Airspace 2015 coming to an airport near you...

[Capn Bloggs]

Oh the joy!

E to the deck, full approach control at dozens of jet airports, VFR transponder mandates for Class E ops, ground troops telling us when there is a cloud on top of the hill you might smack in to on your IMC/IFR approach.

What a disgrace; Class E is introduced over Launceston, causes a near midair with a RPT jet, and the protagnonists are now bleating about the lack radar/WAM approaches.


Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies

The Australian, July 11, 2015 12:00AM

Ean Higgins, Reporter, Sydney

After two decades of false starts, Australia will embrace the safer US model of managing the nation*’s skies that will see greater control of airspace in regional areas and allow ground staff to provide pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and aircraft traffic information.

The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.

The moves follow a sustained campaign by The Weekend Australian and several aviation figures, including businessman Dick Smith, to address longstanding air safety concerns following fatal air crashes in Victoria and Queensland a decade ago.

The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”

The new moves offer a promise to fix an air traffic control system judged by many in the aviation industry to be not as safe as it could be outside the major cities — and by some, including Mr Smith, to be dangerous.

In 2004 six people died when the plane they were flying in from Sydney’s Bankstown Airport to Benalla in Victoria crashed into a mountain, with air traffic controllers being alerted by an alarm that radar had detected the aircraft was off course but not intervening in part because it was flying in airspace not designated as under their control.

In 2005 another accident, which killed 15 people in an aircraft which crashed into a mountain while approaching a small airport at Lockhart River in Cape York, might have been prevented if, as occurs at similar airports in the US, ground staff who were not air traffic controllers had had radio contact with approaching aircraft and warned of bad weather in that direction.

As reported in The Weekend Australian in recent weeks, there are also concerns about uncontrolled airspace at Ballina, in northern NSW, where rapid growth in commercial passenger traffic has led to congestion, and where at least one near miss has occurred.

Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approache*s in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.

Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground.

The federal government had planned to move to the North American model in the early 2000s but the policy wasn’t followed through. Instead, a patchwork of protocols applies, with some areas and some airports designated as being under controlled airspace, but others not.

At many airports, some with substantial traffic, pilots are left to their own devices once under 8500 feet to sort out separation among themselves through radio contact, even though they may still be under radar coverage to much lower levels. Mr Smith had branded this situation as ridic*ulous and unsafe.

In addition to airspace reform, Mr Boyd will encourage CASA management, on a case-by-case basis, to allow exemptions and extensi*ons for aircraft owners to fit a costly new air navigation system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-*Broadcast, or ADS-B, if they can make a compelling practical and commercial case and safety is not compromised.

CASA will adopt a more flexible approach to a compulsory and expensive program of inspections of older Cessna light aircraft known as Supplementary Inspection Documents, or SIDS. It will consider making extensions because* the size of the program has caused a bottleneck in the aircraft maintenance sector.

Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.

The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.

“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.

“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”

Mr Boyd, a practising licensed aircraft mechanical engineer, former creator and owner of Brindabella Airlines, and a light aircraft pilot, is highly regarded.

The federal government appointed him CASA chairman after the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by veteran David Forsyth, called last year for wide reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.

Late last year John McCormick, CASA’s director of air safety — essentially the authority’s chief executive — was succeeded by former senior RAAF officer Mark Skidmore, who is understood to share Mr Boyd’s view of the need for a new approach.

Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as cate*g*ory E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said.

Mr Boyd would not discuss spec*ifics, but The Weekend Australian can reveal CASA will recommend such a move for Ballina.

It is expected to recommend that the controlled airspace around Ballina be lowered from 8500 feet to 5000 feet, and that the airport install a radio operator to help pilots with local weather and air traffic inform*ation, something the airport’s management is keen to do.

Mr Boyd said he would sponsor a board directive to management to see if it could free up what the industry describes as absurdly tight rules, restricting what ground staff who are not serving or former air traffic controllers can provide pilots over the Unicom radio in the way of weather and traffic information. “If it’s used as supplementary flight safety information, we have no argument against it,” he said.

Some of the moves, such as liberating ground staff to man the Unicom, have been strongly resisted by the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, and the union is also disinclined to expand controlled airspace unless more controllers are employed.

The chairman of Airservices Australia, Angus Houston, has rejected calls from Mr Smith and others for the firefighters his organ*isation employs at airports without control towers to perform the radio operator function as they do at many regional US airports.

As revealed by The Australian this week, Airservices, the government-owned body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, insisted two years ago that CASA not grant exemptions or extensions for ADS*B, pulling out of an understanding with CASA, which as safety authority makes and enforces air regulations.

But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.

“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.

[maggot]

Meh i just want some cta steps that work for one of the primary users/funders

[Oriana]

What Maggot said.:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Howabout]

Not again! Seems like Groundhog Day.

Minister: 'I am sick and tired of getting continually pestered; just give him what he wants to shut him up.'

Department: 'Yes Minister, but what about cost/benefit?'

Minister: 'I don't care about cost/benefit, just get him off my back!'

Department: 'Yes Minister.'

Been there, done that - it's a recurring nightmare that's lasted almost 20 years. Thank God I'm retired and out of it.

[chookcooker]

I'm sorry, but how is this not an improvement over current setups?

[neville_nobody]

“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.

And that's how CASA ramp up the cost and their size of their department. No rulings just a case by case process which will require huge manpower and expense to do anything

[LeadSled]

I'm sorry, but how is this not an improvement over current setups?

chookcook,
'coz well known CNS/ATM expert Bloggsie says so, isn't that enough for you??

Class E is introduced over Launceston, causes a near midair with a RPT jet,

There you go, chookcook, that proves it, Class E airspace causes magnetic attraction between aircraft.

If that is not enough for you, E airspace is widely used in many other countries, US and Canada, of course, that conclusively proves it is "not safe".

Tootle pip!!

PS: Funny that Bloggsie always brings up the Tasmanian incident, but never the one north of Brisbane at about the same time. Light aircraft pilots are not to be believed (Weejend Warriors, Blundering Bug Smashers etc.) unless, of course, the lighty pilot happens to be a member of a particular union, then he is a fine upstanding pillar of the community, a paragon of rectitude and responsibility, whose aviation professionalism and skill is beyond question.

[Capn Bloggs]

Oh this is going to be fun with the usual suspects poking their heads up (union-bashing and all)! Looking forward to equipping the VFR fleet with transponders Leddie?! :D

Brisbane, and Melbourne, if I recall. All within a couple of months of the intro of Class E. Remind me who benefits from Class E again? Certainly not the fare-paying public... Looking forward to your traffic-advice call for the A380 crew as you cruise through terminal E... :)

[chookcooker]

Sorry again, but exactly how does the fare paying public not benefit from the added safety of class e to the deck? Sure it's not class d or C, which I would prefer but it's a step int he right direction.

[Capn Bloggs]

Of course it benefits, Chookchocker. Just like dropping the speed limit on the open road to 80kmph would benefit the road toll.

