Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

[iron_jayeh]

You say pilots are capable, then you say they aren't. I only have about 100 hours and I can stay out if the way. Surely ifr pilots are capable

[OCTA Aus]

iron jayeh , Pilots are capable . But when you’re in an RPT and the traffic is a 200 hour Private Pilot with sweat on his brow in a non-towered environment the risk is real.
ATSB files are full of such incidents . See my previous link.
Its a fail-dangerous system , pure and simple.
We have been very , very lucky.

Ah yes the good old they only have a PPL, they must be incompetent. I remind you that 200 hours is enough to be in the right hand seat of an RPT jet, so that pilot is not inexperienced. Also I would love to know how you determined their experience level, do you ask them to give their hours with their callsign?

Also the main solution everyone on here seems to want to propose is class E down to 1200ft. Which is not going to protect you from that VFR pilot. In fact to an extent it may make it harder. The solution for this would be a tower. In most occasions that would be overkill.

Iron, yes IFR pilots should be able to separate themselves. At the worst just fall back to putting 1000ft between you and the other guy until you have something else.

[George Glass]

Not just PPL OCTA Aus. I’ll rummage around and see if I can find my copy of the ASIR I lodged when I , commanding an RPT Jet , almost came nose to nose with a light aircraft doing a scenic at Ayers Rock . Thankfully he had his transponder on . I had a chat to him on the ground . He could hardly stand , his knees were shaking so much . Turned out he was simply looking in the wrong place. It was his first professional job. He had a CPL and 300 hours.
Sounds like your are with the Department , OCTA Aus. Its a pity you guys don’t get to spend much time in the jumpseat anymore. Guess it costs too much.
I recall AirServices did a review recently on airspace around Ayers Rock and decided , once again , not to instal a tower. A courageous decision . Hope another shoe doesn’t drop.
By the way I have other ASIRs like that as well.
We have been very , very lucky.
Robust systems tolerate failure.
Fail-dangerous systems fail to disaster.
What sort of system do you think non-controlled CTAFs are OCTAS Aus ?

[iron_jayeh]

So George pilots can't separate themselves?

[George Glass]

I guess it boils down to how many times you want to roll the dice with RPT jets with150 plus pax on board.
AirServices review of airspace around Ayers Rock is a revelation into the way they think.
Fortunately , in some cases such reviews have reversed previous idiotic decisions such as the reopening of the tower at Karratha.
But its still rolling the dice. Personally I think all non-radar CTAFs servicing RPT jets with over 100 seats should have a tower. Period.
But , of course , this is Australia.
Its never going to happen.
Until..............

[iron_jayeh]

Re rpt jets, maybe you're right, because they aren't only mixing it with other ifr pilots but people like me in a tecnam.

However that is consistent separate from this incident involving two small ifr aircraft.

Again are you saying that given a similar situation, two ifr pilots don't have the knowledge to self separate ?

The more cta you put in, the less airspace I can use etc. That then creates what Dick calls roadblocks in the sky. Which then forces other aircraft into unsafe situations.

[buckshot1777]

I recall AirServices did a review recently on airspace around Ayers Rock and decided , once again , not to instal a tower.

As the airspace regulator, CASA conducts airspace reviews, and determines the appropriate class of airspace and whether TWR or other services are required, not Airservices.

I wish I had a dollar for every pilot who doesn't know the division of responsibilities between the two, and thinks Airservices decides classes of airspace and level of ATS.

I take direct debit, or Paypal :)

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/preliminary-airspace-review-ayers-rock-december-2018.pdf

[George Glass]

buckshot1777 , you are right . Happy to be corrected. I just did a google search and didn’t pay enough attention to the header.
By the way I don’t think too many Pilots really care much about bureaucratic architecture.

[buckshot1777]

True. My post was in the interests of directing blame where it is due :)

[George Glass]

Understood

[Vag277]

In the '80s there was a government policy that there should be a tower at every aerodrome with jet RPT services. Those services spread faster than the Tower program! The tower at Gove was built but never manned. Dick Smith took control of the CAA and started the cost benefit analysis of towers resulting in the closure of many including Mt Isa, Wagga, Karratha, Port Hedland (until the Shire offered to pay to keep it open), closure of briefing offices, closure of Flight Service etc. This eventually resulted in development of a structured approach to airspace collision risk analysis, involving ALL sectors of industry. An evolved version of that process is now used by the Office of Airspace Regulation, within CASA but with its own establishing legislation and Ministerial direction.

[George Glass]

Yup

And we have been living with the consequences ever since.

[OCTA Aus]

The more cta you put in, the less airspace I can use etc. That then creates what Dick calls roadblocks in the sky. Which then forces other aircraft into unsafe situations.

Airspace doesn’t force pilots into unsafe situations. Pilots force pilots into unsafe situations. As you pointed out earlier, pilots need to accept responsibility for the safe conduct of flight. If there is one thing from this entire discussion I have found truly disturbing it would be that many people don’t understand the levels of service provided by class of airspace. And if pilots aren’t willing to learn how to use the national airspace system it doesn’t matter what changes we make, they will be ineffective.

[George Glass]

And that in a nutshell is it , OCTA Aus.
The operation was a success but the patient died.
The bureaucratic organisation was a triumph but the outcome was a disaster.
Could only come from a Public Servant.

[Super Cecil]

In the '80s there was a government policy that there should be a tower at every aerodrome with jet RPT services. Those services spread faster than the Tower program! The tower at Gove was built but never manned. Dick Smith took control of the CAA and started the cost benefit analysis of towers resulting in the closure of many including Mt Isa, Wagga, Karratha, Port Hedland (until the Shire offered to pay to keep it open), closure of briefing offices, closure of Flight Service etc. This eventually resulted in development of a structured approach to airspace collision risk analysis, involving ALL sectors of industry. An evolved version of that process is now used by the Office of Airspace Regulation, within CASA but with its own establishing legislation and Ministerial direction.
Was there going to be a tower at Mangalore?

[sunnySA]

two pilots who have been given traffic on each other could communicate and self separate.

Is it possible that the frequency was otherwise occupied and there wasn't any opportunity (time) for the pilots to communicate with one another?

[CaptainMidnight]

Was there going to be a tower at Mangalore?

There actually once was :)

Just before my time though - 60's - early 70's I think.

Reintroduction of one since has never arisen.

[fixa24]

Was there going to be a tower at Mangalore?

Maybe once, perhaps. The structure that is currently there has line of sight issues with the Runway Thresholds which would prevent it from being used where it currently stands.
CASA provides the guidance as to when a Tower should be established, unfortunately MNG would be well below it.
Of note, it is not Airservices, but CASA (previously OAR) that provides direction about airspace classifications etc, in conjunction with your local RAPAC. If you want to influence change, that's who you should be talking to.

[Vag277]

Still OAR that operates within CASA

[Lead Balloon]

Yet the OAR used to be within Airservices.

Although it may be ostensibly amusing or educational for the bureaucrats in CASA and Airservices to point at each other while the ping pong match of responsibilities leaves the industry in a state of confusion in this case, that approach is unlikely to contribute positively to air safety.

[Vag277]

LB
OAR. has been in CASA for 13 years and ICAO airspace classifications for more than 20 years. The only excuse for confusion is failure to pay attention!j

[Lead Balloon]

Spoken like a true bureaucrat, Vag!

Those who haven’t failed to “pay attention” for the last couple of decades or so know why the airspace regulation hot potato/ticking parcel/stinking turd is in the lap of CASA.

[Vag277]

Not a bureaucrat, just stating facts.

[Hoosten]

PM me your email address, the reason being I have absolutely no trust in your good self with your postings thus far.

PM your email address, reason being, you want the info. Secondly, your comments are snide and hypocritical. You want it both ways, jumping on the 'be civil' bandwagon but posting your special brand of tripe. And your postings so far? Well done.

[Hoosten]

We have a saying about that down here in Aus. It’s something to do with pots calling kettles a certain colour.

uhmmm, what? Your response doesn't make any sense. But then again, none of the others have so why stop.

[Hoosten]

Or does Hoosten and squawk think pilots aren't able to do this?

Using that logic, de-classify all airspace and let all the Virgins, QF's, other domestics and Internationals sort themselves out right?

Appropriate airspace for the density of traffic.

[Hoosten]

Ah yes the good old they only have a PPL, they must be incompetent.

Riiiight, that's what was implied there?

I remind you that 200 hours is enough to be in the right hand seat of an RPT jet, so that pilot is not inexperienced.

All, you have been reminded that a 200 hour pilot has been let loose in an RPT jet. But what he/she didn't remind you off, is that the right seater is part of a crew, not flying that aircraft by themselves. Also, to say that the 200 hour pilot 'is not inexperienced' is just plain incorrect and frankly, quite stupid.

Also the main solution everyone on here seems to want to propose is class E down to 1200ft. Which is not going to protect you from that VFR pilot. In fact to an extent it may make it harder. The solution for this would be a tower. In most occasions that would be overkill.

It's clear you have a very limited understanding of how Class E works. What's most disappointing is your closed mindset and your 'who's going to pay for it' dogma.

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

Coming from another country with similar airspace usage vs coverage issues (Canada, for those wondering), it's been absolutely shocking to find out how silly the airspace is here.

It has been equally silly to see that there isn't such a thing as Mandatory Frequency airports, as there are in Canada

As an aside, NavCanada - Canadian equivalent of AirServices - puts those in at airports that are a) busy enough for a plain uncontrolled airport to be unsafe, but b) not busy enough for a tower. Staffed by an FIS (either on-site or remote), you have to have made contact prior to zone entry (typically 5 minutes prior), and have to declare intentions. The argument in Canada is often on whether that thresholds are set too high, but at least you have a minimum level of service.

Oh, and for the busier ones, they are typically inside class E airspace (but don't have to be).

Something like it seems like it would be a good in-between solution for busier airports that don't meet the bar for a tower, while also mandating some infrastructure is available for FIS/ATC to be able to at least get ADSB data down to ground level... And, from having spoken to a number of people here, seems like that was a thing here for a while, but then it wasn't?

[Sunfish]

I think the ultimate problem in Australia is that if you treat pilots like criminal children they will act that way [.

[Ia8825]

uhmmm, what? Your response doesn't make any sense. But then again, none of the others have so why stop.

It has been a while since you last posted, I think people thought you got the point and disappeared. It had almost turned into a civilised discussion.

While I can’t fully decode what was meant here because it’s not quite written in English, the general idea is they are calling you a hypocrite. Probably something to do with the fact that you were calling someone out for telling you how good they are literally one post after you told everyone how good you were.

[40years]

Spoken like a true bureaucrat, Vag!

Those who haven’t failed to “pay attention” for the last couple of decades or so know why the airspace regulation hot potato/ticking parcel/stinking turd is in the lap of CASA.
It's in the lap of CASA because they are the regulator - Office of Airspace REGULATION.
Airservices is a Service Provider; they should never have had the function in the first place.

[gerry111]

It has been equally silly to see that there isn't such a thing as Mandatory Frequency airports, as there are in Canada
We did have 'Mandatory Broadcast Zones' for a while until that was changed.

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

We did have 'Mandatory Broadcast Zones' for a while until that was changed.

Was there a requirement for staffing of the zone (the ones I talk about are considered "Control Zones" for the purpose of the DAH), or was it the case that you had to have a radio?

If there wasn't staffing (ATC or FIS), it really isn't too different from the CTAFs of today, except with a big wooden sign of "No NORDO allowed" out front.

Which I guess would explain why everyone hated it... No real benefit, and extra expense of a radio, all to then have to do everything yourself anyways

[Sunfish]

Isn’t the ultimate problem that the government instrumentalities won’t take responsibility for anything? Even the promulgation of rules regarding separation.

All I’m hearing is “it’s not AtC’s fault it’s not CASAS fault”! This sounds like a rehearsal for when a B737 collides with a C172.

The regulators are paralysed because they fear liability. Their directions are therefore not aimed at preventing you and me from colliding; they are directed at ensuring they can’t be blamed.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dang. It's a public holiday tomorrow. Kindergarten won't be open until Tuesday. :{

[Awol57]

Which rules would you like promulgated regarding separation?

[Hoosten]

While I can't fully decode what was meant here because it's not quite written in English, the general idea is they are calling you a hypocrite. Probably something to do with the fact that you were calling someone out for telling you how good they are literally one post after you told everyone how good you were.

I get that comprehension is a problem for you, go back to those group of posts, read them in order. The hypocrisy runs in the other direction.

I was called out for saying I knew what I was talking about. Seems to be a bit of a problem in Australia. Saying in public that you might know a bit.

I then found it amusing, that after being chastised for you know, saying that I might know what I'm talking about, that the next batch of posts contained a statement that this poster, might know what he/she was talking about.

[Sunfish]

Considering the Canadian solution - get permission to enter the zone five minutes out, why couldnt we at least produce an upgraded, minimally intelligent AWIS - like box that can broadcast information on who is inbound, in circuit or outbound when polled by a transmission? Solar power, batteries, a software defined radio dongle and a raspberry Pi computer should be able to do it.

For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.

That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

Considering the Canadian solution - get permission to enter the zone five minutes out, why couldnt we at least produce an upgraded, minimally intelligent AWIS - like box that can broadcast information on who is inbound, in circuit or outbound when polled by a transmission? Solar power, batteries, a software defined radio dongle and a raspberry Pi computer should be able to do it.

For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.

That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.

As a software developer on the side (while looking for work - still available for hire, employers!) I think it would be difficult to get that part to work consistently. Just think, voice recognition systems are just now getting decent enough to figure out what you're saying... Now throw in low power transmissions, heterodyne, and people whose English isn't perfect, and, realistically, you now have a similar problem when things do go wrong.

Arguably, worse, since now you have an extra computer voice talking whenever a new plane pipes up, with potentially wrong data.

I still think that the key part would be to add a VHF transmitter/receiver and a ADSB receiver that's linked to the AirServices systems. Should cost significantly less than a tower, while increasing the visibility of existing movements. That would also provide data, so at least decisions could be made on that basis, instead of estimates.

The full Canadian system would be nice, but, having seen how the Australian system works, I'm not sure it would get done anytime soon due to the minimum FIS staffing requirement. (Fun fact: where I was flying, there was up to 5 airports "controlled" by 1 FIS at quieter times. When it got busier, it was as few as 1 per airport)

[Lead Balloon]

It's in the lap of CASA because they are the regulator - Office of Airspace REGULATION.
Airservices is a Service Provider; they should never have had the function in the first place.Yet Airservices did have the function. For a long time.

I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.

As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?

[Capn Bloggs]

Less than 24 hours to go, Leddie.

[Lead Balloon]

It may come as a surprise to you, Cap’n, but just because it’s a public holiday where you are does not mean it’s a public holiday everywhere. I’m at my primary school desk practising my times tables (and lobbying for a reinstatement of AFIZs).

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

Yet Airservices did have the function. For a long time.

I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.

As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?

I mean, considering the current system is clearly not working (from my lurking the forums, it seems like it's a recurring topic), doesn't seem like it would be any worse trying it the Canadian way, eh?

[Dick Smith]

As well as bringing back AFIZs we could get all airline aircraft to be fitted with those reliable radial piston engines.

[Lead Balloon]

I mean, considering the current system is clearly not working (from my lurking the forums, it seems like it's a recurring topic), doesn't seem like it would be any worse trying it the Canadian way, eh?

Almost everything has been tried a few times. Except....

Class E to 1,200’.

There’s a reason for airspace designation having originally been done in Airservices and why moving it to CASA was not and is not a panacea.

Let’s take the option of reinstating the AFIZ system. CASA could do that with a stroke of a pen. Same with making various chunks of airspace around aerodromes E or D. But....

CASA’s stroke of a pen cannot create and fund the resources to deliver the required AFIS. Service provision - the ‘S’ in ‘AFIS’ - is up to an ANSP. Ditto ATC in E or D.

Accordingly, unless an ANSP is willing and able to and does provide the services necessary for the chunk of airspace designated by the regulator, the designation is practically meaningless. Either the designated airspace cannot be used because the required service is not provided, or the airspace reverts to good ‘ol G (or, more accurately, what Australia calls G).

