Australian Class E article – the full text

[Dick Smith]

In The Australian newspaper this morning my article headed ‘Controlled Airspace Remains under a Cloud’ was edited due to space limitations.

Here is the full version:

http://rosiereunion.com/file/25yearsintheaviationhallofdoom.pdf

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Once they edited all the bs out of that, it obviously only needed a little bit of space.

[wishiwasupthere]

Haha. Good one Dick! Happy April Fools.

[Capn Bloggs]

so aircraft in cloud were directed by controllers and kept apart using a proven safety standard
What's the "proven safety standard" between VFR and IFR in Class E? Less than 1nm and less than 200ft? :rolleyes:

[Dick Smith]

If you are in IMC there is a full ICAO safe separation standard. When IMC exists it's equivalent to class A airspace.

If you are in VMC it's the existing system we have proven over 50 years plus the important safety feature of a zero extra cost NAS type Unicom that at a minimum confirms your radio is on the correct frequency and working correctly to increase the chance of alerted see and avoid working.

Bloggs you appear to be one of those pilots who is convinced you are superior and won't make errors similar to those that happened at Benalla that killed everyone on board.

And no doubt you would never dial up the wrong frequency!

We are not all as " top gun" as you believe you are.

[Capn Bloggs]

If you are in VMC it's the existing system we have proven over 50 years plus the important safety feature of a zero extra cost NAS type Unicom that at a minimum confirms your radio is on the correct frequency and working correctly to increase the chance of alerted see and avoid working.
Say what??

The "existing proven" (1950s) system had BOTH aircraft on freq talking to one another so that the didn't hit each other. That is NOT what your famed Class E is all about. To plagiarise, "The Launy pilot wasn't as "top gun" as he believed he was...." The lowest common denominator now has total control over the outcome of a conflict with an 100+ pax jet. In your words, "rediculous".

I said a few days ago: there was a third-party at Launy: it was the tower! But the VFR decided not to use it.

On to the unicoms: you demolished a quite satisfactory third-party radio system at our busy airports on the premise that we'd all jump at the chance of follow-me girls giving us amateur ATC. Fail.

You if want Class E, where's your cost-benefit analysis (don't forget to include the cost of transponders for VFR). Do we have traffic lights at every intersection? Do we all drive around at 50kph on the freeway because someone exceeded their capabilities and pranged, killing others? Aviation is not a risk-free activity. On the one hand you're quite happy to allow a bugsmasher to wiz past a 737 unannounced but on the other, demand full ATC to the ground all over the country just because a GPS system went haywire and caused a single-aircraft accident. It's irrational.

[Capn Bloggs]

You if want Class E, where's your cost-benefit analysis
Come on, Dick, let's have it! This issue has been festering, and you have been asked, for years. Surely you have your numbers in a row by now??

[Howabout]

Precisely, Bloggs,

As both of us have said, repeatedly, positive change comes down to credible cost/benefit and risk analyses.

Otherwise, change is at the mercy of inordinate influence on dumb pollies, 'my opinion,' and 'I want.'

I am sure you will agree!!!

Dick, if you could just put the effort you pointlessly expend into crunching the numbers, as opposed to countless words based solely on opinion, you might get somewhere!

Regardless of my previous, I intuitively feel that you may have a case. But intuition just doesn't wash.

Haven't you learned anything from the division in the industry caused by several of your 'airspace initiatives?'

Give people a credible, facts-based argument, underpinned by credible cost/benefit and risk analyses, and you've got a good chance of gaining broad support and bringing people along.

IMHO, your accusations as regards 'intransigence' just don't fly when it comes to 'airspace reform.' It was all 'I want, foot stamping stuff.' And you seem to have not changed.

People will listen to cogent analyses in this industry, Dick. Not opinion nor 'I want.'

[LeadSled]

Dick, if you could just put the effort you pointlessly expend into crunching the numbers, as opposed to countless words based solely on opinion, you might get somewhere!

Regardless of my previous, I intuitively feel that you may have a case. But intuition just doesn't wash.Howabout et all,
It was all done, long ago, for NAS, particularly the NAS 2b part of the plan, and all in accordance with ICAO SARPs and standards for risk analysis, both ICAO and AS/NZS.

It was/is the biggest risk analysis exercise conducted in Australian aviation history. Indeed, no changes before or since have been as extensively canvasses and consulted as the then Government's NAS policy and implementation program.

As we see here, more or less the same people opposed change in general, and in airspace management arrangements in particular then, as oppose change now.

Contrary to continual claims on pprune, the "roll back" after 12 months of successful operation had nothing to do with any general problems in the trial period, which were minimal by any measure. or the Launceston incident, (and another broadly similar north of Brisbane) no matter how sincerely some of you believe this to be the case. It was "industrial", not operational.

Mick Toller was spot on when he described Australia as: "An aviation Galapagos, where all sorts of strange mutations have developed in splendid isolation from the rest of the aviation world".

Tootle pip!!

[le Pingouin]

Industrial was it? I'd call the whole thing political and foot stamping from the start. It's still going on.

[Howabout]

Leady,

As much as I respect your views and experience, the NAS 2b Safety Case was 'implementation-based,' not 'system-based.'

This has been argued to death in respect of 2b.

The transposition of the American model to Australia did not fit a 'like for like' argument in respect of radar coverage, frequency access, sector size, controllers 'per-capita,' etc, etc. It was just not 'like for like' as regards fundamental ICAO requirements when it comes to importing another system and relying solely on an 'Implementation Safety Case.'

Given the glaring anomalies, a 'System Safety Case' should have been mandatory to comply with your beloved ICAO SARPS.

The 'Implementation Safety Case' was an attempted short-cut that did not take account of inherent system differences. It was nothing more than an attempt to 'pull the wool' and ram through a flawed agenda when a few zealots thought they had the political momentum.

Had a 'System Safety Case' been done, you'd have got a lot further old fruit!

[Dick Smith]

A number of Aussie ATCs have told me that at some airports they could provide a class E separation service at no extra cost.

Six deaths at Benalla and you say the existing system is ok?

What's the problem with doing a trial at just one airport ?

A single pilot high performance charter aircraft on approach being given traffic on three other IFR aircraft in IMC is certainly a very high workload situation. Then the separation has to be organised by the individual pilots with no prescribed separation standard.

What's wrong with highly skilled Controllers actually " controlling " airline aircraft "

Some sectors I fly in are so quite I have to sometimes give a call to ATC to check my radio is still working - would it not be possible to provide a class E terminal service in those areas?

It works superbly in the USA and Canada.. Canada has huge areas of low density airspace and they can provide an E terminal service at many non tower airports. Why can't we?

[le Pingouin]

Dick, what's the point of doing a trial at just one aerodrome? It tells you nothing about the requirements for a busier aerodrome in a busier sector. Give me the resources, the training and a properly sized sector and I'll do it. Doing it half arsed doesn't cut it.

How many aerodromes have reliable comms down to the ground?

[Lead Balloon]

The transposition of the American model to Australia did not fit a 'like for like' argument in respect of radar coverage, frequency access, sector size, controllers 'per-capita,' etc, etc. It was just not 'like for like' as regards fundamental ICAO requirements when it comes to importing another system and relying solely on an 'Implementation Safety Case.'This is fact, Dick.

If you want to 'import' the US system, you have to import the US system in whole.

[LeadSled]

Industrial was it?

Too right it was industrial (not involving ATC) ---- the circumstances of CASA pulling the plug, one the eve of the system going "permanent".

I'm not going into any more detail, because when I do, I get in strife.

Maybe Dick might like to fill in the gaps, he has deeper pockets than me, and he knows the whole deal, warts and all.

NAS 2b was NOT pulled on safety grounds. That is a simple fact.

Whether any of you want to believe that is now immaterial, as all those directly involved have left the industry, it really is "history", just one more example of how hard it is, achieving any change and modernization in current day Australia, not confined to the aviation sector.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I see that a 50% blowout is already forecast for OneSky --- is anybody surprised??

[Dick Smith]

Many class E airports in the USA and Canada do not have reliable comes to the ground. Pilots get the clearance by phone or from the Unicom. Horror Shock. How can an un qualified Unicom operator pass on a clearance? We are all going to die!

A trial at just one airport. Say Ballina would be a good test . Many were against CTAFs when they were introduced. But they seem to work.

Many were against the removal of full position reporting for VFR. Now only Bloggs wants to go back.

Search the world and copy the best is what I tell school groups who are looking for success.

And you don't have to import the full US system. That's a myth used to stop change. All their IFR approaches are in a minimum of class E. We don't need to do that at Birdsville. But maybe worth trying at Bainsdale!

[Awol57]

I vaguely recall a conversation I had with a friend who had just returned from Canada after 2 years of Medical flying over there. I will be upfront and say that I can't recall all the specifics of it, so I am presuming that a few of the more worldly operators here can perhaps correct or clarify any of the following.