Dick is basing inflicting millions of extra dollars cost on ALL IFR operations on one prang, over a decade ago, where a dodgy GPS in a non-RPT aircraft took the crew off track. How about banning the GPS system that was used (as also happened in a Dash 8)? No, let's use that incident as justification for imposing his nirvana, Class E, everywhere.

As for the fellow from the USA, guess what? Other people around the world can do things differently. Remember seat belts? Remember Alt/Distance tables on approach charts?

[Howabout]

Selective, Leady, Old Fruit:

'coz well known CNS/ATM expert Bloggsie says so, isn't that enough for you??

And, because a well known airspace Messiah says so, that's enough for you! And another few mill getting flushed down the tubes.

Leady, I saw buckets of dollars wasted on one bloke's ego that knew it all. Ministers that didn't have a bloody clue but got pecked to death by a 'name.'

Your inconsistency as regards Bloggs is just zealot stuff.

[KeepItRolling]

Did I miss the paragraph about :

Costing and funding?

Staffing; see above plus recruitment requirements.

To quote Sir Humphrey: "The Treasury will have a fit!"

[chookcooker]

Please stop with the hyperbole.
From my perspective (high capacity jet rpt) the status quo is grossly inadequate, and an accident waiting to happen.
Pucker factor increases tenfold whe im OCTA, and that's gin clear CAVOK days. To the point that we often prefer bad weather so as there won't be so many lighties around.

[sunnySA]

The Australian
Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies

Won't happen ahead of OneSky. There are not enough resources to do airspace reform and OneSky.

Lowering airspace will result in more sectors (existing sectors will need to be split, i.e. two sectors become three sectors or three sectors become four sectors). Any potential sectorisations would need to be simulated for workload and procedures. Additional frequencies would be required, additional surveillance may be required, additional consoles would be required, additional simulator time and resources.

OneSKY Australia program
From 2018, Australia will be providing air traffic control services using the most advanced and integrated air traffic control system in the world.
Through collaborating with the Department of Defence, it will unify Australian skies under a new, harmonised air traffic management system as we work towards creating ‘one sky’ for Australia.
This will enable a new level of operational and cost efficiency and safety, while also reducing delays for the travelling public and providing opportunities to improve environmental outcomes.
It will place Airservices and the Department of Defence in a position to manage forecast growth of air traffic movement in Australia of as much as 60 per cent by 2030.

Benefits
The benefits of a combined civil military air traffic management system, delivered under the OneSKY Australia program, will include safety and efficiency improvements as well as cost savings and reliability.
Improved safety and efficiency – shared situational awareness for civilian and military controllers through use of common data, additional new system safety nets and alerts, greater information security. The future system will also allow us to maximise the use of these systems within Australia’s skies, helping to minimise noise for communities and delays for the travelling public.
One flight information region – this means that any controller, at any one of the 200 consoles around the country, will be able to access the same flight information at any time, removing the potential for sharing incorrect information. It will also allow for greater use of flexible airspace and user preferred routes.
Modular and adaptable – the future system will be able to easily absorb and integrate future technology enhancements. This will reduce the costs of upgrading to the latest available technology in the future through updates to sections rather than whole, and allow us to quickly respond to changes in our operating environment.
Greater use of four dimensional trajectories – our air traffic controllers will know, with greater certainty and accuracy, the precise flight path an aircraft will take before an aircrafts takes off. This will allow them to map out the projected trajectories of all flights in our airspace. This will give us a clear picture of how our airspace works in four dimensions and help reduce delays for passengers. The current system works in three dimensions.

Key facts
▪Replaces the current civilian system known as The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) that was built in the 1990s and commissioned in 2000.
▪TAAATS has had more than 200 incremental system changes since it was first commissioned.
▪The Request for Tender identified 172 specific operational needs for the future system.
▪Fifty-one of these are new capabilities, with a further 87 that are only partially delivered through our current system.
▪An additional four safety functionalities will be introduced including alerts for medium-term conflict detection, long-term conflict detection, cleared flight level, violation of controlled airspace and conflict probe.
▪Integrated surveillance processing and alerting for all technologies, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
▪Increase of radar feeds from 32 to 45 with expanded offshore surveillance area supporting future extensions of ADS-B coverage.
▪Enhanced information security protocols, dual redundant architecture and a nominal 24-hour, 95 per cent technical disaster recovery of a partition at alternate locations.

[Howabout]

KeepItRolling,

'All unimportant dear boy. The Minister has decreed, therefore it is our responsibility to act, Bernard.'

'But, Sir Humphrey, everyone knows this is madness.'

'Precisely, Bernard, but it is not our job to tell the Minister that he is mad. Maybe you would like to tell him yourself.'

'But, Sir Humphrey, what about the cost - there seems to be no tangible benefit when one compares the cost to the benefit.'

'Bernard, Bernard, Bernard, the cost is not an issue; after all, this is the public purse, and it is bottomless - the cost will be buried in the margins somewhere. Something like, oh let me see, "essential airspace reform for the public good," or something similar, should do it nicely. Don't forget, Bernard, that we have spent millions on airspace for no gain whatsoever, so what's a few million more to keep the Minister happy?'

[sunnySA]

Howabout
after all, this is the public purse
Perhaps a new Government Department - The Department of General Aviation

[Capn Bloggs]

To the point that we often prefer bad weather so as there won't be so many lighties around.
And the benefit of Class E in that situation would be what?

[chookcooker]

Apart from:
-requirement to operate at standard cruise levels
-requirements to have a radio
-requirement to use the said radio
-requirement to have a working transponder
-requirement to use the said transponder.

Not much.

Again, not as good as class d or c but certainly a step up from g

[underfire]

I think One Sky and TopSky will take any funding that is available for quite some time...

[Dick Smith]

What would be the use of introducing mandatory ADSB for all IFR aircraft if non pressurized aircraft spend 90% of their time in uncontrolled airspace and still only get a 1930s style traffic information service?

Why purchase a new radar/ ADSB / Multilateration system if we keep most aircraft in un controlled airspace?

One Sky should immediately put on hold until the controlled airspace is extended as per NAS. At the present time at airports like Ballina the pilots have to become air traffic controllors when in IMC below 8500'. This is rediculous. If FAA controllors have the skills to separate all IFR in IMC why can't Aussie controllors be as skilled?

And what about Tasmania.? Why doesn't the AFAP say something.? AsA Annual reports state that the $6 m multilateration system was purchased to provide terminal survailance down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston . Now we read in The Australian that CASA will not approve its operation below 7000'.
Yes. It's a dud and probably covered up so Airservices management could be paid massive performance bonuses .

If procedural approaches in Tasmania - with its lousy weather and big hills -are as safe as survailance covered approaches it means you don't need survailance anywhere . And that's clearly not so.

A cover up is happening here. Let's get the system working properly as it was ordered. Do I have support for this? Also won't One Sky be another $1.4 billion Super Seasprite like disaster if they can't even get a small multilateration system working as ordered?

