Airservices Airspace Modernisation Proposal & Consultation

[Captain Garmin]

Two changes currently proposed are:

1) National Standardisation of Class A and E Airspace• Class A airspace will be applied from 24,500ft (FL245) to 60,000ft (FL600).

• In medium and high density airspace, the Class C upper limit will change to FL245 and in low
density, the lower limit will be raised to FL245 (from 18,500ft (FL180)

• Class E will remain as is (in the Mildura, Tasmania and Dubbo corridors).

• In low density continental areas, Class E airspace will be lowered to 12,500ft (FL125) (excluding control areas).

• Class C airspace will be introduced underneath Class A airspace in medium and high density areas where Class A airspace has been raised.

2) Transfer of control responsibility of surveilled Class C airspace from Air Traffic Control Towers at five regional locations to an Enroute sector in either Melbourne or Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centres

Airspace Modernisation Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/airspace-modernisation/)

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-Standardisation-a-Class-A-and-E-Airspace.pdf

Feedback to airservices requested by 16 November...

[Flava Saver]

Modernisation? How’s about HBA, LST, MKY & ROK a class C tower with full radar? That might be an awesome start.... and towers stay open until the last RPT arrives.

[triadic]

Modernisation? How’s about HBA, LST, MKY & ROK a class C tower with full radar? That might be an awesome start.... and towers stay open until the last RPT arrives.

And who pays for that? Does the traffic justify that level of service?

[LeadSled]

And who pays for that? Does the traffic justify that level of service?

triadic,
You have been around as long as I have, you must know, by now, that in Australian aviation, life is priceless, no expenditure, no matter how large, or regulation no matter how silly, or restriction no matter how useless, is unjustified, to address a risk, no matter how small that risk, indeed to even address a "perception of a risk", even when the proponent accepts that they cannot show that the perception of risk is anything more than the product their febrile imagination.

And we can't just blame CASA or Airservices, given the "expressed views" of the ignoratie of the aviation community.

As the now retired DFO of a big Australian airline once told me: "We have to be able to tell the passengers aviation is "ABSOLUTELY SAFE". An interesting concept --- or perhaps he even believed it.

Tootle pip!!

[triadic]

Leady, can't argue with you on that one, but the suggestion above by Flava,that I referred to obviously would come at a cost and any examination of the proposal would have to pass a cost - benefit analysis and well as a risk analysis before moving forward. It may well be that some proposals have a significant risk attached and the associated cost is therefore accepted, however there is a very well established process for such proposals/changes and at the end of the day 'somebody' has to front up with the $$'s If it is judged to be acceptable by the decision makers in conjunction with industry then under the present setup, we all pay our share, one way or the other. Something that GA struggles with.
cheers

PS... I heard that LHR changed from a Class A to D airspace/tower as it gave them more flexibility.... why then should we then have Class C at those rural ports?
https://www.nats.aero/environment/consultations/london-ctr-reclassification/

[Capn Bloggs]

And who pays for that? Does the traffic justify that level of service?
One could ask exactly the same about the lowering of Class E... :cool:

[LeadSled]

triadic,
I guess everybody has long forgotten, but we actually once had a requirement for (effectively) cost/benefit justification of any aviation legislative proposal, in the legislation.

This was in the mid-1990s.

In the midst of some major legislative reform, the (by then CASA) Legal Branch quietly arranged for its repeal to be buried in a mass of other legislative change, buried in the consequential amendments that change always brings. Of course, it is very hard to spot something being erased, as opposed to something added, without positive reference, which was also carefully buried. Even a bloke hired to scrutinize all "new" legislation missed it, so well was the statutory notification buried.

One of the many totally cynical acts I (and you) have witnessed over the years.

Of course, the re-interpretation of S. 9A of the Act followed, falsely claiming (to this day) that CASA CANNOT take cost into account.

Now we are told the GAAG (after almost 20 years) has agreement with the Department and the pollies to put us back to where we were all those years ago.

I will believe the IRON RING will accept that when I see the legislative amendment "on the books".

Tootle pip!!

[Pavement]

Given the data changes etc that are required for a May 2019 implementation, I would think that it is a given that these changes will occur and ‘consultation’ is just ticking the box.

My query is what is the function of OAR? Surely CASA OAR should be constantly reviewing airspace for its suitability and determining when to instigate change. Seems as though the cart is leading the horse.

[triadic]

Seems as though the cart is leading the horse.

Funny you should say that... there is a few good examples of late:

the MULTICOM - 5 years to get nowhere!
the Melb VFR coast Route debacle
the Wellcamp training area/s - consultation with local operators - future class D tower?
the Hamilton Isld Navaid closure
Rocket launching NW of Goondiwindi

The consultation outside the airlines by ASA has been poor and there has been much finger pointing between ASA & CASA on some issues which suggests a lack of understanding on what goes on outside the big smoke much to the ongoing confusion of industry. My experience is that the OAR have a specific job to do and don't seem to get involved in much of the discussion, but do refer matters to the RAPACs.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Definition of 'Consultation' as described by Commissioner G Smith of the IRC in a previous FS decision

(Please excuse the large type - 'tis from a 'cut n paste'...Not intended to imply shouting.....)

Consultation

"In relation to the concept of consultation I wish to make it

clear that this involves more than a mere exchange of

information. For consultation to be effective the participants

must be contributing to the decision-making process not only

in appearance, but in fact".

Commissioner Smith, Melbourne, 12 March, 1991
Definition of 'Consultation'
Statement re: Civil Aviation Authority

Award ODN C
Cheers

[CaptainMidnight]

Gee, what was that in relation to??

Who was Chairman of the Board in 1991??

[Capn Bloggs]

Tweet tweet: It's been put off until November 2019. ;)

If they can put it off until 2028 when I retire, I'll be very happy! :ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

Tweet tweet: It's been put off until November 2019. ;)

I thought May 2019 was a bit ambitious, given as far as I am aware the data cut-off for those charts would be mid-December this year. And if widespread consultation hasn't yet been done with all the affected parties, CASA's OAR would likely have issues approving the airspace change.

