What Happened to Lower Class E?

[Dick Smith]

Many will remember that as part of NAS there was a plan to follow the USA and bring in some low-level Class E airspace to cover instrument approaches at non-tower airports. This airspace was to drop to about 1,200 feet AGL at airports like Ballina.

Of course, the low level enroute controllers would have to be trained at doing approach work, however if they can do this in the USA and Canada and Europe, surely they can in Australia.

I note this system has not gone ahead even at one airport and I think most would agree that being separated by air traffic control on a dark night in IMC is safer than a do-it-yourself calling-in-the-blind system of traffic information when there is no separation standard at all.

If you remember, we had a number of serious incidents – one at Bundaberg where two passenger-carrying aircraft were trying to do an instrument approach at the same time and another incident at Orange where the REX aircraft was coming in from the east on instrument approach and another aircraft was coming in from the west on an approach, both in cloud at the same time – problems if one had to do a missed approach!

So I also ask – have there been any further incidents that have been reported?

[VH-FTS]

Isn't there 'low' Class E now above the likes of Rockhampton and Mackay when the tower is closed (down to 700 feet)?

[dayzel87]

Mackay and Rockhampton do indeed have lower Class E airspace to 700AGL at night when Class D is inactive. They have a dedicated Approach Controller (same controller, different frequency for Mackay and Rockhampton).

The approach controller issue's clearances for departure via a Radar SID and also clearances for an instrument approach. On Taxi they will issue a clearance for the SID, they will ask for a report once at the holding point for the assigned heading and also a report once rolling for departure.

Standard CTAF calls still apply inbound and outbound, on ground the approach controller assumes the duty of an area controller (cancel sarwatch, etc.).

There was an AIP SUP for the procedures but it has since been absorbed into the AIP and I can no longer find it to clarify further information.

[Dick Smith]

I am actually referring to non tower airports. Why hasn't the E gone ahead at these airports.

[Chief galah]

You sure?

AIRSPACE RECLASSIFICATION OUTSIDE TWR HR
Class C Airspace/CTA steps WI 36 DME TL BLW 8,500FT AMSL reclassified Class G

From ERSA.

[le Pingouin]

As you've been told numerous times in the past, we don't have the resources. It's not just a matter of training Dick. Where are all the extra controllers and consoles going to come from and who is going to pay?

[dayzel87]

I am very sure, the airspace is presented in the DAH/AIP handbook under YBBB/ROCKHAMPTON and MACKAY E1 through to E4 also the approach frequencies are on all the DAP's for both of those airports.

It is also in the Jepps APT DIR AU-236 "OUTSIDE TWR HOURS ROCKHAMPTON AIRSPACE CLASS D BECOMES CLASS E ABOVE 700' AGL WITHIN THE LATERAL BOUNDARY OF THE CTR (ABOVE 1000' AMSL) AND WITHIN THE STEPS ABOVE 1000' AMSL TO AN UPPER LEVEL OF 4500' AMSL. SURFACE-700'AGL INCLUSIVE WITHIN THE LATERAL BOUNDARY OF THE CTR BECOMES CLASS G."

I think you are quoting the reference for Townsville, TL = Townsville.

[Chief galah]

Yep, you're correct of course.
My only defense is that I was looking at Townsville.

Just as an aside, what's it like when there's more than one aircraft in IMC?

[dayzel87]

All Good, I would much rather head to Townsville for a spin anyway. :)

[Dick Smith]

Le Pingouin.

The system is rediculous. You provide a enroute separation service where the collision risk is minimal and then force a " do it yourself" 1920's radio traffic only service in the terminal area at quite busy airports like Lismore and Ballina .

The NAS plan was to provide the safer separation service at selected airports.

Arn't you putting profits in front of safety ? Surely if half your last profit dividend was spent on providing a class E terminal service at non tower airports serviced by airline aircraft safety would be improved.

[KeepItRolling]

"Arn't you putting profits in front of safety ? Surely if half your last profit dividend was spent on providing a class E terminal service at non tower airports serviced by airline aircraft safety would be improved."

Again, Mr Smith, you seem to have trouble distinguishing (sp) between line controllers and the bean counters who sign cheques.

