Class E at Ayres Rock proposed by AsA

[kaz3g]

Airservices proposes Class E Trial at Ayers Rock - Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/airservices-proposes-class-e-trial-at-ayers-rock?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Fri%2025%20January%202019&utm_content=Newsletter%20Fri%2025%20January%202019+CID_fd3a2 fb8cf711ab511cda7f2eeb30b2c&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Airservices%20proposes%20Class%20E%20Trial%20at%20A yers%20Rock)

[CaptainMidnight]

Only 4 days notice with RAPAC consultation, and not first submitting the proposal to CASA Office of Airspace Regulation says whoever is behind the proposal doesn't know the airspace change process.

I also wonder whether Ambidji were consulted, seeing as they operate the CA/GRS there.

A lot of knowledge and expertise walked out the door of Airservices 4 years ago -

[BlockNotAvailable]

This is just the beginning. Wait until you hear about enroute controllers being given airspace below terrain (class C above towers) without proper training or licences to do approach. ATCs on the sectors with those towers are making a lot of noise, but it keeps charging ahead.

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

[Derfred]

Hang on... there are still VFR aircraft?

I thought GA was dead!

Ironically though, Class E down to 1200’ plus a CAGRS actually sounds better than Class D to the ground... at least Class E controllers are allowed to separate using ADSB, or are they? (genuine question)

[Ia8825]

This is just the beginning. Wait until you hear about enroute controllers being given airspace below terrain (class C above towers) without proper training or licences to do approach. ATCs on the sectors with those towers are making a lot of noise, but it keeps charging ahead.

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


Similar is about to happen at Tamworth where enroute controllers will now have to consider terrain clearance and missed approaches that come back into their airspace. Not getting any kind of approach rating though. And not considering the effect on VFR aircraft wanting to transit below A065 who won’t have ADSB and will be too low to be consistently on radar. So there will be far more clearances denied and no safety/efficiency benefit.

[Ia8825]

Hang on... there are still VFR aircraft?

I thought GA was dead!

Ironically though, Class E down to 1200’ plus a CAGRS actually sounds better than Class D to the ground... at least Class E controllers are allowed to separate using ADSB, or are they? (genuine question)

Yes we can separate using ADSB in class E, however the separation standard is 5nm. Have a look at how far from the aerodrome you have to be to get 5nm separation. Close in a tower can run things far tighter than a radar controller can.

[LeadSled]

Similar is about to happen at Tamworth where enroute controllers will now have to consider terrain clearance and missed approaches that come back into their airspace. Not getting any kind of approach rating though. And not considering the effect on VFR aircraft wanting to transit below A065 who won’t have ADSB and will be too low to be consistently on radar. So there will be far more clearances denied and no safety/efficiency benefit.

But think of the savings to AsA, and the bigger "dividends" to the shareholders. Mr. Shorten will be most pleased, as aviation under Labor is set to become even more of a cash cow for governments than it already is!!
Tootle pip!!

[Ia8825]

But think of the savings to AsA, and the bigger "dividends" to the shareholders. Mr. Shorten will be most pleased, as aviation under Labor is set to become even more of a cash cow for governments than it already is!!
Tootle pip!!

Savings? The group that runs that sector is realistically going to need two extra controllers on each day. And they have planned it assuming it will be devoid of all the CT4 traffic since BFTS is leaving, despite the fact there are several civilian flying schools in the process of moving there.

[triadic]

Only 4 days notice with RAPAC consultation, and not first submitting the proposal to CASA Office of Airspace Regulation says whoever is behind the proposal doesn't know the airspace change process.

I also wonder whether Ambidji were consulted, seeing as they operate the CA/GRS there.

A lot of knowledge and expertise walked out the door of Airservices 4 years ago -

Over the past week the RAPAC Convenors have put forward the following resolution, perhaps the result of a number of matters that Airservices have put forward in the past year with minimal notice and/or consultation.