There would be a lot of Airservices internal changes required too, including systems, documentation and training.

When Airservices let most of their "back room" people go a couple of years ago, it seems that a lot of knowledge and expertise about such things and other matters went out the door.

[Track Shortener]

And if widespread consultation hasn't yet been done with all the affected parties, CASA's OAR would likely have issues approving the airspace change.
Rumour has it this is exactly what's just happened to the initial Airspace Change Proposal. Watch this space!

[CaptainMidnight]

Rumour has it this is exactly what's just happened to the initial Airspace Change Proposal. Watch this space!

Perhaps Airservices should consider bringing back on contract one or two of their "back room" airspace and change management experts we used to deal with, to both keep their chestnuts out of the fire and ensure "due process" is followed in future :)

[triadic]

At a recent RAPAC meeting an ASA rep provided a briefing on this program, which had about 5 or 6 stages. Consultation with industry did not appear on any of the slides and when asked we were advised it was in one of the later stages. One has to ask why it was not at stage one? By the time it was briefed, it was a done deal. Not really good enough.

[CaptainMidnight]

I seem to recall that was the NASIG approach :)

[10JQKA]

Tranche 3 of AsA Airspace Modenisation Project released. Can’t post URL as forum won’t allow, but it’s on the AsA website under “projects” and then “airspace modernisation sub-menu”

Class E over D at regionals in 2020.

[CaptainMidnight]

Airspace Modernisation (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/airspace-modernisation/)

TRANCHE THREE FACT SHEET (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-Tranche-Three.pdf)

[Captain Garmin]

"The (Airspace Modernisation) program is a key enabler for Airservices to deliver the benefits of the OneSKY Australia program "

"Over the coming years, advanced air traffic management technology will be introduced in stages to unlock more than a Billion dollars of economic benefits for Australia."

Stage 1 of OneSKY delivered a digital voice communication capable of mass frequency consolidation, I'm guessing once you have standardised airspace, controller ratings are no longer geographically bound.

Hopefully efficiencies harvested in controller:airspace and controller:aircraft ratio increases come back to the aviation industry and not completely go to Airservices' senior management bonuses or Airservices government dividend returns...

[CaptainMidnight]

What is the latest re industry consultation and proposed education re these proposed changes?

The proposed change of C over D to E over D will be interesting. I recall most if not all aeronautical studies involving C over D, the "why not E" aspect has been covered by words to the effect that if a higher level of service can be provided, then it should be.

I also note in the recent Aeronautical Study of Launceston:

At the time this review was being undertaken, Airservices Australia had proposed a trial of Class E airspace over Class D airspace volumes at Launceston and Hobart. There had been significant feedback from stakeholders to the OAR on this trial. This trial has been removed and replaced with the Airspace Modernisation project3. Under this project, there is no change to the airspace classification at Launceston.

Launceston Airspace Review - January 2019 (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/launceston-airspace-review-january-2019.pdf)

And in one for Tamworth:

Class C airspace above Tamworth Class D airspace should be maintained unless a new aeronautical study using an airspace risk analysis methodology and cost benefit analysis can prove significant benefits for Class E airspace.

[buckshot1777]

At the time this review was being undertaken, Airservices Australia had proposed a trial of Class E airspace over Class D airspace volumes at Launceston and Hobart. There had been significant feedback from stakeholders to the OAR on this trial. This trial has been removed and replaced with the Airspace Modernisation project3. Under this project, there is no change to the airspace classification at Launceston.

I guess there will be an amendment to the current Tranche 3 document in due course to reflect this ....

[Piston_Broke]

For any changes to be effective on 7 November 2019, the cut-off date is early June.

Which doesn't leave much time for consultation, particularly since most of the RAPACs have already had their first round of meetings now.

[Capn Bloggs]

I cannot believe that John Anderson's (how many transport minsters ago was that, 10?) Ministerial Directive to placate he who cannot be named, over 15 years ago, is still being trotted out to justify the refusal or windback of Class C above D. How about we move on, people!

"As an aside, folks, just to let you know that we will be descending into airspace where not only do VFR aeroplanes not advise us of their position, they probably cannot be seen by air traffic controllers either because there's no radar out here. My FO and I will do our darndest to spot them out the front windows because there is a law that says we must, but I can't promise anything, because, as you can imagine, it gets a bit busy up here as we approach terra-firma.". :ok:

[10JQKA]

I guess there will be an amendment to the current Tranche 3 document in due course to reflect this ....



The CASA O.A.R review of LT is dated Jan 2019, and the Tranche 3 AsA change proposal is April 2019, so amendment seems unlikely as the review findings were already known when Tranche 3 was released.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Cap'n,

Should 'that' be spelled 'terror-firmer'...??

Cheeerrrssss…….

[buckshot1777]

The CASA O.A.R review of LT is dated Jan 2019, and the Tranche 3 AsA change proposal is April 2019, so amendment seems unlikely as the review findings were already known when Tranche 3 was released.
So if the review findings were already known i.e. there will be no change to the airspace at Launceston, why does the Tranche 3 document at point 1 say:

Re-classify Class C airspace to Class E airspace at nine regional aerodromes (Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Rockhampton and Tamworth).

And make further reference to the same at Tranche 3.1?

Unless I'm missing something -

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Flight Chops Oakland Airspace, talking to NorCal, VFR flight following in Class E. Watch from 5:00 mark. Interesting situation. Imagine here, "appropriate" frequency and not talking to anyone. What happens next?

[10JQKA]

So if the review findings were already known i.e. there will be no change to the airspace at Launceston, why does the Tranche 3 document at point 1 say:



And make further reference to the same at Tranche 3.1?

Unless I'm missing something -


Yes that’s the point, we are all missing something here. And it’s not just LT, if you look at the completed CASA O.A.R Airspace reviews for the various locations they all have the same findings “status quo” is “fit-for-purpose”, so what could have changed that in April 2019 AsA proposes that everything is up for grabs ?