I seem to recall him saying that there was a bit of an unwritten rule that in VMC on approach there was an expectation of cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR so the next departure could get away into the class E. So it was a one in one out type scenario with the controller being remotely located in a tower elsewhere (I think).

Firstly, does that sound about right to anyone?

Secondly, if so, do our airlines have the scope/desire to cancel IFR on descent to make this work? Otherwise I can't see how E will be better than 1 in 1 out in IMC or VMC even with the US standards (which from memory aren't signficantly different to ours).

[Howabout]

I'm not going into any more detail, because when I do, I get in strife.

Maybe Dick might like to fill in the gaps, he has deeper pockets than me...

Why should 'deeper pockets' matter, Leady, if your argument is credible? You are entitled to your view as I am to mine. This would be a damned boring forum if we all agreed!

But, please, get the facts straight in respect of 2b:

Too right it was industrial (not involving ATC) ---- the circumstances of CASA pulling the plug, one the eve of the system going "permanent".

CASA did not pull 2b; that was AsA after the Launy incident. AsA instituted 'Rollback,' not CASA. 'Rollback' was predicated on safety concerns, not the threat of 'industrial action.'

As regards CASA/CAA 'pulling' anything, that was the G Airspace Trial when Mick Toller (good bloke, IMHO) cancelled the 'trial' when Dick was in NZ.

As you rightly pointed out previously, Mick was the guy that accused us of having that 'Galapagos system.' He was a rational, experienced operator. I don't presume to read what was in his mind at the time, but maybe his unilateral (gutsy) decision came from a conviction that the proposed G Airspace regime was worse than 'Galapagos!'

[Howabout]

I forgot to add that in my opinion a decent, professional bloke was sacrificed on the altar of spite, envy and payback for having the courage of his convictions.

I still regard Mick Toller's removal at the time as a bloody disgrace!

I was there!

[Dick Smith]

So when he pulled the G airspace radar trial he gave the low level airspace between Canberra and Brisbane back to Flight Service who didn't have radar and therefore couldn't beat up incidents.

It was AsA who refused to allow the controllers from the airspace above the G to give traffic down to the limit of radar coverage . They then quietly did this a few years later .

I won!

[Dick Smith]

How about. I find this really mysterious. You have obviously been involved for many years
In Airspace and attempting to stop the changes I have wanted by copying the best in the world.

Yet you post anonymously on this site and have never phoned me to have a discussion .

Who are you? Why are you secret? What's going on? Are you Voices of Reason?

Why would you do this? Is it how you run your life ?

[sunnySA]

I won!

I thought it was about safety. Safety shouldn't have outcomes expressed as winning/losing.

[fujii]

A bit of paranoia creeping in.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yet you post anonymously on this site and have never phoned me to have a discussion .

Who are you? Why are you secret? What's going on? Are you Voices of Reason?

Why would you do this? Is it how you run your life ?
Love it, love it, love it!! :D

[Howabout]

Yet you post anonymously on this site and have never phoned me to have a discussion .

Pointless, Dick, as you are only ever on Tx.

Who are you? Why are you secret? What's going on? Are you Voices of Reason?

'We' wonder what makes you come to that conclusion, Dick.

Why would you do this? Is it how you run your life ?

Nah, Dick, I've been retired for four years, have a few wines every afternoon, read this forum and can't let people be sucked into believing that 'airspace reform' can be grounded on anything other than rigorous cost/benefit and risk analysis. That never happened with NAS and all the other previous bungles.

Once again, opinion and 'I want' just doesn't wash.

If you persist with what 'we' regard as re-writing history, 'we' will rebut.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout. What would you then do with the present " half wound back" situation if you were in Mr Skidmores position? Or do you think the present airspace is satisfactory and needs no change?

[Howabout]

Or do you think the present airspace is satisfactory and needs no change?

Not at all, Dick.

Given my past, my intuition tells me that the pure US CTAF model is the way to go (and I've always felt that way); and that Class E down to 700 AGL makes sense. But that is just MY OPINION!

My opinion, like yours, doesn't count for squat. Change must be predicated on analyses and facts: cost/benefit and risk analysis are the only rational determinants; not opinion!

[Dick Smith]

Ok. We should be working together as we do have something in common.

Personally I don't believe we could afford to have every airport with an IFR approach with class E to 700 agl.

I prefer the Canadian system ( which parts of our NAS decision was based on) where low density airports remain with class G.

No need for low level E at places like Bourke and Birdsville.

And my opinion , like yours does count. How do you think I made the original changes? Those at CASA have no stated view on Airspace design if it involves change. Or if they have they are not game to be open about that view. Really sad.

That's why we can have an effect.

[LeadSled]

Why should 'deeper pockets' matter, Leady, if your argument is credible?

Howabout,
Simple, really, truth is not an absolute defence to an accusation of libel.
Better than years ago, but still not absolute, according to one of the busiest defo. SCs at the Sydney bar.
Tootle pip!!

[le Pingouin]

You do realise that if I give you a clearance on the ground then I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish separation? Same as if I clear you for an instrument approach I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish you've either landed or are clear of the area of conflict

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Just like operating from Coffs.

That is if you are allowed to use proper proven procedural separation standards like they do in Canada and the USA.

And at a non tower airport it won't effect any competent pilot because they wait on the ground if someone else is shooting an approach in IMC. Once VMC exists the NAS operates like our class G airspace.

I have flown IFR in lots of terminal E in the USA. Most has zero radar coverage from the IAF. Delays are no measurably different than in Australia. Same in Canada

Open up your mind. Le Pin

[Howabout]

Howabout,
Simple, really, truth is not an absolute defence to an accusation of libel.

Leady, that's real sorry crap. You've never posted anything libelous IMHO. We've had many combative disagreements, and you're views don't align with mine; but this has always been healthy debate.

How anyone could threaten you, from a 'legal' perspective, totally disgusts me. Just can't figure the motive for such a venal threat.

[Capn Bloggs]

Once VMC exists the NAS operates like our class G airspace.

No! The only way E works like Class G is if one or both aircraft change to VFR, so waiving all "benefit". You just don't get the concept of self-segregation do you? Just because it's sky blue, doesn't mean that all we do is look out in the direction of the other aeroplane and we don't hit them. So now we have ex'IFR aeroplanes operating in a dirt-road category (VFR), clogging up the airwaves with their self-separation calls.

The other significant issue is managing CTAF traffic at the same time. I have been in the multi-aircraft scenario numerous times, where Class E would be a total embuggerance: being controlled by ATC on one radio and having to negotiate separation with a VFR on the other radio on the CTAF. That is an accident just waiting to happen.

[Awol57]

I vaguely recall a conversation I had with a friend who had just returned from Canada after 2 years of Medical flying over there. I will be upfront and say that I can't recall all the specifics of it, so I am presuming that a few of the more worldly operators here can perhaps correct or clarify any of the following.

I seem to recall him saying that there was a bit of an unwritten rule that in VMC on approach there was an expectation of cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR so the next departure could get away into the class E. So it was a one in one out type scenario with the controller being remotely located in a tower elsewhere (I think).

Firstly, does that sound about right to anyone?

Secondly, if so, do our airlines have the scope/desire to cancel IFR on descent to make this work? Otherwise I can't see how E will be better than 1 in 1 out in IMC or VMC even with the US standards (which from memory aren't signficantly different to ours).

I asked this on page one and it has been glossed over. Is this a reasonable summation of how it works in Canada? Because if everyone is going to downgrade to VFR we don't have a problem.

[le Pingouin]

I love it! So the only reason it works is because they downgrade to VFR and use the same dirt road rules we use.

I can't separate the arriving aircraft from you if I don't know where you are, so they get to wait.

[CaptainMidnight]

if so, do our airlines have the scope/desire to cancel IFR on descentUnless they have changed their position from some years ago, the answer is probably no ........

[Lead Balloon]

And thus descend into the lowest category airspace established even in third world countries.

Must be a better way ... :(

[Howabout]

I seem to recall him saying that there was a bit of an unwritten rule that in VMC on approach there was an expectation of cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR so the next departure could get away into the class E.

Perfectly correct, Awol57. They can cancel IFR to avoid the 'one-in-one-out' scenario in remote places and facilitate departures as 'good neighbors.' But none of these guys have a 'death wish,' and it's not an 'expectation' in all scenarios. It's PIC judgement as to whether one cancels, has a handle on the traffic, and can make the decision in respect of safe pilot-to-pilot separation.

Something we should import with E down to 700 AGL in very selected locations. But that is just my opinion and cost/benefit and risk analysis must take primacy.

[Dick Smith]

You all win.( other than Howabout) You have convinced me that the class E terminal airspace that's used in just about every other leading aviation country in the world can't possibly work here.

Just a hint of how it works overseas. When you cancel IFR in E in VMC it then works like our class G. When you are in IMC class E works exactly like class A.