LP was saying what is blatantly obvious to any line controller : there are NO resources or the will to do what you are saying at management level.

Line controllers play the game as the Good Book dictates, we don't dictate the contents.

Rant Over.

[yr wrong]

Well Dick is right, separaration provided where the collision risk is least, jack **** where the collision risk is highest. Funny old system here isn't it?

[Dick Smith]

Keep it rolling. There are obviously plenty of resources available. Why spend $15 m on a fire station at Ballina to clean up after a mid air when you can give a class E approach service to help prevent the mid air in the first place?

How come they can put on 100's of extra Firies but no extra controllers ?

Something not logical here.

[Chief galah]

You see Dick, this is where you don't know about airspace at all.
Just take a look at Flightradar24 or FlightAware and you'll soon see realise that the en-route collision risk is far from minimal. Come on, you've been at the forefront of aviation administration, surely you know more than this!

[morno]

Meanwhile, Joe Blogg's in his C172 can carry on through this stupid Class E without even needing to report to ATC.

In my company Dick, we avoid Class E in the same way as we avoid Class G. The risk of collision is too high with unreported VFR traffic.

morno

[Dick Smith]

Morno. You are just resisting change. Our class E has mandatory transponder and mandatory radio for VFR.

Wouldn't class E be a safety plus compared to the existing class G at Ballina ?

Or do you want to keep the old 1950s system!

And how do you avoid class G? Only go to tower airports? What do you think of all the airlines that go to non tower airports?

Chief. Last time I looked about 130 IFR aircraft airborne over the Aus mainland at one time. All vertically and laterally separated . Can't do that on a runway if one misses a call and lands on top of another!

[Chief galah]

E goes down to 700'? 1200' in the US?
That is not runway separation.

[le Pingouin]

1. The college can barely keep up with current training requirements. Good luck with adding however many more on top of that.

2. There are literally no spare consoles available to provide the service and limited space to put any new ones assuming we could source the parts, which we can't.

Presumably oneSKY/CMATS will have the flexibility to accommodate adding new consoles at a later date but see 1.

[KeepItRolling]

LP beat me to it!

Dick, if CASA had not jumped up and down about the ARFF stations, then ASA would not have built them.

And I say again, ATCs don't make this decision.

So jumping down the throats of ATC, particularly here, is pretty pointless.

Ask Senate Estimates, they are the latest experts.

KIR

[Dick Smith]

I am not jumping down the throats of any ATCs.

Sounds to me as if the people at CASA are not allocating the resources correctly.

CASA has mandated AsA to put on lots more RFFS personel when I would reckon upgrading G to E like the safer FAA system is more likely to improve safety.

What do you ATCs believe ?

[Kharon]

Dick – perhaps some homework and a little 'thinking' is required here: look and listen, carefully, to the last Senate estimates video and you will see, precisely and exactly where the problems lay. Give you a clue - it's not with the kids slaving at the coal face. KIR, LP, Morno, NB, AC and half a dozen other priceless ATCO; who actually care enough to bother reading Pprune and can find the 'responsibility' and energy to respond – after probably another long hard shift – try, repeatedly, to tell you where the areas of concern and responsibility lay. Want a target, watch the last estimates and get after the "Slick & Fick" crew, those are your real targets. Read their pitiful answers to the QoN. Piss in the pot or get off it, go after the real culprits, or is that a bridge too far? a challenge perhaps. The ATCO 'troops', regularly go above and beyond the call, often, at great personal risk.

I get very weary of reading personalised "Dick" speak, when the rest of the 'workers' are trying to make what they can of a totally buggered up, top heavy administrative, trough reared system. Find a solution, present an argument, use your vaunted influence; but, please, FFS stop this eternal sniping, bitching and 'twisting' the facts, from the sidelines to suit your own agenda. It's not only boring; it's counter productive and negative; which I could, probably live with- if it ever achieved anything.

Tell me what, in the past 12 month you have achieved or changed that makes this unholy system better. Nothing would be as good an answer as any; and we are still, no bloody closer to the damn truth.

JHFHCOAC.

[Dick Smith]

Kharon. You are fantastic. Can we talk on the phone some time? May be able to do some of the things you want.