So you can see the ostensibly compelling argument: Let Airservices designate airspace because, as a matter practicality, Airservices gets to decide whether or not the airspace gets ‘serviced’.

The purists - as you can see in this thread - say the regulator should designate airspace based upon objective risk and international standards. Quite so. Who’d argue with that? However, it follows either that: (1) the kind of risks to which passengers are exposed on RPT flights in and out of places like Mildura don’t justify anything other than Australian G, or (2) the regulator is too timid, for political reasons, to ‘upgrade’ the surrounding airspace.

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

So you can see the ostensibly compelling argument: Let Airservices designate airspace because, as a matter practicality, Airservices gets to decide whether or not the airspace gets ‘serviced’.

Arguably, having the middle ground of the AFIZ would allow AirServices to increase or re-allocate services more sensibly.

I'm not saying that AirServices will choose to do so, having seen the kind of bureaucratic wrangling that it takes to get anything done. But starting by putting a VHF/ADSB at the busier aerodromes (and redesignating airspace as E down to the ground in CZ when operational) at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction. What happens after is a matter of community engagement (badgering for a tower may not go anywhere; badgering for an AFIZ as a middle ground might) and ASA resourcing it appropriately.

I'm not saying it's not a pipe dream, based on what I've seen so far of the two agencies, but it's at least somewhat more achievable than some folks' demands of "towers, everywhere!"


As well as bringing back AFIZs we could get all airline aircraft to be fitted with those reliable radial piston engines.
If we're bringing back things, can we get the open cockpits mandated by regulation? The sound of the air rushing past (and the smell of exhaust) need to be a mandatory part of flying again!

[Lead Balloon]

But starting by putting a VHF/ADSB at the busier aerodromes (and redesignating airspace as E down to the ground in CZ when operational) at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction.Alas, objectively sensible suggestions like that are laughably impracticable in the aviation Galapagos that is Australia.

[Capn Bloggs]

Alas, objectively sensible suggestions like that are laughably impracticable in the aviation Galapagos that is Australia.
Care to post a copy of your submission re airspace arrangements n Australia, Leaddie?

[Lead Balloon]

Care to post a link to the inquiry into airspace arrangements to which I can make or could have made a submission, Cap’n?

[Capn Bloggs]

Oh well, another Prune thread dies at the hands of Lead Balloon. Well done.

[Lead Balloon]

It is surprising how powerful you consider me to be. Thanks for the respect.

[OCTA Aus]

Oh well, another Prune thread dies at the hands of Lead Balloon. Well done.

About time someone killed it. We should be thanking him

[atcnews]

Care to post a link to the inquiry into airspace arrangements to which I can make or could have made a submission, Cap’n?
You could start with the Pilbara; CASA are consulting now on preferred airspace classification.

[Lead Balloon]

The Pilbara is the Capn’s part of the Galapagos. I’m sure he’ll make a substantial contribution to the review.

[Hoosten]

Pictures of the aviators killed in this incident are starting to hit the various forms of media. There's a gofundme to get Ido's body home, no doubt to get the Asian students body home as well.

Those of you talking about cost, I've no doubt you won't contribute, after all, nobody wants to pay, who's gunna pay?

Take a good look at the photo's of these people, have a think about their families, their partners and children.

What's that about cost again?

All for the cost of E to 1200, the cost of an airspace promulgation, some maps, in line with an update, and maybe an extra ATC or two? Sorry guys, Jason gave a bunch of ATC's redundancy in the midst of a staffing crisis.

World's Second Best ATC: Disclaimer, this statement does not attach any discredit to any serving current or former line controlling ATC. It is a remark placed squarely at the feet of your sub standard management.

[Hoosten]

Dang. It's a public holiday tomorrow. Kindergarten won't be open until Tuesday.

Tough times for parents or carers when these services are closed for a 3 day weekend.

What arrangements did your carers make for you? Get much play dough time in?

[Capn Bloggs]

Hoosten, That is disgusting.

The Pilbara is the Capn’s part of the Galapagos. I’m sure he’ll make a substantial contribution to the review.
Yet another thoughful and constructive post from the ace of the base.

[Squawk7700]

Ido’s fundraiser has now completed. Many thanks to those that have contributed.

[Hoosten]

Hoosten, That is disgusting.

What is disgusting? A response to your disgusting post? I'm assuming your post is disgusting as my reply is a direct response to yours?

If you're talking about the post above, I can only suggest that you're hyper-sensitive? A snowflake? Or you're creating garbage outrage to my emotive post?

Grow up.

[George Glass]

OCTA Aus , I’m sure you’d like this thread closed.
But you never really addressed the issue did you ?
Are non-controlled CTAFs safe or fail dangerous ?
What is your confidence that the probability of a major disaster involving an RPT jet are remote ?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Crap, I am way out on my thought process. Why didn't the outbound stay on the ground till inbound was visual or reported passing the aid? Sorry OCTA, there is absolutely zip any service would make a difference here. Waiting a couple of minutes on the ground would nave made all the difference. I am totally wrong on this argument.

[triadic]

These comments do not relate to the accident in question as we are not aware of what exactly the lead up to the event was and considering there were two experienced pilots involved it is hard to understand what may have occurred, and there is no doubt the possibility of many contributing factors.

As an experienced RPT/GA operator in both Class G and CTAFs and the former MBZs, I make some comment on something that has not been specifically discussed here to date. And that is the training of pilots in operating in that category of airspace within Oz. For a start, the last time I looked, the operation in a CTAF was NOT covered in any of the associated exams for any class of licence. If this is still the case, such teachings are therefore the responsibility of the flying school or operator, be it the individual instructor of someone under the guidance of the CFI/Chief Pilot.
What this results in in my opinion is that the training in this area is not subject to any across the industry standardisation and the results show. For example, one operator may do it one way and another do some things differently eg: first call, listening watch prior to first call, use of two comms, separation assurance with known traffic etc etc. Some even believe that if you talk a lot it solves the problem, but that just jams the airwaves with stuff we should already know. As for what some flying schools teach that is yet another story. My experience with some CFI conferences hosted by CASA is that there is many different ideas on how one should participate in uncontrolled airspace and it seems that CASA believe the existing non standardisation is ok. I have put forward a number of times that these teachings should be subject to standardisation and subject to questions in related exam papers. One of the problems is that the folk in CASA responsible for this, don't seem to realise it is a problem and have varied views themselves! Even within this thread we see a variety of views/opinions on how it should be done. Why is it so?

[George Glass]

Well , there you have it.

[Duck Pilot]

There is absolutely no standardisation in any of the flight training that’s done in Australia, let alone training related to operating at non controlled aerodromes.

Even know the Part 61 MOS can be seen from the moon according to some of my ex colleagues in CASA Standards down in Canberra, a lot of the required learning outcomes in the MOS are so broad to the extent that it allows for a lot of potential misinterpretation with regards to exactly what the required standards must be to issue a licence or rating to a pilot under training.

A little of the topic however it’s relevant to the last couple of posts.

[OCTA Aus]

Pictures of the aviators killed in this incident are starting to hit the various forms of media. There's a gofundme to get Ido's body home, no doubt to get the Asian students body home as well.

Those of you talking about cost, I've no doubt you won't contribute, after all, nobody wants to pay, who's gunna pay?

Take a good look at the photo's of these people, have a think about their families, their partners and children.

What's that about cost again?

All for the cost of E to 1200, the cost of an airspace promulgation, some maps, in line with an update, and maybe an extra ATC or two? Sorry guys, Jason gave a bunch of ATC's redundancy in the midst of a staffing crisis.

World's Second Best ATC: Disclaimer, this statement does not attach any discredit to any serving current or former line controlling ATC. It is a remark placed squarely at the feet of your sub standard management.

There is a bit more to getting E down to 1200ft, mostly in the training for both the controllers and the flight crews, however I would concede that it is probably achievable and I suspect achievable with the current staff. While I think I understand the concept of what your proposing, I don't have the details However I guarantee people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming for it to occur. My question would be what metric is used to decide which aerodromes get E down to 1200ft? Is it any aerodrome that has an instrument approach? Or any aerodrome with more than a certain number of movements? Keep in mind that movements may not be the best indicator of business because a lot of our IFR training aerodromes the aircraft doesn't physically land on the aerodrome.

For an editorial on your comment, no operational ATC staff were able to get a redundancy in that last round, it was all back room staff. The biggest issue as far as staffing goes comes from the lead in time to train an ATC up to operational level, and at the moment I don't believe we are able to hire anyone from overseas to help.

[OCTA Aus]

OCTA Aus , I’m sure you’d like this thread closed.
But you never really addressed the issue did you ?
Are non-controlled CTAFs safe or fail dangerous ?
What is your confidence that the probability of a major disaster involving an RPT jet are remote ?

Before I answer I just want to check I fully understand what you are proposing. Are you suggesting we totally eliminate uncontrolled aerodromes? And replace them with what? I fully agree CTAF procedures have their limitations, but they are going to continue to exist. The resources to make every aerodrome with more than one aircraft in the air a controlled aerodrome would be enormous.

My confidence that a disaster with an RPT jet being remote is not as good as I wish it was. Statistically Australia has had a pretty lucky run but at some point the numbers are going to catch us. Do I think the cause is going to be an RPT jet hitting a light aircraft at an uncontrolled aerodrome? No, I think the airlines are more than capable of finding some other way of doing it with all their cost cutting.

[Capn Bloggs]

use of two comms
THAT is the issue. Airy Fairy USA CTAF "dimensions" that are too close in, requiring the use of two radios simultaneously. Triadic, IMO that was/is always a very unwise idea and doesn't happen in my cockpit. We had it right before.

[George Glass]

”a pretty lucky run ”

Is that it ? A defence of the system ?

Good grief.

And no , its not the airlines fault. The operator I work for spends simulator time mitigating the risk.

Good grief.

[Capn Bloggs]

George, you're pretty vocal on this, particularly as someone who actually (if I read this thread right) operated in a High Cap cockpit in this environment.

What is your solution?

[triadic]

THAT is the issue. Airy Fairy USA CTAF "dimensions" that are too close in, requiring the use of two radios simultaneously. Triadic, IMO that was/is always a very unwise idea and doesn't happen in my cockpit. We had it right before.

Capt, with all due respect I suggest that by not using 2 comms in a controlled manner you may be putting yourself at risk by not hearing traffic on the frequency that you are not listening to. I have had occasions where another IFR has taxied and called centre, but the CTAF call (if made) was not heard. I have also had occasions where centre have called me with traffic when inside the CTAF. (our company procedure was not to call "changing to CTAF" - that way centre would know we were still on the Class G freq.) The key is to have it briefed well within the crew and to follow standard company procedures. What I suggested in the previous post was that not many operators have procedures and standards for operating in class G/CTAF's and it is certainly not covered in a standard manner within flying schools. If you think you are ok with one com then fine, but is that the same across all the ops in your company or just you? I used to fly SP IFR and even in that environment two com's in a CTAF was SOP in my company. cheers

[Capn Bloggs]

Triadic, I am not suggesting your switch one radio off (or have the volume on 0%). I consider it commonsense to monitor both, but use only one as the "active". I routinely hear taxiing calls on Area after I have "changed to CTAF", and I have even on occasion got a traffic alert from ATC about a recalcitrant aircraft doing something silly. Active volume 80%, inactive 50%. I can even tell what frequency they are talking on. And if I was SP IFR, I'd do exactly the same.

Having, as an SOP, that it will be normal to run two radios (presumably, you have one and the FO has the other?) is, in my view, asking for trouble. I would be not at all surprised if that, or something similar, is a factor in this accident; certainly the running of both active freqs so close to the airport increases workload dramatically. And that's what Class E will bring with it.

As far as briefing goes, there should be no need; it's not that hard. If a crew has to specifically brief how to run the radios in a CTAF, they shouldn't be there.

[triadic]

As far as briefing goes, there should be no need; it's not that hard. If a crew has to specifically brief how to run the radios in a CTAF, they shouldn't be there.

Agreed Capt, and that is exactly why such operators should have it included in their SOP's and I agree that differing volume's seems to work best. In a two crew op both pilots should get the same picture.
I am not offering comment on the accident as with my safety hat on, we really don't know enough at this time.

[Hoosten]

There is a bit more to getting E down to 1200ft, mostly in the training for both the controllers and the flight crews

Yers, indeed.

however I would concede that it is probably achievable and I suspect achievable with the current staff. While I think I understand the concept of what you're proposing,

I don't think you'll have the staff, mainly because of the enormous sectors you run. I mean, 30 miles north of Melbourne to 30 south of Sydney. Ridiculous.

I don't have the details However I guarantee people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming for it to occur.

It won't happen whilst people like Bloggs are in cockpits. A new generation of pilots need to brought up with this.

My question would be what metric is used to decide which aerodromes get E down to 1200ft? Is it any aerodrome that has an instrument approach? Or any aerodrome with more than a certain number of movements? Keep in mind that movements may not be the best indicator of business because a lot of our IFR training aerodromes the aircraft doesn't physically land on the aerodrome.

Airspace needs to be and can be dynamic, I'm not suggesting towers at these aerodromes, not needed. If you have an organisation set up a school that will be training 200 pilots per year, pounds to peanuts, you're gunna need some airspace.

ASA, CASA, ATSB need to spend a bit of time on a work study in the States. Not the usual stooges, line controllers.

[Hoosten]

ATC staff who held operational endorsements and worked traffic (talked to and separated aircraft) did get redundancies.

This really needs to be emphasised. Next time you get operational delays, send an email and ask why? Why were operational controllers given redundancies when there has been a staffing crisis, and still is.

The trainee pipeline (as they call it) was stopped by the current CEO, who also bet the house on using 457 VISA to fill the void. A stroke of a pen changed this. Add in multiple redundancies of ATC Instructors at the college...

Aided by one of his genius MBA's that learn't in MBA school that staff movement every 6 or 7 years was a good thing for a workforce. This genius probably didn't read all of the the course notes, that maybe this applied to an accounting or advertising firm but not so good when an organisation has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their training. How this clown keeps a job in this organisation is beyond any reason.

[OCTA Aus]

Yers, indeed.



I don't think you'll have the staff, mainly because of the enormous sectors you run. I mean, 30 miles north of Melbourne to 30 south of Sydney. Ridiculous.

ASA, CASA, ATSB need to spend a bit of time on a work study in the States. Not the usual stooges, line controllers.

If it involves reorganising the sectorisation then that actually is a pretty substantial amount of work. As you can probably imagine, an ATC really knows their airspace quite intimately. To give you an idea of the amount of training involved to get a controller rated on a sector consider it roughly equivalent to a type rating. We get to know a handful of sectors very well. Once again not impossible, but if that could happen with any less than 1 year lead in I would be quite surprised. And I’m not sure ASA has the training capacity for that. They would need to call in help.

As for the final bit, we’ll those who can make the change in the organisations won’t, those who would at least be open minded to a change aren’t in a position to make the change. Everything moves at a glacially slow pace inside all three of those organisations. And as much as I would love a paid trip to America it would be wasted because even if I fully agreed with the changes I couldn’t do anything about it.

[Lead Balloon]

These comments do not relate to the accident in question as we are not aware of what exactly the lead up to the event was and considering there were two experienced pilots involved it is hard to understand what may have occurred, and there is no doubt the possibility of many contributing factors.

As an experienced RPT/GA operator in both Class G and CTAFs and the former MBZs, I make some comment on something that has not been specifically discussed here to date. And that is the training of pilots in operating in that category of airspace within Oz. For a start, the last time I looked, the operation in a CTAF was NOT covered in any of the associated exams for any class of licence. If this is still the case, such teachings are therefore the responsibility of the flying school or operator, be it the individual instructor of someone under the guidance of the CFI/Chief Pilot.
What this results in in my opinion is that the training in this area is not subject to any across the industry standardisation and the results show. For example, one operator may do it one way and another do some things differently eg: first call, listening watch prior to first call, use of two comms, separation assurance with known traffic etc etc. Some even believe that if you talk a lot it solves the problem, but that just jams the airwaves with stuff we should already know. As for what some flying schools teach that is yet another story. My experience with some CFI conferences hosted by CASA is that there is many different ideas on how one should participate in uncontrolled airspace and it seems that CASA believe the existing non standardisation is ok. I have put forward a number of times that these teachings should be subject to standardisation and subject to questions in related exam papers. One of the problems is that the folk in CASA responsible for this, don't seem to realise it is a problem and have varied views themselves! Even within this thread we see a variety of views/opinions on how it should be done. Why is it so?Well said, triadic.