RESOLUTION:
The National RAPAC convenor group by majority #1 resolves that the Airservices Out of Session paper "Trial of Class E Airspace at Ayers Rock" both Version 1 and Version 2 (14 January 2019 and 17 January 2019 #2) is unfit for the purpose of meaningful assessment and consultation feedback by RAPAC members. The paper is incomplete, inconclusive, lacks proper definition of the airspace, and requires expert assessment by CASA OAR concerning the clash of CTAF with Class E procedures and constraints. The National RAPAC group requests that CASA pass this Resolution with the strongest endorsement to the CEO Airservices.

NOTES #1 By majority as the timing of the paper is during a period of regular aviation holiday absences.
#2 Version 2 being only an extension of time and of RAPAC coverage from Version 1 after RAPAC feedback.

[atcnews]

It's interesting that the Ayers Rock proposal has already been adjusted internally so that class E would only go down to A055. I wonder when the website will be amended?

[CaptainMidnight]

Over the past week the RAPAC Convenors have put forward the following resolution, perhaps the result of a number of matters that Airservices have put forward in the past year with minimal notice and/or consultation.

Hmm ...

As I suggested in an earlier post, it would seem that the parties behind these proposals within Airservices have little to no knowledge or experience of the formal airspace and procedures change process, one that had been followed for many years prior to the staff exodus of some 4 years ago.

It sounds very much like someone had a thought bubble, and their manager (also not knowing any better) has told them to go ahead and put it out there.

[topdrop]

This is just the beginning. Wait until you hear about enroute controllers being given airspace below terrain (class C above towers) without proper training or licences to do approach
We (Enroute Controllers) took over the Amberley Approach airspace on weekends and at night back in the early 1990's. Plenty of routes through the airspace into Amberley, Brisbane and Archerfield where LSALT was inside Class C. We did local training for the airspace and funnily enough, none of the controllers had issues or problems with handling it. I subsequently did Approach for 20+ years and I still don't see it as a problem, though I think probably all of us did do a complete ATC course in the College - Approach, Tower and Enroute).
Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.

[BlockNotAvailable]

Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.

I'm sure no one would have an issue doing it if the proper training was given. Also if money doesn't go into resectorising airspace, you could have controllers trying to manage busy traffic in a terminal area as well as 300nm away. I don't really have faith that will be the case for those affected controllers. Money makes ATC in Australia go 'round.

[Capn Bloggs]

Also if money doesn't go into resectorising airspace, you could have controllers trying to manage busy traffic in a terminal area as well as 300nm away.
Precisely. Is AsA seriously going to try to introduce an approach service to 1200ft? It can't/won't do it at Hobart, why on earth is it going to try at a busy CTAF? There is no safety issue at Ayers Rock, nor will "efficiency" be improved. Spend a bit of money on an ADS-B aerial at Hobart and fix that shemozzle properly first.

It seems he who cannot be named may have infltrated one of the pilot unions...

4.0.8 An Airline Pilots Representative Organisation, representing the views of airline pilots that regularly operate into Ayers Rock, advises that the CA/GRS does little to enhance safety at the airport. Instances of CA/GRS has at times detracted from safety by creating radio clutter during times of multiple arrivals and departures. The organisation would support the following: Removal of the CA/GRS, Lower Class E to 8,500 ft AMSL whilst having ATC IFR to IFR separation services. All published airways into Ayers Rock reclassified as Class E down to 2,500 ft above ground level (AGL) allowing IFR Surveillance and control services to all Initial Approach Fixes. All instrument approach procedures captured within Class E to 700 ft AGL. Allow a Rescue & Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) or current air operator on the airfield to run a Unicom service with reduced cost to industry as well as providing information “on request”.
From the latest CASA Airspace Review (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/preliminary-airspace-review-ayers-rock-december-2018.pdf)

Put in a tower! :}

[Ia8825]

We (Enroute Controllers) took over the Amberley Approach airspace on weekends and at night back in the early 1990's. Plenty of routes through the airspace into Amberley, Brisbane and Archerfield where LSALT was inside Class C. We did local training for the airspace and funnily enough, none of the controllers had issues or problems with handling it. I subsequently did Approach for 20+ years and I still don't see it as a problem, though I think probably all of us did do a complete ATC course in the College - Approach, Tower and Enroute).
Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.