[Lead Balloon]

[S]o what could have changed that in April 2019 AsA proposes that everything is up for grabs ?My wild guess would be the looming election and the need, once again, for the coalition to try to duchess Dick Smith into believing there’ll be E over D at more airports.

But we all know that politics would never intrude into such important ‘safety’ decisions.

[cLeArIcE]

Dear Santa Claus/ Easter bunny/ Magic fairy or who ever is in charge of this stuff... :yuk:
Feel free to name the airspace whatever letter of the alphabet you want. Just make it manageable so we don't have to bust our backsides trying to keep the jet in CTA.
Surely it can't be that hard. I can't think of any country in the world that has these issues. :ugh:
Oh, while I'm asking for things that will never happen, a tower in Ballina. Preferably BEFORE the 200 dead bodies land on sovereign Gardens.

[LeadSled]

Dear Santa Claus/ Easter bunny/ Magic fairy or who ever is in charge of this stuff... :yuk:
Feel free to name the airspace whatever letter of the alphabet you want. Just make it manageable so we don't have to bust our backsides trying to keep the jet in CTA.
Surely it can't be that hard. I can't think of any country in the world that has these issues. :ugh:
Oh, while I'm asking for things that will never happen, a tower in Ballina. Preferably BEFORE the 200 dead bodies land on sovereign Gardens.
cLeAicE,
E is CTA.
Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Flight Chops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ-cJOB3Ido) Oakland Airspace, talking to NorCal, VFR flight following in Class E. Watch from 5:00 mark. Interesting situation. Imagine here, "appropriate" frequency and not talking to anyone. What happens next?

Thanks for post that - very interesting :)

So life isn't all beer and skittles with Class E airspace over there.

[Lead Balloon]

So life isn't all beer and skittles with Class E airspace over there.It ain’t all beer and skittles for RPT in ForG over here, either.

Someone mentioned the possibility of 200 dead bodies in Sovereign Gardens at Ballina ...

[Capn Bloggs]

It ain’t all beer and skittles for RPT in ForG over here, either.

Someone mentioned the possibility of 200 dead bodies in Sovereign Gardens at Ballina ...
Glad to see you're back in your rightful spot bashing the way we do things, LB.

FOR A START, that bugsmasher and the jets would have been talking to each other.

SECONDLY, some of us have said over and over again... if Ballina is that bad and yes, it does meet the CASA criteria for a tower, PUT ONE IN!

PS: Where's the other leddie? Maybe he's updating his US safety stats...

[Lead Balloon]

Pointing out patent illogicalities is not ‘bashing’. It’s pointing out patent illogicalities.

The reason there’s not a tower at Ballina is money. Someone has decided that the cost of mitigating the risks to all those RPT passengers as a consequence of exposure to unsupervised LCDs in ForG, by putting in a tower and making the surrounding airspace D or C, isn’t worth it. I think the term to describe this concept is “affordable safety” ...

[LeadSled]

Bloggsie,
Re. Ballina, I agree with you about a tower ---- if the establishment criteria has been reached, then a tower it should be ----- and it looks like it will be a "virtual" tower ---- which, no doubt, will be a great disappointment to ATCs who would love a job in a nice seaside rural setting, in a very pleasant country town, cheap houses etc., but still a short drive from the "bright lights".

And it is true that, so far, it has been all about cost, with the airlines doing handstands to avoid same.

Re. stats, nope, no need, which you would understand, if you had even an elementary understanding of mathematical statistics, and, for that matter, risk management.

Tootle pip!!

[10JQKA]

I cannot believe that John Anderson's (how many transport minsters ago was that, 10?) Ministerial Directive to placate he who cannot be named, over 15 years ago, is still being trotted out to justify the refusal or windback of Class C above D. How about we move on, people!

"As an aside, folks, just to let you know that we will be descending into airspace where not only do VFR aeroplanes not advise us of their position, they probably cannot be seen by air traffic controllers either because there's no radar out here. My FO and I will do our darndest to spot them out the front windows because there is a law that says we must, but I can't promise anything, because, as you can imagine, it gets a bit busy up here as we approach terra-firma.". :ok:




Yep, and this will be the case (if it is approved) at destinations as busy as HB (where there is constant talk in the media about making it a major international destination), RK (where Alliance apparently have a deal with QLD Gov to set up a base), TW (where Qantas is planning on setting up a school I think I read somewhere), also LT,MK,AS,AY and who knows where else ? And to make it even more of a burden, the Approach service will not start until A045 down from the current Class C APP service provided through A085 ! So the guy or gal on Centre (BN or ML) will be trying to keep an eye on any VFR bogies (Class E airspace) that happen to materialise until A040 before the acft can be safely transferred to the appropriate TW/APP frequency, whilst at the same time sorting out multiple conflicts and carrying out active monitoring of the whole area of responsibility which can cover 100s of nm and dozens of airports in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Any VFR will be able to transit over any major regional TW/APP unit at or above A045 without any restrictions, and without any charges or flight plans or anything at all whatsoever, how is this an appropriate way to manage an airways system when fare paying passengers and nav charges paying rpt airlines are exposed to this level of disruption to safe operations ? Surely a typical VFR operation would rather skirt around the outside of the current Class D & C zone & steps into major regional airports than help themselves to free overflights and risk getting in the way of RPT ops ? In the current setup with the C airspace if u get a clearance u fill yr boots and if u don’t u go around, and everyone knows what you are doing from start to finish, anything wrong with that ? What is broken here that needs to be fixed ?

Seriously who thinks this can work without major hiccups ? Why even try to do this ?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I simply cannot understand why bodies are nor regularly raining from the skies in US (and many other countries) given the extent of E airspace in said countries.
In ICAO terms, that takes care of the risk analysis of the Airservices proposal.
And speaking of ICAO, what is it about Australia that is so different, that such well established and proven CNS/ATM management procedures as promulgated by ICAO draw so much flack for self-confessed "professional" pilots in Australia.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Leddee. You should also ask why on earth is radar required to provide a terminal C service.

that such well established and proven CNS/ATM management procedures as promulgated by ICAO draw so much flack for self-confessed "professional" pilots in Australia.
Whaat? It depends entirely on how said CNS/ATM (do I get a prize for using tekko words) is allocated! Oh I remember, A B C D E F and G are all exactly as safe as each other.

