Dick Smith: Do You Agree With The Mandatory Broadcast Area in Class E Above D?

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

Step up to the plate and state your position. The Australia-unique Broadcast Area in E (including the requirement to comply with CAR 100) has been created to optimise access for VFR. It is currently in place at Avalon. Do you or do you not support this non-US NAS, non-ICAO airspace arrangement?

Yes or No?

[peuce]

Well, I decided to find out the Minister's position:


Dear xxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email regarding airspace regulation at Broome. The points you have raised will be considered.

Yours sincerely,

The office of Anthony Albanese MP





From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 14 June 2010 1:43 PM
To: Albanese, Anthony (MP)
Subject: Aviation - Airspace Regulation - Broome Issue



Dear Mr Albanese,

I am writing to ask for your point of view on an issue involving Airspace Regulation.

As you may be aware, the Office of Airspace Regulation, as part of CASA's responsibilities, is proposing to create a new Control Zone at Broome and Karratha Airports, in Western Australia.
As part of the architecture of these Class D Control Zones, the OAR is proposing a surrounding "veil" of Class E airspace ... with a VFR Broadcast requirement.

This VFR Broadcast requirement is contrary to the ICAO Class E Airspace specifications.

In your "Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010" you state that:

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

The apparent conflict between ... what is proposed ... and ... your stated policy ... has created a deal of confusion amongst the flying fraternity, myself included.

My question to you is:

1. Do you believe that the proposed changes are inline with your stated policy?
2. If not, will your policy be changed, or, will the proposed Airspace changes be amended.


Thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully,



Unfortunately, I still don't know it ...

[Jabawocky]

He really should be Minister for Kindy's :rolleyes:

[AerocatS2A]

I had thought DS had already stated that he doesn't agree with modifying Class E (I'm not about to wade through the DS threads to find a quote though.)

I agree with him, HOWEVER I doubt that I agree with the conclusion that follows. If Class E needs to be modified to maintain the desired level of safety then Class E must be the wrong airspace classification for that area.

[Capn Bloggs]

I see Dick Smith is on Prune at the moment, but has chosen not to answer my question.

He's in a bit of a bind here: to answer Yes, he would be admitting that his mantra is not actually standardisation with World's Best Practice/Internationally Proven systems (as he has stood for for years), but he'll do anything to get his fabled E airspace installed. Bend/change the rules and do anything that will help you achieve your Free in GE dream.

If he answers No, he would be agreeing with those of us who think this whole thing stinks.

Come on Dick. What is it going to be? Yes or No? Or is this going be another "I don't like the question so I'll just ignore it" as you and Ledsled do all the time?

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs

Your Post #1 is difficult to answer. For a start, you state that the unique broadcast area

has been created to optimise access for VFR

That’s what you believe, but I would have a feeling it’s been created to appease ill-informed people who don’t understand proper risk management.

If these broadcast procedures take away the attention from the Controller to concentrate on circuit traffic, I believe there’s a chance that safety will be reduced.

However, the number of VFRs flying in the airspace will be so small there will be probably be no measurable difference either way.

The reason the USA and Canada have E over D is not to provide access for VFR – as has been pointed out in the past, Class D when used correctly just provides a traffic information service for VFR, so there is no delay or access problem.

The reason these countries have E over D is so that the Controller – often a lone Controller in the tower – can concentrate on where the collision risk is greatest.

Of course, I’ve said this many times before, but you simply do not accept that this could be possible. You seem to believe that a non-radar tower Controller can be given a huge amount of airspace – even with Class C with mandatory separation between IFR and VFR – and still concentrate where the collision risk is greatest, ie. close to the runway.

Because you won’t accept this basic point of fact, it really is a complete waste of time in discussing the issues.

I say again – the only reason for the mandatory broadcast procedure is to appease ignorance. If it’s a way of introducing Class E – with the safety advantages stated above – considering that so few VFR aircraft will actually fly over in the broadcast zone, I suppose I would accept it.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
You're not making sense.
The reason these countries have E over D is so that the Controller – often a lone Controller in the tower – can concentrate on where the collision risk is greatest.
So when the weather is bad, 8/8ths from 20k to the MDA, you've got your lone tower operator doing the whole thing. E and D. Or is it really the centre controllers running E, so your comment "can concentrate..." is meaningless.

The reason the USA and Canada have E over D is not to provide access for VFR
Pull the other one, mate.

considering that so few VFR aircraft will actually fly over in the broadcast zone,
Well, I'm glad you've done a CBA on this. Given so few, then why on earth is the zone not being taken up to 4500ft? The workload will be the same, unless you are going to pay for the upgrade of the Centre controllers to become approach-rated to hand off IFRs to the tower in their tiny CTR.

So you've answered. You're quite happy to support a bodgied-up, confusing, non-standard airspace design just to get your fabled E in. No VFRs in Broome you imply? That's why the tower is going in, old chap. There aren't 100 jets a day there. The Broome VFRs are quite happy with D, by the way. It's only you NAStronauts who might fly through there once in a blue moon, or bleated about changing the steps into Alice by 2nms, that are the problem. The fringe running policy. Excellent.

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs

It’s sad that you have to distort what I say in an attempt to get your point over. You state

No VFRs in Broome you imply?

No, I don’t imply such a thing. I just state that the number of VFR aircraft overflying enroute in the broadcast procedure airspace will be very few.

Your attitude, then, is to make it a more restrictive airspace – however, using proper risk management, it’s better to allocate a less restrictive airspace that still fulfils a high safety outcome.

[The Green Goblin]

I just state that the number of VFR aircraft overflying enroute in the broadcast procedure airspace will be very few

That is true, most of the VFRs are either arriving or departing from Broome, few are transiting. Transiting traffic more often than not is in the flight levels anyway.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I am very interested to hear your view with regard to Avalon, Mr Smith. As is Capn Bloggs when he asked-

It is currently in place at Avalon. Do you or do you not support this non-US NAS, non-ICAO airspace arrangement?


