rotorblades

21st Apr 2010, 16:52

Dick said:
if you are on an IFR flight plan and you haven’t got a clearance, keep climbing when in VMC. That’s the only safe and sensible thing to do

An ATC clearance is required for a VFR climb/descent when flying IFR - and be advised for any pilot who may think this is a good idea - ATC WILL no longer separate you from other IFR aircraft, you get traffic info (as per AIP/ERSA). IFR pick-up you dont need the clearance, but equally dont expect separation from any possibly conflicting traffic, just info.
I must stress here, think about the penalties to the other aircraft involved. They may be IFR and plan on getting full separation from other IFRs, if you take VC/VD or IPU, they dont get the separation either.

If talking about a Visual departure, IFR in VMC, it will be to a level below the MSA/LSALT (as per AIP)

Its neither safe nor sensible. If you havent received a clearance its normally because there's a very good reason - 99/100 its a conflicting aircraft.

As for flying into a mountain, the pilot should remain within the area where the LSALT or where Route LS allows him not to fly into a mountain at the level.

Whats the point of having any class of airspace except G & A then. If you arent going to abide by a clearance, or lack thereof, then why on earth did you bother with E?
You say its safer in IMC, how. You may be flying in a cloud but 5 miles further on it may be clear as abell and you come out of IMC and see a beautiful VFR silver bird plowing straight at you at the same level.

There is no safety net in just climbing if you are VMC. There have been multiple airmisses and worst around the world in VMC where neither pilot saw each other. It was only on TV last night about an AeroMexico and a bonanza-ry thing.

rotorblades

21st Apr 2010, 17:01

leadsled,

For us, operating where there is NO ATC is not unusual
where is there class E with no ATC service??????
its an oxymoron as you need clearance (IFR) to enter E, under most circumstances.

You need to stop mixing your classes and airports. stick to one thing and one thing alone.

Its either a thread about having airports in class g, or madcap class e.

Stop picking a comment someone has made about one thing and then applying it to something completely different to try and prove your point that you lost the moment you clicked the submit reply button.....

mjbow2

21st Apr 2010, 23:25

The Class E deniers don't seem to understand.

We should copy the United States here and issue an airways clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND prior to departure. Class E should go to the ground when the tower closes. Problem solved.

This problem is a combination of uniquely Australian stuff ups.

Glass G at an airport and class E starting at 4500ft AGL where the collision risk drops dramatically. Unique Australian design stuff up.

Would be IFR aircraft that are not considered IFR (no clearance) but are not considered VFR either (restricted from entering Class E). Unique Australian design stuff up.

We are a laughing stock.

Pat Mcgroin

22nd Apr 2010, 00:14

We are a laughing stock.

By that do you mean Dick/Frank/Leady and yourself?

max1

22nd Apr 2010, 00:38

The Continental US has far greater surveillance coverage and 10 000 plus controllers. Australia has far less coverage and about 800 controllers.
I would say that probably gives the US contollers a better fighting chance of monitoring their airspace.
Dick, any chance of you getting an operational US ATC on here to discuss with operational Aus ATCs, the differences between airspaces?

peuce

22nd Apr 2010, 00:55

mjbow2 said:

Glass G at an airport and class E starting at 4500ft AGL where the collision risk drops dramatically. Unique Australian design stuff up.

And you want us to trust these guys to design the airspace above Broome?

Can't have it both ways ...:=

rmcdonal

22nd Apr 2010, 01:10

I have found that if ATC haven't given me a clearance to enter Class E it is because there is traffic already in it that they can't separate. Blasting off into it VFR is not going to remove that traffic from the picture. :eek:

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 02:09

rmcdonal - you state:

I have found that if ATC haven't given me a clearance to enter Class E it is because there is traffic already in it that they can't separate

However, when the airspace is Class G as it was until a few months ago, you would naturally keep climbing in the G just with the traffic information service. Don’t you see the point I’m trying to make?

For example, at Ballina we have Class G all the way down to the runway. At the present time, airline pilots depart Ballina in VMC simply receiving traffic information on other IFR aircraft.

However, if we upgrade THE SAME LOCATION to E, they then instantly say, when VMC exists “oh, we can’t climb in E receiving a traffic information service because that’s dangerous”.

All that happens with this type of thinking is we are prevented from upgrading to safer Class E from G because Pilots and Controllers will not use the versatility of Class E, ie. the advantages of G when VMC exists and the advantages of A when IMC exists.

These advantages can only be used if you use the airspace properly.

rotorblades

22nd Apr 2010, 04:20

mjbow
clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND

There is no route segregation so almost impossible. Give us a proper SID/STAR system that automatically segregates traffic with arrivals vs departures and then can get a clearance on the ground with little problem.

We dont know how long it is going to take to get airborne, by which time the traffic situation has changed. Once a level has been given away it blocks it off for anything else, i.e. the arrival gets kept up high. Also, I have seen some strange manoeuvres on departure, for example turning south and doing a 270deg right turn and head northbound from the overhead. We cant give away the whole of E airspace with a clearance on the ground.

Jet_A_Knight

22nd Apr 2010, 04:29

or example, at Ballina we have Class G all the way down to the runway. At the present time, airline pilots depart Ballina in VMC simply receiving traffic information on other IFR aircraft.

AND making NUMEROUS CTAF broadcasts, maintaining a vigorous listening watch, monitoring TCAS, and keeping our eyes peeled.

Local traffic there has a pretty good awareness of the RPT ops, and generally keeps clear when RPT arrives. Itinerant aircraft are a problem, but usually ATC will give some sort of traffic info on anything that paints.

“oh, we can’t climb in E receiving a traffic information service because that’s dangerous”

No, we'd say we can't enter it until we have a clearance.:ugh:

Even though we make VMC departures, we fly under the IFR - and we are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to depart VFR and get an 'IFR Pickup'.

In all honesty, I don't recall being denied a clearance into CTA. It's usually given on the departure or airborne call. And believe me, we go balls to the wall Vert Speed to get out of the CTAF-R and into CTA.

If we don't get that clearance, we stooge around, cranking our necks out the window like Meerkats, flying up against the bottom CTA, above our LSALT's trying to 'See & Avoid' :rolleyes:. No one intentionally flies below LSALTs.

Mixing jets with ultralights in CTAFs, Class G - absolutely blows, frankly.

rotorblades

22nd Apr 2010, 04:32

Dick

when VMC exists

Explain what you mean by VMC climb without clearance.

Do you mean 'VFR climb'? or 'IFR pick-up'? Or mixed flight rules flight 'VFR to IFR'?

You cant just say im IFR in VMC so am gonna climb regardless. That is reckless. Just because you can climb without a clearance in G doesnt mean you can do it just as safely in E. Why stop at E, why not just climb regardless in C or A with traffic info?

You would've received a traffic statement whilst taxiing which will cover the initial TI, but not necessarily on something transiting at 8000, because you are initially only going to climb to 4500 or below. What happens if when you get airborne ATC are dealing with an emergency or weather avoidance etc you cant get in to get a clearance and decide 'Im VMC' im just gonna blast into class E. you could end up flying into IFR traffic you dont know about.

Equally, You've pushed a lot of non-transponder traffic down a lot lower (below 4500) when previously they could be below 8500. so you've reduced the space for missing each other, reduced the flexibility of VFR and IFR flights and increased misunderstanding of the procedures, caused IFR flights (in a couple of directions of travel) to initially have to climb to a level that is nearly 2000' below the LSALT (outside of 25miles). The margin for error has been reduced not increased.

If you want clearance on the ground and increased safety, make it a class D control zone to the ground, then all traffic is known. Or even better make Tower ATC be present for all RPT arrivals.

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 06:28

Jet_A_Knight

In relation to my suggestion that you climb in E in VMC receiving an identical traffic information service to what you would in G,you state:

No, we'd say we can't enter it until we have a clearance

Even though we make VMC departures, we fly under the IFR - and we are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to depart VFR and get an 'IFR Pickup'.

Now, let’s analyse this.

Presently there is G airspace at Ballina. Are you EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from departing in the G IFR and receiving a traffic information service and looking out for the other traffic?

No, you are not.

However, if we upgrade the airspace to E, suddenly your mind shuts down and says, “E means a clearance for IFR and means danger for IFR climbing in VMC without a clearance”

I think others will see the problem here. We are simply changing the name of an airspace so we can use it as controlled airspace when IMC exists and as uncontrolled airspace when VMC exists, ie. we wish to keep the advantages of Class G at Ballina when VMC exists PLUS extra advantages of Class A when IMC exists.