[le Pingouin]

What do I believe? After the CASA mandate for Tassie approach, the way the failed experiment of running Adelaide approach at night in Melbourne were handled and the whole SDE debacle I have no faith that it could be implemented safely. Too many managers willing to implement too many smart arse solutions that cut corners that CASA is willing to sign off on. As Kharon says there are too many acolytes of the previous regime in place to make this sane. Managerial "risk taking" was a praiseworthy attribute back then.

What we'd get is the same number of controllers handling the same old large sectors with bits of procedural approach tacked on the bottom. And unless you could guarantee solid surveillance coverage down to the ground a procedural service is what you'd get. One in, one out.

How would said controllers of large sectors provide a half decent surveillance approach service, considering they have other traffic to watch? Uberlingen ring a bell? That's exactly what you're asking for.

How are we to run a US style service unless we run it with a similar number of controllers? Running an approach service on a 500 mile screen range and asking us to actually properly monitor it in every situation is insane.

[Jabawocky]

Dick, morno actually lived this pre his current jet job. IFR, all weather day and night, single pilot IFR out of a regional D.

Tell me this, it might be OK in Rocky or Townsville, but many regional ports can't get ATC comms, let alone radar or ADSB coverage in the SFC-700 or even 5000' so how do they get a clearance before entering the CTA? Otherwise they break the rules??

If you fix the SSR or ADSB for all, at all the places to a standard where the average GA light can get identified and have VHF on the ground, then maybe you have the infrastructure to deliver the service.

Then get enough ATC's able to deliver the service. While you are at it get a transponder requirement in E that is actually followed by all (RAAus included) and we will all be happy.

Otherwise I would rather accept the risk and know what I don't know and be aware of it, Vs breaking the law on climb waiting for a clearance that can't be given all the while thinking I am protected slightly when I am not at all.

I want what you are offering Dick. i fly IFR in and out of many regional areas, I have been an ADSB convert all along (onto my 2nd set after an upgrade) but until ASA can deliver the goods, I would prefer G. At least then I know what my risks and responsibilities are.

I almost hit another aircraft (VFR crossing L-R) passing 6200' one day, it happened so fast I could not catch the rego, but it would have been visible. No radar or in this case no ADSb for another 10 minutes. Was I out in the boonies? No on climb between YSGE and BARTA. I was on my own. If that was class E, without any chance of surveillance what would be the point of that false sense of security?

At least the USA has surveillance almost to the ground in the majority of the country.

You want a fast Citation with Rotax 2 stroke engines.

morno/le pigeon/chief galah, please tell me where I am mistaken here?

[le Pingouin]

Jaba, you're not mistaken. E provides nothing to IFR that they couldn't manage on their own given traffic and a brain. If you aren't positively separated from all traffic what's the point?

P.S. I'm very definitely a non-flying bird ;-)

[cogwheel]

this may be a place for some low level class E..... Brisbane West Wellcamp has a GNS approach to RWY 12 which up until recently has not really been an issue.
However of late the Military controllers at OK have not been able to approve or provide a clearance for that approach as it starts in CTA/CTR and ends in Class G. :confused::confused:

Seems someone discovered that ATC cannot authorise such an approach according to the ICAO rules (??). As a result the 12 approach can only be used when OK is not active. So when any of the operators such as QL & Rex turn up and it is blowing from the SE, then they have no choice under the present rules to do the 30 approach and then circle, which we know GNS was meant to avoid having to circle. What a crock! Certainly a safety issue. Maybe a tower at YBWW would be the long term answer, but in the meantime, what is it to be... A larger zone for OK or maybe some class E ... ????:ugh::ugh:

I believe everyone knows what the answer is but getting there seems somewhat difficult at the moment.... Best they think outside the box perhaps?

Dick, I believe low level class E has a place in the system, however finding a fit and then making the oponents accept the change might be the battle...

[CaptainMidnight]

Seems someone discovered that ATC cannot authorise such an approach according to the ICAO rules (??).Not caused by ATC or Airservices.

Its a CASA MOS Part 173 requirement that instrument flight procedures be designed clear of active Prohibited and Restricted areas. The requirement is probably direct from ICAO SARPs.