[Capn Bloggs]

-requirement to operate at standard cruise levels
-requirements to have a radio
-requirement to use the said radio
-requirement to have a working transponder
-requirement to use the said transponder.

Apart from between 5000ft-10,000ft, a combination of those are already a requirement for VFR into a CTAF or operations in G: mandatory transponders for all aircraft above 10k, mandatory carriage and use of radio for all aircraft above 5k, mandatory carriage and use of radio in a CTAF. Mandatory transponders for all aircraft in a CTAF for be a safety improvement: why though does the airspace class have to change though (with it's increase in cost, complexity and inconvenience)?

What would be the use of introducing mandatory ADSB for all IFR aircraft if non pressurized aircraft spend 90% of their time in uncontrolled airspace and still only get a 1930s style traffic information service?


What, a RIS is 1930's style? Open your eyes!!

If procedural approaches in Tasmania - with its lousy weather and big hills -are as safe as survailance covered approaches it means you don't need survailance anywhere . And that's clearly not so.
For goodness sake Dick, this is the 2015s, with great FMS nav systems and EGPWS. You don't base a complete airspace system on stopping aeroplanes running into hills! ATC's purpose is to keep aeroplanes apart. Do the traffic levels in Tas require radar-like approach services? Probably not!

[Popgun]

For goodness sake Dick, this is the 2015s, with great FMS nav systems and EGPWS. You don't base a complete airspace system on stopping aeroplanes running into hills! ATC's purpose is to keep aeroplanes apart.

Agreed. These days, even a 2 seat ultralight has pinpoint navigation accuracy and terrain awareness from cheap, tablet-based programs such as OzRunways.

Keeping aircraft from getting too close, in AND outside CTA should be the goal.

PG

[Dick Smith]

No wonder so many professional pilots kill so many, including themselves, with a controlled flight into terrain. Those aircraft terrain systems are not 100% reliable. That's why aviation safety has a backup where possible. A bit like 2 engines!

[Dick Smith]

And how does a class G RIS work when you are in IMC? Don't you have to call the other pilot and arrange separation by 1930s radio techniques ?

[LeadSled]

Oh this is going to be fun with the usual suspects poking their heads up (union-bashing and all)! Looking forward to equipping the VFR fleet with transponders Leddie?!

Bloggsie,
If you don't think the blocking of progress by the "policies" of several unions has had no effect in this area, where have you been living for the past 30-40 years.
After all, the AIPA only came about because of the then AFAP policies on refusing many technological advances. Those of us in the then AFAP Overseas Branch were not prepared to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of AFAP Luddite recalcitrance.
Civilair has hardly been in the forefront of promoting technological change.

Looking forward to your traffic-advice call for the A380 crew as you cruise through terminal E... :)

You think that doesn't happen every day in and out of KLAX, and shortly, back to KSFO, not to mention the various airspace classifications a QF aircraft traverses to EGLL and back -- indeed, you really should have a look at a few charts outside Australia.

Just like dropping the speed limit on the open road to 80kmph would benefit the road toll.

Bit astray on that one, there is considerable research that concludes that unrealistically low speed limits on highways cause accidents as a result, probably, of driver inattention and frustration.

Last time I looked at the subject, the changes to the NT speed limits have had no measurable effect in increasing accident rates.

Very low speed limits in suburban streets (blanket 40 and similar) are a different issue.

[tyler_durden_80]

I just don't see how class 'E' improves safety for anyone...how is safety enhanced when I can have an RPT IFR flight receiving a 'control' service in 'controlled' airspace, yet have a VFR in conflict who may or may not be listening to the Area Freq, and not subject to any sort of clearance or control service?

Sure I can pass traffic to my 'controlled' RPT IFR flight, but I don't separate between IFR and VFR in class 'E'.

So I pass traffic information to my 'controlled' RPT IFR flight on the unknown VFR aircraft. But my 'controlled' RPT IFR flight cannot make any sort of deviation from its clearance without asking because it is in 'Controlled' airspace.

And in addition to my 'Controlled' RPT IFR flight in conflict with unknown VFR traffic, I now have 'CTA' below the grid LSALT. Of course there are things such as RTCC charts, and MSA's, but as an enroute controller, I'm not allowed to use them (with a very slight exception for MSA's).

I have seen the implementation of lowered class 'E' steps at Williamtown, and I have seen no increase to service or safety...in fact quite the opposite (irrelevant now that WLM ATC work the longer hours for the last few years).

My opinion counts for nought, but lowering class E will do zero to enhance safety, it will ony compromise it further.

[Keith Myath]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
And the benefit of Class E in that situation would be what?

Let’s see:

Present situation class G

IFR:
IFR aircraft provided with traffic information on other IFR aircraft.

VFR:
No radio required if <5000’
No transponder required

If we upgrade to class E

IFR:
IFR aircraft separated from other IFR aircraft
IFR aircraft provided with traffic information service on VFR flights as far as practical

VFR:
Continuous 2 way communications required.
Transponder required.

In summary, upgrading from class G to E means you are now separated from other IFR, given a traffic information service on VFR, and VFR are required to carry a radio and transponder.

Why wouldn’t you support upgrading class G to E (note – not downgrading class C/D to E)? Areas like Ballina could certainly do with an upgrade to at least E with the current traffic levels.

[missy]

Civilair has hardly been in the forefront of promoting technological change.

Really, a review of IFATCA would tell a different story.
Currently Civil Air is represented by members holding the following positions
Deputy President
Executive Vice President Technical
Chair of Technical and Operational Committee

And, in 2014, a life member of Civil Air was honoured with the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for his contribution to civil aviation.
From the OAM announcement:
For service to the civil aviation industry, particularly air traffic management.
Inaugural International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers Associations (IFATCA)
Representative, International Civil Aviation Organisation, 2008-2011; also served as Member,
Air Traffic Management Requirements and Performance Panel.
Executive Vice-President Technical, IFATCA, 1999-2002 and 2009-2011; also served as Secretary, IFATCA Annual Conference, 2011.
Author, IFATCA Statement on Future Air Traffic Management.
Vice-President Technical, Civil Air, Civil Air Operations Officers Association of Australia,
Scroll of Honour, International Civil Aviation Organisation,
Australia Day Achievement Award, Airservices Australia

[Horatio Leafblower]

No wonder so many professional pilots kill so many, including themselves, with a controlled flight into terrain.

Here we go again - Dick is presented with a differing view and attacks professional pilots as a group.

How many private pilots flew VFR into IMC with fatal results in the last 10 years Dick? What's the biggest killer of PPLs in Australia Dick?

When was the last time a professional pilot operating inside the rules had a CFIT, Dick?

BENALLA. What sort of GPS was that Dick? Hardly cutting edge, was it?

Before that? :ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Tyler. With E in the terminal area if you are in IMC you are separated by ATC from all other aircraft in E.

If you are in VMC you cancel IFR and change to the CTAF and use the same procedures you now use in G. But with the added safety of mandatory transponder .