Given the amount of traffic, including HCRPT, in and out of aerodromes in G, the content and quality of CTAF comms has a direct impact on safety risk. The variability in the content and quality of CTAF comms is mind-boggling. Sadly, I’m not surprised that CASA doesn’t have the corporate competence to sort it out.

[Sunfish]

LB: Given the amount of traffic, including HCRPT, in and out of aerodromes in G, the content and quality of CTAF comms has a direct impact on safety risk. The variability in the content and quality of CTAF comms is mind-boggling. Sadly, I’m not surprised that CASA doesn’t have the corporate competence to sort it out.


Effective use of radio is NOT taught in the PPL syllabus and the standard of all (including CPL) from my limited experience in CTAF, is woeful.

Please note, this is not about being a “pronunciation and procedure nazi” but about ensuring that your massages are (a) Heard and (b) understandable.

Luckily for me, I was taught the topic of “voice procedure” in the Army and I assume it’s still taught today.

The CASA syllabus, as far as I can tell, doesn’t cover much about comms at all. It tells you what you are supposed to send, but not how.

[Hoosten]

If it involves reorganising the sectorisation then that actually is a pretty substantial amount of work.

I believe the sectorisation in that patch of airspace, i.e. the size of the sectors, is satisfactory. it's the lack of controllers to divide the sectors when required is the problem?

[LeanOfPeak]

As a PPL (IR training), I find myself thinking hard about how to learn from this horrible event even before a report is completed. (ADSB-in for OzRunways has just been ordered - it can’t hurt)

I’m not going to touch the hornet’s nest of airspace comments (I am likely the *least* experienced here).

The comment above about the departing aircraft staying on the ground got me thinking though. Without suggesting any of this is what happened in this case, I imagined myself taxying, hearing the inbound call and deciding to take off but level out below the cloud base until the incoming aircraft was visual. That would have seemed reasonable to me.
I similarly imagine myself inbound and hearing the intention of the traffic to remain VMC as comforting as I continue my descent in cloud.

I think I need to rethink how I’d approach these hypothetical situations and will discuss this with my instructor next time I have a lesson.
What separation would the good folks here use in that situation? Vertical seems problematic - even 1,000ft below cloud may not give enough time to see the descending aircraft (who would be unlikely to see me). Lateral separation is better but harder to mentally visualize, describe accurately and agree on the radio confidently. Staying on the ground whenever someone is inbound IMC may cause long delays if busy but a safe option.

Thoughts? (or personal attacks if you must - I can take it)

[Hoosten]

Lean of Peak, obviously your instructor is the your best learning resource here. Hopefully you've got one that's been around a while?

Vert's a Cert, that is, OCTA arranging your own vertical separation with other IFR traffic. It usually means going into the hold and waiting your turn. If you are inbound to MNG from the terminal you have an extremely high work load, switching from the terminal frequency to the centre frequency, unloading your airwork details, receiving IFR traffic then switching to the CTAF to sort yourself out. Add to that the complication of high level skydiving ops that can be operating IFR and then the odd ambo heading up to Shepparton.

Airspace, in my opinion this airspace class is hopelessly inadequate for the level of traffic, AT TIMES.

Maintaining VMC below cloud on departure whilst another is descending from IMC is hugely problematic, it's another accident waiting to happen, apart from that, how are you going to get your self to LSALT or MSA if you're not established on a track?

At some point the workload in this scenario gets beyond 5 or 6 pilots self arranging separation. ASA will tell you that the cost will be significant, it would cost what it should if the sectors were staffed correctly, Australian sectors are enormous but they are designed to be split, this particular group has multiple sectors, but I'm tipping it is understaffed preventing splits when the traffic warrants.

Operational Controllers were given redundancy during a time of short staffing. Yes, genius management did the only thing they knew how to reduce costs. Any fool can do that.

[Dick Smith]

Where is the nearest ADSB ground station to Mangalore?

What is the lowest level of SSR and ADSB coverage at Mangalore?

[George Glass]

Well , gotta hand it to you Dick.
It takes a lot of chutzpah for you to enter this debate.
Or complete lack of self awareness.

[Lead Balloon]

So what service would the crew of the aircraft involved in this tragedy have been entitled, and what equipment would the aircraft have been required to be fitted - say - 30 years ago, that would have averted the tragedy and is not a service to which the crew were entitled or was equipment that was not required to be fitted to the aircraft, on the day of the tragedy?

[iron_jayeh]

Do we yet know how many aircraft were operating in the area when the incident occurred?

I still think we are looking for outside solutions where pilot skills and training could be the answer.

And again I think this entire discussion is pointless until we get more details of the incident.

[Dick Smith]

George. Are you referring to my AMATS changes that would have resulted in class E at Mangalore?

[OCTA Aus]

Where is the nearest ADSB ground station to Mangalore?

What is the lowest level of SSR and ADSB coverage at Mangalore?

Question was answered previously and apparently ignored

[Squawk7700]

I still think we are looking for outside solutions where pilot skills and training could be the answer.


There’s the issue, but not in way you’re putting it. Two highly experienced instructors who have grown up in the current system, whom have trained perhaps hundreds of others, presumably possessing the highest level of skill, still managed to achieve this result. The issue is bigger than them alone.

[Lead Balloon]

The ‘bigger issue’ could be the one identified earlier by AndrewR with which I agree: It could be that this highly improbable event is just the consequence of the probabilities never being zero.

There is no such thing as airspace in which the risk of collision between aircraft is zero. There is no such thing as a mistake-free pilot. There is no such thing as a mistake-free ATS. There is no such thing as a continuously perfectly-serviceable aircraft.

Class G airspace is the one in which the probabilities of a mid-air collision are least remote.

Sometimes the occurrence of highly improbable events is not as positive as winning the lottery.

[Sunfish]

The question, balloon, is therefore whether there are enough layers of cheese at untowered airports where RPT and IFR are using them. It sounds to me like there needs to be another layer, or the ones we have contain too many holes.

Why isn’t ADS-B in mandated? That is effectively poor mans TCAS isn’t it? I am floored that after all the trouble and money spent at the direction of Government, that it is discounted by ATC as a risk mitigating tool. As others have said, radio and CTAF procedures aren’t standardised and taught either.

There is also the behavioural issue. CASA treats pilots as “uncaught criminals”; is it any wonder then that non professional pilots sometimes behave like street racing Bogans? Then there is the Professional snobbery of some RPT pilots and the typical Australian reaction to that. Now add in an ATC bent on cost recovery, avaricious airport operators with outrageous landing fees, poor training in radio and CTAF procedures, lack of standardisation, lack of compulsory radios and/or ADS-B and transponders, poor ATC infrastructure and overworked ATC controllers. This is a recipe for disaster.

My concern is exactly who is competent to do the analysis and make a recommendation that is not biased by special interests. Sadly the ATSB is partisan these days and CASA is ruled by lawyers who have their own axes to grind. That usually means more rules and regulations that raise costs, do nothing for safety and inconvenience the maximum number of pilots.

[Dick Smith]

OCTA. That was just a guess re radar/ADSB coverage !

What are the facts? Someone who flys regularly at Mangalore must know!

[triadic]

Dick, for info the RAPACs last year suggested to ASA that they provide a chart with all the ADB stations marked together with estimated coverage at 3000ft. Seems that is too hard or not in their budget!

[Capn Bloggs]

Hey Triadic, the Rebro's on! ;)

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

For a start, the last time I looked, the operation in a CTAF was NOT covered in any of the associated exams for any class of licence.

My thoughts exactly (and, similarly to the rest of your post). This is why I think, if properly implemented the AFIZ/MBZ/MF zones could be an improvement. Beyond the airspace improvements, they should also contain prescriptive mandatory calls, so at least you could normalize most of the radio chatter. Whereas with the Class G CTAFs you'll never get away from gibberish calls simply due to the fact that it's uncontrolled. Sure, you might get your local field to agree on a standard set of calls, but anything mandated beyond that would probably be seen as overreach by a fair number of people, especially if it's in the regulation, or the AIP or VFRG.

I think I need to rethink how I’d approach these hypothetical situations and will discuss this with my instructor next time I have a lesson.
What separation would the good folks here use in that situation? Vertical seems problematic - even 1,000ft below cloud may not give enough time to see the descending aircraft (who would be unlikely to see me). Lateral separation is better but harder to mentally visualize, describe accurately and agree on the radio confidently. Staying on the ground whenever someone is inbound IMC may cause long delays if busy but a safe option.

Depends if you're the departing or inbound aircraft. From my experience, the best thing of the departing aircraft to do is to ask the inbound on location, intention, and altitude before launching (in case you missed it when they broadcast). If, due to terrain/MSA/LSALT limitations you can't launch until they're safely behind you (assuming they're doing an approach on the same runway you're departing from). you can either wait or ask them to not descend below an altitude that would let you launch with at least 1000' separation. For the most part (in my experience), IFR pilots don't mind staying higher for a bit if they're not even on approach yet. But, be ready if they say no!

As Hoosten mentioned, VFR just under cloud is problematic for a multitude of reasons (here's (https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19910316-1) an example of a flight that hit some of the holes in the cheese). In fact, it's simpler if you don't think of the altitude as VFR or IMC. If you're flying IFR, fly to whatever IFR level is appropriate given the terrain and traffic. (Last thing you want is to bumble around low level VFR trying to figure out where IFR traffic is, only for it to pop out of cloud in front of you.)

If the weather is marginal, and you don't have full situational awareness to launch IFR, don't launch until you're ready.

[LeanOfPeak]

(Last thing you want is to bumble around low level VFR trying to figure out where IFR traffic is, only for it to pop out of cloud in front of you.)

If the weather is marginal, and you don't have full situational awareness to launch IFR, don't launch until you're ready.

Thanks AVF. Good advice and I think a lesson for me from this. I was imagining a temptation to takeoff if OVC 040 and 10nm MSA of 3400 where I was not 100% certain of the inbound aircraft position but sure I could establish on track at 3,500 until sure.
I am now sure if I’m in that situation in future, I will wait on the ground (or call for clarification).

Thanks too Hoosten - and yes, my instructor is (like me) old enough to remember disco and life before mobile phones, with a genuine skill at passing on his experience.

[Track Shortener]

Dick, for info the RAPACs last year suggested to ASA that they provide a chart with all the ADB stations marked together with estimated coverage at 3000ft. Seems that is too hard or not in their budget!
I'd suggest the people who used to do that sort of work disappeared in the Great Acceleration of 2016.

[Horatio Leafblower]

What is the incidence of mid-air collisions in the USA per 100,000 or per Million GA hours? Very small I suggest. I am guessing that we have double the rate of the USA.

What level of IFR surveillance would Mangalore have if it was in the USA? In terms of traffic and proximity to capital cities, I am (again) guessing it would have Class E down to a lower level such as 1200' AGL.

Half an hour of looking at the various US airspace maps available on SkyVector is very instructive. I especially like to look at the airspace around San Francisco (world #22) which supports the equivalent of a SYD, a MEL, a MEB, 2 Bankstowns and a Willytown within a 30nm radius.
Within a 120 nm radius there are literally dozens of aerodromes, many uncontrolled, with Class E down to 1200' above the surface.
Given the elimination of many ground-based navaids across Australia and the concentration of IFR Training flights around the remaining network as a result, CASA as the "Safety" authority needs to take action to ensure adequate levels of infrastructure are built to suit the technology mix and traffic levels of the 21st Century.

[Fieldmouse]

I'd suggest the people who used to do that sort of work disappeared in the Great Acceleration of 2016.
I'd suggest Track Shortener is on the money. I'd further suggest the current staff of ASA are unaware that they own ADS B stations, or what they do.
I doubt they have a map.
Or perhaps I have just grown cynical

[megan]

What is the incidence of mid-air collisions in the USA per 100,000 or per Million GA hours? Very small I suggest. I am guessing that we have double the rate of the USA.Australia and the US had a similar rate of midair collisions involving general aviation aircraft during the period 1981-2003. The US had a higher rate of general aviation aircraft involved in collisions per flight hour away from the circuit area, which is consistent with the US having more general aviation flying activity and a higher traffic densityhttps://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36828/Review_of_midair_col.pdf

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Back in the dim dark ages (early 80's), when I worked at Melbourne FS Centre, Mangalore, Cowes,and Wonthaggi were all very busy IFR navaid training locations. There were often multiple IFR aircraft at any one location, all doing their various things and managing not to hit each other. ATS was a directed traffic service from me, and then they worked it out between them. ATC did not monitor, and did not care, even if they could see them on radar, because they were OCTA, and that meant what it said on the tin. Strangely enough, no one hit anyone. How many hundreds, if not thousands of IFR training flights would have occurred in the vicinity of any one of those locations prior to and during the past 40 years? And no one hit anyone. Now two pilots who got the same service everyone else has had ie they were told about each other and left to sort it out, yet still managed to hit each other in what are pretty flukey circumstances. Is that the system's fault, or the pilot's? Or just bad luck? Because that just does happen some times.

[Lead Balloon]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36828/Review_of_midair_col.pdf
According to the report at the link:

Mid Air Collision Rate per 100,000 in US GA in 1981-1990: 0.067. Australia: 0.049

Mid Air Collision Rate per 100,000 in US GA in 1991-2003: 0.047 Australia: 0.048

The report also says:The overall midair collision accident rate [in GA in Australia] was higher in the period 1961-1980 (0.074 per 100,000 flight hours) compared with the subsequent period 1981-2003 (0.048 per 100,000 flight hours), but the difference was not statistically significant.If a difference between 0.074 and 0.048 per 100,000 flight hours is “not statistically significant”, good luck in spinning the difference between 0.047 (Australian GA 1991-2003) and 0.048 (US GA 1991-2003).Overall, for the period 1981-2003, the US had a lower number of hours flown per collision (930,000 hours) for general aviation aircraft relative to Australia (1,260,000 hours), indicating that general aviation in the US may have had a slightly higher risk for midair collisions. However, this difference was not statistically significant.Quite so. One wonders, then, why the ATSB nonetheless gratuitously speculated on what “may” be “indicated” by differences that are not statistically significant.

Unfortunately, there were no figures available for the number of hours flown or number of movements in or near the circuit area versus away from the circuit area for either Australia or the US. Based on the assumption that the proportion of flying in or near the circuit area was the same in Australia and the US, it was found that:

• Australia had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 1.1 times higher than that of the US in or near the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. This difference was not statistically significant.

• The US had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 5.8 times higher than that of Australia away from the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. The test of the difference between the two countries was not significant. However, this test had a low level of power to detect differences in the rates as the Australian rate was based on only one event (Moreton Bay, 1988). The fact that only one event also occurred during the period 1961-1980 (Cecil Plains, 1980) suggests that the Australian rate may be reasonably reliable. There was a significant difference in the hours flown per collision involving general aviation between the two countries, indicating that there was a higher collision risk in the US away from the circuit area relative to Australia.“5.8 times higher”? Yeah right. Best to revisit the validity of that assumption.

[Capn Bloggs]

Now two pilots who got the same service everyone else has had ie they were told about each other and left to sort it out, yet still managed to hit each other in what are pretty flukey circumstances. Is that the system's fault, or the pilot's?
Partially correct. The critical difference between than and now was that CTAFs didn't exist. All the aircraft at Mangalore were on your frequency, the area freq (no rebro either, I'd wager). Now, as well as a probably busy Area freq with the controller providing DTI, we're on the other radio managing the CTAF traffic (or the same traffic). The current radio situation, which would exist with Class E, is harder to manage, especially with no parallel taxiways. Of course, then you'd have the cowboys doing IFR Pickups, thereby negating the "value" of E and endangering everyone.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

True, which has a high likelihood of contributing to why it happened near an aerodrome, rather than near a navaid in a paddock. Is it known if these guys did talk to each other at all, whether on the CTAF or Area? I gather they had traffic via ATC, so they were "aware" of each other.