[Capn Bloggs]

Our class E has mandatory transponder and mandatory radio for VFR.
They don't have to talk to ATC and they don't need to check their transponder is working when they are in Class E either.

Yabbering to an ATCO on Comm 1 whilst trying to self-segregate with a lighty on the CTAF on Comm 2. Nice plan.

Provide the radar (or mandatory ADSB for all) and coverage to the ground and I'll think about low level Class E. Otherwise, I'll stick with the current system, thanks. You rave on about the cost of aviation; have you actually done any numbers on how much more procedural Class E would cost?? Didn't think so.

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Keep the current system. Resist change in every way.

Don't learn anything from the Benalla crash where the radar alarm went off but the pilot wasn't told because he was in uncontrolled airspace .

Blame the pilot. Good pilots don't need ATC and radar! 1920's Class G forever.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Oh, FFS! Not all this again...

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: :ugh::ugh:

[Stationair8]

Dick, isn't that some form of new generation E airspace after hours at Launceston and Hobart?






It seems to work very well one aircraft in, one aircraft out after hours must be a very positive step in improving safety for the travelling public into those ports wouldn't you say?

[le Pingouin]

Dick, as has been repeatedly said we'll work whatever, but for heaven's sake it needs to be done properly! Not the half-arsed solution we'd undoubtedly end up with in the current environment. Give us the bloody tools, controllers and resources first before demanding change. Show us the money! Show us the consoles, the radars, the ADSB outlets! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

There's a bigger game afoot at present, namely oneSKY/CMATS, so I doubt calls for major changes, unless they were safety critical in a major way (and what you want isn't), will gain any traction, regardless of the merits.

[blackburn]

Capn Bloggs

Refer AIP ENR 1.4-9 Classes of Airspace - Services & Requirements for VFR aircraft in Class E: Radio COM Requirements "Continuous two-way"

In Class G Airspace I have found the hardest task is to have a VFR aircraft respond to any request for position and intentions. Centre often gives us unidentified VFR traffic so we know they are there when in radar coverage but to get an answer is nigh on impossible. Don't know how the VFR's react when in Class E.

[Creampuff]

They’re probably all welded to 126.7, in accordance with Dick’s and triadic’s advice… :E

[On Track]

Blackburn, I can perhaps enlighten you in a small way.

I have spoken up on the area frequency when it was obvious to me that I was the said unidentified VFR aircraft cruising in Class E or G airspace at an unverified level.

I've identified myself by callsign, position, confirmation of level and stated my intentions, and all I've ever received in return is silence.

[Capn Bloggs]

Blackburn, fair enough. I was looking at Broadcast requirements and VFR "shoulds" in E. Above post corrected.

Yair. Keep the current system. Resist change in every way.
No, you provide us with the infrastructure that the yanks have and we'll use your Class E. Stop trying to introduce bits and pieces, the bits that suit you.

Dick, isn't that some form of new generation E airspace after hours at Launceston and Hobart?
737 TCAS RA on a lighty shortly after introduction who swore he'd read the inbound radial/tracking intentions/level and speed of the arriving 737 correctly and was going to be "well clear". Passengers don't deserve that.

[Creampuff]

[P]rovide us with the infrastructure that the yanks have and we'll use your Class E. Stop trying to introduce bits and pieces, the bits that suit you.Hear! Hear! :D :D

[CaptainMidnight]

Refer AIP ENR 1.4-9 Classes of Airspace - Services & Requirements for VFR aircraft in Class E: Radio COM Requirements "Continuous two-way"

Despite what AIP might say in parts, a transponder and/or radio comms with ATC are not, repeat NOT mandatory for all aircraft in Class E airspace.

Transponders are not mandatory for gliders and sport aviation types not capable of powering one. Refer to CAO 95 exemptions which include certain ultralight types, hang gliders, gyrocopters etc. Hang gliders operate in NE Victoria regularly up to A100.

Exemptions also exist for such types for radio comms with ATC.

[Jabawocky]

Just like when I have been on the phone…..:rolleyes:

Dick, morno actually lived this pre his current jet job. IFR, all weather day and night, single pilot IFR out of a regional D.