Another delicious irony and Mr Smith fobs it off as-I would have a feeling it’s been created to appease ill-informed people who don’t understand proper risk management.


Ill-informed people??? That would be the OAR! I bet a certain Mr Cromatty would be happy to hear that the proponent describes his managment in such terms. Unless you fear the OAR has done the appeasing, contrary to the risk managment study...link please...why would the regulator worry about the actions of ill-informed pilots....Thin ice, Mr Smith...you are in check!:E

YES or NO

[AerocatS2A]

That’s what you believe, but I would have a feeling it’s been created to appease ill-informed people who don’t understand proper risk management.

If these broadcast procedures take away the attention from the Controller to concentrate on circuit traffic, I believe there’s a chance that safety will be reduced.
The problem is situational awareness.

With the current system at Broome, all aircraft in the area have traffic information on everything within 30nm of Broome. For slow aircraft it's a bit of overkill, but for faster aircraft it is essential to have a mental picture so that you can make decisions on traffic avoidance before you get to the circuit area. Yes the most dangerous time for collision is close in to the aerodrome, but planning a safe course of action to avoid collisions close to the aerodrome happens much farther out. There's no point finding out about conflicting traffic 8 miles from the runway, you don't have enough time to efficiently do anything about it.

The new CTA is going to reduce this area of situational awareness from 30nm to 8nm. Having a mandatory broadcast requirement in E within 30nm (lets call it an MBZ) goes someway to improve the situation but there will still be plenty of "black" aircraft flying below the steps and therefore outside of the MBZ.

As far as I'm concerned the current plans for the CTA will be a reduction in safety. I'm all for having CTA but it needs to be done properly. Class E is inappropriate, an 8nm control zone is inappropriate, and multiple frequency changes at a busy phase of flight is also inappropriate.

[The Green Goblin]

I'm all for having CTA but it needs to be done properly. Class E is inappropriate, an 8nm control zone is inappropriate, and multiple frequency changes at a busy phase of flight is also inappropriate.

Same as going from centre to approach to tower to ground in pretty busy components of flight. Or ground to tower then being asked to contact approach and being given vectors when you're not at acceleration altitude, you have not finished your cockpit procedures and standard calls etc etc.

We do it everyday already :D

[Dick Smith]

Oz, OK you win - the answer is yes and no !

But what could the reason be for the UK , Canada and the USA to have a very small amount of airspace ( as small as 3nm/2000'agl) at their non radar towers?

I wonder- could it be that years of experiece has shown that this is the safest way to go?

No , these countries wouldn't have a clue compared to our pilots that risk Broome and Avalon!

I will email the FAA and get them to change to 30nm radius like Broome!

[ozineurope]

Dick you said - "Of course, I’ve said this many times before, but you simply do not accept that this could be possible. You seem to believe that a non-radar tower Controller can be given a huge amount of airspace – even with Class C with mandatory separation between IFR and VFR – and still concentrate where the collision risk is greatest, ie. close to the runway."

How many collisions were there at Hedland, Karratha, Isa, Rocky, Mackay, Alice etc when we had only CTA or OCTA? What was the airspace owned by the procedural tower in those times - not sure? I controlled SFC-FL250 in radiating steps (out to 200nm Hedland) with a 30nm CTR and did not have one incident and was never too busy to deny a VFR clearance or lose the picture. And that was when Hedland was doing 3500 movements per month

And guess what - we used to run circuits with 210s, 172s and the odd 310 mixed in whilst we had the morning sequence calling us. The 4 F28s who all arrrived at the same time mixing it with the 5 or 6 310s coming back form MBL, Redmont, Strelley etc. And yet we separated them all by using procedural standards, safely, efficiently and in an orderly sequence.

No Dick E over D is not safe - cause if the above scenario presents itself at Karratha with the proposed airspace there may also be a couple of VFRs who are at 20nm in E not talking to me and I may just drop the jet straight through him. Say it cant/wont happen.

[Dick Smith]

Oz, of course it can happen- there is nothing in life without risk.

But what is the chance of it happening ?

Now that is the question.

If it is less than the chance of both engines failing at once on a 767 I personally would want to allocate my safety resources elsewhere. Wouldn't you?

I remember being involved in reducing that rediculous airspace size - up to 21nm radius at ground level and 200nm at twenty or so thousand feet. All with one controller! A huge waste of money! We were the laughing stock of the world - and everything was separated from everything else as if all pilots were blind and incompetent.

No wonder you are in Europe!

[AerocatS2A]

But what could the reason be for the UK , Canada and the USA to have a very small amount of airspace ( as small as 3nm/2000'agl) at their non radar towers?

I wonder- could it be that years of experiece has shown that this is the safest way to go?

No , these countries wouldn't have a clue compared to our pilots that risk Broome and Avalon!

I will email the FAA and get them to change to 30nm radius like Broome!
We aren't comparing it to the rest of the world Dick, all we should be comparing the proposed change with is what is currently in place at Broome. The powers that be have decided that the current set up in Broome is deficient, so they've decided to do something to make it safer. But it's no use making changes if they don't have the desired effect. We must compare the proposed changes with what is currently in place NOT with what is in place in other countries.

If the changes don't enhance safety then they shouldn't be done or they should be modified such that they do enhance safety.

[ozineurope]

Maybe so but we also disagree on the ability of a tower controller to ably and efficiently control airspace far greater than is being proposed. Saying what you have is merely scare mongering and does not stand up to reasoned analysis and historical empirical data.

Anyway I'm off to avoid the WC madness here in Germany - have a good weekend!

[Dick Smith]

Aero

The present system at Broome is a "do it yourself" separation system- even on to the runway.

The new system will have a qualified ATC responsible for planes not hitting each other in the circuit area and on the runway.

And you don't think that is an improvement?