[Lead Balloon]

A few questions for pilots who fly RPT in and out of non-towered aerodromes in Australia:

1. What is your assessment of the extent of your collision risk with other aircraft in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes, caused by the pilots of other aircraft being on the wrong frequency, not selecting the correct radio to monitor or having its volume turned down, or mis-identifying or mis-reporting their location and ETA?

2. What is your assessment of the extent of your collision risk in Class E airspace, caused by the pilots of other aircraft not having a serviceable, operating transponder and not monitoring the frequency for the airspace and not self-announcing, or giving incorrect information when self-announcing?

3. If your assessment of the collision risk in 2 is higher than in 1, what assumptions are you making about the density of traffic in each scenario and what assumptions are you making about the competence of the other pilots in each scenario?

4. If your view is that the collision risk in 1 is higher than in 2, why are you prepared to risk yourself and your passengers in 1 but not 2?

[LeadSled]

Whaat? It depends entirely on how said CNS/ATM (do I get a prize for using tekko words) is allocated! Oh I remember, A B C D E F and G are all exactly as safe as each other.

Bloggsie,
Does that imply that you believe the implementation in Australia is or would be incompetent, or that users would be incompetent to handle same??

And Yeah!!! Progress!!!

You do remember something of ICAO Risk Management based principles.
Tootle pip!!

[10JQKA]

CASA has now opened up public consultation on their website covering some of the AsA airspace modernisation proposals. And looks like AsA has had an epiphany on the Hobart airspace now looking at upgrade to full capital city surveillance Class C TWR & APP rather than the Tranche 3 downgrade to Class E down to A045 spruiked only a few weeks ago. Does the left hand actually know what the right is doing one wonders?

[LeadSled]

CASA has now opened up public consultation on their website covering some of the AsA airspace modernisation proposals. And looks like AsA has had an epiphany on the Hobart airspace now looking at upgrade to full capital city surveillance Class C TWR & APP rather than the Tranche 3 downgrade to Class E down to A045 spruiked only a few weeks ago. Does the left hand actually know what the right is doing one wonders?





Folks,
This must be another part of the Australian (non) compliance with ICAO ----- C stands for Capital City "airspace"??

On this basis, here is my suggestion for new definitions: ---- for airspace classification --- clearly delineating the perceptions of "safety" in Australia, and, of course completely ignoring rational risk management.

A -- Absolutely safe.
B -- Bloody safe
C -- Capital city safe
D -- Downmarket from the Capital city safe.
E -- E is for error -- a certain group of pilots believe it should not be used in Australia, completely blind to its use world wide..
F -- Faaarrking Hell, what's this?
G -- God help us all !! But those who reject Error airspace accept G, go figure??

Tootle pip!!

PS: I do hope that you all, or at least some of you, understand that, in the ICAO scheme of things, the "separation assurance standards" is the same for all classes of airspace, and as traffic increases, airspace classification and associated CNS/ATM services are varied (increased) to maintain the standard. Put another way, airspace category is related to traffic levels and a fixed collision risk probability, not different levels of "safety" in different classes of airspace.

[Capn Bloggs]

not different levels of "safety" in different classes of airspace.
I don't know why I bother but...

So Leddie, at Hobart, tomorrow, Class A is just as safe as Class G, is it not, based on your theory?

[LeadSled]

I don't know why I bother but...
So Leddie, at Hobart, tomorrow, Class A is just as safe as Class G, is it not, based on your theory?
Bloggsie,
Sometimes I wonder if you really are as thick as you present yourself to be.

ICAO isn't a theory.

ICAO airspace management Docs/SARPs are not a theory, to a greater or (in the AU case) lesser degree they are standards used worldwide.

There is nothing theoretical about risk management, unless, of course, you believe all the ISO standards, which underpin just about every industrial process, are just a theory (or FAA/EASA design and certification standards)---- which means that whatever aeroplane you are flying is largely designed on some basis, that is not valid -- risk management.

And yes, in the Hobart case, if the traffic levels only required G (which they don't, D is where it is) all A would do is increase costs without without improving the actual separation assurance outcomes.

Unless, of course, you believe banning VFR aircraft entirely is right and and proper ---- and, considering that proposition, you are probably unreasonable enough to believe that is reasonable.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Do some homework, and have a close look at Eurocontrol publications, they actually publish their CNS/ATMrisk targets and and achieved results, on a regular basis.

[Capn Bloggs]

And yes, in the Hobart case, if the traffic levels only required G (which they don't, D is where it is) all A would do is increase costs without without improving the actual separation assurance outcomes.

Nicely dodged. The fact is that Class A at Hobart tomorrow is safer than Class D or G.

Unless, of course, you believe banning VFR aircraft entirely is right and and proper ---- and, considering that proposition, you are probably unreasonable enough to believe that is reasonable.
Garbage. I'm on the record here, more times than I can remember, saying VFR is welcome into any airspace. I just don't see the logic, or the safety, in running two parallel airspace worlds together, using unalerted See and Avoid as the only defence. Every aspect of society has advanced in leaps and bounds on the safety front. Aviation is going backwards because of the Free in G brigade. It will take only one midair at Hobart (or Alice with the new class E) and you lot will be running for the hills. Or will you be on your soapbox blaming Aussie Jet pilots for not looking out, or quoting some stat that said it was always going to happen even if it was Class A? You lot were given a warning by the Tobago. But you will never learn.

I don't mind mixing it with lighties, provided there is some system in place to reduce the risk apart from me looking out the flippin' window.

[LeadSled]

And, Bloggsie, old mate, you completely ignore that Class A airspace is not intended for any kind of terminal control area, and is not used for CTA anywhere. ---- but I am not at all surprised, given you well demonstrated in-depth knowledge of all things CNS/ATM.
As for the Tobago, I hope you never have to fly (except as pax) anywhere in US/CA.
Tootle pip!!