Tell me this, it might be OK in Rocky or Townsville, but many regional ports can't get ATC comms, let alone radar or ADSB coverage in the SFC-700 or even 5000' so how do they get a clearance before entering the CTA? Otherwise they break the rules??

If you fix the SSR or ADSB for all, at all the places to a standard where the average GA light can get identified and have VHF on the ground, then maybe you have the infrastructure to deliver the service.

Then get enough ATC's able to deliver the service. While you are at it get a transponder requirement in E that is actually followed by all (RAAus included) and we will all be happy.

Otherwise I would rather accept the risk and know what I don't know and be aware of it, Vs breaking the law on climb waiting for a clearance that can't be given all the while thinking I am protected slightly when I am not at all.

I want what you are offering Dick. i fly IFR in and out of many regional areas, I have been an ADSB convert all along (onto my 2nd set after an upgrade) but until ASA can deliver the goods, I would prefer G. At least then I know what my risks and responsibilities are.

I almost hit another aircraft (VFR crossing L-R) passing 6200' one day, it happened so fast I could not catch the rego, but it would have been visible. No radar or in this case no ADSb for another 10 minutes. Was I out in the boonies? No on climb between YSGE and BARTA. I was on my own. If that was class E, without any chance of surveillance what would be the point of that false sense of security?

At least the USA has surveillance almost to the ground in the majority of the country.

You want a fast Citation with Rotax 2 stroke engines.

morno/le pigeon/chief galah, please tell me where I am mistaken here?

[Dick Smith]

Jaba. Keep on going with the old myths to stop any improvements with the system.

The USA does not have surveillance almost to the ground in the majority of the country. In fact 50% of IFR approaches in the USA have no radar coverage from the initial approach fix.

The radar coverage over most of the USA is similar to the radar coverage in our J curve. Why then can't we have the safety improvements in the J curve- I know- resistance to change.

Ballina has VHF coverage to the Brisbane centre at ground level and radar coverage below 8500'.

Why not re direct the $14 m spent in the fire station to providing a class E service at Ballina. I know. Resist change- keep following a 1950s establishment formulae for RFFS and a 1930s system of radio calls when in IMC.

My plan is to bring in the safety improvements before the inevitable accident occurs .

Ballina doesn't even have a unicom radio operator to give traffic on aircraft that may be taxiing and on the wrong frequency - as per the Qantas jet at Ayers Rock. That's because CASA changed the rules so we couldn't follow the proven US Unicom system. Resist resist resist copying the proven success of others until people are killed is the result if we follow your post.

[Dick Smith]

Le P. You state;

There's a bigger game afoot at present, namely oneSKY/CMATS, so I doubt calls for major changes, unless they were safety critical in a major way (and what you want isn't), will gain any traction, regardless of the merits.


Are you saying the the OneSky tender is for the present airspace system and will not allow IFR terminal services to be upgraded to the U.S. level of safety?

[thorn bird]

Dick,

In the US they regulate for safety, which explains their superior safety standards.

In Europe they have outcome based regulation. They just can't figure out what outcome they want to achieve.

In Australia we have liability avoidance based regulation.

Thousands of pages and growing every day.

They absolve government of any liability for anything by being a major liability to an industry that must somehow comply with them.

Will our liability avoidance aviation regulations grow bigger than our taxation regulations?

[le Pingouin]

No Dick, oneSKY/CMATS is an ATC system not an airspace model - you could use whatever airspace model you want in it. The system is unaware of airspace classifications.

What I'm saying is TAAATS needs replacing sooner rather than later so from a safety perspective that must be the main organisational imperative and as such that's where all the resources will be concentrated. TAAATS starting to fall apart due to age related hardware failure has far bigger safety implications than not providing the service you're wanting.

Seriously, we're going to struggle with staffing just to get the new system in as it is without adding further complications. We don't have the staff or consoles in the current system so nothing is going to happen in TAAATS. I have no idea what the intention is post TAAATS.

Many of us are 50+ so retirement will be an option in the not too distant future (if it already isn't) and we'll need replacing too. That's a lot of new controllers to train just to keep position. For better or worse ATC requires a skill set that is far from common so that will be a struggle.

[Dick Smith]

Are you saying that your organisation is not being competently led ?

Why would that be?

Have you ever applied for a management position?