[Jabawocky]

Dick

That is an improvement, but why make the rest worse, when for the same cost you can have much better.

It really is that simple.

What they have at similar places in the UK Canada and the USA is considerably different from a "whole of system" perspective. there is no dispute in that.

So why have the OAR created a far more complicated system with less safety.

the previous CTAF and unicom was better in a weird kind of way.

J:)

[AerocatS2A]

Dick, in the last 8nm it's improved, but the other 22nm is worse because we're still doing it ourselves but we won't have the information we currently have to do it with.

Think about it, 8nm miles for ATC to sort everyone out, 8nm for the flight crew to work out whether ATC are giving us good information or not. If there's a collision at Broome, it may well happen in the circuit area but it will have been set up 30nm away when the IFR pilots didn't have any information on the VFR guy to be able to get a mental picture of what is going on.

To put it another way, for all its flaws, the present "do it yourself" system allows the pilots between 7 and 15 minutes to come to grips with what is going on in the area and to come up with a plan to fit in. The new system will give pilots AND ATC between 2 and 4 minutes to do the same thing. How is that better?

[rotorblades]

Class D does not have to be restrictive to VFR flights, yes VFR flights need a clearance but it doesnt mean they arent gooing to get what they request.
It is still VFR responsibility to separate from other traffic, but with directed TI.

If there is so few overflying, as a few people have said, then why have E with gravy, when D would achieve the same thing and meet with the holiest of Dicks grails - ICAO.

I remember on another thread, Dick, you bemoaning the fact and declaring several other countries as completely incompetent because of adjusting ICAO class of airspace rules to fit their needs and traffic...Hows this here any different?!?

[Jabawocky]

rotorblades

your rotor is spinning at the wrong rpm surely. Such common sense is not acceptable:=

J:}

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
I remember being involved in reducing that rediculous airspace size - up to 21nm radius at ground level and 200nm at twenty or so thousand feet. All with one controller! A huge waste of money!
Geez, I didn't realise airspace wasted money when there was only one controller controlling it.

The present system at Broome is a "do it yourself" separation system- even on to the runway.

The new system will have a qualified ATC responsible for planes not hitting each other in the circuit area and on the runway.

And you don't think that is an improvement?
Not particularly if the zone is only 8nm. And you have obviously forgot about the Flight Service Station at Broome (Bloggs you naughty boy, that's what they are called in the US: it's a CAGRO here). Not much chance of hitting anybody on the runway with Tim watching over us. :ok:

As usual, you have little grasp of what really goes on. Pilots collide in the circuit because nobody's been controlling them/giving them traffic so they can all set up the arrival in an orderly fashion. That is exactly what your E airspace does. Allows VFR to arrive unannounced until very late. That is why the current broadcast area/CAGRO works. The traffic levels have now exceeded that system's capacity: the most illogical thing to do would be to take VFR out of the system until they popped up just before the 8nm (smaller if you had your way!) CTR boundary.

Gobbo,
Same as going from centre to approach to tower to ground in pretty busy components of flight. Or ground to tower then being asked to contact approach and being given vectors when you're not at acceleration altitude, you have not finished your cockpit procedures and standard calls etc etc.

Not too sure whether you're serious or not here. First, Ground to Tower is a doddle: you do it when you're ready. Second, Centre>App>Tower: you know what app you're flying, all it is is a freq change. Contrast that with going into Broome with a 8nm/2500ft CTR. Been into Alice in a jet? It's not quite the same as arriving down a STAR. You have no idea what approach you'll get until you're quite close to the airfield. As for getting a radar vector from approach whilst still cleaning up, that's not hard, surely? How would you cope if you slotted one and had to do your escape procedure in the opposite direction to your planned departure? Cockpit procedures/standard calls? Pulling the flaps up?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re Aerocat's post,

"To put it another way, for all its flaws, the present "do it yourself" system allows the pilots between 7 and 15 minutes to come to grips with what is going on in the area and to come up with a plan to fit in. The new system will give pilots AND ATC between 2 and 4 minutes to do the same thing. How is that better?"

Good Point Mr Aerocat.
Many of the inbound jets would often call at a point on descent well prior to the 30nm - (7 mins or so) just so they could get an appreciation of the traffic to be expected, and plan accordingly.
A VFR '210' is usually 12 mins or so from 30nm.

From 8nm the times would be.......

[MrApproach]

Is it just me or is there a fixation with lines in the sky as opposed to good practice? The IFR traffic will be in controlled airspace (E) so will still call where they do now. If you were operating VFR that day or were a VFR visitor why would you wait until 8nm to call the Tower. (Just because you can!)

Let's imagine for a moment that there is a Tower but no lines or airspace designators, what would a simple man driving a plane do?

I suggest he would call (VFR or IFR) at a distance commensurate with his speed and expect circuit joining instructions. Remember GA airports?

If he was overflying he would call at about the same time, tell the Tower what he was doing and wait for a response. He would also expect the Tower to exercise the controllers duty of care and direct him to fly in an area that was not going to be used for circuits and approaches.

So now lets throw in a few circles and lines just to let pilots and controllers know the limits of the different service areas. (ATC gives different services depending on the airspace classification). With the addition of these few lines why has anything changed? We all still know we have to give the controller time to find out where we are and fit us into his mental picture, why does the position of the service delivery line (aka airspace boundary) make any difference?

The E broadcast area above D is there because CASA and our airline colleagues do not believe that GA pilots can be trusted to apply commonsense to flying procedures. Why do we continuously impose lowest common denominator rules instead of expecting higher performance and common sense?

[Plazbot]

The Dick's biscuit fiasco ring any bells?

[tolakuma manki]

The Dick's biscuit fiasco ring any bells?

Biscuits in circuit or overflying?

[Jabawocky]

The E broadcast area above D is there because CASA and our airline colleagues do not believe that GA pilots can be trusted to apply commonsense to flying procedures. Why do we continuously impose lowest common denominator rules instead of expecting higher performance and common sense?