I think the main issues that controllers have with this would be:

1. The lack of appropriate training. I am not certain yet, but I believe the “appropriate training” for the change at Tamworth has been deemed as 1 day sim. That’s not really a lot of time to get your head around things like protecting missed approaches etc. A significant amount of enroute controllers at the moment would struggle to even make sense of an approach plate. Sadly the days of doing approach and tower as well on ATC course are gone.

2. I just don’t see any actual efficiency/safety benefit to it. It doesn’t give extra safety from radar monitoring because tower can already do that with TSAD, it’s not allowing more efficient airspace use because it’s now going from an approach procedural environment to enroute radar environment which seems like a downgrade to me. Not to mention the massive increase in coordination which to just creates more chances for an error/misunderstanding. If I could see a benefit to industry I would be all for it, but at the moment it seems they are relying on the fact that pilots instantly think radar means better than procedural to look like they are improving things while actually doing nothing. Ayers Rock is slightly different, but I see similar issues.

[triadic]

There are many issues relating to this proposal, however what the RAPAC Convenors are concerned about is the tabling of the AYE changes with little or no consultation when such changes would have national implications and everyone needs to be alerted and have the chance to provide some input. eg: There is no explanation in the AYE proposal why there is differing radius (20 and 23nm) for the proposal and how it will impose on the senic flights around the area or how the Class E will blend with the CTAF???. The OAR needs to have a close look at this prior to letting it proceed further.

[CaptainMidnight]

Whoever was behind that "Airline Pilots Representative Organisation" submission would seem to have a lack of understanding of airspace and air routes (we don't have "airways") architecture and procedures.

Also, Ambidgi have no involvement with ARFF (which is a function licensed to Airservices under a CASR Part) nor UNICOMs, nor I suspect would they want to. In fact, when there was a trial of a UNICOM at WG (or was it DU?) one airline's submission was critical of that service.

Whether the traffic or pax numbers justify a TWR, I don't know.

The normal - and formal - procedure would be for CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation to first conduct an aeronautical study of AYE, and the outcome of that would dictate what if any change to airspace or air traffic service was required.

[Capn Bloggs]

Midnight, OAR has played straight into AsA's hands by this conclusion in the report:

Issue:
An Airline Pilot Representative organisation consider that improving levels of safety at Ayers Rock would require the following; to provide surveillance based IFR / IFR separation services to low level to expedite arrivals and departures. There is currently a lack of separation services between IFR aircraft when surveillance is available.

Finding:
Current Air Navigation Service Provider of IFR/IFR services are based on procedural separation standards. Analysis reveals no recorded instances via ATSB or safety issues. Airservices considers that there is merit in conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock. Lowering Class E airspace could enhance service delivery to IFR aircraft at no additional cost to Airservices. Airspace users (including VFR aircraft) could benefit from fitment of ADS-B avionics through the use of surveillance separation standards and surveillance information services.

Recommendation:
Airservices should investigate the benefits of conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock.

I note VFR could allegedly benefit from having ADS-B so they too could be yabbered-to by the E controller while managing the CTAF. Yeh right.

[CaptainMidnight]

Midnight, OAR has played straight into AsA's hands by this conclusion in the report:
<snip>

Recommendation:
Airservices should investigate the benefits of conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock.


I don't interpret that to mean go ahead and do it, just "investigate the benefits".

My interpretation is that Airservices now has to do a cost-benefit analysis, HAZID & safety case, proposed industry consultation, education and an implementation plan, all for CASA OAR to assess and if they agree, exercise their regulatory authority to declare the Class E airspace.