[le Pingouin]

We're still recovering from the damage inflicted by the previous incumbent. I'm not the type they're looking for - I'm too outspoken.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Maybe lower class E bought a cheap ticket and is on the piss in Bali?

[Jabawocky]

Dick, the current management (Mr Hood) is actually a good guy. The problem is if you want what you want, it takes infrastructure and people. Give Mr Hood both of those, and the problem is solved.

Dont blame Mr Hood.

It is really that simple.

If you get that………..go fix it. For all our sakes.

Otherwise let the ASA work with what the CASA (sub optimal) and the government (also sub optimal despite being netter than the others) have given them.

Cheers,

DB :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Not blaming anyone. Just asking logical questions.

I didn't realise he was the CEO.

[CaptainMidnight]

He isn't - he's the EGM ATC.

In any case as you are well aware, its not an Airservices decision what airspace class should be where. They are simply the ATSP/ANSP.

CASA is the airspace regulator, so it is their decision. If they don't consider Class E is warranted/justified down to 700 AGL or lowered anywhere else below what it currently is, its their decision.

Airservices has to abide with CASA's decisions, and put in TWRs, RFF and staffing accordingly.

Perhaps you should be talking to their Office of Airspace Regulation -

[morno]

Dick,
As Jaba stated, I flew in this lowered Class E from the day it opened until I departed for newer pastures.

I'll state some points:


Sure it was nice having an ATC to give you all that info, but at the end of the day, it was still "Cleared to leave controlled area via the RNAV" or whatever. What's the point in having an ATC guy 'control' you if the VFR who's only monitoring the CTAF (because they only have one working radio, or they're still tuned to Centre) is still going to do whatever he/she wants.
The hours that this lowered Class E operated was almost pointless. I asked the guy one night on a weekend if they controlled many aircraft over the weekend. "No, normally just you guys". So that might be 1 movement in the entire night.
Yes I get that you're talking about 24/7 control over uncontrolled aerodromes like Ballina, but I still don't see the point one bit of only having it controlled for some users, not others. Either you're in controlled airspace, or you're not. This stupid "Class E" rubbish of only controlling one type of user is pointless and dangerous.
How does my current operator avoid Class G and E? There are a couple of exceptions where it's not possible. However on descent into Brisbane, Perth and Melbourne in particular, we have to monitor all the steps to ensure we stay well away from them. Here's a better case to put to CASA. Why do we have E under C approaching major aerodromes that don't fit the profile of the current generation of aircraft?


I'd only support your case for approach services at busy aerodromes (Emerald is a classic case!) if the class of airspace was C only.

morno

[Stationair8]

Must be a federal election coming up?

[Dick Smith]

Morno. You appeared to be obsessed with getting info on VFR. Could this be because at one time all VFR flew full position when above 5000' at IFR levels and that was 80% of the traffic you received .

Other countries show that there is no rational safety reason for this obsession .

The US FAA doesn't even recommend VFR have a radio in Class G and E.
I wonder why?

It's because mandating radio for VFR in G and E has no measurable effect on safety.
My suggestion is that you keep vigilant in all airspace when in VMC.

[Hempy]

Blame the pilot. Good pilots don't need ATC and radar! 1920's Class G forever.


The US FAA doesn't even recommend VFR have a radio in Class G and E.
I wonder why?

My suggestion is that you keep vigilant in all airspace when in VMC.

:rolleyes:

[Dick Smith]

Hempy. The first post you have quoted was satirical!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Do some reading, people. RFFA into Ballina and three other sites...including Port Hedland...is due to pax numbers kicking past the threshold. These rules were set years ago by someone who thought sites were over serviced...now at these sites sounds like sour grapes.

Lowering class E will not work over Ballina because the SSR cuts out or is very intermittent below 5000. Put class E where there is no chance to monitor ALL traffic in that space is a recipe for disaster with the poor guy on the other end of the mike taking the hit. The alternative is one in, one out. Not a good outcome.

To reiterate Capn Bloggs...Either SSR/ transponder or ADS-B on ALL and you can have whatever airspace model you fancy. Put a receiver in at sites that go past a movement threshold goes a long way to making the circuit/app environment safer if you MUST monitor remotely...otherwise...this I just the same argument that has played endlessly for over the last decade.