You answered your question before you asked it.

And that is the issue with E. And when you consider the number of low performing and lacking in common sense things that get seen around the country, you can see why.

[Capn Bloggs]

MrApproach,

The other aspect to the answer to your question could be found by asking the NAStronauts why they so vehemently support real Class E at just above the airport. I'll tell you: so VFR can do their own thing without talking to anybody. They would be quite happy with VFRs overflying Broome at 2500ft saying nothing to anybody. Commonsense? Good Airmanship? Those piloting traits don't exist any more, at least in the airspace debate.

Yes, you are right, RPT pax expect a little more safety that that, and they have my full support. It is ridiculous that in this day and age we have people demanding to fly wherever they like with total disregard for other airspace users, with the regulators allowing them to (well, almost).

A few years ago, for a short period, we had VFRs doing their own thing in busy terminal airspace. It was a preposterous situation where big jets had to get vectored around VFR light aircraft or were given traffic on them. Crazy. After a couple of TCAS RAs (what did everybody expect?), AsA fortunately changed the airspace back.

You are now required to wear seat belts, and horses and carts aren't allowed on freeways because people can't use their commonsense (or didn't have any to start with, or are too arrogant and selfish to employ it). Similar rules are created for the safety of the majority of airspace users. If that is called catering to the lowest common denominator, then so be it.

[ozineurope]

Dick quote: "No wonder you are in Europe!"

Another typical personal attack when the facts get in the way of your version. And I would say that one controller controlling 200nm from the tower is no more expensive than 1 controller controlling the nonsense airspace that will be BM and KA.

Oh and by the way - I'm coming back so see you soon.

[Super Cecil]

Yoo kids need to grow up :hmm:

[Frank Arouet]

so VFR can do their own thing without talking to anybody

Commonsense? Good Airmanship? Those piloting traits don't exist any more, at least in the airspace debate.

More unfounded, opinionated, eliteist, "skygod" claptrap with nothing to back the assertion up other than a personal agenda. To even make such a statement shows you believe anyone, (other than a skygod), who has any radio qualifications or experience, (ie. your basic VFR pilot), learnt nothing from his/her education and is an idiot.

Yes Bloggs, you are indeed "special".

[Capn Bloggs]

Cool it, Frank. Read my posts in the context of the discussion. I have met, and talked on the radio to, many VFR pilots whose professionalism, airmanship and common sense would put the NAStronauts to shame. A few rotten apples spoil the box, unfortunately.

So you actually agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?

[Jabawocky]

Frank,

More unfounded, opinionated, eliteist, "skygod" claptrap with nothing to back the assertion up other than a personal agenda. To even make such a statement shows you believe anyone, (other than a skygod), who has any radio qualifications or experience, (ie. your basic VFR pilot), learnt nothing from his/her education and is an idiot.

Maybe when you were bashing around in Bonanza's etc.....things were different, but here today things are not as they were. Now I am prepared to say that it is not unfounded etc claptrap. You are either not spending enough time flying around the country these days...or in denial. Either way, you can believe me or come for a fly around with me or bloggs....problem is you will be needing to move to Qld first coz I am not moving south into the cold for anyone!

J:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

I am not moving south into the cold for anyone!

So the Retard Vehicle doesn't have a heater? Must be a banana-bender! :}

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Captain Bloggs...a classic debating tactic:ok: you have succeeded in cornering your opponent into a position he cannot answer without being shown for a hypocrite. Well played:D

[ARFOR]

Showed for what they are ;) :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

So you actually agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?

Where did I say that? Strange, I don't see it anywhere. But if the tag team say I did, then it must be true. Some debating tactic. Make up a lie then accuse someone of being a hypocrite for not answering.

You are a fruitloop OZ. (and how come your Tassie mate is still with us)?

Anyway, for what it's worth, I believe if you are transitting busy controlled airspace, the safest time is when you are exactly over the centre of the busy airport at 2500ft. That is unless Bloggs' 4 Bunsen burner job does vertical arrivals and take off's.:E

Also, I believed (obviously wrongly again), that one needed a radio to fly in CTR or class E, and anyway, if one was fitted you had to use it, (like a transponder). Adding to this are new regulations circa 3 JUN 2010 which made it compulsory to have and use radio in the vicinity" of any "busy" airport. I understand "in the vicinity" also has a definition.:*

[Capn Bloggs]

Frank,


So you actually agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?

Where did I say that? Strange, I don't see it anywhere.
I didn't say you did. Note the question mark at the end of my sentence.

I believe if you are transitting busy controlled airspace, the safest time is when you are exactly over the centre of the busy airport at 2500ft.
The LAX mantra again. That only works if the corridor is 90° to the runway. A380s, during a Missed Approach at LAX, have to DESCEND to 2000ft so they don't hit unknown, unnotified lighties flying overhead the airport.

one needed a radio to fly in CTR or class E
Yes, you do, that's why we support a Class D CTR/A at Broome. Re the Class E radio requirement, I'd like to know exactly what "Continuous Two Way" means for VFR. It's odd that nowhere else in AIP is it stated that VFR require radios in E.

if one was fitted you had to use it
That rule went out some years ago when the original CTAF procedures (which replaced MBZs) were dispensed-with and CTAF (R)s were created.

new regulations circa 3 JUN 2010 which made it compulsory to have and use radio in the vicinity" of any "busy" airport.
That applies only to non-towered Registered or Certified airports. Towered airports are covered by the other airspace classes.

I understand "in the vicinity" also has a definition.
A pretty sloppy one, a distance that is uncomfortably close to the airport as far as being clobbered from behind by the likes of me while I'm inbound.

[Howabout]

P-Dubby,

That's in line with the points that quite a few have been making.

There seems to have been a recent fixation on VFR 'access' by the regulator. Why this variance to the prime responsibility regarding the 'safety of passenger transport operations' has occurred, as enunciated in the AAPS, is beyond me.