[Lead Balloon]

Now two pilots who got the same service everyone else has had ie they were told about each other and left to sort it out, yet still managed to hit each other in what are pretty flukey circumstances. Is that the system's fault, or the pilot's? Or just bad luck? Because that just does happen some times. Is it known if these guys did talk to each other at all, whether on the CTAF or Area? I gather they had traffic via ATC, so they were "aware" of each other.Hi TIER

How do you know for sure “they were told about each other”?

How do you know for sure that what they were told about each other was accurate?

How do you know for sure that they received any or all of what they were told, and were aware of each other?

It seems odd that if ATS had accurate information about both aircraft, ATS would not have known about the risk of collision between them. Why do I occasionally hear Centre issue a ‘safety alert’ to aircraft in G, on the basis that the aircraft appear to Centre to be in close proximity?

[Capn Bloggs]

How do you know for sure “they were told about each other”?

How do you know for sure that what they were told about each other was accurate?

How do you know for sure that they received any or all of what they were told, and were aware of each other?
Ignoring the fact that Traffic never said he knew "for sure" to any of those points,

Joey Hoosten said, in Post 220:

Mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

Nor did Hoosten use the phrase “for sure”.

Hoosten: Do you have first hand knowledge of whether mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft?

For those who don’t have first hand knowledge of facts asserted with carefree ease, maybe you should qualify your assertions with “Someone who knows told me that he said/heard ‘.....’. If you know for sure, say you know “for sure”. If you’re making an educated guess, say you’re making an educated guess.

I know it’s easy to attribute the cause to mistake/s by deceased pilot/s, but I thought we’d grown out of that a long time ago (ATSB’s behaviour notwithstanding).

And no one’s yet answered my question about Centre and safety alerts.

[iron_jayeh]

Can I go back to my reply 300 messages ago Thai said were should wait for the atsb initial fact report?

[Hoosten]

Can I go back to my reply 300 messages ago Thai said were should wait for the atsb initial fact report?

Really?? You think you're going to stop humans from speculating, about anything?

If ever there is a more boring, repetitive, useless statement on pprune, I'm yet to see it.

For about the 400th time, if you don't want to read the speculation, if it offends you, or somehow you think you are doing a noble thing by continually moaning about people speculating, don't read the thread.

I'm kinda wondering why you visit these types of threads?

[Hoosten]

It seems odd that if ATS had accurate information about both aircraft, ATS would not have known about the risk of collision between them. Why do I occasionally hear Centre issue a ‘safety alert’ to aircraft in G, on the basis that the aircraft appear to Centre to be in close proximity?

ATC are obliged to transmit traffic or safety alerts if they see ANYTHING on their surveillance equipment that indicates a collision could occur, whether it's IFR or VFR. If they see 2 VFR aircraft on their scope in the middle of no-where on a possible collision course they will broadcast on the area frequency. ADSB out from VFR ADSB equipped aircraft will even give the callsign to the ATC (in ADSB coverage).

Because 2 IFR aircraft have been given mutual traffic in Class G aircraft, doesn't absolve the ATC from providing traffic or safety alerts if it's warranted.
NOTE: I am NOT saying this may have occurred at YMNG. It is NOT an accusation and it is not an ATC bash. Surveillance in that neck of the woods is known to be patchy.

My beef is purely with the class of airspace in this area. Australian pilots seem to labour under a few mis-conceptions:
- That if you are IFR OCTA you are separated or protected somewhat by a traffic statement.
- That any upgrade to a higher class of airspace will cost an exorbitant amount of money.
- That the existing way of doing things is the best money can buy.

Refusal to look at possible solutions and different airspace models, particularly as the traffic numbers increase in certain areas is just plain stupidity.

[Capn Bloggs]

- That any upgrade to a higher class of airspace will cost an exorbitant amount of money.
Prove that it (the "possible solution" and "different airspace model" aka boring old E to 1200ft) won't be.

Dick Smith, who has been asked numerous times to do the same but has never answered, will be keen to know the answer.

[Lead Balloon]

How can it sensibly be Dick Smith’s or any other member of the public’s responsibility to do cost/benefit analyses for the various airspace options?

Surely if the OAR was doing its job, it would have these kinds of figures and the risk mitigation data at its fingertips? OAR should be able to say that the detailed analysis of implementation of and running Class E to 1,200’ in certain parts of the ‘J’ curve would cost approximately $X and save Y lives every Z decades (or maybe the number is zero lives saved?), and that OAR considers the expenditure of $X is justified/ is not justified.

Same with e.g. putting D at e.g. Port Hedland or Mildura.

Airservices should be able to state - and justify with data - that it would cost $X to establish and run e.g. D at e.g. Mildura and OAR should be able to state - and justify with data - why the risks mitigated would / would not be worth $X.

The question: “Who’s gonna pay?” is pretty silly if the cost and risks mitigated are not quantified first.

[iron_jayeh]

You assume it would be calculated somewhere.

So not really knowing how these changes occur: have the usual suspects here actually submitted requests to OAR for an audience change?

[Sunfish]

LB is correct. A competent organisation involved in risk mitigation (which is all Airservices does) would have the numbers. However it seems Airservices mission is to maximise cash extraction from industry by charging the highest price for the minimum of service, like all parasites.

Their mission statement:”Please God! Not on my watch!”. They pray that they can take their bonuses and retire before the consequences of their cost cutting appear.

In Airservices that ensures nothing will change until there is the inevitable 200+ killed in a jet mid air.

The tools are there, the data is there but the Governments expectation of its annual dividend precludes rational thought.

To put that another way, if a bunch of amateurs can see the accident developing on Flightradar24, why can’t Airservices? Where is the ADSB we paid so much for?

[iron_jayeh]

As a pilot, I don't want more E where G existed before (below a100). The adsb argument you're making is irrelevant in this situation since as hoostenn said the aircraft had traffic and knew about each other.

[Squawk7700]

As a pilot, I don't want more E where G existed before (below a100). The adsb argument you're making is irrelevant in this situation since as hoostenn said the aircraft had traffic and knew about each other.

Perhaps they “knew” about each other, but didn’t know where they actually were?

In that case, ADSB is entirely relevant...

[iron_jayeh]

I hear on frequency all the time when atc gives traffic, you hear the two ifr either talk over centre or on the ctaf to organise themselves. If I'm not sure of where someone is, then I will ask. I'm not going to go "Yeah ok, I'm sure that will be fine"

[Capn Bloggs]

Balon and Sunfish, none of that applies here.

Porter/Houston stated that "My beef is purely with the class of airspace in this area. Australian pilots seem to labour under a few mis-conceptions", one being
That any upgrade to a higher class of airspace will cost an exorbitant amount of money.
It is up to no body or organisation but Houstin to justify that statement.

[missy]

LB is correct. A competent organisation involved in risk mitigation (which is all Airservices does) would have the numbers.
Their mission statement:”Please God! Not on my watch!”. They pray that they can take their bonuses and retire before the consequences of their cost cutting appear.
In Airservices that ensures nothing will change until there is the inevitable 200+ killed in a jet mid air.
The tools are there, the data is there but the Governments expectation of its annual dividend precludes rational thought.

Where is the like button?

Airservices paying a dividend to government distorts their primary purpose - risk mitigation or as a former colleague said "it's all about conflict detection".

Yet another former colleague said "the worst outcome is the best outcome", think about that for a moment. It's a sobering thought.

[zanthrus]

The tools are there.

That is the problem right there! All the managers are blunt tools!

[OCTA Aus]

Perhaps they “knew” about each other, but didn’t know where they actually were?

In that case, ADSB is entirely relevant...

Call me crazy, but another viable option would be to not punch into IMC until you know damn well where the other traffic is.

[Lead Balloon]

[A]nother viable option would be to not punch into IMC until you know damn well where the other traffic is.I’ll have to add that to the Big Book Of Aviation Wisdom.

If you are suggesting that in this case an aircraft punched into IMC when the pilot did not “know damn well” where other traffic was, what is the evidential basis for that suggestion?

Do you know for sure that accurate traffic information was transmitted to the aircraft?

Do you know for sure that the PIC of the aircraft received the traffic information but misunderstood or was unsure what it meant?

Although pilot error is a possibility - maybe even probable - I thought we’d grown out of this kind of ‘blame the pilot’ mentality. (Excepting, of course, the ATSB, Airservices and CASA.)

[George Glass]

OCTA Aus , you have hit the nail on the head , inadvertently of course.

“until you know damn well where the other traffic is.”

You cant . That’s the point . The simplest failure of situational awareness , navigational error , over-transmission or a myriad of other variables and the system fails. There is no third party oversight . Its fail dangerous , pure and simple . Only somebody who has never sat at the holding point in poor weather trying to self-separate from multiple IFR and scud running VFR could make such a naive statement.

The minimum requirement of any port with multiple RPT jet operations is a tower. Simple.

Otherwise you’re just rolling the dice.

[iron_jayeh]

So we get rid of G entirely?

[George Glass]

As suggested by AlphaVictorFoxtrot , reintroduce FIS and MBZs . Back to the future ! Crazy idea isn’t it !
Normalization of deviance is fatal in aviation.
Somehow over the last 20 years we have convinced ourselves that the airspace structure is ok , or worse that it is “world class” .
It isn’t . Never has been.
Pity it takes a disaster to make it obvious.

[Lead Balloon]

OCTA Aus , you have hit the nail on the head , inadvertently of course.

“until you know damn well where the other traffic is.”

You cant . That’s the point . The simplest failure of situational awareness , navigational error , over-transmission or a myriad of other variables and the system fails. There is no third party oversight . Its fail dangerous , pure and simple . Only somebody who has never sat at the holding point in poor weather trying to self-separate from multiple IFR and scud running VFR could make such a naive statement.

The minimum requirement of any port with multiple RPT jet operations is a tower. Simple.

Otherwise you’re just rolling the dice.
^^^^^This^^^^^

[Lead Balloon]

As suggested by AlphaVictorFoxtrot , reintroduce FIS and MBZs . Back to the future ! Crazy idea isn’t it !
Normalization of deviance is fatal in aviation.
Somehow over the last 20 years we have convinced ourselves that the airspace structure is ok , or worse that it is “world class” .
It isn’t . Never has been.
Pity it takes a disaster to make it obvious.
^^^^^And this^^^^^

[Hoosten]

It is up to no body or organisation but Houstin to justify that statement.

Your stupidity is breathtaking. Perhaps CASA should start testing for senility.

[Hoosten]

So we get rid of G entirely?

Absolutely not, E Corridors.

Forget about a restriction to your movements, it won't happen. If you want to know how it works, go fly back and forth over the top of Avalon. But make sure there are no senile, ex-RAAF, B717 pilots there.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The minimum requirement of any port with multiple RPT jet operations
Unfortunately, define "multiple". Is it two, three, six, ten? It used to be one. That was howled down as uneconomic and unsustainable by the industry itself. If we are protecting RPT jets from the LCD, then it shouldn't matter if it's 1, or 20.

[Lead Balloon]

Unfortunately, define "multiple". Is it two, three, six, ten? It used to be one. That was howled down as uneconomic and unsustainable by the industry itself. If we are protecting RPT jets from the LCD, then it shouldn't matter if it's 1, or 20.
OKay....

So...

Where is the objective cost/risk data to show what us “uneconomic” and “unsustainable”?

In order for the OAR to do its job, it must put a value on a life. What value does the OAR put on a life?

[George Glass]

Then the industry needs to be told to shut the f#ck up. The idea of the ” industry” driving policy is part of the problem. I know that idea is archaic but it used to be one of the great strengths of the Westminster system.

[CaptainMidnight]

Absolutely not, E Corridors.

Forget about a restriction to your movements, it won't happen. If you want to know how it works, go fly back and forth over the top of Avalon.
Not for long:

CASA Review recommends Class C for Avalon (https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-review-recommends-class-c-for-avalon)

[Lead Balloon]

Not for long:

CASA Review recommends Class C for Avalon (https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-review-recommends-class-c-for-avalon)Thank heavens that, finally, an objective assessment of Class E has been conducted by individuals who have no personal interest in the outcome of the assessment.

Thank heavens that, as soon as OAR moved from Airservices to CASA, decisions about airspace designation were made on the basis of objective risk and objective cost.

Thank heavens that the removal of Class E corridors like that across Avalon and their replacement with Class C is a consequence of objective cost/benefit analyses.

Do you make any money out of airspace arrangements, CM?

PS: I should have declared, up front, that I make no money out of how airspace is arranged.

[Capn Bloggs]

Forget about a restriction to your movements, it won't happen. If you want to know how it works, go fly back and forth over the top of Avalon. But make sure there are no senile, ex-RAAF, B717 pilots there.
You'd better get in quick because that E is arr going! Classic example of how jets and VFR in E don't mix.

Hoosten, now now, don't get narky because your redundo has just gone down the ASX gurgler. Can't produce the cost of E goods can ya? I also see that Led Balon hasn't ripped into you for making that statement and not triple-justifying it, unlike what he's doing to others... You must be a protected species.

It is up to no body or organisation but Houstin to justify that statement.
Your stupidity is breathtaking. Perhaps CASA should start testing for senility.
Yes, how stupid of me to suggest that somebody making a claim should justify that claim.

Towers everywhere? Bring it on! And connect them to the upper airspace with CONTROLLED (for all) airspace; Class D.

By the way, WHERE IS PORTER??

[Sunfish]

Just ban private flight. You know you want to.

[Squawk7700]

By the way, WHERE IS PORTER??

He was banned from here after the C130 went in, but his alter-ego lives here with us in this thread.

[Hoosten]

Well God forbid that the OAR

recommended Class C as the most appropriate classification

The traffic density must warrant it?

OAR, time to move your efforts up to MNG.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The burning question. When did the outbound make first contact with ATC? Everything that happened next has a direct outcome from that point. Essentially, the pilot is responsible, not ATC! Drill down! This a circuit area procedural accident. Frequency management is an issue. Ensuring knowledge of inbound traffic you cannot see. (In the day it was FS with information of everybody reporting inbound to your aerodrome, today it is ATC with IFR reporting inbound) The telling question, did outbound follow a common procedure this day as if it were a pure VMC day? Was there a complacency to just launch rather than wait for contact knowing they would get contact before setting course for the first waypoint? Logically, if the outbound was aware of the inbound, the outbound would have stayed on the ground till inbound was visual or reported over the aid, they would have made direct contact with inbound on CTAF to organise same.

This is an accident that should never have got to the point where the question of ATC intervention or airspace classification should arise. Methinks the scene was set the instant both throttles went full power on takeoff

[Hoosten]

By the way, WHERE IS PORTER??

Now that is funny, I've done a search on this user, he doesn't like you Captain Bloggs? Or is it everybody can see through your posting?

[Hoosten]

Hoosten, now now, don't get narky because your redundo has just gone down the ASX gurgler. Can't produce the cost of E goods can ya? I also see that Led Balon hasn't ripped into you for making that statement and not triple-justifying it, unlike what he's doing to others... You must be a protected species.

redundo? I'm assuming you are referring to redundancy? ASX gurgler? sorry I have no idea what you are referring to?

I don't get access to said redundancy, not in my part of the world at least. who knows, the way things are going in this part of the world I may have a little more time to do your calculations.

I can produce a cost. It would be relatively simple to calculate. To fixate on this is, what? I would say, not the highest priority.

I do not know LB but if he's pointing out the stupidity of your argument, well, that wouldn't be too difficult to be frank.

[CaptainMidnight]

Do you make any money out of airspace arrangements, CM?

Oi! Nothing to do with me; I have no involvement in such matters.

Just reporting what is happening.

[Capn Bloggs]

I can produce a cost. It would be relatively simple to calculate. To fixate on this is, what? I would say, not the highest priority.
Well do it. You been asked numerous times but you refuse to produce the facts.

Traffic lights or roundabouts at every intersection have a cost. That's why, even though they would save lives, they are not implemented. It beggars belief that you can't see the same for airspace. Do you and every member of your family and relatives drive a big 2020-model car to ensure you have the latest safety features? Cost isn't the highest priority, is it? Or is it??