Peuce, you say you are expressly forbidden from climbing in Class E in VMC without a clearance, however if we make the airspace Class G, you are allowed to do exactly that.

The reason you are expressly forbidden from climbing in G without a clearance in VMC is because unbelievably stubborn, concrete-minded people – including Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers and some within the regulatory system – have decided that you cannot use the advantages of E airspace in Australia. I once heard from Mick Toller that the reason we are different is that once you taxi in Australia and give a taxi call under IFR you are then considered IFR and you cannot enter E without a clearance.

In other countries, you can even be given your IFR transponder code, but you are not considered IFR until you actually have the clearance. This means you can climb without a clearance to the safest possible level – exactly what you do today at Ballina in Class G.

peuce

22nd Apr 2010, 06:53

Dick,

I think you mixed me up with someone else, but that's not important.
Okay, let's look at Ballina...

Class G

RPT calls taxying and gets traffic information from ATC ... on IFRs. He gets the VFR picture from the CTAF. Once he departs, he continues to get Traffic Information until he gets his clearance.

Class E

RPT calls taxying and, if he is IFR (which all RPTs will be .. at the moment) he will get a clearance and , I guess, has to look out for VFRs ... not required to call. If he could change to VFR, he would get nothing.

And, from what ARFOR provided, Terminal Class E is not permitted in Australia.. so it's a moot point anyway.

rotorblades

22nd Apr 2010, 06:54

In other countries, you can even be given your IFR transponder code, but you are not considered IFR until you actually have the clearance

But we arent in other countries.

If you file your flight plan as just IFR, then you are IFR. If you want to start off VFR and change to IFR then file as such and you will be treated as VFR until IFR clearance available. Simple.

Im not sure you understand e or G, Dick.Departing IFR in G is not even remotely the same as departing VFR with IFR pick-up.
The reason you are expressly forbidden from climbing in G without a clearance in VMC is because unbelievably stubborn
You cant be expressly forbidden from climbing in G, you arent subject to a clearnace.

controlled airspace when IMC exists and as uncontrolled airspace when VMC exists
Please show me where in the rules & regs it says this.

I do wonder Dick, how you manage not to answer any questions that are asked you that are true & correct that dont support your world view - probably because they are just that - they prove what you say is false. Yet you happily pick apart statements people make that dont stroke your ego by twisting what they say & misinterpreting the point they are making.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2010, 07:36

Dick,

Sorry I've been missing all day. Had to go flying and do battle with a VFR who wouldn't talk. Glad he had his transponder on, otherwise we would have gone close to clocking him (as it was we got a TA). Ever tried to pick up a lighty, headon, with a closing of probably 400kts? Just like it'll be in your fabled E airspace around Broome. VFR not on freq, unknown to anybody until the TCAS lights up. I didn't bother explaining the situation to the 108 punters in the back; they probably would have wanted your address. But I digress.

If you were an experienced IFR pilot, you would know that the Willy and Ballina scenarios are totally different.

At Ballina on taxi, we get IFR traffic info from ATC, and we also get traffic on VFRs in the area (if they are doing the right thing). From that, I decide on a plan that will keep me safe from the traffic which will also consider weather and terrain and agree it with the other aircraft. When I'm ready, off I go.

At Willy, arguably a much busier piece of sky, ATC tells me that a clearance will not be available. I wonder why? Because even with radar separation standards, they can't give me one, because the traffic is so close! I am not about to say "oh well stuff that, I'll be right and go VFR; Bloggs, if you level at 5000ft, I'll climb to 4000 until we've passed"! What about other IFR traffic that ATC hasn't told me about? What about the VFR traffic that might not on the freq (area or CTAF because he's not in "the vicinity", nor has any attempt to be made to check his transponder). I would stay on the ground, lined up, until a clearance became available.

So your comparison of Ballina and Willy is invalid.

It is ridiculous that you urge IFR pilots to just blast off and change to VFR because they can't get a clearance (or stay "VFR") without a full analysis of what traffic is around AND a broadcast to alert some poor IFR coming the other way that I'm potentially about to scare him. The fare-paying pax in the back did not pay for that. This is not the John Wayne era of ridem cowboy, this is 2010 and we actually have an obligation to ensure the safety of our pax using whatever reasonable means are available. IMO that does not include blasting off VFR into low-level E airspace!

These advantages can only be used if you use the airspace properly.
You're joking, aren't you? E only works because IFR aircraft have to take unnecessary risks to get through it.

Now if VFR in E was on freq with a verified transponder ie identified, things might be different. Then at least the A380 would know where the VFR was to be able to take avoiding action!

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2010, 07:52

Ledsled,
What wonderful logic, you stay at low level in G in case there is un-notified VFR (which will have a transponder) in E --- with no idea what is in G, with or without a transponder.
Bit hypocritical there, old chap. Swearing black and blue that YANKNAS is the way to go, that ICAONAS is the way to go, but we have a unique transponder requirement in E. Why is that? Because your risk analysis showed that ICAO E is not safe enough? Yes, your honour...

...letting down in the firing range at Evans Head...
They were only shooting 303s at the time. What's the big deal? Let's keep the drama level down to Home and Away levels shall we?

Jet_A_Knight

22nd Apr 2010, 08:14

Hey Dick,

However, if we upgrade the airspace to E, suddenly your mind shuts down and says, “E means a clearance for IFR and means danger for IFR climbing in VMC without a clearance”

No, it does not. You're making an incorrect assumption. My mind goes to 'We need a clearance to depart".

I'm not arguing the fact that "E" is safer than "G". Understand that I'm saying, we operate IFR everywhere we fly to. We can't depart anywhere VFR in VMC then call for an IFR pickup in order to climb up into Class C & A so therefore we are subject to ATC clearance to enter Class E.

If I just charged into Class E sans clearance, I'd be explaining the ESIR that ATC issued on me, and if Idid that a few times, then I suppose the Chief Pilot would clip my wings.

If I had my way, I'd have the airspace we operated into subject to ATC control and clearance, and traffic prioritised similar to YSSY. I'm more concerned with the safety of myself and the fare paying RPT passengers I haul around than the freedom for privateers to fly wherever, whenever they want.

LeadSled

22nd Apr 2010, 09:20

----where is there class E with no ATC service??????Rotorblades,
When somebody doesn't turn up for work, when there is nobody on the ground, for whatever reason. In the parts of the world where that happens, if we canceled the service, or turned tail there would be precious few services.

Who remembers the morning "they" lost the keys of Cairns tower??

In part, the comment was for Bloggs, who (if he is actually a pilot) seems to have spent his or her flying time in a very narrow, cosseted and orderly straighjacketed environment, where all the decisions (except, perhaps, what dressing to have on his salad) has already been made for him.

He appears to have simply no comprehension about what happens outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- the real world where many aircraft ( including VH- RPT) operate in any airspace that may cross their track, from G on up with whatever CNS/ATM services that are available, starting with nil/none/zilch.

ARFOR,
Once again, you have demonstrated you are the master of cut and paste, but nowhere have you shown any understanding of the intent of ICAO CNS/ATM processes.

You put your own definitions on chosen words and phrases, seemingly without any idea of how those words are actually interpreted in a process that includes risk management justified benefit/cost analysis, and not just of the apparent cost of the CNS/ATM service provider.

Along with a number of other posters, you assume that anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or ill-informed, could it possible be that you and your compatriots are the ones whose knowledge has some serious gaps.

As to instrument procedure design, have you ever done an ICAO specialists course on the subject ?? I have, would you believe on behalf of my union?? I know what I am talking about, you just choose your interpretation of my words. I stand by every word of what I said on the subject, I still work in the area to this day. You do know that most Airservices work in this area is done externally, do you??

Re. reference systems:
---The previous comparisons in this thread of the US and Australian systems completely eliminates this option as a valid comparison. No they don't.

That might be your opinion/the opinion of other ppruners, to which you are all entitled, but it is no more than an assertion, that was not accepted by either the UK NATS or FAA consultants during the period of the operation of the NAS implementation team.

Then a wonderful assertion from you:
----the risk of un-alerted not see and not avoid in Class E is not zero, it is also not vanishingly small when considering the concentration of climbing and descending aircraft in and around terminal area airspace.
---- is not zero ----- well, of course it is not, and cannot be, but none of you blokes have proffered anything to actually justify (as opposed to assert) that C over D is justified. Indeed, if the "TMA" airspace justified C, the tower airspace would also need to be C or B, and not D.