But it could not possibly work here so make sure it's not even tried at even one airport- say Benalla where our present system allowed five or was it six fatalities?

Resist resist resist any change in every way you can - you and others have stopped it so far for 25 years. Wait for another serious accident with more fatalities for a Royal Commission to bring in the international proven safer system.

And our airlines already fly around in Class G now. That's just like E after the pilot has cancelled IFR. But our airlines couldn't possibly do that ! Are they that dopey?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

hey Dick,

Have a look at the AOPA letter released today.....

9 recommendations.....

You'll 'lurve it'..!!

Cheers

[Awol57]

It's not about winning or losing. I just wanted to know how it works.

Just a hint of how it works overseas. When you cancel IFR in E in VMC it then works like our class G. When you are in IMC class E works exactly like class A.

Thank you for clarifying that. My next question if we were to trial this, would our airlines cancel IFR.

I am not enroute but if everyone is cancelling IFR leaving say 10000' and then they get the DTI like they currently do, then in IMC it becomes one in one out, I presume the only real difference for the enroute guy is clearing them on an approach and waiting for confirmation they are on the ground. I am not sure how much additional workload that would be, le Ping may be able to give an idea.

[Dick Smith]

You would not normally cancel IFR at 10'000. It works like Coffs Tower works but an enroute controller does the terminal work. The US en route controllers must be superhuman and can do the impossible!

At Coffs when IMC exists to the minima the controller can't see the plane and uses procedural standards to separate the aircraft. The controller could be in Timbutu ! I have been in and out of Coffs lots of times in IMC and have not experienced delays.

If the Chief pilots of the airlines understood that cancelling IFR in E resulted in a class G traffic service they would support it.

In the USA some airlines do not allow their pilots to cancel IFR. That's because their pilots have no training in separating themselves from other IFR traffic. It is totally different in Aus. Airline pilots do it all the time at every class G airport.

[mgahan]

As an old CO of mine, who went on to become the Director of Flight Standards and has been cited on this forum by our mate Dick as a good man to work with - Ron Cooper - used to say, "It is very hard to argue with some one who is unencumbered by a basic knowledge of the facts. "

When I was involved in the airspace regulation business I asked for coverage diagrams of US airspace. Interesting charts.

When I suggested the radar coverage was there to support the Class E airspace volumes I was told by those involved in the US that it as the other way around - class E was there because there was surveillance coverage. Just saying.

As someone else said many posts ago, "If you are going to import someone else's system, you must import all elements of that system."

BTW the charts provided to me by Mitre also included redundant coverage - another interesting series of charts.

MJG

[Awol57]

If you haven't experienced delays at Coffs in IMC you have probably been lucky. I definitely can not have the same movements in IMC as I can when its visual.

Regardless of that, superhuman or not, I am not saying it can't work. I am just trying to wrap my head around it. The reality is we have 1000 controllers working 7.692million square km and the US have 15000 working 9.857million square km. We just don't have the same resources as they do to copy them in all aspects. (I realise that not all controllers are working at once, just illustrating a point)

[Howabout]

As someone else said many posts ago, "If you are going to import someone else's system, you must import all elements of that system."

Absolutely correct, Mgahan, and that is why NAS failed. It was not 'like for like' as a package Hopefully, we've learned a lesson from that one, along with other previous blunders.

But that does not mean that there aren't some lessons to be learned from overseas practice.

While I violently disagreed with C being replaced with D, and E over D, for nothing other than what I regarded as ideology, some of the the other stuff made sense to me, and I had a long history in respect of airspace.

NAS, as a whole, was rubbish, IMHO. But that should not make us blinkered. The opportunity is there to 'cherry-pick' some stuff from overseas that might make us more efficient.

Dick and I aren't mates by any stretch of the imagination, but he talks sense (sometimes).

Dropping E to A085, when it was G before, was a no-brainer. The sky was going to fall and it didn't.

US CTAF? Just my opinion, but we've done it by halves and have never given the pure model a go. CASA dithered trying to be 'all things to all men.' All decisions are hedged and qualified - I've seen it up really close in my time.

Finally, and bear in mind my overriding comments in respect of cost/benefit and risk analysis: why the hell can't we have a trial at one location in respect of Class E to 700 AGL? Ballina for 12 months?

OK, and it may have been years ago, but I had three years working at Eagle Farm. That involved controlling, simultaneously (one bloke), Approach to Amberley, area out to 250 nm between 310 and 190, plus Evans Head and over-water airspace when the Pigs were doing their supersonic runs right across the inbound international air routes.

If the argument is such that we can't do a trial because of 'workload,' then I can only conclude that that the present breed are 'less than competent.'

[le Pingouin]

I don't think anyone is arguing against a trial purely based on workload, just that it needs to be considered. Dick seems to think we can just drop in extra services using the ATC resources we currently have and that worries me because apply enough political pressure and that's exactly what could come to pass, regardless of the consequences. Ideology is like that.

[Howabout]

le P,

If there is not the capacity to do one simple trial in just one location, then you guys must be really hammered when it comes to capacity. I did not come down in the last shower on that one!

I've been there and back. The resources are in the system to try this at just 'one location.' A trial is all Dick is after and I agree with him on this one.

One trial, in one location. How bloody hard is that if safety is enhanced?

No pre-judgement as to the outcome. But why can we not trial it within current system resources that can absorb one trial in one location?

[le Pingouin]

But a trial is not all Dick is after. I didn't come down in the last shower either.

You call it a simple trial but simple it ain't! Even a trial at a single location would require a serious allocation of resources - as the regs currently stand to provide an approach service I need an approach rating and the training to go with it. You'd be looking at training maybe ten controllers minimum from a single group which is a big ask - you can't just take ten people out of a roster when there are only 25 on it in the first place. Not without some serious lead time.

[Dick Smith]

As I am writing this I am looking at the original yellow AMATS implementation booklet of 1991.

It states under stage 4 - June 1993. " IFR/IFR Separation provided in low level airspace .

That never happened. Not even as a trial and that was over 20 years ago.

All due to a campaign from lots to stop any change.

And Howabout that is totally wrong re having to import the whole system. It's used to stop change. In the US all instrument approaches are in a minimum of class E airspace. There is no reason why we have to " import" that. All of our Aussie IFR pilots are trained to self separate in IMC in class G. That can stay at many airports.

The radar coverage claim is another furphy. In the USA over 50% of approaches at non tower airports do not have radar coverage below the IAF. Many airports with low level class E don't even have radio coverage to ground level.

As VOR pointed out so well , terminal Class E is not linked to radar coverage.

The E over D introduced a major safety improvement. It was the only way we could bring in a mandatory transponder requirement for all aircraft in class E. This would not stack up in any cost benefit study but the GA organisations agreed because of less " road block" airspace. Then with a total lack of ethics that appears to be the " Canberra system" the road block airspace was put back in but the Quid Quo Pro mandate remained.

I brokered that deal and am not impressed with what then happened with the wind back .

I have always said that bringing in low level E will not be easy. But change is what I am good at and that's why I wanted to be on the NAS implementation team .

I would ask advice and surround myself with the most capable people . Worked in my business career and also in some risky adventures!

And the training cost would not be high compared to the AsA $1 billion budget. I would reduce some of the costs in the AsA head office to cover it. Done that before.

Re delays at Coffs in IMC. Yes sometimes. Just as sometimes delays in class G if you want to live.

[andrewr]

You do realise that if I give you a clearance on the ground then I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish separation? Same as if I clear you for an instrument approach I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish you've either landed or are clear of the area of conflict

Why would pilots be better at separating aircraft by radio in IMC than ATC? If it's not safe for ATC to clear more than one aircraft, how do pilots operate safely?

ATC have carefully designed procedures for separating aircraft where required outside radar coverage. Pilots do not - they can't even issue an "instruction" to the other aircraft - they have to hope that they are both operating to the same plan.

It's separation on a principle of "if ATC didn't see it, it didn't happen" e.g. 2 aircraft flying the same approach.

The opponents of class E never mention the other "Launy" incident:
Investigation: AO-2008-030 - Aircraft proximity event, VH-VOQ and VH-VQS Launceston Aerodrome, Tasmania, 1 May 2008 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-030/)
where a 737 and an A320 came into close proximity during a missed approach, basically due to a misunderstanding between the pilots.

This is exactly what class E is supposed to avoid - conflicts between aircraft in IMC. The principle is that if aircraft can't see each other, ATC should provide separation.

It would make a lot of sense to me to have class E down to 700' or even 1200' at all airports where you have jet RPT.

[buckshot1777]

if everyone is cancelling IFR <snip> and then they get the DTI like they currently doWhen cancelling IFR, does that not mean you become VFR category, and therefore you are no longer provided with or entitled to DTI or separation services?

My recollection is that is what the airlines and others had a problem with re the "CANCEL IFR" procedure.