Surely, if VFR are knocked back for a clearance in C, or are given alternate routing/ altitudes, it's because they are in conflict with IFR PTOs. If ATC considers them 'in conflict,' then that must mean that there is a collision potential.

The rationale seems to be one whereby, if we introduce E, the 'problem' goes away.

In my mind, the collision potential must still exist but, by downgrading the airspace to E, CASA has effectively announced that a collision potential, heretofore established by recognised ATC procedures and standards, is myth.

I continues to scratch ma' head.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day Mr 'H',
Re yr "I continues to scratch ma' head."

Its all about not wanting to play with the VFR's because they don't pay the $$$'s that IFR RPT do.

The 'core business' is to earn $$'s from the processing of IFR only - and the heavier the better - 737's etc pay more than C404's for example - but sometimes the smaller acft just have to be processed as well.

And the more 'automated' systems' they can use, the Better the $$'s:oh:

But NOT VFR's if they can possibly help it....(IMHO of course):\

So, 'they' create 'E' - where VFR acft are 'invisible' to ATC - NIL SSR at BME.
The moral - Ya gets wot ya pay fer....VFR don't pay, so they don't get....:eek::eek::uhoh:

Best regards to all. :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Jabbawocky;

Maybe when you were bashing around in Bonanza's etc.....things were different, but here today things are not as they were.

Perhaps there is a "dumbing down" of standards that should be addressed at the BFR or before. If you are "qualified" you are "qualified". Are standards now "half qualified"?

As for the pond bottom dwellers, they are not allowed above 5000ft yet, (or are they), so they can't access class E in the "J" curve, nor allowed into what was a basic GAAP so how can they be expected to be proficient in CTR proceedure if they are OCTA only?

GRIFFO;

Based on the above we seem to be talking about a handfull of VH registered VFR aeroplanes flown by a handfull of private pilots or wannabee space cadets. Or what is left of the Gene Pool at grass roots level where our future sky gods evolve from.

Bloggs;

When you include in a sentence a preposition you will always get that. "They are the people I always hate talking to! Hey! :ok:

So, you actually agree beating your wife before lunch time is a good thing?:ugh:

Give me a break.

[Capn Bloggs]

Frank,

Instead of asking me about beating my wife before lunch, how about you answer this:

Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?

[ozineurope]

Griffo - not sure i agree that the airspace is designed on the user pays principle. The regulator does not get the revenue generated by the RPT, it is the service provider. CASA are funded by other means so their only intent should be to design airspace that is fit for purpose. (chuckles to self).

Airspace design has gone down the road of the minimalist approach purely to assuage a vociferous few. Control zones were redesigned to be as small as possible and wherever possible to be delineated by prominent topographical features. This was to make it easy for VFR aircraft to ensure that they could remain outside the zone. Check out the Perth CTR - what a dog's breakfast and yet we still have a large number of VCAs close to the GAAP (oh sorry D zone) boundaries.

The criteria that the CTA steps were designed on were those that encompassed the descent/climb profile of the scheduled passenger aircraft thus maximising the amount of available non controlled G airspace in close proximity to major airports. This allowed VFR aircraft maximum freedom to fly where and when they wanted. Removing OPS and FS were parts of the grand plan, not only did it cut costs (well in someone's mind anyway), it removed the necessity for the VFR aircraft to talk to anyone.

So it is all about the reluctance of a vocal few to have ask for a clearance rather than cost cutting.

[Jabawocky]

Frank
As for the pond bottom dwellers, they are not allowed above 5000ft yet, (or are they), so they can't access class E in the "J" curve, nor allowed into what was a basic GAAP so how can they be expected to be proficient in CTR proceedure if they are OCTA only?

1. the bottom dwellers as you call them, not me, are not allowed above 5000' yet, and you know this. They are however in large numbers above 5000' .....well because they can, and do. You should know this too :ooh:. If you believe the vast majority follow the rules, you are in your happy place indeed.

2. correct! - how can they be proficient? Well they can't be expected to be. and with E from A025 and up, they can legally be in E it seems. nor sure how CAR 100 applies here but it does. Bit of a grey area you think?? Some said bottom dwellers as you call them do not cope well with a CTAF, let alone following instructions from ATC when a RPT Jet is about to inhale them.

So if they are OCTA only folk.....we shold not have E airspace where the potential problem is.

Simple really.

Now stop trying to wind me up with questions you should already know the answers too. ;)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Frank,

G'day, Wot we are talking about here, is the 'mixing' of some 'fast movers' who, when moving at 210kts or a bit less, nose up a bit, (Vis reduced(?), on descent, have the potential to clean up some VFR little fella who, thru no fault of his own(?), wanders into the path of the larger acft who is largely unable to manoeuvre out of the way quickly -

Compared with having a 'system' where, in proximity to a terminal area, tfc is either 'notified' or 'separated' for the safety of all parties - including those equally innocents on the ground under same flight paths...

And, yes it is being pushed by some proponents who want to be able to fly 'unrestricted' wherever they want etc etc....

So, what do you propose?

And, Hi 'Oz',
The money has always been in the equation.
The removal of OPS was to save $$'s. And in many ways was welcome....
Resp. back to PIC, where it belongs, and the removal of the 'green pastures area' which cost the industry....

In the waaay back days, it cost the taxpayer.

The removal of FS was to save $$'s. And in many ways was not so welcome because there is now nothing to provide a service for VFR / OCTA acft, except for 'when work permits' etc and this is by design.
'Others' will spruik the 'why' to you.

The 'streamlining' of FS was good - it removed those Public Service 'green pastures' in that area, deleted services to VFR's - get the picture? - and many thought that the then evolved system was economically sound and affordable.

However, that was NOT the plan.