That you clearly believe otherwise only further serves to illustrate your fundamental lack of understanding of risk analysis. The Airservices ARM model produces results with a high degree of confidence, with valid data. However, as we have seen, and as is true of all modeling, garbage in = garbage out.

And, of course, per. the Ministerial directive, for C there has to be terminal radar ---- which makes for some interesting potential civil liabilities in the current non-radar C environment.

If the aerodrome traffic only justifies a D tower, by definition (low level) C cannot be justified over D, it is simply impossible for the approach and departure traffic, clear of the circuit area, the D zone, to present a greater collision risk than in the immediate D zone of the aerodrome.

The collision risk cannot increase as the traffic spreads out, to assert otherwise ---- I'll leave that to others to judge.

That you can't understand/accept that, we all know, but it is a fact, nevertheless. And I mean fact, it is not an assertion by me. No collision risk model exists, that could reach such a conclusion, including the Airservices ARM model.

In any event, none of you have justified the continual assertion that VFR (with mandatory transponder) in E represents a greater threat than VFR in G, in the same volume of airspace.

The value doesn't actually interest me, because whatever the VFR traffic level, E is either not required or too dangerous. There is no in-between.

Bloggs,

What absolute rubbish, once again, bald assertions without a shred of justification.Let us know, please, why E in the rest of the world just doesn't cause problems, but would be( in your opinion) bordering on suicidal in Australia. Not assertions, just facts.

Perhaps the following from you : C needs radar. I don't think soooooo...would be far more accurate if you edited you comments to read:

C needs radar. I don't think

Tootle pip!!

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 09:34

Jet ', I can see with pilots like you why AsA have not upgraded places like Ballina and Orange from G to clearly safer mandatory transponder E.

ARFOR

22nd Apr 2010, 09:43

LeadSled
If the aerodrome traffic only justifies a D tower, by definition (low level) C cannot be justified over D, it is simply impossible for the approach and departure traffic, clear of the circuit area, the D zone, to present a greater collision risk than in the immediate D zone of the aerodrome.
Its not only about collision risk, it is about mitigating risk with the available infrastructure, resourcing and traffic levels. In that regard the US and Australia are about as similar as chalk and cheese.

Keep demonstrating your ignorance, it is certainly helping.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2010, 09:49

Ledsled,

Not assertions, just facts.

You've got a bit of a cheek; we've been asking for the CBA on E verses C from you for weeks and you refuse to supply the facts, you just make assertions. :cool:

Indeed, if the "TMA" airspace justified C, the tower airspace would also need to be C or B, and not D.
You're a fast reader (or else you have a line to Terry Hills), coz that's just wot Dick said on the NAS thread. :rolleyes:

In any event, none of you have justified the continual assertion that VFR (with mandatory transponder) in E represents a greater threat than VFR in G, in the same volume of airspace.
Yes we have. For thousandth time, VFR in G is required to have a radio and announce.

I'll ask you again: what's with this non-USNAS/ICAO CNS/ATM bla bla bla nonsense about mandatory transponders in E? What facts justify that crazy rule?

And, of course, per. the Ministerial directive, for C there has to be terminal radar ---- which makes for some interesting potential civil liabilities in the current non-radar C.
Oh come on. A flawed reason ("that's the way it's done in the US") causes the Minister to issue an unnecessary edict (where's your risk analysis facts that say radar in C is required?) and now you're saying it could be used against AsA?

none of you blokes have proffered anything to actually justify (as opposed to assert) that C over D is justified.
We didn't, but God has. He almost had a 737 creamed by a Tobago. Read the warning signs, or are you too blinkered to see the wood for the trees?

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 09:58

Rubbish, I have spoken to the Tobago pilot on several occasions. He heard the jet on both the area and the tower frequencies, had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.

The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston.

The RPT crew never sighted the Tobago so if the pilot had flown in exactly the same place a month before without a transponder and un announced no incident would have been recorded.

rotorblades

22nd Apr 2010, 10:01

Led,
When somebody doesn't turn up for work

this is not a usual situation though, and then it is TIBA airspace.

We need to stick to what is usual, or what should be.

E should have a controller (thus can be called controlled airspace).

Rb

le Pingouin

22nd Apr 2010, 10:10

Rubbish, I have spoken to the Tobago pilot on several occasions. He heard the jet on both the area and the tower frequencies, had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.Then why was it recorded as an AIRPROX? If there was no risk of collision why was there a TCAS RA? Someone is talking rubbish alright.

ozineurope

22nd Apr 2010, 10:11

Hmmmm, obviously a lot of European countries disagree led. Lots of C over D here, or dont we count cause we are not from the US? Where there is not a D zone many are F which means one at a time, no CTAF-R here to aid the traffic flow!

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2010, 10:15

Rubbish? Let's examine the facts, shall we (Paying attention, Ledsled?)?

had the jet in site at all times and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.

Not only was he confused about what was going on:

While the radio transmissions from the crew of the 737 may have assisted the Tobago pilot’s situational awareness, it was also influenced by his sighting of the aircraft, his belief that there was 2 degrees difference between the aircraft tracks and his belief that the 737 was tracking direct to right base for runway 32L. Although the pilot had the 737 in sight and was initially of the opinion that it would pass with sufficient spacing to the right of his aircraft, he became concerned when the 737 appeared to turn to the right across his path.

The investigation could not conclusively determine why the 737 appeared to make such a heading change. Although the pilot of the Tobago has a clear recollection of a significant right turn having been made by the 737, the FDR data at Appendix A shows the 737’s consistent and straight track over the ground. The minor heading change was possibly due to wind effect. The head-on aspect of the two aircraft may have given the illusion of a more significant heading alteration having been made.

he didn't talk:

After the Tobago pilot heard the crew of the 737 report the TCAS RA event to ATC, he advised ATC that his was the aircraft involved and that he had been operating in accordance with NAS procedures. The controller advised him that he should maintain a listening watch on the relevant ATC frequency and announce himself to traffic that he may be in conflict with.

The pilot advised that he:
"thought that I wasn’t supposed to speak on the frequency now."

Educational material associated with the NAS phase 2b implementation stated that an:

"important change is that the pilot of a VFR flight should not make broadcasts on ATC frequencies."

"Please do not make broadcast transmissions or engage in chatter on an ATC
frequency. The safety of others depends on you not doing this.

Pilots are not precluded from responding to any ATC or pilot transmission when they believe their safety is at risk from another aircraft."

So here we have a lighty pilot, who went so close to a jet that it set off a TCAS RA, telling you there was never any chance of a collision, and because of your repeated assertions over the years (which you got put into the NAS training material - or was it the other Smith?) that they are not to announce and he thought it'd be OK.

So my life, the lives of my crew and my more than 100 pax are in the hands of a VFR pilot. Thanks a lot. E airspace. You have to love it.

The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston.
Read the warning signs, Dick. The TCAS RAs are telling us something; it's just that YOU are so blind that you will not see the light until a bingle happens. You'll then blame me and the other pilot for not looking out.

Pera

22nd Apr 2010, 10:15

and stated to the ATSB that there was never any chance of a collision.

Was this his professional opinion?

Jet_A_Knight

22nd Apr 2010, 10:39

Jet ', I can see with pilots like you why AsA have not upgraded places like Ballina and Orange from G to clearly safer mandatory transponder E.

Dick - I suggest that you have no idea what kind of pilot I am. I can tell you that I am just a spoke in a wheel, and I'm not the sort of pilot who willingly breaks rules, or defies company policies or SOPs - so don't be sarcastic - it doesn't suit you.:hmm:

You said:
if you are on an IFR flight plan and you haven’t got a clearance, keep climbing when in VMC. That’s the only safe and sensible thing to do.

Can you post a reference to the regs/jepps that permits an IFR aircraft to climb into Class E airspace without an ATC clearance?

And I'm not talking IFR pickup malarkey either - I told you the head kickers above me that make company policy prohibit that - not even as a way to wrangle a clearance out of ATC.

ARFOR

22nd Apr 2010, 10:44

Mr Smith
The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston
Transponders are required in Class C as it was before your Class E experiment, and since the experiment was terminated. :=

Chimbu chuckles

22nd Apr 2010, 10:52

The only reason the TCAS RA recorded was because NAS 2b introduced mandatory transponders for the first time for all VFR aircraft in the airspace above Launceston.

The RPT crew never sighted the Tobago so if the pilot had flown in exactly the same place a month before without a transponder and un announced no incident would have been recorded.