Or is it everybody can see through your posting?
What, that you're Porter? Not hard to work out...

[Sunfish]

The OAR review is a waste of time because it contains nothing but personal value judgements and irrelevant detail. It is useless and it’s conclusion is meaningless.

[buckshot1777]

The OAR review is a waste of time because it contains nothing but personal value judgements and irrelevant detail. It is useless and it’s conclusion is meaningless.

What did you read to form those opinions?

A link please -

[Lead Balloon]

You could start with the “Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018”, made under section 8 of the Airspace Act 2007, here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01386

A quite creative collection of motherhood statements, weasel words and wiggle room dressed up as something important. Do a search for “should” and “opinion”.

[Sunfish]

See #381 for the link.

[buckshot1777]

See #381 for the link.

That was a magazine article, not the review document :rolleyes:

The CASA review is at the link titled Avalon_Airspace_Review_2019.pdf here:

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/stakeholder-engagement-group/draft-report-avalon-2019-prelim-airspace-r/

[Lead Balloon]

Recommendation 1 Airservices Australia should review the airspace design and submit to CASA an Airspace Change Proposal to remove the Class E airspace in accordance with the report’s findings and to ensure the airspace classification aligns with the appropriate level of air traffic service at Avalon.Remind me again who’s in charge of airspace designation?

Airspace designation is either on the basis of objective risk or it isn’t.

[Squawk7700]

Aren’t they going to trial class E over C over Hobart soon?

[Hoosten]

What, that you're Porter? Not hard to work out...

You have got me:

Stands in a desolate valley, in slave clothing...........I am Porter.

Now what?

[Mr Approach]

The report from OAR on Avalon highlights so many anomalies within Australian airspace that this post could be nautical miles in length, for one, the ridiculous RA3 status of restricted airspace around the tin pot little airfield at Point Cook. This place has a terrifying 68,000 movements per year, I do not know how they cope, but keeping those pesky Australian citizens outside of the airspace must help. Perhaps Bankstown and Moorabbin should make similar submissions to CASA OAR.

However sticking to the point, at no stage does CASA OAR recommend Class C airspace. Airservices, on the other hand operates the airspace as if it was Class C, in my view this is because the people running Melbourne ATC Centre (where all the senior management is located) have little-to-zero knowledge about how efficiently airspace can be run by Tower controllers.
Point 1 - CASA OAR asks Airservices (the should word) to propose an airspace plan without Class E airspace. (Which CASA OAR itself recommended some years ago)
Point 2 - CASA OAR recommends that the E airspace become Class D (not C) this would still allow the VFR operations causing the problems, but enable the tower controllers to position that VFR traffic out of the way of arriving and departing IFR traffic.
Point 3 - CASA OAR recommends that Avalon Tower manages the Class D airspace with the use of the Tower Situational Awareness Display (TSAD). This is a perfectly functional display of airborne traffic (and ground if ADS-B is incorporated) which is not able to be used for separation purely because Airservices chooses to install it that way. The system only needs some minor modifications to make it comply with ICAO Annex 10, something it has done with the Essendon installation.
It is Airservices in Melbourne that I believe wants to operate the airspace as Class C. Mainly because that fits in with the uneducated views of the radar-orientated managers at that facility. And unfortunately, as identified by Lead Balloon above, the managers that run CASA OAR (not the staff in the branch) do not want CASA to be responsible for airspace changes. They prefer to simply "approve" whatever Airservices or Defence tell them they want. It is better named the Office of Airspace Rubber-Stamping (OARS)

[TULSAMI]

Avalon Tower controllers do Essendon as well, so unlikely the one controller would be current on the procedural and radar towers as you’re suggesting. They would have to have either sole Avalon staff or rotate through with Moorabbin tower

[triadic]

Just maybe we have got the wrong idea? Back in 2014 London/Heathrow changed from Class A to Class D. Seems to give them much added flexibility. Class E has been used for many years in the USA and pilots and controllers are used to it, whereas Class E in Oz is a much more recent addition to the airspace menu. I am still not convinced that the pilots it is designed for (VFR) know how it should work or how to participate in it. It certainly has a role, but the very small amounts and the failure of related pilot education makes it that much harder, which of course it isn't. In the US, I suspect that VFR pilots fly more in E than they do in G. Some talk to the controller, whilst others turn the music on! A very different culture!

CAA approves reclassification of airspace around London Heathrow - Airport World Magazine (http://www.airport-world.com/news/general-news/4043-caa-approves-reclassification-of-airspace-around-london-heathrow.html)

[Sunfish]

There is no training for Ppl on operations in class E. I had to ask questions and work it out myself around Avalon. Even the instructor I used didn’t know. We got caught in the trap at Leopold where the lower level drops to 1500. You think you are clear, but aren’t.

Lets face it, would I be wrong in thinking that CASA, AsA, the airlines RAAF and local councils hate small GA and private aircraft and pilots. We should return the favour via the ballot box as well as acting legally accordingly. Where is AOPA?

To put that another way, I automatically defer to Polair and Air ambulance. RPT? Not sure I would these days unless legally required although I used to. I can’t stand the automatic superiority of the Capt. Bloggs of this world.

[Lead Balloon]

The report from OAR on Avalon highlights so many anomalies within Australian airspace that this post could be nautical miles in length, for one, the ridiculous RA3 status of restricted airspace around the tin pot little airfield at Point Cook. This place has a terrifying 68,000 movements per year, I do not know how they cope, but keeping those pesky Australian citizens outside of the airspace must help. Perhaps Bankstown and Moorabbin should make similar submissions to CASA OAR.

However sticking to the point, at no stage does CASA OAR recommend Class C airspace. Airservices, on the other hand operates the airspace as if it was Class C, in my view this is because the people running Melbourne ATC Centre (where all the senior management is located) have little-to-zero knowledge about how efficiently airspace can be run by Tower controllers.
Point 1 - CASA OAR asks Airservices (the should word) to propose an airspace plan without Class E airspace. (Which CASA OAR itself recommended some years ago)
Point 2 - CASA OAR recommends that the E airspace become Class D (not C) this would still allow the VFR operations causing the problems, but enable the tower controllers to position that VFR traffic out of the way of arriving and departing IFR traffic.
Point 3 - CASA OAR recommends that Avalon Tower manages the Class D airspace with the use of the Tower Situational Awareness Display (TSAD). This is a perfectly functional display of airborne traffic (and ground if ADS-B is incorporated) which is not able to be used for separation purely because Airservices chooses to install it that way. The system only needs some minor modifications to make it comply with ICAO Annex 10, something it has done with the Essendon installation.
It is Airservices in Melbourne that I believe wants to operate the airspace as Class C. Mainly because that fits in with the uneducated views of the radar-orientated managers at that facility. And unfortunately, as identified by Lead Balloon above, the managers that run CASA OAR (not the staff in the branch) do not want CASA to be responsible for airspace changes. They prefer to simply "approve" whatever Airservices or Defence tell them they want. It is better named the Office of Airspace Rubber-Stamping (OARS)
C’mon, Mr A: The move of OAR into CASA has resulted in airspace designation being on the basis of frank and fearless independent analysis!

What fascinates (and depresses) me most is that the airspace designation system is now so busted that the people involved no longer comprehend what they are revealing in the documents they produce. It’s like the colour-coded sports grants spreadsheet that was emailed and amended so many times spanning the point at which the election was called and the caretaker period commenced. The people involved are now so disconnected from any standards of propriety that they no longer see or worry about the inappropriateness of what they are recording in writing.

So the end result will be that the airspace arrangements in the vicinity of Avalon will be changed to suit the wishes of some Airservices and CASA bureaucrats (having been originally changed to suit a political purpose that may or may not have been justified on objective risk and cost bases), in response to a “Change Proposal” from Airservices. Great. Just great.

[uncle8]

"We got caught in the trap at Leopold where the lower level drops to 1500."
Please excuse the thread drift.
Does anyone else think that there should be a brown line on the VTC to indicate that there is a change in the E base from 2500 to 1500 at the 8nm arc both to the north and south of Avalon?

[andrewr]

Class E is not for the benefit of VFR aircraft.

Class E provides additional services to IFR aircraft over what they would have received in G i.e. separation.

I'm not surprised if the Avalon airspace is being reviewed. It appears to have been designed to fail. It has been located to provide no benefit (or even lesser service) to IFR aircraft rather than benefits. Given the ongoing opposition to Class E as used e.g. in the USA, I suspect it was set up so they could say "Yes we tried it", without any chance of success.

(I was out flying today. With multiple IFR aircraft operating in G, ATC go on ... and on ... and on giving traffic information to everyone. It takes them so long - are you SURE it wouldn't be more efficient to give clearances?)

[Mr Approach]

Triadic the UK CAA were as confusing with their use of the ICAO airspace classifications as Australia. The London airspace changed when the European Authority decreed that airspace, once designated as a class could not then be "modified" to suit local conventions.The then London Class A (ICAO - IFR only) was full of VFR helicopter operations flying VFR under local exemptions, this was banned by the European authorities so it had to become Class D. By the way this also occurs in the Sydney Class C where, under an exemption, police helicopters are not subject to Class C separation. This effectively makes it Class D for those operations and note that London did not become Class C. According to the CASA web site CASA intends to enshrine that exemption in changes to CASR Part 172 (Air Traffic Services) instead of following the European lead and changing the airspace classification to suit the traffic requirements. In other words Sydney Class C should be Class D the same as London, and for exactly the same reason. In fact all of our Class C Control Zones have the same helicopter problem however do not hold your breath. Once again the ICAO idea that pilots should be able to look up a chart, see and airspace class, and know exactly what service they can expect, is totally lost on the people fiddling around with regulations

Class E is a whole world of hurt for me having endured 30 years of ignorant push-back from ATS and pilots alike. I saw it work in the US and you can still see it working in many You Tube videos. Pilots would get the idea if it was everywhere, but having small blocks of it here there and everywhere makes it a foreign environment instead of the normal. To do that unfortunately would cause Airservices to have to create more sectors and therefore start losing money. Currently unlike the US, Canada, and many other countries, their service is required to make money (cost recovery) and pay a dividend to the Federal Government.

Our Government seems to have truck loads of money to spend on buildings full of public servants ensuring that old people are not claiming the old age pension when they have assets, (NZ has no such process everyone gets the OAP because it is cheaper to do it that way!) but nothing to spend on employing more ATCs (also de facto public servants) to ensure that all citizens flying in cloud are adequately separated from each other. The Federal Parliament should be embarrassed if not ashamed at such neglect.

[Capn Bloggs]

Does anyone else think that there should be a brown line on the VTC to indicate that there is a change in the E base from 2500 to 1500 at the 8nm arc both to the north and south of Avalon?
Sounds fair, Uncle. :ok:

Class E is not for the benefit of VFR aircraft.
No it's not. It ONLY exists to benefit VFR (John and Martha said so, all those years ago on their Airspace 2000 sellathon). Otherwise, if any "controlling" was required (for the only other participants, IFR), it would be "Controlled Airspace", period. It was invented by the yanks to allow VFR, off-radio and no DTI, to fly wherever they wanted.

As for the "if it's not IMC, IFR don't need ATC", this is also nonsense. "OK, no clearance available? Let's go IFR-Pickup". Do some research on how many heavy-jet companies actually allow their operations to switch to VFR because a ATC clearance wasn't available. Not to mention the IFR cowboys (yes Huustan, cowboys) doing an IFR pickup with no prior coordination with the other IFR aircraft that is so close to them ATC can't/won't give them a clearance. Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right??

I'm not surprised if the Avalon airspace is being reviewed. It appears to have been designed to fail. It has been located to provide no benefit (or even lesser service) to IFR aircraft rather than benefits. Given the ongoing opposition to Class E as used e.g. in the USA, I suspect it was set up so they could say "Yes we tried it", without any chance of success.
It failed because you can't mix uncontrolled VFR with IFR, especially jets, at a busy airport like AVV. E at Avalon is no longer "fit for purpose" (may have been when they who shall not be named got it installed there, but not now).

In the US, I suspect that VFR pilots fly more in E than they do in G. Some talk to the controller, whilst others turn the music on! A very different culture!
Says it all, really.

[triadic]

This is significant thread drift, but with good reason I suggest.
Mr A, I agree with your post. The Heli use in some areas needs to be catered for and obviously in the LHR case, Class D best suited their need as might be the case at some zones in Oz. I do not believe that the education of airspace classifications and their use is a high priority for CASA and this shows with how many pilots tackle ops in Class E. The entrenched culture in Oz still highlights controlled and uncontrolled airspace as it was in the days of FS. What the letters mean to many pilots, especially GA is a mystery. As I said in the previous post, class E in the US is almost everywhere above 1200ft agl and the pilots there have grown up with that system. In theory it should work in a similar way here, however we need to review what locations and associated radar/adsb coverage so that ATC can do their job in that airspace and it can be targeted to those locations that justify such services. An early post stated the provision of pilot education in airspace is something that is left to the flying schools and training departments. It is not covered in an CASA exams! Not really good enough.

[Hoosten]

Make up your mind, I thought it was Porter?

You don't know how it works, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't done an hour's flight in the US?

I've had the good fortune to fly IFR in both systems, I've had the good fortune to instruct in both systems. And I've also had the good fortune to get away from it all, VFR in both systems.

Just admit it, you hate Americans. Your hate is obvious. Your cowboy comment is ignorant and arrogant and is typical of the Austronaut. Fly's a jet overseas once a month, lands in the off peak periods and thinks they've been there and done that. Your ignorance is based on no working knowledge of what's involved in the different classes of airspace.

And please donot refer to me as Hoosten in future, I kinda like this Porter guy.

I don't hate you in return. I just think you should retire and get out of the way of pilots who can adapt to change.

[Hoosten]

Finally, finally.........the debate is moving to airspace classification. Reasoned, apart from the senile one of course.

[Sunfish]

Avalon is busy? Compared to what? Bullshyte.

[OCTA Aus]

As for the "if it's not IMC, IFR don't need ATC", this is also nonsense. "OK, no clearance available? Let's go IFR-Pickup". Do some research on how many heavy-jet companies actually allow their operations to switch to VFR because a ATC clearance wasn't available. Not to mention the IFR cowboys (yes Huustan, cowboys) doing an IFR pickup with no prior coordination with the other IFR aircraft that is so close to them ATC can't/won't give them a clearance. Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right

Generally you and I are on a sort of similar page, but I’m going to disagree with you on this one. There are a lot of reasons why ATC can’t give a clearance, primary of which is that if you aren’t on surveillance then you will have to be procedurally separated. The procedural separation standards are quite massive, been as high as 10 minutes. In this case if it was VMC an IFR pickup would absolutely be a smart manoeuvre, and then as soon as you’re on ADSB then ATC will separate you anyway.

Calling IFR pickup a cowboy manoeuvre is a pretty broad statement. As far as Class E goes in Australia, I see 2 issues. Pilots don’t actually understand how to use it, what level of service is provided and exactly what is and isn’t controlled in it. Controllers don’t fully understand the purpose of it, and don’t like not being fully in control of “their” airspace.

[Hoosten]

Like I said, he's never seen it work, hates Americans and is an ignorant Austronaut.

(I am Porter)

[Hoosten]

Class E is a whole world of hurt for me having endured 30 years of ignorant push-back from ATS and pilots alike. I saw it work in the US and you can still see it working in many You Tube videos.

Pilots would get the idea if it was everywhere, but having small blocks of it here there and everywhere makes it a foreign environment instead of the normal. To do that unfortunately would cause Airservices to have to create more sectors and therefore start losing money. Currently unlike the US, Canada, and many other countries, their service is required to make money (cost recovery) and pay a dividend to the Federal Government.

Or in the case of MNG, spilt the sectors and staff the damn things.

Our Government seems to have truck loads of money to spend on buildings full of public servants ensuring that old people are not claiming the old age pension when they have assets, (NZ has no such process everyone gets the OAP because it is cheaper to do it that way!) but nothing to spend on employing more ATCs (also de facto public servants) to ensure that all citizens flying in cloud are adequately separated from each other. The Federal Parliament should be embarrassed if not ashamed at such neglect.