PS: And do bone up on risk management principles, as it applies to ATM ---- you might well be surprised, despite what you fondly believe to be self -evident. truth. The clue is in exactly what the target separation assurance standard actually is, and it's relation to "ALARP" and "vanishingly small"..

[alphacentauri]

ICAO isn't a theory

That's exactly what it is.

ICAO airspace management Docs/SARPs are not a theory, to a greater or (in the AU case) lesser degree they are standards used worldwide.

That's exactly what they are.

ICAO set the theory behind how to develop an airspace concept. Using ICAO guidelines you are free to, and encouraged to, come up with your own airspace model.

ICAO do not have an airspace model. They do have a Doc on Airspace Planning Methodology (Doc9689) and a Global ATM concept document (Doc9854). I will ask again. What is the ICAO Doc/Annex, whatever, where they describe the airspace model?

I do hope that you all, or at least some of you, understand that, in the ICAO scheme of things, the "separation assurance standards" is the same for all classes of airspace, and as traffic increases, airspace classification and associated CNS/ATM services are varied (increased) to maintain the standard. Put another way, airspace category is related to traffic levels and a fixed collision risk probability, not different levels of "safety" in different classes of airspace.

In which Doc/Annex is this defined? In actual fact, I think you will find that this is untrue.

In one of the documents mentioned above, there is a chapter titled "Application of Risk Analysis to Airspace Planning in Australia"...you may wish to read it.

Outside of your airline career, have you extensive experience flying within the US system?

Alpha

[LeadSled]

Alpha,
We will have to agree to disagree on interpretations as to what ICAO docs. and SARPs are, in practice, particularly as Australian legislation more or less requires us to follow ICAO ( the less being the rather silly number of differences) .

And, as we know, CASA in particular, when it suits them, use ICAO compliance as an excuse/crutch.

No, I can't, off the top of my head, give you reading references to separation assurance standards, but we spent enough time talking about it during the NAS period. Airservices collision risk probabilities amount to the same thing.

As to you question, the answer is yes, including long before I even thought about an airline job ( and add UK and most of western Europe), and throughout my airline times.

Indeed, in early days, returning to AU, the stultifying rigidity of Australian aviation came as a surprise, and flying in the UK and US from time to time over many years was always a very pleasant experience..

Of all the people I know, who have had a "flying" holiday or some such in the the US, not one single one has compared it unfavorably to AU, or compared the FAA unfavorably to CASA, and usually very enthusiastically and volubly quite the reverse.

Tootle pip!!

PS: My FAA CPL/Multi/Land/Instrument etc is a real one, (nice little plastic credit card size in the current iteration) not something issued against a "foreign" license.
PS2 I am certain your words will be music to Bloggsie's ears --even if he is tone deaf.
PS3 My "heavy" time in US and elsewhere is not confined to AU based airlines.

[Capn Bloggs]

And, Bloggsie, old mate, you completely ignore that Class A airspace is not intended for any kind of terminal control area
Never said it was, nor did I say it should.

and is not used for CTA anywhere.
For Class A CTA, I suggest you have a look at your ERC.

I suppose you support/ed Class A above 245??

[LeadSled]

.

I suppose you support/ed Class A above 245??

Bloggsie,
Interesting you should raise that ----- many moons ago, there was an interesting piece of research done about C versus A at high level ---- what it meant in the real world.
The outcome --- over the period studied by Airservices, 12 months or so, the only effect of A was that a number of survey flight, involving a grand total of two aircraft, had to get concessions for each series of flight, instead of just getting a suitable clearance, for a VFR flight. I doubt anything has changed.
In short, A provided no additional risk reduction versus C. There was no "safety" issue.
Do I have an issue with A at high level, not really, I just recognize that it provides no measurable risk benefit, compared to C or B.
Having said that, I do not think much of the idea that a number of countries do not have tight requirements for operation at high levels ---- indeed, last time I looked, the continual prevalence of G (or F) was, in my opinion, a serious risk management issue.
Tootle pip!!

[atcnews]

A little birdie told me that CASA have made a final decision to deny approval for this airspace change.

[10JQKA]

A little birdie told me that CASA have made a final decision to deny approval for this airspace change.

Which Tranche & which part ?

E over D at regional TWRs vice C or
Lowered E base to F125 from F180 in the bush or
Insertion of C F180 to F245 & lifting of A in high density areas or
All of the above ?

[The name is Porter]

Any VFR will be able to transit over any major regional TW/APP unit at or above A045 without any restrictions,

Do yourself a favor, rent a C172 in the US and fly over the top of a Class D tower at A045 'with no restrictions' better still, not having to call the tower. I felt free for the first time! alleujah! I made it back to the home of aviation alive!

and without any charges or flight plans or anything at all whatsoever,

Why are you and everyone else in this nanny state obsessed with 'user pays?' So you think VFR in this country are paying nothing for the zero 'service' they get now? How is a flight plan or charges going to make the operation safer?

how is this an appropriate way to manage an airways system when fare paying passengers and nav charges paying rpt airlines are exposed to this level of disruption to safe operations ?

Oh geesus spare me............ It appears to me that airline pilots in the US remember that they used to fly VFR at some point in their career. That they forked out enough money for their training without having to 'pay' to overfly a Class D tower and therefore keeping an RPT jet passengers safe. It is a sight to behold when you overfly a Tower, see an Embraer taxying without having to go through the bull**** of 'clearance not available, remain OCTA' because there is one aircraft taxying.

USA:

'Rochester Tower, N10XT due weather request clearance to Rochester'
TOWER: 'N10XT, squawk ident'
'N10XT with ident'
TOWER: 'N10XT track direct the field, RWY 31, cleared to land'

WTF?? There's got to be a catch, too easy.

[mostlytossas]

Oh Porter....Your really making me envious now!