[Jabawocky]

How about a scenario Dick, YHBA, no ATC comms on the ground except for the RPT's with big powerful radio's. Weather just above the take off minima. It is genuine IMC, and Class E begins within 20 seconds of wheels off. What do I do?

A: Take off and circle at 700AMSL ? or worse intercept track?
B: Bust the CTA deliberately while obtaining a code and clearance and keep her climbing through to 3500 or so?
C: Phone a friend? Call ATC by phone and get a clearance.
D: Turn transponder off and fly into E then G and tell nobody?

Give ASA the tools by rules and budget to have the infrastructure in place and sure thing.

By the way, I have sat on the grass at OSH with a few airline guys at OSH chewing the fat over some of your ideas on how they do things, and they can't comprehend it. As for jet RPT operations in class G……their eyes do this >>:eek:

[sunnySA]

Maybe each Airservices fire station should come with an ADSB ground station fitted on top.

[Dick Smith]

Jaba. Of course low level E can't possibly work.

Once you get a bit of bad weather the the FAA NAS system basically closes down. Those stupid Americans. They should copy our system where there is no prescribed separation standard at all in Class G so airline aircraft get no delays.

They probably hardly ever get IMC conditions in the USA. That can only be the explanation on how their system works.

How did they ever get to the moon!

[C-change]

There is no money for any of this.
There is not enough controllers for any of this.
There isn't enough consoles.
The public do not care.
This is at least the fifth time we have beaten this track.
Its the same old crap, it's either class E everywhere/you all have your heads in the sand/the evil military are stopping me doing stuff.

For Christ sake, go and enjoy x-mas with your family.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

SunnySA...EXACTLY!:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Dick, with all due respect, we can't get comms on the ground let alone SSR or ADSB close to the ground in some major ports. Fix that and hey presto.

If I taxi at Bundy, ATC have my code and details all ready to go, before I even call them. Why? Because the controller can see me doing 8 knots on the apron and when I call him/her, they can hear me loud and clear.

Travel a little bit down the coast towards Brisbane and the exact opposite is true, with no surveillance under 3-4000 feet. And this is with the latest Garmin goodies too.

So how would I blast out of YHBA or dozens of other ports in and around the J curve with a scenario like that? Or do you propose we self separate in E prior to getting a clearance for the airspace we are already in?

And Dick, no need to lecture me on the USA......I am seriously thinking of moving there, should have done it when the dollar was stronger. Their systems and FAA beat our lot hands down every day. You can read my rankings about closing CASA and ATSB and subcontracting to the Kiwis and NTSB. I need no convincing. But given what we have to work with here, and the damned strict liability etc you will not easily follow the Americans.

Several mates of mine are ATCs and some participate or watch these threads, they would love to be able to provide the service but to do that requires a lot more than some coloured lines on a chart. That needs fixing first.

I look forward to a considered reply. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

I bet for the $14m price of the fire station plus it's ongoing annual running costs we could have got an upgraded ATC service at Ballina and probably a few other places as well.

In other countries they upgrade the airspace first before putting in RFFS. That is they try and prevent the accident in the first place. Pretty logical to me.

I upgraded the tower establishment criteria years ago but no one has updated the RFFS establishment criteria.

Until that happens large amounts of safety resources will be mis-allocated.

All the best for Christmas and the new year to everyone.

[Jabawocky]

I bet for the $14m price of the fire station plus it's ongoing annual running costs we could have got an upgraded ATC service at Ballina and probably a few other places as well. AGREED

In other countries they upgrade the airspace first before putting in RFFS. That is they try and prevent the accident in the first place. Pretty logical to me.SOUNDS FAIR

I upgraded the tower establishment criteria years ago but no one has updated the RFFS establishment criteria. OK, but thats not about E

Until that happens large amounts of safety resources will be mis-allocated. YEP

All the best for Christmas and the new year to everyone. We all agree here too! :ok:



So how about the ability to provide the E if that is what you want. It will cost a lot more than $14M but I agree it would be better bang for buck but it needs to be done in its entirety.