I'd like everyone to take their time and ponder this for a while:ugh:

peuce

22nd Apr 2010, 11:09

I just can't find an "Out of Sight - Out of Mind" emoticon. :eek:
Perhaps the Mods might add one for us.

squawk6969

22nd Apr 2010, 11:28

peuce

the best I could find...will this do? http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/lost.gif

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 11:34

Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work?

In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation?

Yes , of course you do!

For those interested, transponders were not required for VFR in non radar class C before the NAS changes.

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 11:49

Jet. in Jepps I think you will find that there is no such definition as an "IFR aircraft".

In the USA you may give a taxi call in G to ATC when on an IFR flight plan but you are not considered IFR until you are given your IFR clearance.
Thats why you can climb in E in VMC before being given your IFR clearance--- yes just as we climb in G now waiting for our IFR clearance.

In Australia , to stop E working correctly it was decided that once an IFR flight planned aircraft gave a taxi call to ATC it was then considered to be IFR which meant it could not enter class E in VMC without a clearance unless it cancelled IFR.

ARFOR

22nd Apr 2010, 12:01

It is IFR flight. Not Aircraft, or Plan.

Can you name any Hi-cap RPT/PTO operators that may operate VFR flight rules?

peuce

22nd Apr 2010, 12:06

I will not hit a VFR ... I will not hit a VFR...I will not hit a VFR...

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

Jet_A_Knight

22nd Apr 2010, 12:11

In this neck of the woods you operate IFR or VFR. Or VFR with the IFR Pickup.

So it's not the fault of the Jet_A_Knight that ASA don't put E down to the Ground!

Funny you should mention Orange.... a few years ago, when I was a little 'greener', I busted through the bottom of Class E blasting out of bad low level weather on departure Orange in an empty turboprop (like you're suggesting now) - and yep - I had to explain myself to the CP before he got the ESIR.:O

You have yet to acknowledge that under the current rules, in Australia, climbing into Class E without a clearance, is a violation of controlled airspace.

Maybe you should reconsider your statement about climbing into Class E regardless of clearances - unless you mean it as a civil disobedience/protest kind of action.:oh:

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 12:26

ARFOR in effect they all do in relation to safety- that is they fly so called IFR in G with just a traffic information service.

This is not allowed in the USA.

I made the mistake of believing we would want to keep the advantages of our proven class G for RPT traffic when VMC exists with the extra advantages of controlled airspace when IMC exists.

Stupid me- of course we should take the disadvantages of each and throw commonsense to the wind.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2010, 12:32

Dick,
You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of real-world aviation.

Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work?

In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation?
I (nor has anybody I have flown with in the last 35 years) do not get alerted to another aircraft and then continue flying toward them hoping that I am looking in the right direction to "See and Avoid". I ensure, through my own actions or in concert with the other aircraft, that if we do not sight each other, we will still not collide. Call it radio-arranged separation if you like. This morning was a classic example. A no-radio VFR was coming at us pretty quickly (until all aircraft have mandated ADS-B :} I couldn't tell exactly what our approach angle was, but it was closing pretty fast). Having been alerted to the TCAS (thank goodness) my effo and I did not simply keep looking where the TCAS said he was and keep descending; we levelled off until we saw him, then we continued our descent.

Alerted See and Avoid is a misnomer; it is safer and more economical for pilots to talk to each other to ensure segregation in case the See and Avoid bit doesn't happen (and more often than not it doesn't).

Back to the Tobago and your rather odd question
Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work?

In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation?

He never announced he was there; Alerted See and Avoid aka segregation never had a chance. This is what you had introduced with NAS 2b, fortunately AsA canned it, but you never learn and now you are trying this crazy stunt again. You had two warnings last time, with no lives lost. Do not let it happen, because the next time may be far more serious.

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 12:34

Jet , climbing into E in VMC would not be a problem in Canada and the USA.

This is because even if you have submitted an IFR plan you are not considered IFR until you have been given an IFR clearance.

The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier.

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2010, 12:42

Bloggs, you are mixed up.

Your first description was clearly alerted see and avoid.

If you use radio arranged separation with VFR aircraft no wonder you complain about frequencies being jammed.

Can't be much traffic where you fly!

Capn Bloggs

22nd Apr 2010, 12:52

Your first description was clearly alerted see and avoid.

Let me be more blunt. Unless I am avoiding them before I see them, I will probably not avoid them; I'll probably hit them, as it will probably be too late to avoid them.

And your response to the lack of Alerted "See and Avoid" with the Tobago at Launy? Or are you just going to let that one slide?

le Pingouin

22nd Apr 2010, 12:56

The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier.Speak for yourself Mr. Smith.

It's generally easier to separate now because then the problem is fixed. If you let everything just run you're left with reacting instead of controlling. something that is less than ideal, particularly off radar.

Steve888

22nd Apr 2010, 13:02

...US system...
In other countries...
In the USA...
This is not allowed in the USA.
...would not be a problem in Canada and the USA.

Dick, you're starting to sound like a broken record.

max1

22nd Apr 2010, 14:05

The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier.

Works in the US , 10 000+ controllers!

rotorblades

22nd Apr 2010, 14:35

Dick
climbing into E in VMC would not be a problem in Canada and the USA

We are not in the USA or Canada, FFS, thus dont try and convince pilots to do something in Australia which isnt within the Australian rules.

I'm struggling to find in the US/FAA AIP where it states IFR can climb into E without a clearance whilst VMC.
I have found this of interest:
'This does not preclude the pilot from cancelling the IFR
clearance with ATC and departing under VFR; but an
IFR clearance may not be available after departure'

Under the FAA code of federal regs:
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

Plazbot

22nd Apr 2010, 16:26

ahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha

mjbow2

23rd Apr 2010, 13:07

rotorblades

Under the FAA code of federal regs:
Quote:
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

This isolated and selective statement highlights exactly why you Class E deniers do not understand the system on offer. You refuse to consider all the information in concert.

IFR in the United States do not fly in class E without a clearance.

All airline served airports have a minimum of Class E starting at 700ft AGL rotorblades and if no IFR clearance has been given, then by definition the flight is VFR while climbing out. Do you understand this?

If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E!

Read my post (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/412797-williamtown-class-e-stuff-up-2.html#post5651242) here.

We should copy the United States here and issue an airways clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND prior to departure. Class E should go to the ground when the tower closes. Problem solved.

If you understood the NAS proposal you would know we are going to have Class E down to 700ft AGL for terminal areas, 1200ft for corridors (Airways) and down to ground level for approaches and to the ground when Class D towers closed.

From your other posts you clearly did not understand how we could do this from a place like Ballina. There is a solution rotorblades, we should copy a country that already does it with amazing success. They sometimes issue clearance 'void times' if not airborne in a non radar environment by a certain time. Its simple and it works.

You're still young rotorblades, I'm sure in time you may get to work in other countries and you will have the opportunity to learn better ways of doing things.

You say

dont try and convince pilots to do something in Australia which isnt within the Australian rules.

Remarkable statement to make. We can and do change our rules all the time. Yourself and ARFOR seem to think not.

The airline I work for does not allow us to fly VFR, as doesn't Jet A knight's. But we can make exemptions and copy the US by allowing RPT to depart VFR in some circumstances as long as they 'pick up IFR' by 50nm from the departure airport. See FAA Ops Spec C 077 (http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v12%20intl%20aviation/chapter%2002/12_002_005.htm).

Not everything is in the FAR AIMS!

Capn Bloggs

23rd Apr 2010, 13:34

Bowie,
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E!

Did it ever occur to think WHY you couldn't get a clearance? If so, did you do anything about it or just blast off into the ether hoping you didn't run into anybody?

LeadSled

23rd Apr 2010, 16:33

Did it ever occur to think WHY you couldn't get a clearance?

Bloggs,

You are completely blinkered, aren't you, have you ever flown in the US?? You should try it some time, you would be amazed at how straight forward it is, compared to all the bush lawyering that surrounds aviation in Australia.

All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.

Re. all the safety cases, go talk to your union (if you are a member of the AFAP), don't blame me or any of the CASA/Airservices/NAS/Military/Industry people if you were not kept informed, or misinformed, by your representatives at the time.

As for your comment about G being safer than E because everybody has to use radio---- what have you been smoking?? It must be strong stuff.

As I said somewhere else, go after all the info under FOI, I have absolutely no intention of digging out all my old files, all in an archive at YSBK, let alone "releasing" them. The total count of our storage boxes, just for the NAS consultation documents and all the hazard analysis and mitigation determinations records, was in excess of 20.

Do you really believe that you personally have to be informed in detail, of every proposed change, and be given the chance to agree or veto every detail for a reform process for it to be valid.