[alphacentauri]

What Porter said ^^^^^ exactly my experience in the US

[Lead Balloon]

In fairness to those running ‘the system’, there is a real difference between ANSP resources in the US and ANSP resources in Australia: The US has many more ANSP resources per square nautical mile than Australia does and, accordingly, those in the US are monitoring much smaller chunks of airspace than those in Australia.

Aircraft that are miles apart look that way on a screen set to 10 miles range. They don’t on a screen set to 100 miles range. That’s why you’ll hear Centre in Australia alerting aircraft in the vicinity of Ooglabadooga about collision risk: those dots on the screen look awfully close when you’re monitoring an area the size of some US States.

(That said, I still don’t get why Australian RPT pilots will fly in Class G but arc up at the prospect of increased Class E coverage of what was Class G....)

[LeadSled]

(That said, I still don’t get why Australian RPT pilots will fly in Class G but arc up at the prospect of increased Class E coverage of what was Class G....)


Lead Balloon,
Only involves some domestic RPT pilots belonging to one union.
The union that covers most of the Qantas pilots have never had a problem with E, they have been flying in it worldwide, (and it's predecessor in the US ) since QF has been flying to US.
It's "the other" union that has the problem.
Why?? Sheer bleeding anti-US prejudice.
To more or less quote the then "Technical" Director of "the other" union , in an expletive laden explanation: " I don't care how safe it is in US. we are not going f------g do what the f-------g septics do". There was no shortage of witnesses to the "technical" explanation for the rejection of Class E airspace in Australia.
Indeed, it is this attitude of flat rejection of change (and it was not limited to matters airspace) that, in the day, resulted in the creation of the AIPA in the first place.
Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

TOWER: 'N10XT, squawk ident'
That's why it works in the US.

[atcnews]

Which Tranche & which part ?

E over D at regional TWRs vice C or
Lowered E base to F125 from F180 in the bush or
Insertion of C F180 to F245 & lifting of A in high density areas or
All of the above ?

Lowering E to F125, changing C and A. E over D hasn't gone to CASA yet.

[The name is Porter]

That's why it works in the US.

Yup, exactly. Whenever you fly over the top of a Class D tower in the States at A045 there will be surveillance coverage. But you and I both know that at Towered aerodromes in Australia, with surveillance.........to the ground.........that a VFR pilot will be met with:

'Have you got a plan in the system'
'remain outside controlled airspace' (no matter what the traffic disposition is) I know how it works, got experience from both sides of the fence. And in both countries.

Go over to the States, hire an aircraft and see how it works, if you are not a pilot, arrange a security clearance, sit beside one of your tower comrades and watch them work it. While you're there, they'll explain to you the term 'cleared the option' something that will NEVER happen in ASA land.

[Awol57]

Unless cleared the option means something else in the states it is definitely used in ASA land. (Cleared missed approach/touch and go/stop and go/land)

[10JQKA]

Lowering E to F125, changing C and A. E over D hasn't gone to CASA yet.


The E over D vice C at regional TWRs is the big one, so let’s hope sanity prevails in due course.

[Lead Balloon]

There’s E over D vice D at a number of towered places in Australia now. The people who decided to do that don’t seem to be insane, and it doesn’t seem to have resulted in aluminium confetti. Not sure why C to E would be such an insane move either.

[10JQKA]

There’s E over D vice D at a number of towered places in Australia now. The people who decided to do that don’t seem to be insane, and it doesn’t seem to have resulted in aluminium confetti. Not sure why C to E would be such an insane move either.








Broome ATSB Repcon refers https://www.atsb.gov.au/repcon/2018/ar201800058/
Nothing to see here ?

CASA Broome/Karratha Airspace Review, consultation closed now, findings expected by 30/09/19

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/office-of-airspace-regulation/preliminary-airspace-review-broome-and-karratha/supporting_documents/Terms%20of%20Reference%20%20Broome%20and%20Karratha%20WA%202 019.pdf

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/office-of-airspace-regulation/preliminary-airspace-review-broome-and-karratha/

Suppose the question is, if it has problems where it already operates in low density ports it doesn’t add up to consider it for busy eastern seaboard regional TWRd ports does it ?

The Tranche 3 proposal if anyone interested,

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-Tranche-Three.pdf

[The name is Porter]

Unless cleared the option means something else in the states it is definitely used in ASA land. (Cleared missed approach/touch and go/stop and go/land)

uhhhhm, yeah, OK. Where?

And would you mind pasting the MATS reference, in my experience there is zero chance an ATC in Australia would use a reference that is not in MATS.

[BigPapi]

If it's not in MATS then absolutely they use a reference that's not in MATS, I have been "cleared for the option" many, many times.

[Showa Cho]

I've used 'the option' heaps when I wore a blue suit. IIRC, the pilot had to ask for it. Same call as 'base, touch and go' or 'base, full stop'. AIP GEN 3.4 - 76 has 'the option' phraseology in it so it is available. It is marked as ICAO silent, hence maybe why our American friends use it - they seem to have a few differences registered.

[Showa Cho]

uhhhhm, yeah, OK. Where?

And would you mind pasting the MATS reference, in my experience there is zero chance an ATC in Australia would use a reference that is not in MATS.
Most of the phraseology is in AIP GEN now.

[The name is Porter]

If it's not in MATS then absolutely they use a reference that's not in MATS, I have been "cleared for the option" many, many times.

Where was that please?

[The name is Porter]

I've used 'the option' heaps when I wore a blue suit.

RAAF-land is different to ASA, very!

[Lead Balloon]

Broome ATSB Repcon refers https://www.atsb.gov.au/repcon/2018/ar201800058/
Nothing to see here ?

CASA Broome/Karratha Airspace Review, consultation closed now, findings expected by 30/09/19

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/office-of-airspace-regulation/preliminary-airspace-review-broome-and-karratha/supporting_documents/Terms%20of%20Reference%20%20Broome%20and%20Karratha%20WA%202 019.pdf

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/office-of-airspace-regulation/preliminary-airspace-review-broome-and-karratha/

Suppose the question is, if it has problems where it already operates in low density ports it doesn’t add up to consider it for busy eastern seaboard regional TWRd ports does it ?