This plus a U.S. style Unicom must improve safety.

[JetRacer]

This plus a U.S. style Unicom must improve safety.

More people chatting on the radio when you want to try and organise separation...:ugh:


I agree with tyler_durden_80's comment. :ok:

[Dick Smith]

Tyler and JetRacer And that's probably the reason we have never installed any class E terminal airspace to low levels - both of you and others are convinced the 1930s system of traffic information in G is better!

I don't agree. As a pilot of a high performance jet I would prefer to be following ATC instructions when in IMC - not be forced to become my own air:ouch: traffic controller and arrange separation with no prescibed standard from up to 3 or 4 other aircraft .

I am not suggesting we put every IFR approach in a minimum of class E. Why not try it at a few locations? We would soon find out if lots more staff are needed and also see what delays occur.

From my experience of studying airspace systems throughout the world the FAA system is the best. Over 50% of their instrument approaches have the IAF below radar coverage yet delays are no different than in Aus from my experience.

[Dick Smith]

Missy. Why wouldn't Civil air support a system where skilled and trained controllors keep aircraft in IMC apart?

They provide a separation service en route where risks are clearly lower and then hand over to the air crew in the terminal area where the risks are higher.

A rediculous system that only exists because we have never moved properly ahead from the old Flight Service days.

And that's why I am so vitally interested- I can't believe resistance to change has resulted in a half baked system for the last 20 years.

[buckshot1777]

If you are in VMC you cancel IFR Do any airlines currently permit flights to cancel IFR?


If we upgrade to class E
VFR:
Continuous 2 way communications required.
Transponder required.
Many sport aviation types as well as gliders have exemptions from both to operate in Class E. They have done for many years, and regularly operate in Class E.

Presumably ATC would have no awareness of such aircraft, if they can't see them and/or can't talk to them.

If these exemptions are going to be pulled, the SAAA/RAA etc. might have something to say.

[LeadSled]

If these exemptions are going to be pulled, the SAAA/RAA etc. might have something to say. Buckshot,
Not quite certain what SAAA "exemptions" you are talking about, as far as equipment and pilot qualifications are concerned, (SAAA is not a self administrative body) and a power source, normal GA rules apply to VH- Experimental and the like.

As for RAOz, if the aircraft has the equipment and the pilot has a current PPL, normal GA rules apply. The number of powered aircraft that do not have a power source is tiny.

I am not certain where the program is at, but for years RAOz has been negotiating with CASA for a "Controlled Airspace" training module for Pilot Certificate holders, so, with that in place, there will be no need for "general" exemptions for RAOz.

There are one of more localities, where special procedures have been put in place for RAOz aircraft, Cambridge comes to mind, but that is a different issue, and the problem will go away with CTL Airspace rights attached to an RAOz Pilot Certificate.

The glider "exemption" is a different issue, as they do not have the power supply to run a conventional transponder, carrying enough batteries for a long flight would be weight prohibitive. In any event, multiple separation assurance studies, over many years, shows that the likelihood of a collision between a glider and a powered aircraft is vanishingly small. Hangliders likewise do not have a power source for a transponder.

The immediately above comment actually applies to all aircraft, once you get away from the circuit area of an airfield, the place (obviously --- but not obvious to some) where a collision is most likely.

The Australian requirement for a Mode C transponder in E below 10,000 never had anything to do with collision risk probability, and risk reduction.

It was a sop to those vehemently opposing the introduction of Class E airspace. At the time, it was believed that the majority of aircraft likely to operate in E above 8500 would already have a Mode C transponder, so the compliance cost of making such mandatory in E was minimal.

The one obsession for which there has so far been no cure is the Australian obsession for "fly-by mouth", once your lips stop flapping, the aeroplane quits flying.

Keep your eyes out the window, folks.

Tootle pip!!

[Keith Myath]

Many sport aviation types as well as gliders have exemptions from both to operate in Class E. They have done for many years, and regularly operate in Class E.

Presumably ATC would have no awareness of such aircraft, if they can't see them and/or can't talk to them.

If the airspace is upgraded to E because of increasing pax movements / traffic density, then why should ultralight aircraft have exemptions from complying with the requirements of class E airspace (in particular radio / transponder fitment). There is plenty of class G airspace in Australia, and LSA / Gliders can go no radio, no transponder, no SAR till their hearts content. But there is NO place for LSA no radio / no transponder aircraft at aerodromes like Ballina with multiple Jet movements.

If these exemptions are going to be pulled, the SAAA/RAA etc. might have something to say.

They can say all they like, perhaps they could start with why they think it is ok to operate in the same airspace as multiple high capacity jets (as is the case in the Ballina area) with no radio and no transponder.

[tyler_durden_80]

Hi Dick,

In my experience, lowering the base of class 'E' 4000ft will provide zero benefit to IFR aircraft, it will in fact restrict the options available to you...if you are IFR in IMC, you will get no extra benefit if class E is below the grid LSALT. sure you will be in 'controlled' airspace lower, and separated from other IFR 4000ft sooner, but If you are not visual I will not (prohibited in Mats) clear you off a published ATS route. That means no deviations off the published route until OCTA or above the LSALT. Think about the potential complications involved with that. Expecting Amended route clearances prior to departure, a useless MSA, and no movement to position until below A045.

For multiple IFR arrivals, 4000ft will not increase your safety, it will unnecessarily complicate it.

[missy]

Missy. Why wouldn't Civil air support a system where skilled and trained controllors keep aircraft in IMC apart?


I'm guessing that Civil Air would support such a system with more than a few caveats.

[triadic]

This talk of Class E down to 5000 ft is not in accordance with present policy. The base of all Class E in Oz is VFR level, so it is more likely to be A045 or lower.

[The name is Porter]

Missy. Why wouldn't Civil air support a system where skilled and trained controllors keep aircraft in IMC apart?

Dick, got a couple of controller mates. They couldn't give a rats arse if they're controlling aircraft to the ground. What they care about:

They receive the proper training to conduct an approach service.
They have the correct staffing to provide this service.
They have the correct sized sectors to provide this service.

What they are keen for you to understand is, if there's not a tower at the aerodromes they're controlling to the ground, it's one in, one out. Or one in while the next in line holds whilst a possible missed approach is protected.

What my mates would be interested to hear is how this would affect the REX, QLink, Wagga Air, REX Training College & itinerant aircraft at Wagga Wagga. They say it is pretty busy there & they'd like to hear from the pilots involved.

[CaptainMidnight]

Ask your mates what class of controlled airspace they'd want.

Would they be happy with non-surveillance Class E?

[Dick Smith]

Porter. That is simply not true.

In practice procedural Class E in the USA in the terminal area in IMC is hardly any different to what pilots do in our present system in G.

Have you ever stood behind a controllor in the US who is doing procedural terminal Class E ? I would doubt it from what you say.

Captain Yes. If we are going to introduce some low level terminal class E we will need to copy the most evolved system in the world.. Otherwise it will fail,

Yes. I would be happy with procedural class E. Especially considering it brings in mandatory transponder requirements for all aircraft.