The plan is to concentrate on 'core business' and make a profit for the Gummint and the other stakeholder, ASA to share in, and the 3rd party is the industry, which is supposed to wind up with lower charges.
A win-win-win some might say....

How much does ASA return to the Gummint each year?? - 3 stakeholders - Govt, ASA, and the industry....

'E' fits the bill for this. VFR - no services.

'Danger Danger Will Smith' is that it (E) above a terminal area is inherently unsafe - as all of the rest of us know.
'E' + is better...but 'C' would be much more betterish.....

And I think I can recall when ASA WAS the regulator.....t'aint now, but I think it may have been then....

Cheers, and you'all be careful out there...

[ozineurope]

Yep they were judge, jury and payee!!

I did a little jaunt to UK, US and Canada in the mid 90s to see how the rest of the world did it. I was the Civil Air rep. We ended up with CASA and ASA. Oh dear. I knew they would never listen to the input of a mere controller!

Certainly what we mere mortal ATCs were told was that it was meant to provide a better service and industry wanted it - that is no OPS and no FS.

Also shifted the briefing part of FS onto ATC. Always get calls when something changes or a NOTAM is a bit dodgy - used to be able to say just pop into the briefing office and the guy there will explain it. No more unfortunately. This is true as much for the big industry as the local flying organisations.

Look at the kerfuffle with changing WX and hazard alerts, what a shambles. Hazard alerting takes up a whole chapter in MATS - when in fact this is the type of stuff that OPS were really good at - supposed to be the realm of the airlines now, but guess what that little old IFR Baron dont have an ops department so the ATC gets to determine if he/she needs the amended TTF or will they be using the TAF?

As an aside I'm thinking we probably worked next door to each other back in the 80s-90s in Perth?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

To be honest, Francis. I am getting bored of thinking up new and more poignient ways of saying the exact same thing about the exact same airspace.

The simple fact of the matter is the incompatability of class E with both airspace users and those who must wear the responsibility for separation in controlled airspace.

The OAR has changed the purity of NAS class E to Unique Australian E Airspace....it is no longer class E...ICAO or FAA! The hypocricy! and yet no argument. For twenty years the proponent has railed against Australian Unique airspace and then meekly accepts this? He meekly accepts this! He makes a mockery of everything that has happened before in the name of unification and simplification...he is a hypocrite!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Oz........

And yours truly was the CPSU Rep......:ok::uhoh:

Shared the same dunny....so to speak....:}:}:eek::eek:

Unfortunately, 'tis still about the ASA Managers' bonuses $$'s and 'indirect Gummint taxes'...:ooh:

Do you have any 'E' where you are now??

I'm guessing, but will await the answer......;)

[ozineurope]

Indeed we do have E. But it does not overly any major CTRs and is certainly nowhere near any aerodromes that have RPT moves. German airspace is, well, uniquely German!

G to 2000' abv ground, F (1 in the airspace at a time), D zones, C CTAs and zones (FRA etc) and E clear of major traffic routes and not above FL100. Typical airspace arrangement is Class C CTR, overlaid by Class C ENR. Where there is a D zone Class C is above with E surrounding but clear of the traffic areas.

In some cases there is D zone (small regional airport) with E above and a unique little mandatory transponder zone which is Class E. However this is for airports similar to Camden or Narrogin and not serviced by a regular transport operator. Think lots of little aerodromes where the RFDS go to.

But..radar cover is almost total except for shielding from the hills around us! In fact in the college we do not teach procedural separation in any detail as most DFS controllers will never use it in anger.

And thought your handle was one I recognised. Good health to you and I miss those days when we used to discuss what programs to watch on the telly in the break room!!

[ozineurope]

OPS in Perth as a FD - flight strip from the ACC on the little conveyer belt with the brekky run order!

[gaunty]

Children children,

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

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

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

but hey what would Qantas know Dick.

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

[Jabawocky]

Folks, some good bedtime reading on the CASA site with the Hobart and Launie studies being put back up.:hmm:

Seems the OAR have found that even the governemnt push for E over D does not cut the mustard and at both they were told the C over D should remain.

Why is it we have wasted more industry funds on all the studies, the OAr and all the travel, meetings, chart printing etc, than would ever be saved if in fact a saving is to be made in any of our lifetimes. :ugh:

Gaunty.....ya back! :D

[LeadSled]

----- the proponent describes his managment in such terms.

Oz,
Cromaty/OAR is the appeaser, not the appearsee.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

The LAX mantra again. That only works if the corridor is 90° to the runway. A380s, during a Missed Approach at LAX, have to DESCEND to 2000ft so they don't hit unknown, unnotified lighties flying overhead the airport.Bloggs,

You are quite amazing, being obviously unable to comprehend anything but a climb for a missed approach, but the rest of the world is a little more flexible.

I have had my share share of missed approaches at KLAX, as has any body who has operated through there on a regular basis, we take it in our stride. As we do in EGLL when they are using very tight spacing in VMC ---- in both places up to 52+ movements an hour per runway ---- and a very high proportion of wide bodies.

As for "vicinity", the Australian definition of "vicinity" is as per ICAO (do you understand what it means in a Metar/Speci/TAF/TTF), so what do you think ICAO should change to meet with you approval.

Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?

Please read and understand the changes that came in on 3 June, by your question you obviously haven't understood.



Tootle pip!!

PS: Only if the missed approach starts high. the all it is, is a gentle descent to fly level --- don't you think you could manage that !!
In KLAX, tower will keep an approach going as long as possible, an instruction to go around above 1000' is very rare.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

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


And for precisely this truth..the big kids will work around this experiment. There will be no issues with this experiment...and because there will be no issues, the experiment will be deemed a success. A sad day indeed.

I fear this has been the way of all the NAS attempts. Until, the lowest common denominator cashes into the game.:sad:

[Frank Arouet]

Bloggs;

Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?

If you are asking me if would I do that, the answer is no. Smacks of bad airmanship to say the least. As for the "system", well, I would use it carefully if it were an operational necessity.