The expression" "Get real" comes to mind.

For those of you rabbiting on about Europe, why don't you get a few charts out, and see how small the whole place is. All of UK bar the Shetlands, a large chunk of Ireland, the Channel and a chunk of France and Belgium all fit on just two half million charts. One ONC (1:5,000,000) just about covers the whole EEC and large bits of the CIS. Having done that, go look for the E, you will find it around the place.

Most of western Europe, and a fair bit of the (old) eastern block, fit into NSW and Victoria.(or the NE corner of the US)

Australia is not comparable with EEC, aviation area wise, but it is with the US, except that we have sod all traffic compared with the US. There are, on average, around about 5000+/- IFR flights airborne, and about 50,000 active IFR flight plans at any one time ----- What is the maximum no. of IFR flights over continental Australia ever reached at one time ---- 200? 300? 400?. Come on you blokes from Airservices, tell us.

That Australia's "IFR Rules" and the way they are interpreted, are dopy, is not a valid criticism of the fundamentals of the NAS. In fact, at various NAS consultations, it was pathetic to hear representatives of one group of pilots ( taking only the position of their airline members) demanding that nobody should be allowed to depart VFR and get a clearance IFR on climb, because if they, the "airlines", one of them flying a Chieftain, for goodness sake, couldn't, so it was only "fair" that operators not constrained by dopy rules should not be allowed to take advantage of the new rules.

And all this because what had been G suddenly became E ------ and therefor "not safe".

Tootle pip!!

Mike Barry

23rd Apr 2010, 17:02

You're still young rotorblades, I'm sure in time you may get to work in other countries and you will have the opportunity to learn better ways of doing things.

Sorry, couldn't let that one slide....:ugh:
I seem to remember Rotorblades having worked London TMA stuff as well as Australian airspace...I could be wrong though.
Your quote is simply arrogant and just laughable...so the fact that he says he is 29 precludes him from "having a clue" like your good self does it? just what is the cutoff for enlightenment then, hmmmmm?????

Just as an aside to your comment about working in other countries...I have and do, and I will tell you that most of them happily work without E airspace.
In one of those countries, all flights must obtain permission to operate, it is and was a damned sight busier that anything I ever saw in Australia too. Those operators seem to realise that the sky isn't just there for their benefit, they fit in or stay on the ground.
Simple!
BTW mjbow2, if you are actually in the sandpit, you would have spoken to me on the radio there, and here is a hint....the country was in the Middle East.
The fact that they do things in the sandpit differently to Australia so therefore it is better, has exactly the same worth as the cry about US NAS being better.

Ledsled...what exactly was your point about the size of Europe compared to Australia? Didn't any of your girlfriends ever tell you size doesn't matter?:E

ferris

23rd Apr 2010, 18:46

Australia is not comparable with EEC, aviation area wise, but it is with the US, except that we have sod all traffic compared with the US. Leadsled, that right there is one of the fundamental problems with importing the US NAS. But you don't seem to get it. You are told over and over why, then conspicuously ignore the reasons/questions.

I would've thought that after ARFOR just absolutely trounced you on the other thread you might've had the sense to go away and lick your wounds. Seems you are more of the "martyr" type of fundamentalist. ;)

Keep polishing that turd.

Mr Whippy

23rd Apr 2010, 20:48

All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.

VHF comms with ATC are available on the ground at Willy. That's what this thread was about. Anyway in the case that VHF isn't available we use HF.

Leadsled are you telling us you'd willingly blast off into class E VFR if denied a clearance, knowing that there is conflicting traffic *somewhere*:ugh:

peuce

23rd Apr 2010, 23:52

Nastronauts,

In Australia, RPTs don't climb into E (VFR) looking for a clearance, and it seems to work without too many problems and delays.

If you want it changed ... go for it ... wish you luck. Even if you do get it changed, I doubt most Airlines will use it.

Once again, what are you trying to fix?

No Further Requirements

24th Apr 2010, 00:03

All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.

If this is one of the places that has E almost to the ground, what happens here when the conditions are less than VMC and the aircraft cannot get a clearance? They just wait until the weather clears up?

Cheers,

NFR.

ARFOR

24th Apr 2010, 01:53

mjbow
All airline served airports have a minimum of Class E starting at 700ft AGL rotorblades and if no IFR clearance has been given, then by definition the flight is VFR while climbing out. Do you understand this?
FAA JO 7110-65S - US ATS Rules Manual

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65S.pdf
4-3-9. VFR RELEASE OF IFR DEPARTURE

When an aircraft which has filed an IFR flight plan requests a VFR departure through a terminal facility, FSS, or air/ground communications station:
a. After obtaining, if necessary, approval from the facility/sector responsible for issuing the IFR clearance, you may authorize an IFR flight planned aircraft to depart VFR. Inform the pilot of the proper frequency and, if appropriate, where or when to contact the facility responsible for issuing the clearance.

PHRASEOLOGY VFR DEPARTURE AUTHORIZED. CONTACT (facility) ON (frequency) AT (location or time if required) FOR CLEARANCE.

b. If the facility/sector responsible for issuing the clearance is unable to issue a clearance, inform the pilot, and suggest that the delay be taken on the ground. If the pilot insists upon taking off VFR and obtaining an IFR clearance in the air, inform the facility/sector holding the flight plan of the pilot's intentions and, if possible, the VFR departure time.
Do you understand the actual system in the US? :=
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E!
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, then there is a conflicting IFR aircraft. That is why ATS WILL suggest a delay on the ground. If the pilot decides to go VFR, then they are reliant on ‘see and avoid’ to avoid collision. Which is exactly as the professionals on these threads are suggesting, and why the following limitations are within the FSIMS:-

Flight Standards Information Management System

12_002_005 (http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v12%20intl%20aviation/chapter%2002/12_002_005.htm)
OpSpec C077 Subparagraph c(3). This subparagraph contains a requirement to obtain an IFR clearance no farther than 50 nautical miles from the departure airport. However, it is recognized that this procedure may not be practical in all situations. If a greater distance is necessary, the foreign air carrier may apply for a nonstandard paragraph. If OpSpec B051 is issued for VFR en route operations, then for propeller driven aircraft, except for certain en route VFR provisions in part 93, SFAR 50–2, or SFAR 71, the flightcrew may depart VFR under the provision of OpSpec C077 subparagraph c, and the requirement to obtain an IFR clearance en route does not apply.

F. Terminal Departure IFR Requirements in Subparagraph d. If ATC clears the flight, it is acceptable to execute a VMC takeoff and climb to a specified point in the clearance as part of an IFR clearance. However, the foreign air carrier must ensure that the obstacle performance requirements are met. Further, the flight must not depart on a VFR flight plan if the capability to go on an IFR flight plan is evident.
Bare in mind also that in G, pilots can select an alternate track that de-conflicts with the other aircraft. If the Class E base is low , then ATC will often not have any MSAW/LSALT options if off track, when an IFR clearance in E becomes ‘necessary’ in to CTA.
[B]G. Subparagraph e. Subparagraph e provides special limitations and provisions for all VFR operations. This subparagraph is applicable to all the provisions and limitations of OpSpec C077.

1) Subparagraph e(1). In order for the foreign air carrier to conduct VFR operations under OpSpec C077, they must have in place either a procedure or program that can identify obstacles and the airport obstacle data. Further, they must ensure that the flightcrew use that information. The POI shall request documentation from the foreign air carrier that this program is in place and that the air carrier’s CAA has approved VFR terminal operations.

2) OpSpec C077, Subparagraph e(2). Although each subparagraph has specific details and minimums regarding VFR, the requirement for sufficient seeing conditions to identify and avoid obstacles is required for all VFR operations.
Your previous post continues the fine tradition of NAStronaut misinformation. :=

CaptainMidnight

24th Apr 2010, 04:06

Dick Smith: For those interested, transponders were not required for VFR in non radar class C before the NAS changes.Transponders have always been required for all aircraft in Class C airspace since it was introduced. Radar coverage is not a factor. One-off approvals have been granted for specific flights, but that is all.

Frank Arouet

24th Apr 2010, 04:58

Transponders have always been required for all aircraft in Class C airspace since it was introduced

Cute. Didn't the NAS changes catagorise the airspace?

What was Rockhampton before that?

mjbow2

24th Apr 2010, 04:59

ARFOR

It is evident that your knowledge of US NAS is limited by Internet Explorer.

It is a great shame that you cannot speak with any authority as one that has flown in or provided ATS services under US NAS.