[The name is Porter]

Captain, they said they'll work whatever airspace that's mandated, they said it's not their place to implement airspace classes and that it comes back to the proper training (procedural approach in this case).

[The name is Porter]

Dick, what's the point of mandatory transponder in procedural approach? It's procedural because there's no radar. Is the mandatory transponder for the TCAS RA's?

[tyler_durden_80]

Hi Dick

Procedural class E would be horribly restrictive to IFR aircraft, and the extra 4000ft of class E would provide no safety benefit whatsoever. Have you considered the potential restrictions placed upon IFR aircraft in poor weather? For example...

You are in the lowered CTA (say base of CTA A045), in IMC, below the grid lowest safe (say A066), and require left of track due weather. As an enroute controller I can not, and I will not clear you to deviate. What do you do?

Now, throw in another IFR aircraft, that I am separating you from (class E remember) who is inbound at A080, pushing for further descent, and wanting to deviate in the same direction that you do. And this is with horribly restrictive procedural standards remember?...Fast running out of options here.


Or it could stay class G, you can move as you wish, and receive detailed traffic advice and 'suggested' options if you ask for them.

Radar class E at Williamtown was implemented after a CASA mandate, and the net gain to safety was zero. However; Increased complications for IFR aircraft? Check. CTA below GRID LSALT and enroute ATC not having the training and authority to use the full range of tools available? Check. More restrictive to RPT? Check. Complicated ATC procedures where the rules specified in Mats are at best contradictory? Check. Increased risk to all concerned? Check.

Im all for discussion on improving in the current setup, but lowering class E is not a good answer to anything, especially below LSALT. Having some aircraft in CTA recieving an ATC service mixing it with VFR's who are doing as they wish is not safer for anyone concerned. But that's just my opinion.

[sunnySA]

So we are planning to change airspace.

Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2015 as signed by one Warren Truss, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development is the reference document. Signed 8th of July 2015.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/aaps/files/Australian_Airspace_Policy_Statement_2015.pdf

Process for Changing the Classification of a Volume of Airspace at an Aerodrome
To help determine when changes to airspace classification may be required in the airspace immediately around an aerodrome, (referred to as the control zone at a controlled aerodrome) the following criteria will be used: annual passenger transport operations (PTO) aircraft movements, the annual number of passengers and total annual aircraft movements (see Table 1).

Class B 1/ 750,000 2/250,000 3/25 million

Class C 1/400,000 2/30,000 3/1 million

Class D 1/80,000 2/15,000 3/350,000

1/Total annual aircraft movements
2/Total annual PTO aircraft movements
3/Total annual PTO passengers

Process for Applying the Criteria
18 When annual traffic levels at an aerodrome meet a threshold of any one of the criteria CASA should complete an aeronautical risk review in consultation with the public, industry and other government agencies, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
19 CASA will then make a determination to change the classification of airspace if necessary.
20 If annual traffic levels at an aerodrome fall below all three thresholds for its current classification, CASA should complete a similar risk review to determine whether a lower classification of airspace is appropriate, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
21 If CASA has completed an aeronautical risk review in the previous year then it may choose to update that existing review if an aerodrome were to meet or fall below the threshold levels in the following year.
22 While the criteria provide a good indicator of likely airspace classification, CASA will be able to consider public, industry and agency comments, forecast future traffic levels and any significant risk mitigators already in place or planned at the location, before finalising an airspace determination.
23 This process will be undertaken by CASA in close consultation with Airservices, given that agency’s responsibility for the introduction of new or changed air traffic services and facilities arising from such CASA determinations.
24 Notwithstanding the above, these criteria do not preclude CASA examining the requirement for airspace changes at other aerodrome locations should CASA consider such examination is required, for example, on risk or safety grounds.

Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace
25 CASA’s risk review process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated.
26 The process for change will commence with CASA or a proponent identifying the volumes of airspace to be reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007; and be accompanied by comprehensive supporting evidence for the proposed change.
27 The review process will then lead to the completion of a risk assessment of the particular volume of airspace under review.
28 The risk assessment should take into account the types of aircraft involved, the density of air traffic, the meteorological conditions, topography and such other factors as may be relevant.
29 On completion of the risk assessment process, CASA shall outline its proposals on the overall safety requirement for a particular airspace classification or designation.
30 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals.
31 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
32 Following a decision to change the class of a volume of airspace (a determination), that change must be formalised as a legislative instrument, endorsed by the airspace delegate, and published on FRLI. After a change has been registered on the FRLI, it can then take effect on, or after, the day on which the determination is published in the AIP or when notified by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Designations of Prohibited, Restricted and Danger Areas may be published in the AIP or notified by a NOTAM subject to the requirements of the Airspace Regulations 2007.
33 There may be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative and it may not be practicable to comply with parts of this process.

Regional Aerodromes
40 The Government is committed to ensuring that effective ATM infrastructure and systems are used to protect and enhance air safety, with ATM services being extended to more regional areas as appropriate, where there has been or is likely to be growing passenger transport services.
41 CASA should ensure that appropriate airspace arrangements are in place at all aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services which respond to changes in aviation activity over time such as changes in traffic density, the mix of aircraft types and increases in passenger transport services.

The process for change will commence with ... a proponent (Dick Smith) identifying the volumes of airspace to be reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007; and be accompanied by comprehensive supporting evidence for the proposed change.

Section 13 Regular reviews
Classifications of volumes of Australian‑administered airspace
(1) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of the existing classifications of volumes of Australian‑administered airspace in order to determine whether those classifications are appropriate.
Services and facilities
(2) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of the existing services and facilities provided by the providers of air navigation services in relation to particular volumes of Australian‑administered airspace in order to determine whether those services and facilities are appropriate.
General
(3) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of Australian‑administered airspace generally in order to identify risk factors and to determine whether there is safe and efficient use of that airspace and equitable access to that airspace for all users of that airspace.

As an aside, why isn't Sydney CTA/CTR Class B?

[Quoll]

Dick. You say;
n practice procedural Class E in the USA in the terminal area in IMC is hardly any different to wat pilots do in our present system in G.

This is exactly what experts have been trying to explain to you.

It follows then, practically speaking, what are you achieving with changing G (uncontrolled) to E (half controlled IFR only) over Ballina?

The only practical change will be ATC having to Procedurally Separate IFR's where they currently safely segregate themselves.

Is there safety data that says this needs to change? If so , why only Ballina?

Quite separate from the IFR separation question, ATC monitored terrain protection (Pilot Deviation from ATC clearances) is NOT available without low altitude surveillance, which as you know does not currently exist over Ballina (and many like type airports elsewhere).

I ask again therefore, do you want the installation of Radar, Multilat, or an ADS-B mandate for IFR (and VFR for traffic information purposes) over Ballina (and like type Airports)?