I would say it's a case of soft corruption. I don't know people in this country don't see 'user pays' for what it is. You already pay a truckload of tax then get stung with 'user pays' on top.

[Piston_Broke]

Avalon is busy? Compared to what? Bullshyte.

Clearly you haven't had a listen to 135.7 of recent times (AV APP 133.55 is often combined with 135.7).

Quite a lot of IFR training ex MB & EN combined with AWK against and inside the CTR boundaries, VFR transits and the traffic into and out of AVV itself.

[andrewr]

No it's not. It ONLY exists to benefit VFR

If Mangalore had class E down to 1200' it would benefit IFR because they would get ATC separation and this accident would likely have been prevented. But I don't see the benefits you are claiming for VFR aircraft?

As for the "if it's not IMC, IFR don't need ATC", this is also nonsense.

"IFR need ATC" is basically the argument in favor of Class E.

[Mr Approach]

Captain Bloggs - You ask "Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right??"

Yes - that is exactly what they do, see this You Tube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcEeKzeb5A> The Premier jet departs uncontrolled airport MIles City VFR and at 9000 feet requests an IFR clearance to Vancouver from Salt Lake (ATC) Centre. In the US it is not called an IFR pick up, as I recall Dick Smith invented that term so that Australians might understand the process. To an American pilot it is an activation of his/her filed IFR flight plan and can take place through a Tower in Class C or D airspace, as is done in Australia, or through direct contact with a Centre while on the ground if the weather is IFR at an uncontrolled airport.

In this video the Premier departs for a VFR flight from Gary Indiana for Indy Exec Airport <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITrQwsUdNbY> Gary is Class D with a VFR Tower Indy Exec is an uncontrolled airport but the Class E airspace base would be 700 feet because it has an instrument approach. The FBO is listening on the CTAF but not providing a UNICOM service.
I hope this helps

[Lead Balloon]

If Mangalore had class E down to 1200' it would benefit IFR because they would get ATC separation and this accident would likely have been prevented. But I don't see the benefits you are claiming for VFR aircraft?

"IFR need ATC" is basically the argument in favor of Class E.The Cap’n considers that E is designated in lieu of what should be D or C, and thus E is for the benefit of VFR aircraft alone because VFR aircraft do not need a clearance to operate in E. He’s better placed to explain why he considers a change from G to E would not be a net positive for IFR aircraft in Australia (noting that, in Australian E, VFR aircraft have to be fitted with a serviceable transponder and monitor the Centre VHF frequency).

[andrewr]

I was curious about Sunfish's comment about the Class E level being a trap for VFR pilots, since VFR aircraft do not require a clearance in class E. Where is the trap?

I checked the requirements in API for VFR flight in Class E, and found this curiosity:
Class E : VFR : Radio COM RQMNTS : Continuous two way

Continuous 2 way is a definite step above monitoring the frequency.

For Class D airspace clearance is required but "For entry into Class D airspace, establishment of two way communications between the aircraft and ATC constitutes a clearance for the pilot to enter the Class D airspace"

There is also a definition of 2 way communication:
ATC Response
(aircraft callsign): Communications Established: Yes
Response to the initial radio call without using the aircraft callsign: Communications Established: No

It appears to enter Class E you need to call ATC, and have them respond with your call sign. Then you have 2 way communications. It looks very much the same as for Class D - yes you don't need a clearance for Class E, but satisfying the Class E requirements WOULD be considered a clearance in Class D.

I don't recall this being part of the original education or implementation. It is a bit awkward, effectively "You don't need a clearance, you just need something exactly the same as a clearance". It really appears there are conflicting forces at work - an overall movement to implement airspace changes, with others coming along later and making small changes to create problems.

[Lead Balloon]

Gawd, Andrew. This has been done to death many times.

VFR aircraft entering Class E do not have to contact Centre. VFR entering and operating in Class E must be able to communicate on the Class E frequency.

[Sunfish]

The trap Andrew is at the Southern end of the Avalon airspace where the lower level changes from 2500 to 1500 where you least expect it.

[andrewr]

VFR aircraft entering Class E do not have to contact Centre. VFR entering and operating in Class E must be able to communicate on the Class E frequency.

That's what I would have said. But then I looked it up in AIP and it didn't say what I expected and now I don't understand. AIP ENR page 1.4-9 says VFR in Class E requires continuous 2 way communication.

What is "Continuous 2 way" radio communication? I fly around in Class G listening on Area, but I would not call that 2 way. My understanding of 2 way is that ATC must be able to direct communication to you specifically via your call sign and know you are listening i.e. it requires a check in. That is spelled out explicitly for Class D.

Or are different definitions of 2 way communication used for Class E and Class D, and e.g. IFR in Class G?

[buckshot1777]

The trap Andrew is at the Southern end of the Avalon airspace where the lower level changes from 2500 to 1500 where you least expect it.
That CTA base 1500FT step to the south - and the one north - have been there since CTA was established at AVV (30-40 years ago??).

A CTA base 1500FT (or thereabouts) step is common adjacent to most CTRs, to contain aircraft in CTA on descent and climbout.

Its a matter of reading the charts.

Continuous two-way comms for Class E means capable of continuous two-way comms, but don't ask me where the distinction is in AIP.

FWIW almost all aircraft call AVV APP transiting the Class E there, probably not a bad thing due to the amount of PTO and IFR training aircraft.

[andrewr]

The trap Andrew is at the Southern end of the Avalon airspace where the lower level changes from 2500 to 1500 where you least expect it.

I can see the airspace, but I'm not sure what was the effect. Was there something you did or didn't do that was different than what you were supposed to do? Theoretically there should not be much difference for VFR - aside from which frequency you should be listening on. What additional training do you think VFR pilots need?

[andrewr]

Continuous two-way comms for Class E means capable of continuous two-way comms, but don't ask me where the distinction is in AIP.

Is that different to VFR Class G above 5000 feet?
VHF radio required for OPS above 5,000FT AMSL and at aerodromes where carriage and use of radio is required
Presumably that also means a radio capable of 2 way comms but the requirement is worded very differently.

If you were accused of entering Class E without contacting ATC and establishing 2 way communications what evidence would you use to argue that it wasn't required?

[uncle8]

I think that there should be a brown line along the 8nm Avalon arc, on the VTC, to emphasise that there is a change to the E airspace. There are green and blue lines for G and C/D, why not brown?

[andrewr]

I think that there should be a brown line along the 8nm Avalon arc, on the VTC, to emphasise that there is a change to the E airspace. There are green and blue lines for G and C/D, why not brown?

I see what you mean. I think they have made life difficult for themselves by making an E-G-E sandwich which is difficult to represent on a 2D chart. There is E from 1500/2500-4500, and from FL180-FL245. Whatever boundaries they depict are going to be wrong for one or the other but the lower level is more important. E at FL180 seems to be another example of implementing it where it is no use to anybody.

[Lead Balloon]

Re ‘continuous 2-way comms’ for VFR in E, I spend quite a bit of time VFR in E and have yet to be ‘chipped’ by Centre for not establishing comms before entry. However, I’ve ‘piped up’ when contacted or I consider it may help turn me from ‘unverified’ altitude traffic to ‘verified’. But you could give it a go, Andrew, if you are worried you won’t be able to prove you weren’t required to establish two way comms.

ABC: “Centre this is Alpha Bravo Charlie”
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie”
[chirping crickets]
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie?”
ABC: “Centre this is Alpha Bravo Charlie”
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie, what do you want?”
ABC: “To establish two-way communications”.
Centre: “Mission accomplished, Alpha Bravo Charlie”.

Re Avalon, ERSA used to say contact APP (or was it TWR?) before transitting the E VFR, but I guess someone pointed out that it’s either E or it isn’t. (Make up your mind OAR....) The charting of the E boundaries (or more accurately, the gaps in and the missing brown lines) are bound to confuse. Why does Point Cook justify a Romeo?

[Capn Bloggs]

Captain Bloggs - You ask "Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right??"

Yes - that is exactly what they do, see this You Tube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcEeKzeb5A> The Premier jet departs uncontrolled airport MIles City VFR and at 9000 feet requests an IFR clearance to Vancouver from Salt Lake (ATC) Centre. In the US it is not called an IFR pick up, as I recall Dick Smith invented that term so that Australians might understand the process. To an American pilot it is an activation of his/her filed IFR flight plan and can take place through a Tower in Class C or D airspace,
That is not what I was getting at at all. That bloke didn't even make any calls on "Area"/the Class E freq until he was through 6000ft, creating a Mangalore-type scenario. But that's beside the point. My issue, and what an IFR Pickup procedure is, is when you ask ATC for a clearance, they so "not available" (obviously due to traffic in the proximity) and the pilot then changes to VFR so they can continue in E. It's as if, magically, all the separation problems go away and the other traffic disappears when they switch to VFR. This is of course nonsense, and the other aircraft (with the clearance) has now been put in a potentially threatening and certainly unknown situation because of the IFR Pickup pilot, until and if ATC hop in and start providing DTI to both parties so they (the pilots) can sort it out.

[buckshot1777]

There is of course the airspace label there specifying the LL & UL and the CASA airspace review does mention clarifying the airspace information

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/stakeholder-engagement-group/draft-report-avalon-2019-prelim-airspace-r/supporting_documents/Avalon_Airspace_Review_2019.pdf

If/when it goes from E to D I guess the matter will be sorted anyway.

The restricted areas at PCK activated by NOTAM are there for the RAAF Museum displays.

[Capn Bloggs]

ABC: “Centre this is Alpha Bravo Charlie”
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie”
[chirping crickets]
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie?”
ABC: “Centre this is Alpha Bravo Charlie”
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie, what do you want?”
ABC: “To establish two-way communications”.
Centre: “Mission accomplished, Alpha Bravo Charlie”.
Seriously??

What about "Centre, Alpha Bravo Charlie, Radio check"
"Loud and Clear"
"ABC".

[Lead Balloon]

Seriously??

What about "Centre, Alpha Bravo Charlie, Radio check"
"Loud and Clear"
"ABC".
There you go, Andrew. The Cap’n has solved your problem.

[Lead Balloon]

The restricted areas at PCK activated by NOTAM are there for the RAAF Museum displays.Is it really “activated” by NOTAM?

ERSA says R330A is “TUE,THU,SUN 0315-0345 (tel:0315-0345) (1HR EARLIER HDS) or as amended by NOTAM“.

Looks to me like there’s a “default” period which applies unless amended by NOTAM.

(Three half-hour displays each week must be exciting!)

[buckshot1777]

Is it really “activated” by NOTAM?

ERSA says R330A is “TUE,THU,SUN 0315-0345 (tel:0315-0345) (1HR EARLIER HDS) or as amended by NOTAM“.

Looks to me like there’s a “default” period which applies unless amended by NOTAM.

Yep, my bad. The areas are active via published times.

[OCTA Aus]

That's what I would have said. But then I looked it up in AIP and it didn't say what I expected and now I don't understand. AIP ENR page 1.4-9 says VFR in Class E requires continuous 2 way communication.

What is "Continuous 2 way" radio communication? I fly around in Class G listening on Area, but I would not call that 2 way. My understanding of 2 way is that ATC must be able to direct communication to you specifically via your call sign and know you are listening i.e. it requires a check in. That is spelled out explicitly for Class D.

Or are different definitions of 2 way communication used for Class E and Class D, and e.g. IFR in Class G?

There is no requirement to call ATC prior to operating in Class E as a VFR aircraft. The expectation is that you are equipped with a radio capable of maintaining continuous 2 way comms and you are monitoring the appropriate area frequency.

[Stickshift3000]

If you were accused of entering Class E without contacting ATC and establishing 2 way communications what evidence would you use to argue that it wasn't required?

On my PPL flight test Avalon ATC advised me that I hadn't established comms upon entry to their Class E. Back on the ground, the examiner (thankfully) disagreed with ATC's advice.

I now call up Avalon App with my intentions, if just for good practice.

[Lead Balloon]

That may have been back in the day when there was a requirement (or maybe a ‘recommendation’) in ERSA to make contact before entering the Avalon E?

[Stickshift3000]

That may have been back in the day when there was a requirement (or maybe a ‘recommendation’) in ERSA to make contact before entering the Avalon E?

It was 2018...

[Lead Balloon]

It was 2018...
Hmmmm. Someone in Airservices must have missed the memo...

[Squawk7700]

There is no requirement to call ATC prior to operating in Class E as a VFR aircraft. The expectation is that you are equipped with a radio capable of maintaining continuous 2 way comms and you are monitoring the appropriate area frequency.

Avalon is special and the ATC makes up their own rules around this. When they yell at you, you generally don’t do it again next time.

[CaptainMidnight]

That note on the ML VTC to the NW of the AVV airspace used to say something about the area being a broadcast area and mandatory fitment and use of transponder and radio was required.

CASA had it put there when the AVV Class E was first established (2010/2011?), to theoretically prevent no transponder and no-radio aircraft including gliders and hang gliders etc. from transiting the Class E.

It was pointed out to them that 1) there was no legal basis behind the note as it wasn't a declared BA with requirements specified by Instrument, and 2) the content conflicted with normal Class E requirements. At some point they must have subsequently agreed and thought the note had probably served its original purpose, and changed the content to its current reading.

[George Glass]

I have always thought it amusing , in a dark sort of way , when in an RPT jet descending from controlled airspace into Class E giving an all stations broadcast then.......silence. First contact on CTAF frequency........beep back. Then silence....... How would you ever know........
Just rolling the dice.

[Lead Balloon]

That note on the ML VTC to the NW of the AVV airspace used to say something about the area being a broadcast area and mandatory fitment and use of transponder and radio was required.

CASA had it put there when the AVV Class E was first established (2010/2011?), to theoretically prevent no transponder and no-radio aircraft including gliders and hang gliders etc. from transiting the Class E.

It was pointed out to them that 1) there was no legal basis behind the note as it wasn't a declared BA with requirements specified by Instrument, and 2) the content conflicted with normal Class E requirements. At some point they must have subsequently agreed and thought the note had probably served its original purpose, and changed the content to its current reading.But evidently Airservices, or at least the Airservices staff that work the airspace, didn’t get or read that memo.

[andrewr]

There you go, Andrew. The Cap’n has solved your problem.

I know how to do it, I'm just trying to figure out whether it is required. (What the rules say, not whether it is a good idea... which in the case of Avalon it obviously is.)

Opinions might vary though depending on whether you're transiting Avalon at 3500 or passing Shepparton at 9500.

I dug out an old AIP and that had the same wording, so it's not a recent change like I thought it might be.

[Lead Balloon]

Just for ****s and giggles, why don’t you write to OAR in CASA and ask?

[uncle8]

I fly past Avalon quite a bit, always in G, just for the sake of peace and quietness. I'll be there again soon and plan to whistle straight through the E, just for practice, and it will save me 5 minutes. I might submit a flight plan but will definitely not initiate any transmissions unless called upon. I think that if we are flying in E we should adopt E procedures, even if we think that there are other "good ideas".
I see that there might be some problems, southbound, if you are flying near Barwon Heads, one radio, might be a late change to the CTAF.
Will be happy to report my experience.

[Squawk7700]

I’ve done it half a dozen times over the last 2 years and it’s very clear that they like to know who you are. If there is any other aircraft in the vicinity the controller would call me up and ask my intentions, sometimes before entering the E.

[uncle8]

That makes sense, we will expect that. If I were the controller, I would do that too, get the full picture, early.

[OCTA Aus]

I’ve done it half a dozen times over the last 2 years and it’s very clear that they like to know who you are. If there is any other aircraft in the vicinity the controller would call me up and ask my intentions, sometimes before entering the E.

Thats why you’re meant to be monitoring the appropriate area frequency in class E. That way if the controller needs to talk to you they can. But they won’t issue VFR a control instruction. They can however give a strong suggestion....

[uncle8]

And the VFR can be receptive to it.

[George Glass]

The last few posts have just demonstrated what a horses ar#e the system is , and why its loathed by professional aviators.
Just rolling the dice.