Your cut and paste exercise only proves that IFR pickup is available as we have been saying.

You really will cut and paste anything that appears to cast doubt on anything that a NAStronaut states. (thanks for coining that phrase... I am indeed a NAStronaut)

You really should read what you post more carefully. Your ATS manual excerpt of section 4-3-9 assumes that a pilot requests a VFR departure.

What your Internet Explorer did not tell you is that there is absolutely no requirement for a pilot to request a VFR departure. They can just do it!

Of all the VFR departures I have conducted in the United States, not once have I asked to do it and not once has a controller had to 'authorise' it.

Why don't you go and ask one of your American colleagues how its done in the United States ARFOR, I hear them on the radio here every day. I'm sure they will explain it to you, they seem quite friendly.

Frank Arouet

24th Apr 2010, 05:06

"NAStronaut". I'll wear the "T" shirt if someone prints them up.

I can see the reverse side..." I flew class E and survived".

rotorblades

24th Apr 2010, 05:13

mjbow
I wish there was a smilie that showed just how much of an idiot you are
From your other posts you clearly did not understand how we could do this from a place like Ballina

I didnt bring Ballina up.

You're still young rotorblades, I'm sure in time you may get to work in other countries and you will have the opportunity to learn better ways of doing things.

YOU ****!!!!!!!!! I spent 7 years working in London TMA - Heathrow Radar, Thames radar, Heathrow SVFR. Cant get much busier than London TMA airspace. Maybe you should find out the facts before you go accusing people of being young & inexperienced!!!!

I have Approach training, Enroute training (Radar & Procedural) & Tower training. The full set.

dont try and convince pilots to do something in Australia which isnt within the Australian rules.

Remarkable statement to make. We can and do change our rules all the time

YES, but the rules havent changed yet, so still encouraging people to go against the regs.

mjbow2

24th Apr 2010, 06:09

rotorblades

You are absolutely right.

I should not have assumed your age was accurate on your profile. It was a mistake to make such an assumption and I retract the statement and apologise for any offense caused. I was wrong to do it as it detracts from the importance of the issue at hand.

Regretfully.

MJBOW2

peuce

24th Apr 2010, 06:26

These nastronauts are just plain nasty ...

I don't know if I really want to play any more http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/sosvideo/YoumakemehurtIcon.jpg

rotorblades

24th Apr 2010, 06:30

mjbow

Apology accepted, my age is correct though - Ive been in ATC for 11 years!. And though I dont claim to know everything, never will, I have a fair bit of experience behind me.
Thanks for being man enough to admit your error. I also was a bit hot-headed in my response, for which I apologise.

My posts from the FAR & USAIP, was not a contradiciton to what you have said, it was just me posting what I could find about the subject from US regulations - trying to find the answers for myself rather than relying on second.third hand information - from whoever it is. I could not/can not find anything about if an IFR departs without being able to gain a clearance its by definition VFR.

My main issue with class E is, why E?. Why not D?
Having seen E at Willy today it was a right buggers muddle, IFR (an RPT) turning for finals without a clearance, a VFR going through right in front of an IFR (the VFR was doing the right thing and listening out, so I managed to pass TI and they sorted themselves out) but a lot of VFRs dont, and not all of them have transponders (some of them do but they dont work or have incorrcet mode C). At least if they were identified and verified we'd know.
In what we are talking about on this thread is Willy. Why not have D down to sfc, with 'recommended' VFR transit lanes set up to transit through the overhead (when RAAF active then its the coastal/inland route), rather than have a lot go coastal straight thru' 12 climb out/30 short finals.
With D we will know about all traffic, can plan accordingly. Departures will get a clearance on the ground, with clearance expiry times if required. VFR will still have to miss the IFRs but a full & comprehensive traffic service can be provided to both.
There is always more than one solution.

And why we are at it, why dont we have proper segregated departure & arrival routes, so we can give the clearance without having to double guess where they *might* pass. It will be much easier to give clearance.

It is not always a good idea just to copy what someone else does verbatim.
Assess whats best for the traffic situations in Australia/or the particular airport & adapt to best suit your needs. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

I think what a lot of people worry, is that not enough forethought has been given to all the implications. Its just a case of that looks good and works for them so must work for us.

OZBUSDRIVER

24th Apr 2010, 06:45

mjbow2, I am interested in your dialogue with ATC with regard to your VFR departure and your IFR flightplan. Yes, you can launch any time you like under the VFR out of a CTAF, a couple of minor steps to follow VFR in a D Tower, even a FAA one...but the dialogue for your IFR flightplan...do you leave that to some form of clairvoyance?

It is OK to say you can do something under one set of rules...however,...when you have to comply with another set of rules, and then you just barge off under another set and then EXPECT service...bit rude...I am very sure you are not an ignorant busdriver...so...you must deal with ATC wrt your filed IFR...so if ATC says you cannot have a clearance into E...there must be a very good reason.

OZBUSDRIVER

24th Apr 2010, 06:58

mjbow2, wrt your quip about the internet...I can tell you right now, if the internet was available back in the eighties, a certain well traveled person would not have been able to do his Marco Polo impersonation with the lesser mortals of GA.

Information is power, as our intrepid traveler well knew. Everything posted on this page in rebutal of your gang's argument is either from direct experience or very learned study that can be attributed.

ARFOR

24th Apr 2010, 07:04

mjbow now now, blood pressure ;)
What your Internet Explorer did not tell you is that there is absolutely no requirement for a pilot to request a VFR departure. They can just do it!
What the JO tells US is that IFR wanting to depart an uncontrolled airport in to Class E must comply as quoted above. Or are you suggesting the JO is wrong?

If the IFR flight pilot departs VFR they either do so with or without ATS approval. If there is no ATS approval, there is NO guarantee that an IFR clearance will be available when needed i.e. climbing in to cloud in CTA

Read the regs mjbow. These are the 'practical' points contributors here are making.

Chief galah

24th Apr 2010, 07:09

It seems to me that if a departing IFR aircraft elects to proceed VFR because clearance is not available due to other IFR traffic, then a certain train of circumstances come into play.

The departing pilot must make an assessment that VMC exists. He must be aware of the cloud base and the amount of cloud that will ensure he can maintain VMC. Having, in another life, seen countless incorrect VMC assessments by pilots, I cannot see an improvement in pilots abilities to do this, especially if there is some pressure to go.

If conditions are marginal VMC, then the departing aircraft may have to divert around cloud and may not be on course within five miles. This introduces possible LSALT problems, traffic assessment problems, and subsequent clearance problems. (Not on designated route for lateral separation, perhaps)

The ability to see and avoid becomes problematic, and if the vis. is not so good, but still VMC, then people start to get a bit edgy. Particularly the other IFR pilot who would be wishing the other chap had stayed on the ground. Straight away, up goes the frequency congestion, and the workload.

This probably happens now in G, but at least the controller is not part of the separation link, and pilots may consider TCAS enough for their segregation.

I'd be happy to stand corrected if things have changed in more recent times.

CaptainMidnight

24th Apr 2010, 07:24

Cute. Didn't the NAS changes catagorise the airspace?
G'day Frank

No ......... the ICAO classifications were introduced in the late 90's.

rotorblades

24th Apr 2010, 07:52

ICAO have actually been planning to consolidate the numbers/classes of airspace. into new & wonderful letters. I think its down to three U, K & R. or something like that. didnt read too much as it was dated 2004! so they probably didnt get any further.

LeadSled

24th Apr 2010, 07:56

ARFOR,
Have you actually ever read an FAA Part 121 or Part 129 Operations Specification, I really doubt it, much less had any experience operating under one.

Do you actually understand what a Part 121 or Part 129 Operations Specification covers, and the legal validity/application of an Ops. Spec.

As we already know, you are a really accomplished "cut and paster", but do you actually read and understand what you have cut and pasted --- including related documents to give the whole picture.. What you have so thoughtfully done in this last massive cut and paste is laid out ( in part) the rules for departing VFR and getting an IFR clearance on climb --- for aircraft subject to Operations Control.

There can be many reasons for a clearance release time and a void time, seldom has it to do (in my experience) with the Center not being able to provide separation.

With reference to "the other thread", and here, selective posting (I musts admit, posting all the relevant documents is an impossibility) intended to support your argument contains some most interesting selections, and what amuses me is how often it only supports your case ---- if you a committed believer. Several new identities have popped up (and I have no idea who they are) who don't quite read things your way, do they??

Given the posts of your cheer squad, they haven't read and understood them either.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled

24th Apr 2010, 08:02

"NAStronaut". I'll wear the "T" shirt if someone prints them up.
I can see the reverse side..." I flew class E and survived".