In VMC (visual) with VFR aircraft floating about in Class E, it follows (as you said) that it is 'Hardly any different to wat pilots do in our present system in G'

Given surveillance does not exist below 5,000ft at Ballina, and VFR (transponders ON or not) are invisible to ATC (and IFR Pilots if the VFR is not transponder equipped or simply forgot to turn it on which is common). What benefit is derived from changing from G to E in an IFR verses VFR conflict context?

IF all you are trying to change is IFR Self-segregation in G to ATC provided Procedural E separation, is the cost of establishing remote ATC Procedural Separation services at Ballina (a One in - One out - effectively a 10 mins apart service) a measurable cost increase that addresses an identified safety problem that requires change?

Perhaps you are arriving at the same conclusion as others have been trying to explain to you.

Regards

Q

[sunnySA]

Most recent Ballina study
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100198/aeronautical_study_ballina2013.pdf

From the report
The Ballina Byron Gateway Airport operator recorded an annual total of 343,581 passenger movements for the 12 month period ending 24 November 2012.
Airservices Australia (Airservices) data indicates that in the twelve months to December 2012, there were a total of 15,037 aircraft movements.

Just under the 350,000 for the establishment of a Class D Tower. Given that some 30 months has elapsed since the last review then it is probable that the trigger has been well and truly reached.

Based on the numbers, control tower for Ballina?

[tyler_durden_80]

Hi Dick

The recent accident between an F16 and a Cessna 150 in the U.S highlights why the class E concept is flawed, and at the very basic level, unsafe. It appears that the F16 was operating with a clearance in class E, and the C150 VFR in class E (from my understanding anyway).

Pages 2 and 3 of this discussion make for very interesting reading, particularly about U.S airspace concepts, and it's shortcomings, by those who fly in, and control it.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/564193-f-16-cessna-midair-south-carolina-usa.html

I sit at the console every day and shake my head at some of the things I see in class E, and I hear the frustration in RPT pilots voices when I advise them of unidentifed VFR aircraft in close proximity, intentions unknown...

You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both.

[buckshot1777]

According to that updated policy statement "Table 1. Airspace Criteria Thresholds" it looks like the criteria for a TWR now covers PTO pax numbers, not simply aircraft movements. Maybe I've missed something in recent years.

Based on the numbers, control tower for Ballina? That'll please the locals. Things won't be quite so free and flexible, with ATC in attendance and obliged to provide separation.

If other places are any indication, it will cost quite a few million $ to put a TWR in ($M10?) and a few million per year to run, and the costs passed onto the users and pax.

Fortunately Clause 22 of the policy statement gives CASA an out.

[Captain Nomad]

tyler durdan and Quoll - I like your line of reasoning. This pretty much sums it up:

[QUOTE][/You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both. QUOTE]

Class E has always been a half-baked solution which frustrates a lot of IFR pilots while pretty much allowing VFR to do as they please in areas where they probably shouldn't be doing as they please...

[7478ti]

This entire discussion is amazing. It points out the folly (and unnecessary extreme complexity) of our current CNS/ATM system globally. All to just get from A to B, or from A back to A, while keeping Vehicle 1 from hitting Vehicle 2, or from any vehicles trying to occupying the same space on a runway at the same time, whether in IMC, or VMC, or unknown MC (e.g., at night or between cloud).

If Wilbur and Orville (or Pearce, Whitehead, or Clement Ader) had to deal with all this, ...things like ICAO and various state versions of Class A, B,C,D, E, (F), and G airspace, and an inch thick set of airspace rules, they likely might have decided to never invent the airplane in the first place!

The bottom line is that this entire discussion points out the serious need for all of us, globally, to re-rethink what we're doing, and how, and why, with separating air vehicles, and with coping with all-weather operations at a more fundamental level. Just with Class E alone, there are pages and pages of pros and cons that will never be definitively resolved.

So while there may be some very useful ideas, in what Australia has contributed (e.g., FANS and a simple version of ADS-B), and some useful ideas from the US (e.g., TCAS, RNP, GLS, and early data links), and useful ideas from Scandinavia (remotely operated facilities), ...it is time to fundamentally re-baseline all this ATS evolution globally, recognizing that no one country or system, especially not the US ATS system, has a corner on the market of good ideas, or for that matter, on weaknesses. Both NextGen, as well as PresentGen, need massive attention, review, and evolution, as does SESAR, before any of these should be considered as any model for any other state.

[triadic]

On average it takes SEVEN years to process a change thru ICAO, with only one change in recent times going thru in about 3 or so.

The mass of the ATC system in North America and Europe would make even discussion on major change very difficult, especially if they don't see a problem.

A risk assessment on a major change might probably conclude that the risks involved in the change alone are not worth the change? As a result any changes would have to be piecemeal and as a result would take a lifetime.

Like it or not the menu of airspace classes is what we have and from an Oz point of view that is the choice, with only perhaps minor procedural changes etc.

[Capn Bloggs]

Like it or not the menu of airspace classes is what we have and from an Oz point of view that is the choice
In that case rebrand our G to F. That's what it really is. It would also put back in their box those herring-merchants that to feed to the naïve press that we, shock, horror, have that terrible USA Class G.

[FL400]

Not providing surveillance approach is unsafe...
Procedural practices are unsafe...
Non surveillance Class E is fine...
Procedural Class E terminal areas are efficient and safe...
We need more surveillance...
I'm not fitting my aircraft with ADS-B but I want to operate in perfectly safe (or was it unsafe?) non surveillance airspace...
Controllers are blocking change...
Pilots don't know what's good for them...

And all fought through the media. Right so we're doing this again, are we? =/

[sunnySA]

Controllers are blocking change...

I don't think so, they need the appropriate resources to do the task, appropriate sector volumes, frequencies, surveillance (radar or ADSB), fit for purpose procedures, training to name a few.

[Dick Smith]

Re tread. Class E terminal airspace does not require radar. Many hundreds of non tower airports in the USA have E to 700 agl and no survailance below the IAF.

It works superbly so why not at Ballina.

Just have to train the en route controllers to do approach work like they do all across the USA

[le Pingouin]

That's quite a big "just" Dick. There are quite a few more "justs" along the way......

Our sectors and controller numbers are arranged to provide "just" the service we do. We'll "just" have to simulate the extra workload and "just" have to simulate new sector boundaries before we "just " train controllers and "just" recruit and "just" train the extras required.

We "just" need the resources to do it. We don't have any extra space to "just" open however many new sectors it will require.

Anyone who tells you that separating traffic is easier than "just" giving traffic is blowing smoke, has never worked procedural airspace or you're "just" hearing what you want to. Most of the time giving traffic is far easier when there's no surveillance coverage - you give the traffic and that's it because you can't see anything else.

[Dick Smith]

Ok ok. You win.

There is simply no way of even trialling class E terminal airspace using en route controllers as they do in other leading aviation countries.

Just give traffic info and let us pilots do the air traffic " control " function as we fly around in IMC in the terminal area.

Dumb me. I thought controllors were trained to " control " aircraft and seeing that the risk is higher in the terminal area I thought that's where the service would be provided.