[triadic]

 My interpretation is that Airservices now has to do a cost-benefit analysis, HAZID & safety case, proposed industry consultation, education and an implementation plan, all for CASA OAR to assess and if they agree, exercise their regulatory authority to declare the Class E airspace.

100% correct Capt

[cLeArIcE]

An RPT aircraft is way more likely to come to grief at Ballina than Ayers Rock. If some ASA person would like to have a thought bubble about that it would be much appreciated

[Capn Bloggs]

This is looking more like a fishing expedition as time goes on. AsA drop a line in the water, see what hops on, then goes to work addressing all the points raised for on-feeding to CASA OAR in HazID and Safety Case format. Clever.

An RPT aircraft is way more likely to come to grief at Ballina than Ayers Rock.
I found some pax numbers that showed Ballina was way over the criteria for consideration of a tower. And Dick was suggesting we get the firies to look after the place. Could you imagine yabbering to ATC at 1200ft over Ballina with a couple of bugsmashers in the circuit with you?

[Sunfish]

blogs, how much of your opposition is pure snobbery over having to have constructive dialogue with PPL Bugsmashers?

[Skepticemia]

We (Enroute Controllers) took over the Amberley Approach airspace on weekends and at night back in the early 1990's. Plenty of routes through the airspace into Amberley, Brisbane and Archerfield where LSALT was inside Class C. We did local training for the airspace and funnily enough, none of the controllers had issues or problems with handling it. I subsequently did Approach for 20+ years and I still don't see it as a problem, though I think probably all of us did do a complete ATC course in the College - Approach, Tower and Enroute).
Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.

I work this airspace currently, and yes having the 5100' MSA in class C isn't an issue, but it's not an issue for a number of reasons (mostly because aircraft are visual and OCTA before they need to re-enter class C, and if not they are tracking direct to Amberley so we can use the MSA).

This is more like the airspace around Proserpine, which is much more fiddly.

[CaptainMidnight]

This is looking more like a fishing expedition as time goes on. AsA drop a line in the water, see what hops on, then goes to work addressing all the points raised for on-feeding to CASA OAR in HazID and Safety Case format. Clever.No, trust me, they are not that clever :)

If the parties involved knew the formal change process, they would have done all the internal legwork before anything going outside the organisation. Then the process would be to inform CASA OAR what they propose, how they propose to do it, provide a draft briefing paper to them for consideration for RAPAC etc. before taking it further.

[Capn Bloggs]

blogs, how much of your opposition is pure snobbery over having to have constructive dialogue with PPL Bugsmashers?
Sunny, I'm disappointed. I use the term bugsmashers as a term of endearment. Don't start going soft on me now!

I've said to you before, and I'll say it again. I go out of my way to help the bugsmashers of the world do what they want. I'll more often than not keep out of their way, and I am all for constructive dialogue as that is how we get the best outcome ("mutual inconvenience", as Magilla used to say). After all, that is exactly what ATC is, is it not? My gripe is not that bugsmashers exist, it is with the bureaucratic ideologues that think that the two separate systems (VFR/CTAF and IFR/CTA) can exist together with no problems and all will be dandy. If it's VMC, just look out the window. It doesn't work like that.

[Jetman346]

Well said bloggs a plane is a plane and i for one am proud to be a bug smasher

[LeadSled]

It doesn't work like that.
Except in the US, Canada and a quite large number of other countries.
Tootle pip!!

[Philthy]

Spend a bit of money on an ADS-B aerial at Hobart and fix that shemozzle properly first.

Arrr...or should I say, er, Cap'n - Hobart has excellent and multiply redundant ADS-B coverage.

[10JQKA]

Hobart changes (tfr of airspace currently Class C A045-A085 and owned by TWR to overlying en-route sector controller), as well as TW/AY/LT/AS, coming May 19, also Class E base lowering to F125 out West, and up the E coast Class A raising to F250, and insert Class C F180 to F250. No idea why.

Couldn’t post link, but on AsA website under “projects” tab, in airspace Modernisation sub-section.