The Tranche 3 proposal if anyone interested,

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-Tranche-Three.pdf







From the REPCON:The reporter states that Broome's Class D airspace is overlain by Class E airspace which allows low performance VFR aircraft (usually piloted by less experienced crew) to be a necessary traffic concern to high performance IFR aircraft in both regular passenger transport (RPT) & charter operations during critical flight phases.

RPT aircraft broadcast any pending departure or descent on the relevant Centre frequency. The intent of this is to provide traffic awareness to potential conflicting VFR traffic. The reporter believes that RPT aircraft should not be placed in this position, when the arriving aerodrome is class D (like the structure of Class ADs in eastern states). While some opportunity for coordination may be afforded during descent, the effectiveness of the departure broadcasts is questionable as (presumably) the broadcaster is then dealing with Broome Ground and Tower frequency until they are climbing into Class E. When the broadcaster contacts Centre frequency, and becomes identified, it usually occurs well above 5,500 ft, which is too late for any avoiding action.

The reporter believes there is a safety risk in high performance aircraft having a gap between provided separation during a critical phase of flight. The reporter advises that points two and three of Broome’s ERSA flight procedures are insufficient and suggests the airspace be redesigned to provide Class C services down to at least the top of Class D altitudes on major arrival routing, as is procedure in eastern states.

Reporters comments: “Overall, Class E airspace is quite a pointless concept but never so ridiculously applied as overhead a major destination between Class D and C airspace.”For some reason the vision of a galapagos tortoise sprang to mind while I was reading that comment.

One wonders how the reporter would cope with "low performance VFR aircraft (usually piloted by less experienced crew)" while the reporter is flying "high performance RPT" aircraft in and out of aerodromes in G.

[Awol57]

Where was that please?You should try GEN 3.4-76 under 6. Landing - in the notes bit on the left.

Also can you point out in MATS where the phraseology to clear a a touch and go is if that part of AIP is not good enough.

I've issued it many many times at Jandakot and Karratha. I don't which tower you worked at, but I am sure these 2 places are not the only ones to use it.

[Showa Cho]

RAAF-land is different to ASA, very!

That's because the only time I've ever heard a pilot ask for it was in the RAAF. It's in AIP, just ask for it at any tower. It is pilot initiated.

[Lead Balloon]

TNIP: The upshot of the discussion so far appears to me to be that because there's some radio phraseology in that part of AIP, the procedure anticipated by that phraseology exists and is authorised. Go figure...

[The name is Porter]

Awol57,

I'm asking where the phrase was used in Australia? Where BigPapi was cleared the option? On multiple occasions. If it's at a RAAF controlled aerodrome, it doesn't count. The RAAF controllers work under very different rules than Civilian.

I worked very briefly in a tower. However, I'm talking from a pilots perspective, I've never heard it used in 30 years of flying.

It's been established that it's in AIP.

[Awol57]

Jandakot tower uses it regularly. It's been used in Karratha.

[The name is Porter]

Thankyou. I've only flown there once.

[cbradio]

Used at Archerfield all the time.

[BigPapi]

Porter, at Moorabbin. You'd probably hear it a a few times a week.

[The name is Porter]

BigPapi,

I've been flying there for around 15 years and have never heard it.

[BigPapi]

That... that doesn't mean it doesn't happen...

[The name is Porter]

No worries, I'll give a bloke I know there a call, ask if he's ever used it.

[The name is Porter]

Used at Archerfield all the time.

All the time, right! I call BS on that one.

[The name is Porter]

It appears that every Class D Metro Tower is using 'Cleared the Option' if not some of the time to 'all of the time' wow, I'm impressed.

[Awol57]

To clarify, it's usually used when requested by the pilot (instructor in most cases doing a solo check) in my experience. If you have said full stop/tough and go or some variation of that I would usually just clear as requested, as the pilot can stop anytime they like regardless.

[The name is Porter]

Awol57, thanks for clarification.

[topdrop]

Been cleared "the option" 3 or 4 times in Cairns - mainly when doing flight review.

[cbradio]

All the time, right! I call BS on that one.

really?
Give someone there a call.
On a daily basis whenever a course is doing their circuits.

[10JQKA]

From the REPCON:For some reason the vision of a galapagos tortoise sprang to mind while I was reading that comment.

One wonders how the reporter would cope with "low performance VFR aircraft (usually piloted by less experienced crew)" while the reporter is flying "high performance RPT" aircraft in and out of aerodromes in G.

This is not about G airspace ops.

Here we are talking about what is currently C airspace above D tower/app airspace in eastern seaboard regional ports being downgraded to E above D. In the first part of the modernisation, the airspace has already been taken from TWR/APP above A045 and transferred to En-route Centre ATCs but is still C. TWR/APP prior to this change had it up to A085. The next part of the modernisation proposal is to downgrade the C to E.

Whether yr slow or fast, RPT or VFR, experienced or not, doesn’t change some of the issues being highlighted here.

[Lead Balloon]

I know it’s about a proposal to change C to E above the specified aerodromes. (You call it “downgraded”. Others call it “modernisation”.)

My point about aerodromes in Class G is that pilots of ‘high performance RPT aircraft’ continue to operate in and out of aerodromes in Class G where those dangerously inexperienced VFR pilots make their own judgment whether or not to talk on the radio and don’t have to have a serviceable transponder. Bizarrely, there is protest from some quarters when a proposal is made to ‘upgrade’ some G to E!

[The name is Porter]

really?
Give someone there a call.
On a daily basis whenever a course is doing their circuits.

Yeah really, I seriously doubt it goes on at all, let alone on a daily basis (during courses).

So far the only people saying it goes on are ATC's. ATC's who don't like an ex ATC criticising a serious lack of service to VFR aircraft in this country. ATC in this country suffer from some sort of 'Worlds Best Practice' bias. I've been fortunate enough to fly VFR extensively in the US, I 'suffered' from the same bias until I did.