[Sunfish]

So when it’s Class C, VFR Aircraft will be excluded when there is a jet within a hundred miles and RAA aircraft permanently excluded? Because Bloggs thinks all light aircraft pilots are dangerous amateurs despite being licensed?

That will kill a few light aircraft pilots every winter. Sometimes the safest way into Melbourne from the West, or North is to stay South and East of the YouYangs.

[Lead Balloon]

The last few posts have just demonstrated what a horses ar#e the system is , and why its loathed by professional aviators.
Just rolling the dice.It would be interesting to calculate:

(1) the volume of the chunks of E between the 8nm ARP and 12nm DME arcs to the north and south of Avalon, and

(2) the cost of the resources diverted to designation/AIP revisions/airspace reviews etc arising from that airspace.

It may well be the highest ratio of bureaucratic bull****-to-cubic kilometre of airspace on the planet.

[Sunfish]

Flying VFR, Avalon tower always asks for your intentions and it had better be a straight line transit.

The strangest thing was when I was tracking to Leopold and over Point Henry having tracked over the ARP, ATC asked where I was, so I told them:”over point Henry 2500 on track for Leopold(which is a VFR waypoint).

‘’They came back with “range and bearing please, we don’t have that detail on our screen and we don’t know where that is” WTF?

Are IFR JET Pilots and ATC deliberately trying to be autistic or what?

[Lead Balloon]

If it weren’t Australia, I’d say: Astonishing.

But as it’s Australia...

[Mr Approach]

That is not what I was getting at at all. That bloke didn't even make any calls on "Area"/the Class E freq until he was through 6000ft, creating a Mangalore-type scenario. But that's beside the point. My issue, and what an IFR Pickup procedure is, is when you ask ATC for a clearance, they so "not available" (obviously due to traffic in the proximity) and the pilot then changes to VFR so they can continue in E. It's as if, magically, all the separation problems go away and the other traffic disappears when they switch to VFR. This is of course nonsense, and the other aircraft (with the clearance) has now been put in a potentially threatening and certainly unknown situation because of the IFR Pickup pilot, until and if ATC hop in and start providing DTI to both parties so they (the pilots) can sort it out.

Capn - the issue you seem to have problem with is whether VFR works in terms of separation, if it does not then stay away from the Bankstown training area.
In Class E if a clearance cannot be given immediately, in the US, the controller is able to give the VFR pilot traffic advisories to assist with his/her visual separation with the conflicting traffic. (Don't forget the controller needs 3 or 5 NM separation to be able to issue a clearance, whereas two pilots just have to miss each other) Alternatively, once the VFR traffic is identified, a suggested heading can be given that would create the separation standard, and once the aircraft is seen to be tracking on the suggested heading and 3/5 NM from the conflicting traffic a clearance can be given.

As for the Premier jet not calling on the area frequency, in the US there is no VFR requirement for that. I suggest he would have been listening on his other radio, but why load up busy ATC frequencies with VFR aircraft reports? Australia has made a dog's breakfast out of this issue since the ATSB report in 1991 "the limitations of see and avoid"

[George Glass]

“Are IFR JET Pilots and ATC deliberately trying to be autistic or what?”

Putting aside the gratuitous insult , this thread has drifted to an argument about specific problems at Avalon etc. By far the bigger problem is in regional WA , NT and Queensland. Its not about the rights of PPL or RA pilots versus RPT pilots . Its about the safety , reliability and robustness of the system . To those of us who do battle with it on a daily basis there are issues of grave concern . I sincerely hope we keep getting away with it , but I’ll say it again.......
Its just rolling the dice.

[Awol57]

Flying VFR, Avalon tower always asks for your intentions and it had better be a straight line transit.

The strangest thing was when I was tracking to Leopold and over Point Henry having tracked over the ARP, ATC asked where I was, so I told them:”over point Henry 2500 on track for Leopold(which is a VFR waypoint).

‘’They came back with “range and bearing please, we don’t have that detail on our screen and we don’t know where that is” WTF?

Are IFR JET Pilots and ATC deliberately trying to be autistic or what?

Which ATC unit? As a tower controller I can't imagine that happening as we generally know our landmarks, and it took me all of 5 seconds to find both points on a VTC (and I am not familiar with the Melbourne basin except in the broadest sense). Every tower I have worked at has all sorts of maps readily available. Pretty sure even the TCU has an assortment of maps right above their workstation but I don't know for sure what they have displayed.

[Piston_Broke]

AV TWR and APP both know where LPD is, and both have the ML VTC displayed.

AV TWR also has a TSAD. The fact thatATC asked where I was suggests someone's transponder wasn't working or there was some other issue.

[PubliusNaso]

Flying VFR, Avalon tower always asks for your intentions and it had better be a straight line transit.

Tower or Approach? Tower you're in Class D so, yeah...

I fly through the Avalon E fairly frequently, last time a couple of weeks ago. I gave approach a courtesy call to let them know I was going to track coastal (not a very straight line) at 3500. Thanks, they said. Later they checked to confirm what I was doing, while an AirAsiaX A330 sat poised on the numbers, waiting for me to get west of centreline. Sometimes I go through silent, saying nothing and not being talked to except for occasional traffic advice. The only time I've been asked my intentions was prior to entry, I said I was going to track coastal (I know it's not the prettiest scenery, but I like to do Around The Bay flights every now and then) at 3500, they gave me a code and I didn't hear anything until I left the E and switched back to 1200.

Whatever its other de/merits as a VFR PPL I've had zero issues with the E around Avalon.

[Sunfish]

I don’t know what the issue was but I’m not making it up. They asked for a range and bearing from the ARP. The excuse was as I stated. This was some years ago.

Sorry for the gratuitous insult, but VFR pilots get that regularly from the likes of Bloggs.

The argument seems to go around in circles.

1. Class E doesn’t provide enough separation between VFR aircraft and IFR and VFR jets.

2. Then change ATC arrangements to make class E work.

3. But that would cost money.

4. Make the airspace class C.

5. But that would cost money.

return to step 1.

In addition, GA has been forced to spend money on ADS-B, and VFR and RAA encouraged to do likewise. Yet it appears to offer zero safety benefit. I’m beginning to think that the whole ADSB mess was an exercise in Airservices saving money, not as advertised, to increase safety at all.

Both aircraft involved should have had working ADSB OUT. We were told this was to improve safety. Fitment was mandatory at great expense to owners. Yet Airservices says they don’t use ADSB and wouldn’t have had a clue that this accident was about to happen because they didn’t have ADSB reception at ground level at Mangalore. Yet a bunch of amateurs with $150 units covered Mangalore and you could see the crash developing on flightradar24.

If amateurs could see it, why couldn’t Airservices? Why did Airservices mandate ADSB if it produces no safety benefit at aerodromes where the majority of collisions occur?

Heres a suggestion. Let’s outsource ATC to Flightradar24 and do away with expensive Airservices and their useless technology.

[Lead Balloon]

Sunfish: Did you have a serviceable transponder or not?

George Glass: You realise that it’s just a roll of the dice in e.g. Class C, too? It’s just that the dice in Class C (should) have many more sides and therefore the probabilities of rolling ‘snake eyes’ are very remote. (It might even be that there’s a level of complacency in Class C as a consequence of assumptions that everyone’s known, everyone is complying with an airways clearance, nobody makes mistakes and equipment never malfunctions.)

[Capn Bloggs]

Uncle8,

To continue the theme of Squawk7700 and OCTAAUS, I would urge you to re-consider your use of the radio in E around Avalon. Practically speaking, the only thing that is going to save you from a midair is your transponder. It is highly unlikely that you will visually pick up a jet that is climbing or descending, and it is unlikely that the jet crew will pick you up visually in the terminal area. Unalerted See and Avoid just doesn’t work. It is, therefore, critical that you check that your transponder is working by contacting ATC and preferably, asking for a SIS. With a SIS, ATC, you and the other aircraft all know about you and can keep you “segregated” in E, or at the least, keep out of your way.

So when it’s Class C, VFR Aircraft will be excluded when there is a jet within a hundred miles and RAA aircraft permanently excluded? Because Bloggs thinks all light aircraft pilots are dangerous amateurs despite being licensed?

That will kill a few light aircraft pilots every winter.
Sunfish, I’ll take your accusation that my preference for Class C will kill people with a grain of salt. It has been obvious for some time that your ideological zealotry is clouding your attitude. I have, on several occasions, written here, on occasion to you directly, that I will go out of my way to accommodate VFR where I fly and have, on numerous occasions, done just that. Your inability to recall or comprehend such comments is a bitter disappointment. Your continued slander does your cause no good at all, and will eventually turn people, who could support you, away.


It would be interesting to calculate:

(1) the volume of the chunks of E between the 8nm ARP and 12nm DME arcs to the north and south of Avalon, and

(2) the cost of the resources diverted to designation/AIP revisions/airspace reviews etc arising from that airspace.

It may well be the highest ratio of bureaucratic bull****-to-cubic kilometre of airspace on the planet.

Enough. Instead of your continual sniping, I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA. When it became obvious that the system wasn’t working, CASA and ASA started adding requirements to keep the airspace reasonably safe.

Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.

George Glass: You realise that it’s just a roll of the dice in e.g. Class C, too? It’s just that the dice in Class C (should) have many more sides and therefore the probabilities of rolling ‘snake eyes’ are very remote. (It might even be that there’s a level of complacency in Class C as a consequence of assumptions that everyone’s known, everyone is complying with an airways clearance, nobody makes mistakes and equipment never malfunctions.)
Give it a rest, Leddie.

Capn - the issue you seem to have problem with is whether VFR works in terms of separation, if it does not then stay away from the Bankstown training area.
In Class E if a clearance cannot be given immediately, in the US, the controller is able to give the VFR pilot traffic advisories to assist with his/her visual separation with the conflicting traffic. (Don't forget the controller needs 3 or 5 NM separation to be able to issue a clearance, whereas two pilots just have to miss each other) Alternatively, once the VFR traffic is identified, a suggested heading can be given that would create the separation standard, and once the aircraft is seen to be tracking on the suggested heading and 3/5 NM from the conflicting traffic a clearance can be given.
I think that is a really, really dumb idea. It is completely unacceptable to me, with 100+ punters in the back, to not have any say in segregating myself from another aircraft that is so close that ATC can't give them a clearance. To suggest that the "pilots just have to miss each other" is, I hope, a joke. The other guy might be the ace of the base but why should I, on behalf of all my pax, not have a right of veto over some visual sighting manoeuvre that the VFR is going to employ to hopefully pick me up before I clobber him?

As for the Premier jet not calling on the area frequency, in the US there is no VFR requirement for that. I suggest he would have been listening on his other radio, but why load up busy ATC frequencies with VFR aircraft reports? Australia has made a dog's breakfast out of this issue since the ATSB report in 1991 "the limitations of see and avoid"
I was suggesting that the jet-jock called Centre, just make a broadcast. Why is our setup a dog's breakfast? I operate in a pretty simple full-radio environment from start to finish thanks to our rules, complicated only by the small CTAF areas, which increase radio management complexity and therefore decrease safety.

I suggest he would have been listening on his other radio
You raise an interesting point here. I guarantee that a VFR pilot in E would not have a clue about what is going on around him or whether there are any collision threats nearby based on what he hears on the ATC freq. IFRs merely talk to ATC, we don't give position reports, we don't give details on where we're going or what we're doing. This concept of VFR announcing "if in conflict" is, in my view, ludicrous. Lookout is useless for collision avoidance and the ONLY thing that will save the midair is last-line-of-defence TCAS. If however you are under a SIS, then it all changes.

[uncle8]

Capn Bloggs,
Sounds like good advice, I'll take it.

[Lead Balloon]

I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA. When it became obvious that the system wasn’t working, CASA and ASA started adding requirements to keep the airspace reasonably safe.I put it to you that the problem is that the Australian ‘system’ is culturally incapable of accepting that Class E airspace exists for a reason and works. The people you describe as “fundamentalists” might instead be “objective”. What you describe as “reasonably safe” might instead be an “overreaction to exaggerated risks”.

Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.CASA does have the power to mandate airspace changes! That was supposedly the point of moving the designation of airspace out of Airservices and into CASA. The words “consult” and “recommend” do not appear in any form in the Airspace Regulations 2007! That’s precisely why I’ve pointed out that the recommendations out of the review of Avalon are just bureaucratic flim-flam.

(Please take a deep breath and try as best you can to listen to me, just for couple of sentences. I’m whispering this just to you: The designation of airspace in Australia is influenced by bureaucratic duck-shoving, sectional interests and petty politics. I know that might be confronting, but it’s best you know because it helps to explain the ostensibly inexplicable.)

Back to the specific circumstances that resulted in this thread: Two IFR aircraft collided in G. Bloggs: You haven’t explained why the implementation of E instead of G would not result in a net increase in safety for IFR aircraft.

[OCTA Aus]

Just touching on what Bloggs said, I can not recommend using flight following strongly enough. It is a fantastic service, you get access to significantly more information that will be directed to you and you get traffic information. Best of all it’s free. I know the tin foil hat brigade don’t like it because their flights can be tracked if they use it, but it is a fantastic service for enhancing your safety.

As for all the people that really hate ADSB, I know of at least 10 near misses between VFR I have managed to help prevent because the aircraft had ADSB. It’s easy to point out the one accident that was not prevented by it, but we don’t really keep track of the occasions where it very well may have been what saved the day.

[OCTA Aus]

Back to the specific circumstances that resulted in this thread: Two IFR aircraft collided in G. Bloggs: You haven’t explained why the implementation of E instead of G would not result in a net increase in safety for IFR aircraft.

My personal opinion is more extensive use of class E to utilise the increased surveillance available would provide a sound net increase in safety for IFR aircraft. However I have absolutely no real evidence to back that up and I have not personally seen class E utilised in the way some are suggesting here.

As for the resistance to class E in Australia, I think it may be a combination of most pilots don’t actually understand it, the obvious implementation of it (Avalon) was done quite poorly, and there is resistance to it from airlines as well as CASA and ASA. I don’t know how to solve those problems.

[George Glass]

“As for the resistance to class E in Australia, I think it may be a combination of most pilots don’t actually understand it”

Its difficult to know where to go with this.
We know EXACTLY how it works.
I suppose its really difficult to convey to Public Service Nomenklatura what the real world experience of descending an RPT jet with 150 + pax on board through Class E with ZERO guarantee that you are separated from no-comm VFR or incompetent IFR traffic.
Maybe sitting in the jumpseat is the only solution.
Its rolling the dice.
There is a bad moon on the rise.
Its gunna happen OCTA Aus.
Better hope your not in the chair when it does.

[Hoosten]

The problem with Class E in Australia is that ASA are trying by stealth to turn it into the way Class D is meant to work. Another problem with Class E in Australia, you have the likes of Captain Luddite promoting it to be used like Class D is meant to work. Doesn't matter that Captain Luddite has no clue how Class E is meant to work.

The AV approach ladies and gents do a terrific job, most of the issues or 'shambles' that are being alluded to are caused by Harfield giving redundancies to active controllers whilst recruiting 457's. Is it because controllers on visas won't cause problems, won't speak out and will be compliant as they'd like PR?

The AV airspace is ridiculously busy at times, several frequency (sectors) on combine at it's busiest times, They do a great job given that they are perpetually understaffed.

OCTA Aus, you need to get yourself to the States, talk to pilots who use this airspace, listen on frequency to the controllers working this airspace, they are not under the limitations that you work under.

(I am Porter)

[Hoosten]

George, Class E would have taken this IFR collision out of your Class G equation. You are descending into Class G in the same scenario already are you not?

The inevitable you are speaking of has just happened. Wishing for OCTA Aus to be not in the seat when it happens puts somebody else in the seat? It is outright horrible when these things happen in your sector, Controllers are just as let down by the airspace as pilots are.

(I am Porter)

[OCTA Aus]

OCTA Aus, you need to get yourself to the States, talk to pilots who use this airspace, listen on frequency to the controllers working this airspace, they are not under the limitations that you work under.

I will do my best when I go there later this year on my flying holiday. But regardless, even if I really do like it there is nothing I will be able to do to change it, the the effectiveness will be pretty limited. I will still be under the limitations I work under.