OZ;

To be honest, Francis. I am getting bored of thinking up new and more poignient ways of saying the exact same thing about the exact same airspace.

Someone defined madness as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.:rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

Arr, Ledsled's back.

Bloggs,

You are quite amazing
I knew the compliments would start flowing eventually.

As for "vicinity", the Australian definition of "vicinity" is as per ICAO (do you understand what it means in a Metar/Speci/TAF/TTF), so what do you think ICAO should change to meet with you approval.

10nm is too close for me to find out about a previously unnotified lighty ahead, so yes, I do think that the ICAO definition is not appropriate. What relevance a METAR has to the discussion only you would know.

Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?

Please read and understand the changes that came in on 3 June, by your question you obviously haven't understood.

I didn't ask you, but since you raise it, what's your answer: YES or NO?

BTW, the 3 Jun changes have nothing to do with this subject. Perhaps it is you who should read them again. Or are you going to trot out Frank's idea that because a Class D airport is a busy airport, pilots should be "broadcasting in the vicinity". I'll have to remember that when I get near Sydney. What freq should I broadcast on, by the way?

[desmotronic]

Broome only has half a dozen rpt jets a day??

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Desmotronic and how many was that?

- Broome Western Australia [YBRM] Equivalent to US Part 139 Class 1
12 months to June 09' Air Transport 13,300 Total 36,800 09 figures

That works out at 36.4 movements a day..just another bit of misinformation for you. Total movements works out at 100 per day or about 12 an hour give or take.

Broome doesn't need E over D...it REQUIRES C over D

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis...back at you, sunshine:} Don't you get sick of attempting to justify this polished excrement?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Desmotronic...easypeasey..saves you doing all that research..This is compliments of the research of ARFOR et al-

ALice Springs Airspace Study (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100008/alice_springs_study.pdf)

Now go to page 34 of the study and do not forget to look at the criteria on the top of the page for the trigger levels for a Tower. As far as the FAA data? Ask Mr Plumbum! There are a considerable number on this thread who wish for Mr Plumbum to provide just one single FAA E over D aerodrome that handles as many RPT movements and passenger numbers as does Broome

[desmotronic]

Oz, this link:

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/91/Files/WebAirport_FY_1986-2009.xls

indicates broome in 2009 had:

3270 airline movements and 2178 regional airline movements. So even if you include every bloggs in his rpt bandit metro or whatever is still only 15 movements per day and only 9 major airline (presumably jet) movements per day.

Please provide a reference for your quote.

How are these numbers "busy"?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Nice try Desmo..this study was tabled in Jan 2010.

Also go to page 24 of the study and note-


It is important to note that the study makes recommendations based on existing and projected data. The following comment as summarised by Justice Gibbs of the High Court of Australia has been considered while conducting the study:

Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.

AND

10 Recommendations-

10.2 Based upon stakeholder feedback and supported by risk assessment and
modelling, the OAR has concluded that the current airspace design and level of air traffic services provided are adequate in addressing the level of risk that exists.

Therefore the OAR does not propose to make any change to the current airspace architecture or level of ATS provided.

This is for Alice Springs..there are a number of studies for most of our current ICAO class D towers and not one recommends changing C to E. No points for guessing why BRM got E.

[desmotronic]

Ozbusdriver,
how do you get 12 per hour out of 100 per day?:confused::hmm:

seems to be one jet every couple of hours and a few (5 or 6) bugsmashers per hour.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Desmo, I think I would believe the numbers from AirServices over BITRE

Take note on passenger numbers for Broome 391,314 and divide that by the TOTAL movments for Broome for the same period 5448 and you get an average of about 72 passengers per flight?????

An average of 72? I bet QANTAS wish they had those loadings for every flight into BRM. Thats more than a fully loaded junglejet. Do you think BITRE may have missed a few flights?

[desmotronic]

because there a heap of passengers flying up there on light aircraft

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Total movements are given for an annual figure...divide by 365...now you can extrapolate those figures to either H24 or HJ..your choice. You can even weight them for weekends and public holidays and school holidays and the like and get even busier periods of activity..allow for the wet and the dry and things change dramaticly.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Heaps of passengers in light aircraft???? Does that mean there are far more VFRs flying around than mentioned on this thread???? And these vast numbers are going to be blasting around unannounced in class E??? Geekerwilikers...its a good thing the OAR bought about E+!



AND with an average loading of 72????

[Frank Arouet]

It is my opinion that OZBUSDRIVER is a multi user identity. Just one person couldn't be that much of a pedant. And no, sunshine, I don't get sick of justifying anything at Broome because I don't, and couldn't care less if the whole place self immolated especially if I am not there, where I am 99.99999R% of the time.

How often are you there flying your four holer?

And for precisely this truth..the big kids will work around this experiment.

Since when did you become a "big kid" in this discussion? Been practicing the Oujia with the recently "defrocked" and departed experts have we?

[desmotronic]

Ozbusdriver,

I doesnt matter what you say 3270 airline movements is still only 4 or 5 airline aircraft per day with 2 movements each. 1 in 1 out.

In addition to that there are 6 regional airline movements per day.. could be titans chieftains metros bandits etc and the rest (about 80 per day) is in the 'other' category.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Why stoop to playing the man so quickly, Francis? It is far more satisfying winning on the merits of your argument...I am in no fear of your current attempts!

What Guanty refers to is the number of players up there who actually do fly in and out of Broome on a regular basis..all (hopefully) professional about how they handled the CAGRO ops and now Class D ops...They, like OAR, see the need for "work rounds" to make their operations safe where the procedures are lacking...its called airmanship! Despite E and E+, these "work rounds" will help ensure that there will be as few as possible reportable incidents...as few as possible will mean the success of the experiment despite its obvious shortcomings...OR....