ATC in this country are very close minded. There are lessons to be learned from a system that does it far better than us. I struggle to understand where and why it started to go wrong. I did my UPPL at Bankstown in the early 90's, there were 10 aircraft in the training circuit, more sometimes. Why is the training circuit limited to 6 aircraft now?

Australia, the lucky country.........not.

Horne's intent in writing the book was to portray Australia's climb to power and wealth based almost entirely on luck rather than the strength of its political or economic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia), which Horne believed was "second rate". In addition to political and economic weaknesses, he also lamented on the lack of innovation and ambition

[Awol57]

Yeah really, I seriously doubt it goes on at all, let alone on a daily basis (during courses).

So far the only people saying it goes on are ATC's. ATC's who don't like an ex ATC criticising a serious lack of service to VFR aircraft in this country. ATC in this country suffer from some sort of 'Worlds Best Practice' bias. I've been fortunate enough to fly VFR extensively in the US, I 'suffered' from the same bias until I did.

ATC in this country are very close minded. There are lessons to be learned from a system that does it far better than us. I struggle to understand where and why it started to go wrong. I did my UPPL at Bankstown in the early 90's, there were 10 aircraft in the training circuit, more sometimes. Why is the training circuit limited to 6 aircraft now?

Australia, the lucky country.........not.

OK, you got us. We made it up.

You need to talk to CASA about the limit, that was dropped from 10 to 6 when they changed from GAAP to Class D as a result of the MB accident. Eventually CASA either ammended that to 8 or dropped it, not sure I had moved on from metro D. But I probably made that up too.

[The name is Porter]

Dood,

You can carry on all you like about making **** up. I don't need to talk to CASA about anything. Fact remains that Australian ATC just ain't that good. I left ATC voluntarily, without a redundancy because I couldn't stand the bull**** anymore. Sub standard management, sub standard supervision and from what you're saying about limits, controllers unwilling to stand up to CASA. Aviation in the early nineties was dynamic, controllers in GAAP control zones in those times were guns. I was a flight data in those days, I saw stuff happening at Bankstown that was amazing.

And you guys will never admit that someone does it better than you. You cannot accept that others have experienced a better system, you won't listen to those people, you all hate Dick, not because he speaks of a better system, but because you have a regulator, employer and union telling you to hate him.

[Lead Balloon]

C’mon, TNIP. We know best. As the reporter commented in the REPCON at the link at #66:Overall, Class E airspace is quite a pointless concept but never so ridiculously applied as overhead a major destination between Class D and C airspace.If only the FAA and air travellers in the USA had the benefit of the reporter’s insights.

(I’ve never heard the phrase “cleared the option” in 30 plus years of flying in and out of GAAP/“Metropolitan Class D” i.e. GAAP and Class C aerodromes in Australia. I would have queried it and will query it immediately, as I have no idea what it means. I’ll make a guess and suggest that it’s used by the ADF - like cleared to land “check wheels” - and is working its way by osmosis to civvy ops?)

[Showa Cho]

C’mon, TNIP. We know best. As the reporter commented in the REPCON at the link at #66:If only the FAA and air travellers in the USA had the benefit of the reporter’s insights.

(I’ve never heard the phrase “cleared the option” in 30 plus years of flying in and out of GAAP/“Metropolitan Class D” i.e. GAAP and Class C aerodromes in Australia. I would have queried it and will query it immediately, as I have no idea what it means. I’ll make a guess and suggest that it’s used by the ADF - like cleared to land “check wheels” - and is working its way by osmosis to civvy ops?)

No, not a RAAF thing. It was introduced into the joint civvie/MATS and AIP in the late 1990s. In my humble experience in both worlds, it is usually only used when requested by the pilot, and cleared to do so when traffic conditions permit. You're not going to let someone do whatever runway activity they want in a busy circuit.

[Capn Bloggs]

(I’ve never heard the phrase “cleared the option” in 30 plus years of flying in and out of GAAP/“Metropolitan Class D” i.e. GAAP and Class C aerodromes in Australia. I would have queried it and will query it immediately, as I have no idea what it means. I’ll make a guess and suggest that it’s used by the ADF - like cleared to land “check wheels” - and is working its way by osmosis to civvy ops?)
AIP GEN 3.4 page 76. :rolleyes:

[The name is Porter]

Bloggs, Thanks, but it has been confirmed by Awol a coupla days ago.

Mr Balloon,

​​​​​​​C’mon, TNIP. We know best. As the reporter commented in the REPCON at the link at #66:

Yep, just look at the damage done to aviation in this country due to that thinking!!

Overall, Class E airspace is quite a pointless concept but never so ridiculously applied as overhead a major destination between Class D and C airspace.

If only the FAA and air travellers in the USA had the benefit of the reporter’s insights.

Yep, the FAA are totally incompetent, US ATC's are just not as good and aluminium falls from the sky on a daily basis.

(I’ve never heard the phrase “cleared the option” in 30 plus years of flying in and out of GAAP/“Metropolitan Class D” i.e. GAAP and Class C aerodromes in Australia. I would have queried it and will query it immediately, as I have no idea what it means. I’ll make a guess and suggest that it’s used by the ADF - like cleared to land “check wheels” - and is working its way by osmosis to civvy ops?)

Mate, I've never heard it in 30 years, never. But go figure, it happens every day!!

[Capn Bloggs]

My comment wasn't addressed to you, Porter.

[Lead Balloon]

I know it’s in the AIP, Cap’n. I have read the other posts. I was merely pointing out that, like TNIP, I’ve never heard the phrase used. I speculated that, because I hadn’t heard it used and the AIP deals with comms phraseology specific to military pilots, it might have been an ADF ‘thing’. Apparently it’s not - Thank you Showa Cho.

BTW, Cap’n, you’re not “the” reporter”, are you? The comment in the REPCON smells very ‘Bloggsie’...

[The name is Porter]

I know it wasn't Captain, but he can read previous posts.