When you cancel IFR in E in VMC it then works like our class G. No, in our Class G IFR are provided with DTI. VFR aren't.

[andrewr]

Presumably, you cancel IFR at the point where it's more useful to talk to CTAF traffic than ATC. If you're approaching a CTAF and trying to arrange separation with a couple of VFR aircraft, is it helpful for ATC to be telling you they are there?

The usual response to ATC information about CTAF traffic seems to be "Thank you, we have them on CTAF" because high performance aircraft (rightly) monitor and announce on CTAF from many miles out.

[Lookleft]

Airlines do not "cancel IFR" when operating into CTAFs. There is an option in the AIP to advise ATC that they are transferring to CTAF when they cannot/will not monitor the ATC frequency but with two radios (and a 3rd VHF to turn the lights on) and two crew that is not necessary.

[Dick Smith]

Buckshot. You are correct. Everything was put in the way to stop class E terminal airspace from working.

In Aus , once you give a taxi call in G you are classed IFR and you then can't continue to climb in E in VMC.

I spent two years attempting to fix this but CASA would not budge. As I said. All to stop any change from working.

[Capn Bloggs]

once you give a taxi call in G you are classed IFR and you the can't continue to climb in E in VMC.
There you go again. When will you understand that just because there are no clouds in the sky we do not/cannot just look out the window and avoid? Dick, you really have no idea of reality.

[Dick Smith]

So how do they do it in the USA and Canada?

[Howabout]

And Howabout that is totally wrong re having to import the whole system

Dick, I am on your side when it comes to 'measured change,' but there was absolutely no justification to convert C to 'wedding cake' E over D in respect of cost/benefit. AsA ran C (indisputably safer) at no extra cost - I was there!

NAS failed because it was ideologically-based, and not grounded on stringent cost/benefit and risk analysis. Yes, I know I bang on in respect of those points, but that's why the package failed. There were fundamental flaws, as there were in all the previous 'initiatives.'

Jeezus, Man, can you just swallow your pride for once and admit you got it wrong!

Wipe the bloody slate clean and push for change that can be justified on the basis of cost/benefit and risk.

Do that in respect of a Class E trial at one location down to 700 AGL, and pure US CTAF, and you'd have my full support.

Just let the other stuff go Dick, because you are wasting undoubted energy and talent trying to justify failures past!

[le Pingouin]

andrewr, easy - radio. I can't separate where I can't talk to both aircraft. Two aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome can talk to each other.

It's not an argument for E, it's an argument for controlled airspace, pilot education and bean counter culpability.

[Capn Bloggs]

So how do they do it in the USA and Canada?
For crying out loud, you're asking me how they do it in the USA?? You want it, you tell us!

[Dick Smith]

Howabout. C above D is clearly upside down. The collision risk is clearly higher closer to the runway. Why would you drop to a lower ICAO classification closer to the runway?

How does a single controller at a place like Albury operate class C effectively at 8500' when there is no primary or secondary radar to show where a VFR plane was in the Airspace .? Couldn't the controllers attention be taken away from the runway and the circuit area where collision risk is far higher?

I agree C is clearly safer when used as it is in the North American system where it is properly manned and with the proper survailance equipment.

If it was E link airspace at Albury it could stay 24 hours a day. As C it turns to dirt road G from 8500' down when the tower closes- crazy.

Why does Broome have NAS E over D if it is unsafe? Why don't we standardise like other countries? I know.

We must never change anything.

[Dick Smith]

NAS failed because Airservices without the approval of CASA undermined NAS and printed a special two sided chart showing ATC sector boundaries and then posted it to every pilot in Australia without any educational material on how the half wound back system was to work.

This was three months after the NAS educational package stated that the frequency boundaries had been specifically removed from the charts and VFR were not to make self announcements on ATC frequencies.

Bruce Buron told me that he had told Airservices not to send out any radio charts unless there was at least three months of pilot education beforehand . There was no education as the system clearly can't work with VFR aircraft giving self announcements on ATC frequencies.

And the latest CASA CTAF notam is to try and get a half wound back un workable system working!

[Howabout]

Dick, I've just got back from walking the dog and recharging the Chardy glass in my dotage.

Howabout. C above D is clearly upside down. The collision risk is clearly higher closer to the runway. Why would you drop to a lower ICAO classification closer to the runway?

Ostensibly a good point, Dick, but 'ostensibly.' You see, Dick, Anderson and Truss were total airspace morons. All they wanted was you off their backs. To paraphrase: 'For Christ's sake just give him something!' Nobody with half a brain wanted C converted to D & E, nor D, period; but two dummies thought giving you D would shut you up. That's the truth, because I was there and had to deal with their brain-dead 'advisers.'

We would not be having this argument had you not badgered them to death - I was there.

Why does Broome have NAS E over D if it is unsafe? Why don't we standardise like other countries? I know.

See above, Dick. Broome was a classic in 'giving you something.' No concrete justification - nothing than other than a political agenda to shut you up. I was there!

A pointless ask, I know, but can we please move on and look at change that can be justified for reasons other than 'I want' and putting pressure on total dumb-asses??

You have some really good points IMHO. But you consistently cruel any credible reform agenda by trying to shortcut cogent analyses.

You'll fail, and fail again, for as ever long as you want to take that path.

There's good stuff to be done, Dick. But, IMHO, you consistently pull out the shotgun and blow both feet off.

[andrewr]

andrewr, easy - radio. I can't separate where I can't talk to both aircraft.

The question was in relation to:
You do realise that if I give you a clearance on the ground then I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish separation? Same as if I clear you for an instrument approach I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish you've either landed or are clear of the area of conflict

If you are giving one aircraft a clearance and denying another it implies that you are communicating with both. Why is it unsafe for ATC to clear both aircraft, but safe for pilots to arrange their own separation by radio in IMC? Both are methods of separation by radio. The difference between ATC and pilot arranged separation is that ATC have planned procedures and standards, whereas pilots have to work something out on the spot.

[Lead Balloon]

Why is it unsafe for ATC to clear both aircraft, but safe for pilots to arrange their own separation by radio in IMC? Both are methods of separation by radio. The difference between ATC and pilot arranged separation is that ATC have planned procedures and standards, whereas pilots have to work something out on the spot.I agree completely with your underlying point, Andrew R. Risk is risk, and is whatever level it happens to be, whether or not Airservices happens to be responsible for mitigating it, and irrespecive of pilots' subjective view about the effectiveness of their amateur separation decisions.

[le Pingouin]

Clearing the aircraft on the ground was specifically in relation to Dick getting his clearance though a phone or Unicom, so I'm very definitely not in radio contact with both aircraft. I don't have a clue where the one who got the clearance on the ground is are - somewhere between the phone box and enough altitude to be within comms. Whereas you can call the other pilot and establish where he is.

[Dick Smith]

Le Ping. It's obvious that the US system can't work.

One of you Aussie ATCs should go over to America and tell them this.

Tell them how it's one in and one out and therefore creates uneccessary delays.

Tell them they could reduce these delays by moving to the Australian system of class G groping around in the blind airspace. This is a superior system where there is no separation standard at all when in IMC.

Who needs ATC and written separation standards when IMC exists- certainly not our airline pilots.

I said it before. Those Americans are so stupid. No wonder they only built the Space Shuttle and the 747 while we built the Nomad.

[Dick Smith]

I only hope that AOPA doesn't get CASA off side. They are very delicate people .

[le Pingouin]

What precisely has designing and building aircraft have to do with this discussion? They're so smart they have Donald Trump, an obsessive gun culture and some of the least scientifically literate people on Earth.

You'd never consider that it works there because of the whole system and not just a set of rules?

[Dick Smith]

Yes I have. However I find that by going around the world and pinching the best ideas you can get great success .

Of course you incorporate those best ideas with the things you are already doing better in the first place.

Le ping. To put it simply I find single pilot self separating with two or three other aircraft in the same terminal area in IMC quite difficult.

And often there is an Air Traffic Controller sitting there twiddling his or her thumbs because on some nights in some airspace there is not much going on.

That's where I would like a proper separation service provided by the person I am already paying to be there!

[Howabout]

Dick, I like the quirky. One of my favorite authors is a guy called Kinky Freedman - a Jew. He had a band called the Texas Jew Boys. They did a couple of songs - 'They Don't Make Jews Like Jesus Anymore' and 'Get Your Biscuits In The Oven And Your Buns In The Bed.' Amusing, but he also wrote some very good detective stories.

What's the relevance you may ask? Well, he had an expression that sums up your last two posts where I just could not see the point...'Out there where the buses don't run.'

[Chronic Snoozer]

your last two posts where I just could not see the point.

He copies others' ideas. That has made him successful. He is wealthy.

Why can't everyone just get it?

[le Pingouin]

No, you'll be paying more because it will take more controllers to provide. We won't just be doing it at night when it's quiet will we?