Despite the experiment. REAL professional pilots will quietly go about their work and apply "work rounds" that will ensure their and their passengers safety in a deficient airspace experiment. These guys do not like "Betting the farm" that they will be protected by poorly devised procedures with little to non existent backups.....OR...

Real professional pilots AND ATC do not trust this experiment! Who am I to argue with them...

I frankly believe in their cause! I do not trust anything that leaves so many grey areas in operational procedures..mandatory broadcast...to who? and do they maintain continuous contact..and can they do that by just monitoring the frequency? If they do not broadcast...under what reg will they find themselves in breach..ultimately, if things go reportable, who is at fault and who is responsible?..very grey indeed!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Desmotronic...you haven't said which figures you trust... BITRE or AirServices?

[desmotronic]

Desmotronic...you haven't said which figures you trust... BITRE or AirServices?
Hmm private company or govt dept... ill go BITRE. Airservices incidentally explicitly does not guarantee the accuracy of the information you quote.

Now question for a question how do you get 12 per hour out of 100 per day?:D




Maybe the airlines should compensate all other airspace users for their exclusive use of the public sky in which they make their profits.

Call it BSPT... big sky profit tax. Make it a tax on profit not production so there is no loss of jobs nor reduction in services. :}

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Class E over Broome up to 5500ft has been changed to D over D. E abv 5500ft remains and under control of centre.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

The BITRE figures for Broome only count fare-paying pax on RPT major and regional services.
Freight, charter, GA, overflys, etc are not counted.

Oh., and in the Notes tab of that BITRE spreadsheet there is ... that data have been provided by third parties, the Commonwealth gives no warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, fitness for purpose, or otherwise of the information.

[Jabawocky]

Now question for a question how do you get 12 per hour out of 100 per day?

Ahhh an 8 hour day perhaps. :hmm:

And also...some regional places do not have a full schedule every day but maybe multiples on mostly weekdays, so you have to look at the busy periods being wwork days during daylight hours perhaps.

[desmotronic]

Ahhh an 8 hour day perhaps.

no sh!t sherlock !!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Class E over Broome up to 5500ft has been changed to D over D. E abv 5500ft remains and under control of centre

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Class E over Broome up to 5500ft has been changed to D over D. E abv 5500ft remains and under control of centre

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Do you hear that?

















Silence! Isn't it sweet?:}

[desmotronic]

thanks owen did i hear you say clearance denied? :ok:

Seriously, and im sure comrade julia would agree, the big sky profit tax should be levied on both the amount of public airspace consumed by airservices and the major airlines and the profit they make.

[AerocatS2A]

Desmotronic, consider that the dry season is far busier than the wet and also that the RPT jet movements tend to be squeezed into a small part of each day and you'll see that even if the numbers suggest the place is not too busy on average, there are periods of daily and seasonal peak activity when it is very busy.

[desmotronic]

well this is the dry season a whopping 10 airline aircraft daily between 9am and 9pm..

http://www.broomeair.com.au/documents/currentweekschedule.pdf

[Jabawocky]

Desmo
Broome only has half a dozen rpt jets a day??

and.......

I doesnt matter what you say 3270 airline movements is still only 4 or 5 airline aircraft per day with 2 movements each. 1 in 1 out.

In addition to that there are 6 regional airline movements per day

now I am guilty as the next bloke at times for approximate numbers, or just wild guesses, but your last post shows a document with 20 RPT movements a day.

now thats almost 50 - 100% more more than you were suggesting when slagging Ozbus. :=

If you are going to attack, do it with some accuracy, or a lot closer to the mark at least.

J:ok:

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Off those schedules the busiest hour most days (1300 - 1400) still only has 4 jet(?) RPT movements. 2 arrivals and 2 departures. Used to do that OCTA in Gove back in the 80's with just an FSO. AND in the end they decided they didn't even need that.

[Jabawocky]

Maybe so........but Gove probably does not have all the other IFR and VFR traffic even today!

[werbil]

OS - can I fly in your airspace please?

Yesterday I distinctly heard the clearance not available - remain outside controlled airspace instruction. I was definitely the statue - my 6 minute sector ended up taking 15. The departure leg was not much better. Nine minutes delay is not long - but on this short sector the variable costs including fuel cost the company 250% of what they normally would.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I agree (although it was pretty busy around the jet times usually). But on those schedules most hours of the day are lucky to have 2 jet movements.

[AerocatS2A]

It's not so much the number of jet movements, it's all the other stuff happening as well, microlight, VFR scenic guys, parachuting, float planes, Coastwatch Dash 8s, little IFR guys, helicopters to the rigs, helicopters to Willie Creek, etc. Most of the time it's ok, but every now and then it all happens at once and it turns into a ****-fight. I've had to sit on the ground with engines running for 40 minutes once waiting for a lull in the inbounds. I think I had something like 17 callsigns written down, all with an eta of 1 - 2 minutes apart from each other. A big part of the problem is the lack of a full length taxiway for the bigger aircraft so anything that's a Dash 8 or bigger requires a significant delay for the backtrack, particularly when there's an easterly.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Owen,

We hope and pray - but you and I both know that the Caucus runs the Labour Party - so it ain't so much the person up front.....I think...however....

As far as ASA goes, still the same deadwood at 'the top'......led by the same 'idealists' with the same silly silly ideas....:ugh::ugh:

[Plazbot]

Aerocat, your practical experience is no substitute for risk theories and fundamental beliefs. :}

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Aha Owen,

Then HOW do we get the 'depth' to rise to the TOP..??

SURPRISE ME..!!!! :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Griffo

I think by depth he probably meant, if it were a bath tub with water in it, even an infant could not possibly drown :}

J:E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Before this thread falls off into the never-never...An interesting point has come up in discussions....Why is there a vail of Class E around Class D in Broome and Karratha?

A VERY POSSIBLE ANSWER- To bring about a mandatory carriage and operation of transponders in class D...

Do you agree with this addition to the requirments for Class D, Mr Smith?