[CaptainMidnight]

There is no money for any of this.
There is not enough controllers for any of this.
There isn't enough consoles.

More importantly CASA the airspace regulator hasn't directed that low level Class E be implemented (nor low level surveillance for that matter) because as yet they haven't deemed it necessary.

It's not an Airservices decision to introduce any airspace. They have to present a case to CASA for any amendments to airspace.

Whether or not Airservices has the staff, consoles or infrastructure is irrelevant if CASA deems something is required. They are factors that may delay implementation, but not reasons to not comply with a directive.

[Jabawocky]

And how is that "non USA standard" Approach airspace working in Tasmania?

That is a hybrid crossbreed balls up of a deal, and hardly a USA style outcome.

[Dick Smith]

Jaba. Can you explain with more detail. I have not seen US style NAS in Tasmania or anywhere in Australia.

Can you advise if the multilateration system in Tasmania is being used in full?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Would it surprise anyone if I say that to fit out Ballina with coms and ADS-B would cost less than a tenth of a new firestation?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In other countries they upgrade the airspace first before putting in RFFS.
In other countries they make the airport, so indirectly the operators, pay for the Fire Service. Imagine the landing fees if Ballina was paying for it.
That is they try and prevent the accident in the first place
Also, if the no. and type of movements or passengers dictate establishment of a RFFS, then so be it. The chance of a mid-air 5-10 miles away from the drome is not why they are there. They probably wouldn't even respond. Accidents in general airspace and at an airport are two different arguments.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The question that should be asked is why does Airservices still do ARFFS?

[Capn Bloggs]

I have not seen US style NAS in Tasmania or anywhere in Australia.
Open your eyes, Dick. It was there, NAS in all it's glory, until that Tobago almost collided with the Virgin 737. Then the NAS got turfed. As it should have been, or never introduced in the first place.

[Jabawocky]

Dick,

If you profess to NOT know, which I suspect is NOT the case, do like the rest of us who are REALLY interested in understanding the real deal. Pick up the phone, ring AsA in Canberra, ask for a briefing and or/schedule a visit to the operational environment.

But don't forget, the guys and girls in ML Centre and the Tassie Towers are flat out with peak season traffic this time of year, refusal cannot be grounds for you to pretend to be shut out and/or offended!

And by the way, what do I do when launching into IMC at Hervey Bay with no clearance? And then have a one in one out?

Merry Christmas to you and all who live and play in the game of life and aviation.

[Dick Smith]

I guess same as in the USA Are you suggesting our Atc separation standards are unnecessarily onerous ? Or our imc self separation standards are not safe?

It's all about resisting change!

[Dick Smith]

And I have not been able to gain any factual information on the multilateration in Tasmania. Can someone else explain seeing Jaba won't

[triadic]

More importantly CASA the airspace regulator hasn't directed that low level Class E be implemented (nor low level surveillance for that matter) because as yet they haven't deemed it necessary.

There is not much hope with any progress on Class E as CASA don't even understand Class G ! They certainly don't appreciate established culture and change, which is what has to be managed if there is to be any change at all. If they did, maybe we might be able to turn a page in this saga! Not holding my breath.:ugh:

Merry Christmas :)

[Jabawocky]

Why do you say I won't?

That is BS..... Nobody ever asked.......more the point, I am not an expert on that topic.

Ask me about piston engine management, not ATC management.

A few years ago you were the expert, even discrediting me on ABC radio (who the heck was I ) to bully your way with the media. Many an ATC heard it. They knew the answer then, and what happened? They loved every minute, they called me.

Dick, get it right and you get support, get it wrong and it goes badd.

[Dick Smith]

Jabs. Sorry if I offended you on ABC radio years ago . I have no idea what you are referring to. Now I can see why you have your toga in a knot!

Why don't you give me a ring some time. At least you can communicate your distress rather than let it fester.

Then we can work together in introducing some necessary improvements.

[Jabawocky]

No offence taken, you were correct, I am a nobody in aviation airspace management, but really, you have the ability to influence outcomes, working against the folk who do the job day in and day out just does not make sense.

It is not their resistance to change for good, it is resistance to being given a set of rules or procedures without the tools to make it work.

Both the concepts of low level E and the Tassie approach service are clear examples of both.