I'll have two, where do I order??

Tootle pip!!

peuce

24th Apr 2010, 08:29

There's another complication to this ...

Two Italian Controllers have just been jailed for permitting an IFR aircraft to change to VFR, with a resulting CFIT.

This was even after the Controller asked the PIC to confirm he could provide his own obstacle clearance.

I daresay such requests/advice may be met with a less than enthusiastic response from ATC in the future.

I know, another country, another rule book ... but it does seem topical to link Australia with International practices.

ferris

24th Apr 2010, 09:05

If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, then there is a conflicting IFR aircraft. Not necessarily, ARFOR. An american colleague (whom I am fact-checking with) advises that flow control and sector capacity management are important reasons for requiring departure approval. Capacity management extends to the entire route-of-flight, and not just arrival (slot) control. They have more people just managing sector capacity than oz has en-route controllers.
It's a different world (the US world of aviation). A different set of circumstances. Thinking that you can just transplant it into the oz environment is, well, naive.

ARFOR

24th Apr 2010, 09:11

ferris

True, had not looked that far in to that aspect. :ok:

LeadSled
for aircraft subject to Operations Control.
Which would be what class of operation? I know its been 10 years but really:rolleyes:
There can be many reasons for a clearance release time and a void time, seldom has it to do (in my experience) with the Center not being able to provide separation.
Well what pray tell might it be for then?
With reference to "the other thread", and here, selective posting (I musts admit, posting all the relevant documents is an impossibility) intended to support your argument contains some most interesting selections, and what amuses me is how often it only supports your case ---- if you a committed believer.
You and the 2.5 side kicks never provide documentary support, only waffle and war stories. Selective quoting? I think not, all reference documents are available [ICAO with Industry Access] and quoted in full. If you feel anything I have quote only tells part of the story, please enlighten us with any missing bits. As your friend would say I dare you :ok:
Several new identities have popped up (and I have no idea who they are) who don't quite read things your way, do they??
Really? apart from you and the 2.5 side kicks, who else is reading things differently? ;)

Capn Bloggs

24th Apr 2010, 09:12

Ledsled,

All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.

Oh, very sorry, I am such an idiot for not thinking about that.

ferris

24th Apr 2010, 09:47

but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground That is NOT the problem. An IFR clearance in the states will MOST USUALLY be delivered by the tower at the field. It is HIGHLY UNCOMMON for an IFR flight (and NEVER for an RPT jet-type service such as in some oz circumstances) to not be in contact with ATS on departure (not necessarily the TRACON). In very rare circumstances, pilots may obtain clearance via phone (hence the existence of time-expiry type conditionals).
Do you really understand the differences between oz and the US, Leasled? It certainly appears that you hope a lot of the stuff you post will just "slide by".

OZBUSDRIVER

24th Apr 2010, 10:26

Keep it coming, Peuce.:ok: Input! Internet rules!

It must hurt your pride, Leadsled. Your reputation for being an encyclopaedic mind for details is getting roundly kicked into touch at every play. Maybe, you need to reacquaint yourself with your archive.....don't forget to update:}

rotorblades

24th Apr 2010, 10:37

We seem to be converging on NAS from this thread, which i believe was about WLM originally.

It can be solved so easily - segregated inbound/outbound routes.

RWY12
Inbounds from the North
MSO - TRINA/NAMBA - WLM
outbounds to the north
WLM - NELSN -PLO/BANDA
inbounds/outbounds from/to South
Via an appropriate point SW for ins, SE for outs.

RWY30
Inbounds from North
MSO - NELSN - WLM
outbounds to North
WLM - TRINA - PLO/BANDA
ins/outs from South
opposite to rwy12

Clearances can then be issued to aircraft on the ground much easier, with just overflights to worry about - which can be sorted out much easier due to them normally in the cruise than nose to nose inbounds/outbounds.

And nothing prevents track shortening subject to the traffic.
Simples

Capn Bloggs

26th Apr 2010, 00:03

Ledsled,
All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.
You keep lambasting me for being insular, no real "world" experience and stuck inside the 12nm limit, so I have question for you: the number of times you have taken an RPT jet out of a CTAF into low-level E would be?

Capn Bloggs

26th Apr 2010, 02:16

Ledsled,

Re your snide comment:
This reminds me of what was going on, in and out of Ballina, during the "Class G" trial --- the original trials of E. How many of you still remember ----- overflying Ballina, letting down in the firing range at Evans Head, and coming back down the coast at low level in G ---- all to avoid the dreaded E.
That wasn't actually the case at all. Here is what BASI had to say about your "Evans Head Scenic":

A major domestic operator, which only serviced one location in the demonstration area, had elected to divert around the demonstration airspace in order to enter the mandatory broadcast zone associated with that location from controlled airspace.

I wonder how many other "facts" that you have come up with aren't actually facts at all? :cool:

bushy

26th Apr 2010, 03:57

Leadsled
Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge.
How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies.

peuce

26th Apr 2010, 07:47

Bushy,

I understand how it can appear that we're trying to shaft VFRs .. at the expense of IFRs ... because that's all we've been talking about. We have had to push some pretty serious points and the reasonoing we use can appear pretty extreme ...

However,my point of view is that the first priority has to be the protection of IFR RPTs with dozens of paying souls on board. Passengers can't fly themselves, so they put their trust in dumb ole pilots. The least the piloting community can do is try and ensure that fare paying passengers have a pretty good chance of safely getting to their destination. To do that, we have to be sure we have a robust safety regime, that will stand public scrutiny. To date, many of us don't believe that our Government has provided us with that.

Once that is squared away, one way or the other, I am also certain that "sensible arrangements" for VFR participation will be the next priority.

Hopefully, that might be achieved at the same time and your suggestions on how that might be achieved would be welcomed in this Forum.

And to answer your first question last ... none of us have all the answers .. and most of us are indeed, fallible ...that's probably why we are here ... to gain more knowledge.

LeadSled

26th Apr 2010, 08:50

Which would be what class of operation?ARFOR,

Dear me, you really know sod all, ( except how to cut and paste) don't you??
My post already tells you, in black and white, what class of operation!!

Bloggs,

What I said about Ballina, and what the ATSB said, are entirely consistent, trust you to not be able to understand airspace divisions. Said operator preferred flying in the deactivated and therefor G airspace of the range, and in G under the E, rather than "penetrate" the dreaded E.

I know from personal experience, I passed one, opposite direction, flying down the beach at about 2000'. Obviously much safer than them being in E.

Bushy,
You'r a stirrer!! Carry on.

Tootle pip!!.

ARFOR

26th Apr 2010, 09:18

LeadSled :D

I know a shed load more [real life design and application] about ATM than you think you know :ok:

The original link was provided by mjbow, which as per standard operating proved to be less than half the story.

Which raises another interesting point. You and Mr Smith bang on about how simple the US system is. I would observe that not only is the mapping [for VFR] a mismash of complexity [granted most is unavoidable due infrustructure proximity, and airspace complexity] and opportunity for error, which cuts to the very heart of the 'mitigations' put in place i.e. wall to wall ATC to catch aircraft [VFR outside the system], and protect IFR without bringing the whole system to a stand still [lets not even consider talking about the size and real cost of the IFR flow management establishment]. This is principally why the US utilise Class E with PRIM and SSR surveillance.

Add to that the number of legislative parts dotted here and there. It would take quite some convincing for anyone operating ATM systems to believe the US suite were a simpler system.

And, before you go off on another unrelated sermon of how good you were 'in the day', I am commenting only on the 'airspace and related' systems and rules. Not aircraft maintenance and the like.

LeadSled

26th Apr 2010, 09:20

the number of times you have taken an RPT jet out of a CTAF into low-level E would be?

Bloggs,
I missed the above pearler before:

The answer is many in the US, over a 40 year period ----- and not all with the one airline, as you are probably imagining is the case. Remember, many C and D towers in the US are not H24.

In AU, without the E part, just the CTAF into G, a few times on diversions, mostly in WA.

Other small jet/turboprop (not RPT) in US, add quite a few more.

Elsewhere from a supposed D tower ( or ? when nobody is in the tower) to overlaying control of some kind, without a clearance, because no clearance was available on the ground, many times.

Tell me, Bloggs, how many time have you taken a Heavy ( as in the callsign, not AU Hi-Cap) into a strip with nothing but kero edgelights?? Which is as about as relevant a question as yours above is to the main thrust of this thread.

Being a pilot operating in the current system is not a qualification in the system design including any future system.