[le Pingouin]

You're the one who said it was "just" a matter of training the en-route controllers. As we keep telling you "just" give us the resources.

[Pavement]

Dick,
I actually support more E instead of G. However, as others were saying, its not just a matter of flicking a switch. Most enroute controllers have not had the training to provide services in terminal areas. Doesnt sound much but the effect of terrain on control practices is significant. There are also other things which have to be done (short list):
- safety analysis: CASA requires this and its not a quick process
- data changes: modern ATC systems need a lot of data defined
- procedures: how aircraft are processed between groups takes some work to define
All up, and speaking for myself, I will work whatever the aviation community wants. If you/they want G or E or anything else then my job is to provide the service. Just dont expect change to happen overnight.

[awqward]

I fly my Mooney IFR in Europe all the time....and in rented aircraft in the USA....France especially is similar to the US with Class E....it all works fine with Nice Approach.... I fly into Cannes often and am mixing it in Class D and E with all types of traffic...airlines, bizjets, helis, VFR fixed wing....same with flying in the LA basin, or Houston or Tampa...

What stunned me last time I flew in Perth was that VFR was not allowed in Perth Class C airspace (which is bigger than some European countries!)...except some tourist sightseeing routes....unbelievable....I'm sometimes embarrassed at the ridiculous restrictions to flying in Australia....although the U.S. has a great system, they also have an American can-do culture to go with it....it seems you cannot transplant US airspace into Australia without transplanting American culture...not going to happen....Aussies love regulation....look at the AIP...unbelievably all regulations start with an explanation of penalties and strict liability....only Australians would think that is OK...years ago I went to a talk in Perth by John and Martha King describing the U.S. NAS....they were equally baffled by the negative sentiment in the room... Plus ca change...

[LeadSled]

awqward,
But--- the our local experts ( think Captain Bloggs) despite their nil experience in the area, will tell you E doesn't work -yadda yadda yadda --- you are certainly right about the "cultural" aspect, in Australian aviation the "Can't do" culture is not confined to Can'tberra.

As you have found out the hard way, first come, first served doesn't hack it here. We do not even have (legally) public use airports, there are plenty of examples of where particular types or sizes of aircraft are excluded from what, on the surface, appear to be public airports.

VFR is assumed to be Blundering Bug Smashers, Weekend Warriors, and generally the ill/un-trained, the blind, deaf and generally incompetent, even if the VFR PIC has 20-30,000 hours in somewhat larger aircraft. After all, if they were real pilots, they would be IFR. I just love hearing Oh! so forceful regional F/Os presuming to tell me where and how to fly my VFR aeroplane, automatically assuming, being VFR, that I am a pratt or a dunce, and probably both, and undoubtedly a threat to air safety --- and their schedules, because "they are RPT, they have priority", which they do not!

Tootle pip!!

[peuce]

awqward, Leadsled et al,

First, yes, I agree, I think we are quite over-regulated here. That's the way it's developed over many years and many Governments. To claw it all back would be a tremendous challenge.....for any Government and for any Administrators. imagine the change in thinking required for that????

Secondly, I think you continue to miss the point on this Class E airspace discussion. As most Controllers (and aerodrome operators) on here keep saying...they'll service what ever airspace is decreed....given the appropriate preparation time, the appropriate rules, the appropriate training, the appropriate surveillance and the appropriate resources.

The question is....can that happen in Australia?

We have finite money (unless the airlines have a bottomless pit) and we have finite suitable ATC applicants...but a bloody great big airspace to manage.

Yes, wouldn't it be nice to be like Europe and the USA? However, the reality is...we just can't afford it, in so many ways. Therefore we have to compromise...and make do with a system that we can, just, afford. It's not the most efficient and it's probably not the safest...but it's the best we can do with our money and resources.

Unless Dick has a magical way of paying for the extra Controllers, extra equipment and the extra Unicoms...we are stuck with what we have...unless we hit the flying public in the pocket. That would be a very tight balancing act indeed....

[Capn Bloggs]

So Capt Bloggs Sen in his A380 now has to contend with "get out of my way" Aqwod and Lidslid as they wander around in their VFR-exempt Class E...

in Australian aviation the "Can't do" culture is not confined to Can'tberra.
Yep, give me self-managed Class F anytime. "Can't Do" indeed.

there are plenty of examples of where particular types or sizes of aircraft are excluded from what, on the surface, appear to be public airports.
Do pray tell, what are they?

[IlovePilots]

Dick....no one is debating the shocking situation that exists in australian airspace. The question is, if you are so concerned about the latent risks of RPT IFR traffic leaving CAS at 8500ft, why are you NOT concerned about the equally high risks of the same traffic flying around Class E with uncontrolled VFR traffic?

Class D towers...into Class C extended steps..into Class A air routes/TMA. Problem solved.

Goodnight.

[Hempy]

Old mate Dick. You can thank him for this sh1tfight...

Well done mate. You wanted it, now own it :yuk:

[LeadSled]

Do pray tell, what are they?

ERSA is a good place to start.
In some cases the exclusion is explicit, no non-VH, no private category, or effective exclusion by making minimum charges the equivalent of, say, a B-717.
In one case, it is RPT only.
And, before you jump in, I am not talking about Class C/D airspace airfields where certain pilot categories would be excluded by regulation.
Tootle pip!!

[topdrop]

on the surface, appear to be public airports
So if they are not public and listed in ERSA with the conditions, what is your problem with the owner limiting who uses their airfield?

[Capn Bloggs]

ERSA is a good place to start.

Typical. You're making the claim, you justify it!

While you're at it, show us the costs of terminal Class E in the regions. You want it; how much is it going to cost?

[nafai]

Who was it, or atleast has been attributed to without a refute I can find, that pushed the concept of 'affordable safety' in Australian airspace a few years ago?

[LeadSled]

Class D towers...into Class C extended steps..into Class A air routes/TMA. Problem solved.Love, old mate, fantastic, why didn't somebody else thing of that??

Oh!, they did --- the good old Australian trick of having the CNS/ATM services available that are inversely proportional to the risk ---- or if that is too difficult a concept for you, as the risk diminishes, you increase the restrictions.

Ever heard of risk management, or do you prefer absolute safety??

Ask nafai, he probably prefers unaffordable safety, instead of affordable safety ---- we already have enough CASA unaffordable safety to go around, isn't aviation so obviously thriving on CASA unaffordable safety. Clearly, the more unaffordable aviation safety becomes, the more aviation will boom ??? If some of your are to be believed.

Tootle pip!!

topdrop,
Go back and read what I actually wrote, I did not refer to airfields that were not nominally public use.

[IlovePilots]

Leadsled...

Being a controller, I am interested in absolute saftey. It may suprise you to know that it's my main job description. Shocking I know! Or is that too difficult a concept for you too? I'm pretty sure most of the flying public feel the same way.

Toodle pip 'ol boy.

[Lead Balloon]

So who do you reckon is the more delusional?