[Hoosten]

Captain Luddite,

Given that a road accident costs the community well over 1 million dollars per person. Given that the sectorisation, that is, the size of the sectors around Mangalore can already accomodate the implementation of Class E, there is already a one off 4 million cost to the community with zero benefit.

The costs of implementation are:
-Charts
-Controller Training
-Pilot Education
-HMI Upgrades

AND, staff the Groups the way they were meant to be. The sectors are already there.

I challenge you to tell the families of those killed that this country can't afford to implement solutions that would 100% prevented the MNG accident.

To my knowledge there has never been a mid air collision in controlled airspace in this country.

(I am Porter)

[Sunfish]

The aircraft I flew through Avalon had a serviceable Garmin transponder Squawking 1200.

Capt. Bloggs, I’m sorry you feel disappointed by me.

I take issue with your statement that seems to me to encapsulate the whole problem of Australian aviation.

Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.


Exactly what constitutes “enough”? This is the nub of the problem. CASA, ATSB and probably Airservices are deliberately NOT using risk management tools to arrive at ANY decisions regarding Australian aviation, therefore their decisions are capricious, personal, biased and flawed because they are not backed up by science.

This sort of shyte is what gives us the Angel Flight regulations, the AVMED colour vision saga, not adopting WAAS, temperature limits on aircraft use, the persecution of Dominic James and probably Glen Buckley and many others, possibly the Mangalore crash, possibly what are now Lockhart I and II and I don’t know how much more. Endless personal opinion, enshrined in costly, complex and ever increasing regulation.

I looked through the CASA airspace report in vain for the numbers of movements of light vs rpt aircraft and found nothing. No probabilities, no opportunity costs, no discounted cash flow. That makes the report so much hot air unless I missed something.

CASA doesn’t know “enough is enough” and neither do you or I because no one has tabulated the huge number of VFR movements through that airspace compared to rpt movements.

I am sick and tired of people shooting from the hip, repeating what their first instructor in the squadron or airline told them. Did you know we had a paranoid senior LAME at Ansett in my day? He was a lovely bloke and even happier when we made him chief inspector. Perfect for that role. However I get the impression that CASA is full of such people who “know best” and cannot be mollified by science and experiment, and worse, they get to write and enforce the regulations!

It is clear that you hold the view that jets and VFR should never mix. Is this, in your heart of hearts, based on logic and science? Class E seems to work in the USA. There is radar and ADSB coverage. Why cannot it work here? What is the science that prevents it working here? What risk mitigation that is available in the USA is not available here?

Or is this hatred of E airspace just visceral yank hating, ex Airforce, public service and airline snobbery? Failure to apply science and instead replace it with personal preference, would seem to suggest it is.

My own opinion is that you are right, there will be a mid air, but airspace will be only one factor, the others being overworked controllers, cost pressures on rpt pilots, insufficient use of ADSB, badly trained VFR pilots and a punitive regulatory environment and culture.

[Hoosten]

If you are interested, when you are in the States I can put you in touch with the 'cowboys' that fly this airspace, hell, I'll even grab a plane and we can shoot through some of this airspace. If you are converting your licence to foreign based I can organise the Flight Review to activate it.

PM me if interested.

(I am Porter)

[andrewr]

I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA.

The Avalon class E is ridiculous, but I doubt that anyone who understands class E would suggest that is an appropriate use of Class E. Avalon should probably be Class C or D. The only real reason for Class E as implemented at Avalon is that ATC too often deny clearances to VFR aircraft.

Some argue for Class E to replace Class C to allow access to VFR. This is the wrong reason. Instead ATC should routinely give VFR aircraft through Class C - and VFR pilots should be encouraged to use them (this should also reduce VCAs from people skirting the edge of CTA).

Class E is supposed to provide separation services to IFR aircraft. It should be replacing Class G, not Class C. Class E is designed to prevent the type of accident discussed in this thread.

[Capn Bloggs]

Doesn't matter that Captain Luddite has no clue how Class E is meant to work.
I know how it works, That's why I don't like it.

E D A yada yada yada. Call it what you like. If you're happy with jets mixing it in VMC E doing IFR Pickups and Dropdowns, throw in a VFR or two effectively NORDO, half of them yakking on Comm 2 on the CTAF trying to organise a landing sequence, all the while Seeing And Avoiding, be my guest. All I'll say is thank God for TCAS and the Big Sky Theory.

One of my compatriots flew in the US on RPT CRJs. He said almost every regional airport he went to had a tower.

It is clear that you hold the view that jets and VFR should never mix.
Clean your glasses and read what I wrote in post 464. :rolleyes:

[George Glass]

”All I'll say is thank God for TCAS and the Big Sky Theory.“

Yup. That’s it in a nutshell.

[Capn Bloggs]

Some argue for Class E to replace Class C to allow access to VFR. This is the wrong reason. Instead ATC should routinely give VFR aircraft through Class C - and VFR pilots should be encouraged to use them (this should also reduce VCAs from people skirting the edge of CTA).

Class E is supposed to provide separation services to IFR aircraft. It should be replacing Class G, not Class C. Class E is designed to prevent the type of accident discussed in this thread.
I think you will find that Dick Smith, the instigator of all this, would disagree. After all, if VFR aren't to be considered, just make the airspace Class C all over. As for "look, it's VMC, us IFRs don't need ATC, we'll just look out the window and avoid each other", I've addressed that already, a thousand times. It's nonsense. I can't, practically, lookout and "See and Avoid". It will be arranged vertical or horizontal segregation. Vision doesn't come into it because it doesn't work.

As you're tootling along in VMC as an IFR flight, are you really suggesting that the way you separate yourself (or would have ATC separate you) from other aeroplanes changes?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

What service would have prevented this accident? No CTAF would be a good start, abbreviated circuit requirments...inbound, joining and base with intentions. on the way out lining up with intentions circuit departure followed by departure call to area controller. IFR in G is no different to what everybody had OCTA. So, before outbound made a lining up call they would have heard for the last ten minutes the interaction between area controller and inbound with inbound then broadcasting with intentions. If I was the inbound and heard the outbound calling lining up with intentions I would have called this by asking the guy to stay on the ground until I had become visual or over the aid which ever earliest. Outbound would have been delayed maybe five minutes at most. This was real IMC. call it training if you must but it is real IMC, the safety pilot aspect of the instructor becomes redundant.

AAA this is BBB 4500 10nm from the aid I am still IMC here for the VOR arrival what is your current vis conditions...BBB this AAA conditions look OC at 3500. AAA this is BBB can you hold till I am visual or over the aid.(..because this is what a tower would do anyway...)AAA, wilco.....OR....AAA lining up for Melbourne via VVVVV, AAA this is Melbourne, hold till BBB is visual or over the aid. BBB is reporting still IMC. AAA wilco

End of story, the world keeps turning and everyone enjoys a beer at the end of the day. Maybe the interactions between area and CTAF flipflop perfectly aligned with each individual call, one or both not monitoring the alt freq whilst broadcasting, outbound waiting to call area controller till airborne so not needing to get back on CTAF? who knows, end of the game was aluminium confetti. Everybody paid with their lives for what looks like a dumb procedure. JUST GET RID OF CTAF and remove the verbal diahorrea!

[Hoosten]

Class E at Avalon was a political load of crap, it was implemented to appease certain people.

As I said the controllers do a remarkable job given what has been thrown at them. But the point remains that it is not Class E in reality, it has been modified and Australianised (in other words, effed up).

Put E where it will significantly improve and enhance safety, YMNG.

If Class E is not justified at YMAV, re-classify it, easy.

(I am Porter)

[Hoosten]

What service would have prevented this accident?

E Base 1200 would have prevented it. Australian ATC, despite the morons running the place, have never put 2 together.

(I am Porter)

[Hoosten]

I challenge you to tell the families of those killed that this country can't afford to implement solutions that would 100% prevented the MNG accident.

Captain Luddite,

How about posting an example of the letter you'd write to the families of the 4 people killed telling them that Australia can't afford Class E.

And how would you explain that the 4 million lost to the community was wasted and could have been spent providing probably 6 years of Class E in the sectors concerned?

****, forgot,

(I am Porter)

[Capn Bloggs]

WTF? Get a life, Hoosten you troll.

[Hoosten]

You can't take it can you? You can dish the trash out but when it comes to answering the hard stuff. You wilt. We have a name for people like you.

(I am Porter)

I'm not really, but whatever rocks your boat.

[Hoosten]

Run along Captain L,

Report to moderator.

My job here is done. People are now discussing Class E and a modern airspace system. Most of them get it, you? Keep livin' in the dark ages old son.

You are unable to discuss any points, it's your way or the highway.

Tootle Pip

(I am Leadsled)

[Lead Balloon]

I thought you were Lead Balloon. In any event...E D A yada yada yada. Call it what you like. If you're happy with jets mixing it in VMC E doing IFR Pickups and Dropdowns, throw in a VFR or two effectively NORDO, half of them yakking on Comm 2 on the CTAF trying to organise a landing sequence, all the while Seeing And Avoiding, be my guest. All I'll say is thank God for TCAS and the Big Sky Theory.

One of my compatriots flew in the US on RPT CRJs. He said almost every regional airport he went to had a tower.Yet...

That’s precisely what happens every day in Australian G. HCRPT in and out of aerodromes with no tower, while yakking on the CTAF and seeing and avoiding.

The response of some on this thread to the MNG tragedy seems in effect to be: We must retain G! My personal opinion is more extensive use of class E to utilise the increased surveillance available would provide a sound net increase in safety for IFR aircraft. However I have absolutely no real evidence to back that up and I have not personally seen class E utilised in the way some are suggesting here.

As for the resistance to class E in Australia, I think it may be a combination of most pilots don’t actually understand it, the obvious implementation of it (Avalon) was done quite poorly, and there is resistance to it from airlines as well as CASA and ASA. I don’t know how to solve those problems.Difficult to know where to start with all that.

There is evidence about the risk of operations in Class E. Millions of cubic kilometres of it and millions of movements through it over many decades. Yes: there have been mid airs in it, just as there will eventually be a mid air in Australian C.

Most pilots I know understand how E is supposed to work. And it works as it is supposed to work in almost all of the places in Australia where it’s been designated. The Avalon dog’s breakfast is a tiny percentage of E in Australia and is the product of a combination of factors some of which have nothing to do with objective risk and cost effective risk mitigation.

Resistance to Class E from CASA and ASA? Errrrmmm...they are the only organisations which have had the power to designate airspace for the last few decades! First Airservices, now CASA.

If CASA and ASA don’t like E, why did they designate it? It wasn’t the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster that designated it.

If CASA and ASA don’t like the E at Avalon, why is it still there? Why all this pussy-footing around? Wouldn’t Airservices have already “recommended” to CASA that CASA do its job, and wouldn’t CASA have been happy to “act” on that “recommendation”?

A suggestion as to what’s going on, if I may: There are differences of opinion within Airservices about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within CASA about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within the pilot population about the risks of Class E airspace. In a sensible and coherent airspace designation system, those opinions would be disregarded in favour of what happens in the real world: There would be assessments of objective risks and the costs of the available mitigations of those risks. There would be data. Numbers. $$$ figures. But as Sunfish pointed out, there is nothing like that in the review of the Avalon airspace. Instead: waffle, and the bizarre spectacle of the regulator (CASA OAR) in effect recommending to the regulated (Airservices) that the regulated make a recommendation to the regulator. I suggest that when this kind of bizarre behavior occurs, there’s more at play than just “the safety of air navigation”. Much more.

[Capn Bloggs]

and seeing and avoiding.
No. After all this time, you still don't get it.

What defences are there in place to prevent a midair between a VFR and an IFR in E?

[Hoosten]

What defences are there in place to prevent a midair between a VFR and an IFR in E?

The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one pprune VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?

Balloon, Class E at Avalon was implemented to appease and shut one particular person up.

[Lead Balloon]

The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one pprune VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?

Balloon, Class E at Avalon was implemented to appease and shut one particular person up.
But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely.

[Capn Bloggs]

The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.
You obviously don't know how G works then. I talk to VFRs in G, they talk to me, and we avoid each other. That doesn't happen in E.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one PPRuNe VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?

No relevance to the discussion. Have you reported said person to CASA?

But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely
You never did like taking orders, did you Balon?

[megan]

My job here is doneI hope you turn your attention to the under resourced and under funded FAA, particularly aircraft certification, I guess they'll remain in the state they are as you wouldn't want to pay more tax.How about posting an example of the letter you'd write to the families of the 4 people killed telling them that Australia can't afford Class E.How about you post an example of the letter you'd write to the 346 folks killed in the MAX's because you can't afford adequate oversight of the manufacturer.

[Lead Balloon]

The 346 folks killed in the MAX's were killed by a corner-cutting aircraft manufacturer and the failure of the regulator to detect the corner-cutting. I'm not sure what that has to do with the causes of the tragedy at MNG.

Cap'n: When you talk to those VFRs in G and they talk to you, how do know they are the only VFRs in G and how do you know they are where they think and say they are? (I've never had any problem complying with the lawful commands of my superiors and the directions of ATC. What point you're trying to make is too cryptic for me.)

[Capn Bloggs]

When you talk to those VFRs in G and they talk to you,
I don't, Balloon. It beggars belief that you'd ask such a question. Surely you already know the answer.

how do you know they are where they think and say they are?
Pretty easy; ask them twice, find out what they are going to do, ask them their distance, that's always correct from their ipad. It will become obvious where they are.

Plenty of other unknown in the system, like TCAS RAs because of controller and pilot stuffups, runway incursions and so the list goes on.

If you're so worried (although I suspect you are only asking because you have nothing better to do than annoy me) about all the potential failings of the system, put in Class A with ADS-B for VFR everywhere. Dick introduced User Pays (unlike hte USA) so it won't come out of my pocket...

I don't see an ILS being put into Lockhart River anytime soon. I wonder why...

The fact is, the current system is set up so that if the participants do the right thing, it'll work. There are defences (not including Se and Avoid). My point is that E has NO defences for VFR verses IFR. We would be knowingly introducing a system in which unalerted See and Avoid is the only defence.

I've never had any problem complying with the lawful commands of my superiors
And neither do the lads in the OAR. Get real and stop beating up on the troops. Do you seriously think they just created that Avalon E for hits and giggles??

[Lead Balloon]

Ahhh Cap'n, there you go mistaking administrative decision-makers for members of the military. The "lads in the OAR" who designate airspace are delegates of the power to do so, and are supposed to exercise those powers independently. The law says that an administrative decision made by a delegate under the dictation of someone else is an unlawful decision. If they don't understand this, they shouldn't be in the job. If they understand this but nonetheless capitulate, they are cowards or corrupt or both.

[Hoosten]

You obviously don't know how G works then. I talk to VFRs in G, they talk to me, and we avoid each other. That doesn't happen in E.

Oh, I know how G works, I've spent plenty of time flying in it. Uhhhm, what prevents you from talking to a VFR in E? You obviously don't know how E works.

[Hoosten]

megan, regarding the MAX, I'm sure the lawyers involved from all party's will get the letter composition right. And I'm also sure that the regulator or Boeing won't get too many opportunities to go down that path again. That's what happens most of the time in the US.

In the case of MNG, what opportunity will there be to lawyer up? NONE, because the profit making ANSP was acting within its purview. The OAR will also sit there fat dumb and happy, nothing to see here. And CASA will simply say it was an accident.

Your talk about under resourcing, there is none when a profit is being made. Except when the resourcing is sacrificed for a return to government.

Well done you mate for your thoughtful reply that doesn't take away from the fact, your airspace is hopelessly inadequate in a number of high traffic areas.

Didn't you know

(I am Porter)

except when

(I am Leadsled)

Tootle Pip

[Hoosten]

But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely.

Of course not, politics doesn't come into airspace management, only safety.

[Dick Smith]

I will ask again.

What is the lowest level of Airservices surveillance coverage at Mangalore ?

Surely pilots who fly there regularly must have an idea.

[Dick Smith]

Most importantly it appears they don’t even have a beep back unit or a Unicom which would confirm that CTAF calls were on the correct frequency.