[Lead Balloon]

It is a remarkable consequence of how long the frogs in the Australian aviation industry have been swimming in the warming water that it's taken as an immutable principle that aviation infrastructure can't be funded as a common good.

I throw my coffee mug at the radio every time I hear that intelligence-insulting advertisement - paid for by the taxpayer of course - about all the government investment in getting people and goods around the place quicker. The investment turns out to be in a first century AD technology - road - and a 19th century AD technology - rail. But no mention of aviation.

Apparently government investment in aviation isn't justified because aviation is not effective at getting people and goods around the place quicker. Or apparently aviation only works if it's privatised and its participants rogered for every cent possible, while road and rail infrastructure are objective truths to be funded as a common good.

Innovation nation? Pass me a bucket. :yuk:

[Howabout]

Yes I have. However I find that by going around the world and pinching the best ideas you can get great success .

So, Dick, let's just drop these pointless arguments about things past. We just go around in circles and need to stop wasting energy on lost battles and trying to re-write history.

Just my personal take, but if you would attack 'reform' incrementally, as opposed to the 'scatter-gun' approach that was NAS, then you'd have a better chance of success - IMHO.

I am only going to say this once more. NAS failed as a package because there were inherent flaws within some of the individual 'characteristics.' Do you remember that term 'characteristics?' Consequently, the whole 'house-of-cards' imploded.

Take it one step at a time in respect of the achievable. Focus your energy, and undoubted knowledge, on one thing at a time. Don't disperse that energy over a myriad of 'reforms' that may be dear to your heart. Pursue one goal at a time.

As I've said before, I might be retired for four years, but I still know how the system works. One specific initiative will have more chance than the 'scatter-gun' approach.

And I give you the E, 700 AGL, trial as an example.

Despite some protestations, the capacity is there to do this one. I know, because I was an active controller for long enough, and E down to 700 AGL, at a place like Ballina, should be a doddle for the competent.

Personally, I'd ask the 'powers' why it can't be done, given there's pretty reasonable radar coverage. All you'd be asking for is s a 'trial;' such a trial would not represent a degradation of current 'safety standards,' and it wouldn't over-stretch the current resources, despite arguments to the contrary.

700 AGL should be the first cab off the rank.

Push that one and I'll make you a deal. I'll fire in a personal letter with my 'real name' to Infrastructure and CASA and copy you in!

[Dick Smith]

Howabout. Good on you. Yes E at Ballina has potential and possible after 25 years of resistance .

One problem is that AsA stratified the ATC airspace into high and low levels which has resulted in huge sectors. The original plan was just to have vertical sectors like Alaska and parts of Canada. Then they could be smaller. And the controller would have less complex en route work at Flight Levels and exciting challenging approach work.

In the USA they do this and I understand the controllers don't have an approach rating in the Australian way.

The reason I organised last years campaign in The Australian on Ballina was to get this moving. And it's started to happen. Howabout I look forward to reading about your support- also for the simpler US CTAF and Unicom procedures!

[Capn Bloggs]

So now we'll have RPT jet crews being told what to do by ATC so they don't crash into each other on one frequency/Comm 1 and on the other frequency/Comm 2 trying to coordinate their arrival so they don't crash into VFR traffic in the allegedly busy CTAF on the other. Great. :cool:

[le Pingouin]

Howabout, exactly where am I pulling anyone's pud here?

"You call it a simple trial but simple it ain't! Even a trial at a single location would require a serious allocation of resources - as the regs currently stand to provide an approach service I need an approach rating and the training to go with it. You'd be looking at training maybe ten controllers minimum from a single group which is a big ask - you can't just take ten people out of a roster when there are only 25 on it in the first place. Not without some serious lead time."

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The original plan was just to have vertical sectors like Alaska and parts of Canada.
Sorry, I thought the original plan was to have an airspace system like the USA's, not one used in just one of their states and parts of another country? Or is that a tacit admission that we can't actually do it the way that those other advanced aviation countries do it, so would just end up with another bastardised, unique airspace system in place of this one, that also doesn't conform to any NAS used elsewhere?

[Capn Bloggs]

The original plan was just to have vertical sectors like Alaska and parts of Canada. Then they could be smaller. And the controller would have less complex en route work at Flight Levels and exciting challenging approach work.

[Blogg's ATC hat ON]Surely traffic is traffic. It's got to be controlled by someone; just because sectors are vertical "they could be smaller" which means more ATCs if you lump them with an approach service. A low level sector can concentrate on the low level traffic and not worry about high level stuff. You obviously don't comprehend what is going on ATC-wise when you climb and descend[/Blogg's ATC hat OFF].

Where is the CBA you have been asked for repeatedly? I bet you won't produce it because it won't be pretty...

[Plazbot]

Hold the phone girlfriend. Dick, did you really just say that your plan was to have sectors where the controller has to control traffic waaaay up high and away from where the risk is obviously greater down and around the instrument approach? Haha. Hang on. Haha.

I just made up a new word. 'Dickonsistent- using two completely conflicting arguments to attempt to prove a point'

[Hempy]

Überlingen anyone?

[Howabout]

Jeezus wept guys!

There is just too much cynicism because it's Dick and spare me! I did a heck of a lot more than you guys combined when it came to pointing out the flaws in NAS in cross-portfolio jobs where I dealt with ministers and their associated advisers. NAS was a crock, but that should not blind us.

You call it a simple trial but simple it ain't! Even a trial at a single location would require a serious allocation of resources - as the regs currently stand

You seem to be a bit rigid, le P, in hiding behind the so-called regs, You sound like enroute to me. Are you seriously telling me that you can't handle a few extra aircraft in one spot with IFR to IFR separation and traffic on identified VFR?

On the other hand, I well remember an ace civ controller that I worked with, telling me, and I quote:

'These new guys sh*t their pants if they have to do anything other than monitor. Radar vectoring and taking aircraft off-track for separation is heart-attack material.' His words, not mine!

le P, if you have a modicum of skills, you should be able to handle this relatively easy one.

Regardless of my disagreements with Dick, I scratch my head in respect of the totally closed minds.

[Hempy]

You seem to be a bit rigid, le P, in hiding behind the so-called regs, You sound like enroute to me. Are you seriously telling me that you can't handle a few extra aircraft in one spot with IFR to IFR separation and traffic on identified VFR?

On the other hand, I well remember an ace civ controller that I worked with, telling me, and I quote:

'These new guys sh*t their pants if they have to do anything other than monitor. Radar vectoring and taking aircraft off-track for separation is heart-attack material.' His words, not mine!

le P, if you have a modicum of skills, you should be able to handle this relatively easy one.

Regardless of my disagreements with Dick, I scratch my head in respect of the totally closed minds.

Newsflash. CASA set the rules and regulations. ASA is the service provider, CASA is the regulator.

If you have a problem with the rules, take it up with CASA. Blaming an ATC strapped to a console for your woes is akin to SLF blaming a pilot for missing their connection.

Stop being so simple minded and look at the big picture.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. In the lower 48 they have about 30 times the amount of traffic that we have in the Aussie mainland.

That's why the sectors are stratified . We don't need this cost .

Yes. I agree new regulations will be required that I would think could be copied from the North American regs. In the USA the en route controllers who do class E approach work as well do not have approach ratings.

We should copy the best. Or as a suggestion why don't we "borrow" a few US controllers to give a demo in the simulator. Now that's an idea!

[Dick Smith]

Howabout. NAS was actually working until AsA prepared and posted a chart showing the old sector boundaries and frequencies. They did this without any pilot education .

It then was no longer an airspace system based on the worlds best - it was a half wound back " croc" system.

I am starting to get suspicious. Were you involved or did you know about this chart before it went out? Or were you kept in the dark about it like the NAS implementation team.?

Can't wait for your answer , either way!

[le Pingouin]

Howbout, I've only been doing the job for 20+ years and FS before that. You'll catch me on ML arrivals most days. I'm not hiding behind anything, just stating the facts as they stand. If I'm to provide an approach service under current regs then I need the rating commensurate with the task. Just ask the guys and gals who do Launy approach outside tower hours.

As I and others have said numerous time, give us the resources......

Regardless of the regs a considerable amount of training would be required because none of us has done any approach training. I might know how to read an approach plate but that's been picked up along the way and not required training, after all why would an en-route controller need to know? Or would you rather let us loose on real lives never having had to worry about terrain and vectoring......

You don't think the timidity over vectoring might not have anything to do with inadequacy of training rather than actual ability? "Never let the sector vector" hasn't been around since Adam wore a minilite has it?

Now howabout answering the bloody question? You're taking after Dick by attacking those who point out problems. You're the ones wanting the test, you'll have to overcome the problems. Whose pud am I pulling?

[Howabout]

Hempy,

Your argument is not disputed in respect of the basics. Yes, those goddamned regs. Elastic aren't they, when it comes to doing nothing?