Members of the public who think there is such a thing as absolute safety in aviation, or an ATC who thinks they can deliver it.

Affordable safety is not a "concept". It's reality.

That's why the response to the Germanwings tragedy was not a requirement for a third pilot to be available on every flight, in case one of the other 2 has to leave the cockpit to use the toilet.

[tyler_durden_80]

I have this absolutely revolutionary concept for airspace design...

Wait for it...

Controlled airspace, and uncontrolled airspace.

Yep. That's it. If you want to come into controlled airspace, no problems, but you need to file a flight plan, and you are subject to a clearance, and separation. No avcharges for VFR, but if controller workload is too high, clearance not available.

No more of this dodgy class 'E' where my RPT DH8-400, with 70 odd people on board, cruising along at 240kts IAS (but grounding 350kts-ish), supposedly subject to a clearance and separation, but also subject to 'see and avoid' with unknown VFR traffic. None of those dodgy class 'E' procedures (IFR pickup etc). Or at least class D as a compromise, where VFR traffic mixing it with aircraft subject to a separation service is known VFR traffic...

Standing by for incoming....:ouch::E

[LeadSled]

Shocking I know! Or is that too difficult a concept for you too? I'm pretty sure most of the flying public feel the same way. Lover,
I understand "absolute safety" all too well, as a completely unobtainable target, and a totally useless concept in any operational planning, and has no place in rational management.

But, of course, CNS/ATM in Australia has never been rational, nor has the general AsA approach -- or what are just deliberate misconceptions of the possible pumped out to the public by aviation bureaucracies, as to what is achievable.

I recall a so called study, some years ago, conducted by AsA, that found the controller error rate was less than one in 10 to the minus 7, but for professional pilots executing an ATC instruction, the error rate was between 1:1 and 1:2, that is, between 100% and 50% of the time a pilot got a clearance wrong or "procedure" wrong.

It was the AsA people (now retired, I just noticed) who put the study together that were 100% wrong. But, obviously, they believed they had proved that Australia had the worlds most perfect (beyond competent) controllers, and the world's most incompetent pilots --- and it didn't raise a flag??

This was the same mob that put together a US collision risk study that completely neglected the fact that most of the US mid-west is around 5000' or so ft. AMSL ---- all the collisions cited were in circuits, not en-route.

There are parts of the AsA SMS policy that are just daft, not merely conceptual nonsense.

Tootle pip!!

[awqward]

Tyler, by "file a flight plan" do you mean a NAIPS electronic FP done before the flight? What is the problem with requesting a VFR clearance a few miles outside? Seems very unpopular in Australia....but is the norm in more advanced aviation countries...in fact even if you had filed a VFR flight plan it is unlikely the controller would even have seen it....

[le Pingouin]

Unlike many places overseas we don't have paper strips any more so have to manually create an electronic flight data record if we don't have access to a filed flight plan. While it's not difficult it takes more time than grabbing a strip and quickly scribbling some brief details on it - there are quite a few compulsory fields to fill before the system will accept it.

If you happen to strike us when we're busy with something else more important you'll likely get told to remain OCTA until we can spare a minute to create the plan. If you do file one we won't get a copy unless you plan to enter CTA in the first place.

Stop being a plonka with the "more advanced" crap - different systems have different requirements. Get over it. It's very easy to be flexible with a "dirt track" 1930s pen and paper system as you can write what you want where you want. Not so easy with an electronic one that requires things done just so.

[awqward]

I didn't say "more advanced systems" ... I said "more advanced aviation countries"...

[awqward]

I didn't say "more advanced systems" ... I said "more advanced aviation countries"... For example Aberdeen has a lot more movements than Perth...and they use electronic strips...but don't refuse VFR flights...not to mention the Class B airspace over Houston or LA... They seem to just deal with it.... Just calling it as I see it from the cockpit...IFR and VFR...

Correction: EGPD has ca.125,000 movements vs YPPH at 145,000...

[le Pingouin]

The "more advanced aviation country" is most likely using the 1930s dirt track pen and paper system which is more flexible for handling pop-up flighplans. You're still being a plonka. Maybe Aberdeen allows a flight data record to be created with far less input? Does it really matter? Ask a bit earlier if you think you're going to be delayed.

Get over comparing different places - it's apples and oranges. Have you compared the workload per controller, sector sizes, complexity, different systems, yadda, yadda, yadda?

I don't moan and bitch about someone in their 172 being unable to do everything a 737 can do - because they're different.

And Aberdeen has a lot more movements does it? I don't think so.

[awqward]

I have visited ATC at Aberdeen.... Not just the tower, but the room full of controllers below....not a paper strip in sight...all electronic flight strips...

My question is why Perth not only has difficulty with pop up requests, but the AIP actually disallows VFR transits except a few tourist routes that do not actually allow a complete transit? The traffic volumes are similar....

[le Pingouin]

Maybe the "room full of controllers" is a bit of a hint? Maybe we're making do with fewer resources. Maybe it's a similar question to why can't your 172 indicate 300 knots? I don't work Perth and have never been to Aberdeen so can't say.

[awqward]

Fair enough.... Maybe they need more resources....

I don't have a 172 but I can fly my Mooney at 140-150 kts down the ILS if asked to keep up speed on the ILS with an A320 behind me! 😀

[The name is Porter]

awqward, there is a massive lack of service to VFR's in this country, most of it is due to an ingrained culture within ASA and training officers teaching ATC trainees to do so, regardless of whether there is a plan in the system or not.

There is a 'they donot pay for a service so why should we provide one' attitude. Ignorant & wrong, they do pay whether they use a service or not. It's embarrassing to fly in the States and realise just how backward, beaurecratic & lazy the Australian system & culture is. It wouldn't be tolerated over there.

Having said that, ATC is massively under resourced in this country, by the numbers Australian controllers control more traffic than most, some sector sizes are huge, done by one person with no inky. They do, at times get pretty busy.

[awqward]

Fair enough.... And for the record I am not having a go at controllers.... I have never met or spoken to one I didn't like and have great respect for the job they do...

[Jedman]

The more advanced aviation country:

Why 40-Year-Old Tech Is Still Running America's Air Traffic Control | WIRED (http://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/)

[Jedman]

Porter, my dear chap, ATC apply AIP mandated priority.

[awqward]

As previously explained...I was not comparing computer systems....maybe Australia has 90s technology compared to 80s technology....so what? Especially if it apparently requires so much effort to enter a pop-up...In the US they seem to have enough resources and more importantly to me a political mandate to cater for ALL traffic...

[The name is Porter]

Jedman, old fruit, I know they do. Sometimes it is used as an excuse, sometimes they are busy.

[Pera]

Porter, my dear chap, ATC apply AIP mandated priority.

Where does it state VFR have less priority? Real question!

[awqward]

The FAC for YPPH for a start:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/FAC_YPPH_28-May-2015.pdf

Flight Procedures, point 4....

[Awol57]

Capital city priorities are ENR 1.4-18.

Not sure if that's what he was referring to or not.