Tootle pip!!

ferris

26th Apr 2010, 10:32

Leadsled THESE ARE YOUR VERY OWN WORDS (lifted from the NAS thread) As I have said, many times, aviation safety is not a democracy. As we have seen time and again (all to often after a fatal accident) the "conventional wisdom" was wrong, but people had to die for the majority to be proven wrong. Sadly, in all to many examples, the minority had pointed out why the conventional wisdom was wrong, only for the inevitable to prove the minority correct. Now, the it seems to me you really need to listen to your own words. 'E' link airspace was tried before, and look at the results (LT, Tobago)! Here you are trying it again!! Trying to put un-surveilled E link airspace in, despite the valid protests of the small group of professionals who do the job day in, day out. Aren't airmisses good enough- people WILL actually have to die before you admit "the conventional wisdom was wrong"???

There are none so blind....

Your very own words!

Back Pressure

27th Apr 2010, 11:32

Given the passion with which you guys/gals have been arguing your points of view, I am amazed that there have not been 2514 mid-air collisions in the last 3 years, because you all have rock-solid opinions regardless. Must be that the current system works reasonably OK ? Or rather, that you flight crews out there are pretty competent ?

Am I being too simplistic in saying that what is required is a (hopefully) fool-proof system of departures/approaches for non-towered aerodromes ? Surely this is a basic requirement ? Can't be too hard !!!!

Seriously, you have descended into a pointless slanging match: rather than try to work towards a sensible solution, you are just trading insults.

You are highly trained professionals - please remember that, and do as you know you should.

BP - not a professional pilot, but try to be professional nevertheless...

Chatz

27th Apr 2010, 15:50

This might be moving slightly away from the topic of the thread, however...

I've recently started working in a multi nationality environment, and spent the last two months trying to understand both the US and UK systems, having worked solely in OZ. What I've found is that the US is vastly different in the very principle of how they operate, compared to how we do. My observation is that oz is high regulated (for good reason), which is not to say that the US isn't, but in a different way. I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it) some of which has come about from the US way of doing things (yes, this is a bit of a generalisation, please take it in context), ie. tower can release aircraft into approach airspace by which ever means they choose, no coordination required. To move to an airspace design system similar to the US, would also require a significant cultural shift on behalf of the oz avaition community in order to be successful and this issue does not seem to have been addressed in any of the changes.

A comment was made previously about VFR. Whether we agree or disagree, the mandate of the ATSB is to priortise fare paying passengers and matters of public interest, which in turn means that change is likely to come about for the IFR community and the manner they fly before it does the VFR community as a result of the investigations carried out. Incidents not investigated are recorded in the incident reporting system, which is managed by CASA - and so relies largely on trend spotting and data analysis to identify areas for change.

Dick Smith

28th Apr 2010, 02:17

Chatz

Great post. By the way, you state

I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it)

Chatz – can you explain this in a little more detail? What are the "greater freedoms" and what aspect(s) don’t you like about them?

I’d love to get your views on this.

LeadSled

28th Apr 2010, 08:01

Ferris,
'E' link airspace was tried before, and look at the results (LT, Tobago)!As I have said elsewhere, these two RAs did not invalidate the system, although many of you devoutly believe they did.

As also said elsewhere, I am amazed at the attitude that the number ( considerably more than 2) of RAs in C, in the same calender period as NAS 2b operated, are not regarded as significant, but 2 RAs in E prove a failed system. As somebody famous said:" Please explain".

Re. you comments on US operations, suggest you read the rules, and also have a look at a lot of FAA tower hours.

Backpressure,

The only opinion I have on the subject is that ICAO based risk management allocation of finite CNS/ATM resources is the proper way to design airspace classifications.

Tootle pip!!

peuce

28th Apr 2010, 08:21

Leadlsed,

If there's an RA in C ... someone has made a mistake
If there's an RA in E ... it's not necessarily because someone made a mistake.

ferris

28th Apr 2010, 09:10

I'd go even further, peuce.
1. An RA in C can happen due to high rates of change- even if there are correctly assigned separation standards. They still get actioned and reported, even though there was no danger of an airprox. If you were honest, Leadsled, you would concede there are more 'false' RAs than legit arse-savers.
2. Due to the structured nature of controlled airspace, you will get many more aircraft running over the top of each other. Statistically obvious why you will get more RAs in C than lower classes of airspace.
3. There are many, many more aircraft with TCAS operating in C than the lower classes. Once again, statistically obvious. If you haven't got the equipment, you can't have RAs.

But the real biggie is, indeed, that for an RA (an actual arse-saver) to occur in C, someone stuffed up. In E- nothing need go wrong except a failure of un-alerted see and avoid. How many warnings about THAT do you need? To design the system to rely on it? Talk about 'dirt road airspace'!

Is the explanation clear? Your misuse of a stat like this is just pure obfuscation, Leadsled. Learning at the foot of the master? Although, regular readers will be well and truly awake up to the tactics in use in trying to polish this turd.

ARFOR

28th Apr 2010, 09:44

If there's an RA in C ... someone has made a mistake
People would be surprised how often RA's occur when there were no 'mistakes' and 'no breakdown of separation'. High closure rates [vertical and horizontal] with 1,000ft separation being applied i.e. one descending to FL150, and one climbing to FL140 where both are going to level off not that far from crossing. In fact in earlier and simpler versions of ACAS, it was possible for a rate of closure to induce an RA instruction [to both aircraft ACAS equipped] that voided the 1,000ft separation being applied, with the aircraft ending up climbing and descending through each other and their cleared [and separated] levels as a result.

Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services
4-10-250 Nuisance Advisories

Nuisance Advisories can occur even though standard separation exists. Do not immediately assume that separation has been lost, or that you are at fault, when a pilot reports manoeuvring in response to an RA.

4-10-260 Controller accountability

Note: A Controller is not subject to disciplinary action in the event of an accident or incident arising from an aircraft deviating from an ATC clearance or instruction as a result of an RA, provided that the occurrence was not the result of an incorrect clearance or instruction from the Controller.
Not sure how the tea and bickies would pan out after the fact in Australian surveillance covered Class E [or G for that matter] though ;)

I remember reading somewhere [can't put my finger on it just now] that 1,500ft was being suggested [for CTA/R] where high closure rates might result in ACAS getting excited and deciding independently to give everyone involved a heart stop/start.

Edit: Sorry ferris, had not seen yours before I hit submit :ok:

Howabout

28th Apr 2010, 10:55

Bushy,

I am disappointed in the extreme. Your spray, as follows, is irrational, emotive and out of character in my opinion:

Leadsled
Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge.
How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies.

Do you seriously stand by that, given the way you have been serviced for countless years by an incredibly efficient ATC service in the non-radar, terminal D under C environment in which you operate?

I'll put it down to those dreaded green cans! Made the mistake myself on more than one occasion up that way.

max1

29th Apr 2010, 00:30

Bushy,

Why blame ATC? we are only applying the rules we are required to operate under. There are serious consequences if we deviate from them.
I may be quoting Chatz out of context here and apologies if I am. I think when he talks of I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it) that he probably has more leeway to 'bend' the rules to keep the traffic moving and the regulations are not as slavishly adhered to.
e.g. Direct tracking IS NOT allowed in Oz unless for separation. i.e. even if we can see that there is no reason not to shorten an aircraft up we would have to justify a separation problem, if asked, to do this.
This may be what Chatz is alluding to. That the greater freedoms come from allowing the controllers to assess better ways of moving the traffic, but in some cases leaves the controller with no 'cover' if something goes pear shaped.

privateer01

29th Apr 2010, 05:28

Chatz:

ie. tower can release aircraft into approach airspace by which ever means they choose, no coordination required.

Not quite correct in regards to the USA/FAA system.

Many times aircraft are launched based on previous letters of agreement between overlapping airspace. Such as D into C or B.

Other than standard pre agreed launches....tower coordinates with overlapping ATC.

I've thought about replying to this thread since it started.

But its pretty much sorted itself out.

I would point out:

You can launch (in the USA) VFR into E legally.....but that doesn't make it always a good idea.

I've done it (in a jet) often in some places....and I'd never even consider it in others. Some places are time of day, weather, traffic, dependent.

There was a Beechjet 400 that crashed in Rome Georgia USA on 12/11/91 that is the poster child for CFIT. 9 dead after departing in marginal VFR expecting an IFR clearance.

NTSB report: DCA92MA011

DCA92MA011 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X18578&key=1)

Oh well....I get paid to be safe and exercise judgement.