Are you seriously telling me that you are incapable of controlling IFR traffic in an enroute environment and handling a few in E down to 700 AGL with traffic on VFRs at the same time?

From memory, Hempy, you were a pretty competent controller.

Can you seriously tell me, despite the regs, that everything is perfect?

[Hempy]

Howabout, competency is irrelevant. The way that things are structured in 2016 means that you either toe the line or you are out the door.

Could 99% of controllers perform the task you argue for? Absolutely.

By the regulations are any allowed to? No.

As I said earlier, take your beef up with CASA, not controllers simply trying to ply their trade.

[Howabout]

I am starting to get suspicious. Were you involved or did you know about this chart before it went out? Or were you kept in the dark about it like the NAS implementation team.?

Dick, let's not get back to conspiracy theories. It was a long time ago. You want honesty on this one? All I remember was looking at the 'frequency biscuits' and thinking 'what dork thought that one up!'

No, I had nothing to do with it, and had no prior knowledge whatsoever.

Dick, I am retired and have nothing to hide.

I gave you a guarantee! Press 700 AGL; I'll support, and you will know who I am! But don't get wrapped around the axles on my bloody identity! I was only ever a 'bit player! A minor player!

[Howabout]

Forgot to add, Dick.

If you push 700 AGL, PM your email so I can give you a copy of my letter.

It's formative at the moment, but I made you a promise.

[CaptainMidnight]

NAS was actually working until AsA prepared and posted a chart showing the old sector boundaries and frequencies. They did this without any pilot education .

and

NAS failed because Airservices without the approval of CASA undermined NAS and printed a special two sided chart showing ATC sector boundaries and then posted it to every pilot in Australia without any educational material on how the half wound back system was to work.


Just to correct this.

Airservices produced that chart at the request of industry - RAPAC. And CASA agreed with it.

In fact Airservices covered the cost of production, printing and distribution (at a cost of some $200k I recall).

[Capn Bloggs]

Are you seriously telling me that you are incapable of controlling IFR traffic in an enroute environment and handling a few in E down to 700 AGL with traffic on VFRs at the same time?

I doubt that would be the case where I operate. The enroute guys are flat out without "handling a few in E". While they wouldn't have to deliver DTI, I reckon the workload will still increase markedly, which will mean smaller sectors and therefore more contollers. Almost every other day I go work I have a traffic conflict I have to resolve. Throw a "controller" into the mix and things will be much more complicated. Whereas I might decide to maintain runway heading, or depart from the overhead, or just hold for a few seconds, or quickly get them to maintain an altitude until we pass, none of that will happen "on the fly" with a control service. It'll be more constrained and more costly. And lots of times I go to a D tower and think "I wish these guys would go downstairs for a coffee so we can sort this out ourselves". I'm not criticising them; they're just applying their rules. I can see E services down to 700ft being the same; increased delays and more controllers.

Then we throw working the CTAF/VFR at the same time into the mix. If I want to maintain runway heading to avoid a bugsmasher, I wont be able to unless I get a clearance for it. Not good.

"Oh, just switch to VFR", I hear Dick say. That's also ridiculous. I've said before and I'll say it again; we do not switch to "eyeballs separation" mode just because there's no cloud; that might work in your 130KIAS bugsmaher than can pull 3g in an instant to avoid another lighty but not for us. RPT separate until we see or pass. The "pass" situation is 95% of the time. So switching to VFR to overcome the limitations of Class E is nonsense, a concept that could only come from somebody who doesn't understand.

Still, mandatory transponders for VFR at all of my airports will be a good thing.

There was a crash at the local roundabout recently. I'm surprised Dick isn't over here demanding traffic lights be installed. Nothing is risk-free.

Benalla happened over 10 years ago. As tragic as it was, how much extra money would industry have paid out if Dick had got his way and put in E all over the place then, for no re-occurrence?

NAS failed because Airservices without the approval of CASA undermined NAS and printed a special two sided chart showing ATC sector boundaries
Absolute codswallop. The only difference having frequencies on the charts has made is that VFR now can, in most cases, see clearly who to call if needed and what freq to monitor when above 5000ft. It is just crazy/deceptive to say "NAS failed" because of a map (which couldn't have been all that bad as it had been in exsistence for decades before with no dramas).

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight you state “Airservices produced that chart at the request of industry – RAPAC. And CASA agreed with it”. You are about half correct. I agree a number of people involved in RAPAC – people like Capn Bloggs - at the time, just couldn’t accept that an airspace system could work without ATC frequency boundaries being shown on charts and all VFR aircraft above 5000ft being forced to monitor all ATC calls and answer when they could be traffic.

In fact there is no system in any country in the world that is like this. What the people at RAPAC were trying to do is to go back to the old pre-1990 AMATS system where it was necessary to be on the correct frequency as IFR and VFR aircraft flew at the same levels due to the quadrantal rule.

On Friday 12th March 2004, my manager rang me at 2.50pm from my farm at Gundaroo (I was at Terrey Hills), he said that a chart had been sent to him as a private pilot, which showed the frequency boundaries both G and E airspace – the chart was double-sided.

I immediately rang Bruce Byron, the Director of CASA. Bruce was horrified and said ‘Dick, I told Airservices not to send out any chart that showed the frequency boundaries, unless there was at least 3 months education beforehand on how the system was supposed to work”.

So in fact, CASA only agreed to the chart going out if a pilot education campaign had taken place and Bruce, later told me, that he thought that Airservices would then quickly realise that it was simply impossible to properly communicate and educate a half wound-back system – and therefore the charts would not go out.

CaptainMidnight, as you probably noted I have all this in detail, ready for the Royal Commission, when there is an unnecessary accident, and the Royal Commissioner asks why the system was half reversed and it’s shown that it was because of ignorance.

[Dick Smith]

In relation to the RAPACs – as I’ve stated previously I was not allowed to be involved in the implementation group and in fact the implementation group was specifically prevented from talking to RAPACs and explaining how well and how safe the international system we were copying worked.

That specifically meant that enroute the VFR aircraft flew at a semi-circular 500ft level and were not required to listen and announce air traffic control frequencies.

One of the reasons Airservices sent out the chart is there their Chief Executive at the time, Bernie Smith, was a private VFR pilot who’d been trained in the old system and was completely obsessed with flying by radio – many pilots were who were trained in the old system.

The locations of the ATC VHF outlets were shown on the NAS charts – as they are in North America – so if a pilot wanted to call ATC the pilot could simply call the nearest VHF outlet. As I’ve pointed out numerous times on this site, by monitoring the area frequency from the chart boundaries, often there is no communications to ATC or other aircraft at all, as the frequency boundaries on the charts are there for workload purposes – not for VHF coverage purposes.

Capn Bloggs – NAS did fail because it was half wound-back without proper education on how the system works in other leading aviation countries of the world. I now notice that most RAPACs are reconsidering their view about frequency boundaries on charts. This is because the CASA decision to require traffic at airports not marked on charts to use the ATC area frequency has come because of the chart boundaries being put back on and us having this half wound-back system.

[Howabout]

CaptainMidnight, as you probably noted I have all this in detail, ready for the Royal Commission, when there is an unnecessary accident, and the Royal Commissioner asks why the system was half reversed and it’s shown that it was because of ignorance. Jeezus, Dick, will you just stop with the 'Drama Queen' stuff? All you are doing is alienating, once again, intelligent professionals that will listen to cogent argument, not Chicken Little doom and gloom. You are not talking to school-kids! Stop the BS!

IMHO, you've almost dashed your last chance of doing something positive. You frustrate the hell out of me!

You once said that arguing with me was like arguing with your teenage daughter. Well, as they say in Bahasa Malay, 'sama-sama!'

Just get over what's already done and dusted and swallow the pride!

PS I'll read the PM a bit later as the dog is giving me 'goo-goo eyes' for his walk.

And stop it with the 'conspiracy theories!' There were none.

[89 steps to heaven]

We use class D at many controlled aerodromes around Australia, but it is not an aerodrome specific airspace category. Instead of class E, why not Class D en-route. No separation required IFR / VFR, but all players in that airspace are known.

I am not suggesting all class E becomes D, but certainly in the airspace feeding into controlled aerodromes it would be ideal.

Just a thought.

[Howabout]

Dick, I've read the PM and will email you direct shortly.

[Dick Smith]

89. We don't have en route D because the cost would be prohibitive .

In fact our Pre AMATS G airspace above 5000' was, for VFR., equivalent to class D because a traffic information service was provided to IFR on all VFR.

That cost about another $70 million per year. That's what D would probably cost.

The only reason we don't have D above D at terminal tower airspace is that pre AMATS we just had controlled and uncontrolled airspace.

Controlled was closer to C and the concrete minded ones say that you should never re allocate airspace to a lower category - only a one way ratchet if changing to more expense and more restrictions .
,

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In the lower 48 they have about 30 times the amount of traffic that we have in the Aussie mainland.
While that is undoubtedly true, they have 15 times more ATC to provide them with the service you want. And, as I posted in another thread, from the FAA's and AsA's own figures our ATC, on a per head to aircraft handled per day, are twice as busy as theirs (11 to 5.8), so I don't reckon there's a lot of fat in our system. If our system was changed to include more airspace to be controlled, ie E wherever there was radar, that would capture more movements, further skewing the figures against the existing ATC numbers. By all means, push for more services, but just give up on the idea that it can be done with existing resources, or at no cost. Is our system that broken that it needs fixing? I mean it's hardly raining aluminium, or that we have smoking holes on every ridgetop when it's cloudy. Is there that much of a groundswell of unrest, or is it just one (very loud and well-connected) voice in the wilderness?

[buckshot1777]

in fact the implementation group was specifically prevented from talking to RAPACs and explaining how well and how safe the international system we were copying worked. I don't know which RAPACs the NASIG was prevented from attending or when, but I recall a rep from the NASIG attended almost all off them in the southern half of the country, and at times got flack from the reps who perceived various NAS elements were being forced upon the industry and their input and advice was being ignored.

However, this is all ancient history and of no use to moving on.

A search of this site did turn up a couple of interesting The Australian articles though:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/141110-fly-boys-reach-skies.html

[Dick Smith]

It's all very mysterious. Fly IFR in the USA and the ATC frequencies are going like machine guns with hardly a space to get a word in for a clearance request.

Fly in the similar airspace in Australia and you can go for so long without ATC saying anything that you call them to see if you are still on the air. Often they answer " it's a bit quite today" .

It would appear that with a bit of airspace re organisation we may actually be able to provide a class E service at Ballina at no extra cost.

[CaptainMidnight]

Fly in the similar airspace in Australia and you can go for so long without ATC saying anything that you call them to see if you are still on the air. Often they answer " it's a bit quite today".

Well, that negates the argument that GA aircraft broadcasts on the FIA have a high likelihood of stepping on high level airliners or ATC comms :)

[Dick Smith]

I have never said a high likelihood. It's a very low chance with potentially horrendous results.

[89 steps to heaven]

There is no additional cost Class E or Class D. The controller is already there.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I have never said a high likelihood. It's a very low chance with potentially horrendous results.

Getting 'stepped on' happens not infrequently, but so far I've managed to survive it. What horrendous results are you envisaging, Dick?

Whereas Fly IFR in the USA and the ATC frequencies are going like machine guns with hardly a space to get a word in for a clearance request
is just fine - in fact it's the best, and we should copy it. (Do they somehow do all this machine-gun transmitting without anyone getting stepped on, thereby avoiding horrendous consequences?)

Can I be forgiven for finding this all a bit confusing? Contradictory, even?

[Dick Smith]

Ok. You all win. It's ok for VFR in Australia to make self announcements on ATC separation frequencies. The other countries that prohibit this to protect their Air Traffic Controllers are wrong.

And no. There is no reason for Australia to have the traffic loadings on ATC frequencies as the USA.

But maybe room for a little more workload so we could have a bit of E at Ballina .

[Lead Balloon]

Ok. You all win. It's ok for VFR in Australia to make self announcements on ATC separation frequencies. The other countries that prohibit this to protect their Air Traffic Controllers are wrong.It's not about 'winning', Dick. It's about putting a coherent argument.

It's completely incoherent to say VFR should be prohibited from making self announcements on ATC separation frequencies, on the grounds that they could overtransmit an important ATC instruction, but say VFR are allowed make a transmission requesting flight following on ATC separation frequencies. A request for flight following is just as likely to overtransmit an important ATC instruction as any other transmission. And there are already lots of overtransmissions on ATC frequencies, but the system seems to be capable of dealing with the consequences.

That said, if you get the system changed and VFR sticks to 126.7 or the CTAF in the vicinity while in G - that's fine. We can all do that. Let's just hope the change is implemented properly. But maybe room for a little more workload so we could have a bit of E at Ballina .I agree with this point.

[Dick Smith]

That's why I said you win.

In the USA it is totally accepted that VFR can request flight following directly to ATC but they are not allowed to make self announcements on the same frequencies.

You say this is " completely incoherent ". Maybe to you but it is a fact.

To me and many others it appears totally rational.

Remember it's just not the initial announcement. It's the " radio arranged separation" that follows that is more of a problem. If you remember Bloggs and others would not accept that alerted see and avoid works at places like Launceston. They want both aircraft to start communicating and arrange separation. This really blocks up an ATC frequency.

[Lead Balloon]

In the USA it is totally accepted that VFR can request flight following directly to ATC but they are not allowed to make self announcements on the same frequencies.

You say this is " completely incoherent ". Maybe to you but it is a fact.I didn't say that the US system is completely incoherent. I said some of your arguments are completely incoherent. There's a difference.

It's like your assertion that 90% of VFR pilots are "defying" the "CASA ruling". I think you'll find that the ones operating out of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips and cattle properties in the middle of nowhere might actually realise that there are no mandatory calls there.

[Ia8825]

Well I guess I might as well get my first post out of the way by jumping straight in the fire. I control air traffic, and I believe there is some merit to what Dick Smith has suggested as changes to our system, albeit that I'm not a huge Dick Smith fan on a personal level.

Controlled approaches down to 700ft could definitely be done using current resources, and would be extremely beneficial to the safety of flights. As a controller, I'm really not a fan of the whole separating to a085, then passing traffic and basically saying may the force be with you. I have the traffic picture right in front of me, and could make everything much more orderly than some of the scary self separation I have seen. As has been pointed out, there would be quite a training lead in time for this, but that doesn't really justify not looking at it.

In IMC, you get separated, and once your in VMC, you can be cleared visual approach, then you can manoeuvre how you wish once within 5nm, it really doesn't seem that complex. I would love to see it done at Armidale, there is radar to the ground there, seems like a perfect candidate for it. The biggest challenge won't be the finer details of how it should work, it will be convincing people that the current system can be changed without the world ending.

[NOtimTAMs]

Dick you'd get more respect from me if you didn't misrepresent the situation at places like Ballina.

"There isn’t even a radio operator on the ground at these airports to confirm that
the aircraft radio is working correctly and give local weather conditions". Dick, there's an AFRU at Ballina and an AWIS (QNH, wind speed/direction, temp, dewpoint, cloud) on 134.8. Don't need the person on the ground. More than enough for a competent pilot to handle. As for multiple IFR arrivals in IMC - again rare to happen at Ballina and easily handled the way it is handled at Narromine or Birdsville or Charleville....

The problem is there is no problem.

But don't let the facts get in the way. :rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

If you remember Bloggs and others would not accept that alerted see and avoid works at places like Launceston. They want both aircraft to start communicating and arrange separation. This really blocks up an ATC frequency.
WARNING! WARNING! Incoherence alert!! Yes, Dick, in the airspace that is the highest risk (your words) you have VFR deciding whether or not he's going to be a collsion risk to a RPT High Capacity jet without saying a word to anyone! Incoherence 101!

It beggar's belief that on the one hand you rip into me for wanting to keep DTI in Class G+ and do self-segregation and demanding that we IFR be controlled by ATC to 700ft, and on the other you are quite happy to let VFR swan around without saying anything so close to the airport! The stupid part about it was the tower was there and talking! Who would organise a system where, within 15miles of a major airport, VFR can swan along doing their own thing. It is quite acceptable to play ATC, but both parties MUST be involved. If only one aeroplane knows what's going on, it's NOT Alerted See and Avoid.

Rediculous Madness!

Previously, IIRC, you also made some jibes at the ATSB after Launy shemozzle along the lines "they didn't say anything bad about E". Here's what the report had to say:

While a single occurrence does not provide the basis for a major change to the USbased NAS, which is yet to be fully implemented, the circumstances of this serious incident are indicative of a need for further review and analysis by the responsible authorities in consultation with industry.
and
The ATSB recommends that Airservices Australia, in consultation with the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority and the NAS Implementation Group, review NAS procedures and communications requirements for operations in Class E airspace, with particular emphasis on air transport operations during climb and descent in non-radar airspace, with a view to enhancing situational awareness of pilots operating in that airspace. The review should include examination of, and where necessary revision and updating of, education, training and chart frequency material.
That is why "rollback" occurred, because terminal Class E is fundamentally flawed.

[Dick Smith]

Notim. As explained elsewhere I built the original AFRU and put it in at Bundaberg and received great resistance from pilots who claimed it was not necessary. Good to see you accept at least one change I promote.

Certainly not necessary in other countries as they all have unicom operators at non tower airports with airline traffic. And the AFRU won't tell you if your radio is working correctly- just if there is a carrier wave present.


How does the AFRU inform you that an airline aircraft has just entered and backtracking down the runway without giving any CTAF calls? ( as Qantas did at Ayers Rock)

How does an AWIS tell you that there is a local rainshower on the runway threshold?

I like the idea of a real person at the airport like the USA and Canada. Then again we did not do it in the past when we were trained - lets get The AFIS back.

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. Yair. That E with its transponder and radio mandate for VFR in lower risk link airspace above D is fundamentally flawed but class G in higher collision risk terminal airspace with no transponder requirement and no third party requirement is fantastic .

Could it be that you think everything we did in the past was acceptable and any change is not? I think so.

How did you ever move from piston to jet?

[Capn Bloggs]

How did you ever move from piston to jet?
Actually, I had to slow down to fly these jets... but I digress. ;)

class G in higher collision risk terminal airspace with no transponder requirement and no third party requirement is fantastic .
Oh Dick, Dick, Dick. Firstly, if it was higher risk it'd have a CAGRO (YAYE). If it was even higher than that it'd have an AFIS YPPD). And if it was higher than that, it'd have a class D tower (YCFS). Just like we have all over Australia; commonsense, scaled, risk-managed services to support safe, commercial operations.

And don't worry about transponders, I would be quite happy to mandate them for all aeroplanes into RPT ports. Besides, you are going to force virtually all VFR visitors to those ports to get them anyway because of the Class E requirement for transponders. :D You are also aware of course that carriage and use of transponders is mandatory above A100, which covers a flight to the point where mandatory radio kicks in "in the vicinity".

Re your third-party requirement comment, you are obviously not aware of the MANDATORY frequency confirmation requirements of the CAOs. I won't provide you with the reference, I'll leave that to Leddie, as he is really good at providing references to justify all his claims... :D

[NOtimTAMs]

Dick

My problem is that you presented the issue as if there NO mitigating factors in place.

As a qualified CIR and IFR-current pilot I am quite happy to encounter a rainshower on the threshold! Aren't you? There's approach minima that include visibility for a reason (BTW, a UNICOM guy/gal in any of the aviation businesses in Ballina can't see the threshold of RWY 24 and if they're sitting in an office doing the Unicom on top of their real job, they can't see the runway at all. )

As for the aircraft on the wrong frequency or doing the wrong thing - I've seen "bad/poor behaviour" and errors made in controlled airspace as well - you've got to keep your wits about you - I've been given turn instructions in Cairns that would have put me into Mt Whitfield and seen ultralight aircraft plough on through controlled airspace undetected. The YAYE radio call incident with an RPT is pretty bloody rare. You may as well take the example of aircraft debris falling to the ground occasionally and mandate we all live under concrete shelters, just in case....

Have a look at this: Unicom Responsibility Who's Running The Radio? - Flight Training (http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2000/December/200012_Instructor_Report_Unicom_Responsibility.html) and see if it solves the non-problem for you.

[Dick Smith]

No tim. A really good article and good advice on the FAA Unicom .

Main point is that there is a third party to confirm that the radio is working correctly.

Actually I agree that it's not simply black and white and I apologise if what I have written comes over that way.

It's a real pity that skilled people such as Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer offer a US style Unicom service because of the CASA more prescriptive requirements. Pity we can't copy the best from anywhere.

The fatalities at Lockart River may have been avoided if the airport groundsman had been allowed provide a Unicom service and talk to the plane with his handheld. He told me that on the day it was clear of cloud to the east of the aerodrome. If he could have informed the pilot he may have chosen not to do the IFR approach in high winds over the only mountain ridge in the area and come in visually from the east.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I just dunno Dick.

Perhaps a VFR pilot would have 'maintained VFR' and come in from the East as well....

That's a 'long bow', and will not be appreciated by some...

Cheers:uhoh:

[Dick Smith]

Griffo. Remember when Flight Service stations located at airports were not supposed to have a window that viewed the runway?

What was that all about?

[Arm out the window]

Don't start dredging up Lockhart River with a 'poor old pilot who wasn't given enough info' slant Dick - as you would be aware there are very strong factors showing that wasn't the case at all.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What was that all about?
I always thought it was ATC dominated upper management protecting their turf by making sure that no lines were stepped over. In reality, the AFIS service in an AFIZ was not predicated on being able to see the circuit area. Remote AFIZ's got almost the same service without an FSO sitting at the 'drome ie Groote Eylandt was done from Gove (I didn't provide the weather at Groote, the AFIZ was established more for the traffic due RPT jets going in there). While Gove had a Met office (on the other side of the runway from the FSU), I or one of the others on shift, could at least nip outside and have a quick look around and then pass anything useful to the pilot (all FSO's being accredited observers of course ;)). Often during "the wet" that would assist with the "Bullman Track" approach coming into play for the VFRies. (Follow the road to the mine, then hard left onto final :ok:).
While it seemed that the youngest FSU's were deliberately built so as not to provide views of the airport as it was not deemed necessary when the goverment provided the service, it seems ironic that now a third party is required to provide it (a CAGRO), visibility of the circuit area is one of the requirements. :confused:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Dick, As Mr 'Traffic' has said. And....

In those days 'the FS bosses' were mostly ex communications officers from the Services - RAAF and Navy mostly - as they had the 'communications' skills, including 'machine telegraphy' and 'morse'.

Yes, in the early days, Morse was used for sending many weather reports etc.
These ways died 'hard'.

But THEIR (The then DCA hierarchy) bosses were ex ATC / ex RAAF 'officers' and no 'Ye Shall Not Do What We Do And Look Out The Window As We Do And Supply Useful Eyeball Information Lest Ye Be Tempted To Become Like Us'.... True Story.

Looking out the window to pass some 'useful information' was 'verboten'- crikey - we were even accused of 'putting ourselves in the cockpit' at times, and a FSO did NOT do THAT!
(Nails and a cross come to mind)

In two words - 'Legal Liability' would say it all.....

Fortunately, over time, some 'common sense' prevailed and FS units, like those at Kalgoorlie, which was adjacent to the movement area / runways, actually had the windows enlarged to the 'scenic' style, so that we could see the runway and surrounding areas.

However, the bit about not looking out still applied.....But of course at times it was very handy that we did.
e.g. When a Jetranger at Kal. actually crashed approaching the refuelling point, I was able to 'hit the button' immediately and a visiting RAAF Firecrew were on the scene pronto.

At Derby, Dubbo, and a few other places, the building was two story with big windows overlooking the field and with huge windows.
'Tis a pity that the consoles all had large map displays above them which blotted this out.

However, one could work around that, and it became 'invaluable' in 'the wet' to be able to describe the approaching Cb as 'sitting on the threshold of Rwy 29.....' So, the FK28 of the day would go off and hold for usually 20 mins or so was enough. We were able to tell him when 'The Coast Was Clear', so to speak.

We were the accredited MET observers at Derby.

Also we could advise that the blanket of thick fog, which was forecast and had been 'there' all morning, was only 'over the marsh' and the actual runway was 'clear' so, 'other aircraft were getting in OK by using the Rwy 11 direction....'

These pilots appreciated this part of the service.

Ditto for a particular 'runway incursion' by an inexperienced pilot right in front of the approaching RFDS 'Queen Air' of the time.....a timely warning to the RFDS pilot who was doing an instrument approach, and quick 'advice' to the other pilot - note we were NOT allowed to give 'INSTRUCTION' (THAT would be 'controlling'...) - ONLY "ADVICE" - on how and WHY he should VACATE IMMEDIATELY.....

And, Mr 'Traffic's last para sorta says it all....

We did also provide the 'identical' AFIZ service for Broome, remotely from Derby, relying on the Broome MET office to supply us with 30 minute Met reports, and 'specials' as required.
A full traffic information service was also provided - 'procedurely' if you like, for 'conflicting' traffic, according to the criteria of the time.

Later, this was all provided from Perth FSC via satellite dishes on the ground at the remote locations.

This is getting a bit 'lengthy' but you did ask......

I think that you now 'have the idea'.....

Cheers :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

For the Ballina locals, who is on the end of 126.05? (don't tell me Dick's secretrary! :{). Thanks!

[10JQKA]

AsA Airspace Modernisation Project “Tranche 3” released over Easter/Anzac Day holidays, stakeholder consultation ends May 24th 2019. It’s on the Airservices website under “projects” tab & AIrspace Modernistation sub-tab. Can’t put link up as not enough posts.

Class E (vice C) over D at regionals from 2020. D to A045 by TWR & E above A045 by Centre.

Ending of SAFRA.

Locations are Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Rockhampton and Tamworth.

[CaptainMidnight]

The links were put up in posts #1 and #19 of this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/614989-airservices-airspace-modernisation-proposal-consultation.html#post10299422

Let's not have two separate threads going, one resurrected after 3 years -

[10JQKA]

Newly released “Tranche 3” specifically relates to many posts on this thread which discuss the merits or not of the downgrading of Class C to Class E, which failed when attempted previously in 2004 as part of the NAS 2b changes, so it is appropriate that this thread be resurrected.