Are commercial pilots still against Class E?

[Dick Smith]

One of the many reasons that I had difficulty in lowering Class E airspace to the circuit area is that many professional pilots were against it. They all claimed that the self-separation they had been doing for many years was satisfactory.

Now that we have had this terrible accident at Mangalore, with four fatalities, have professional pilots changed their minds? What do people think?

[gerry111]

Thank goodness the shops have plenty of popcorn..

[AerocatS2A]

I seem to recall it was E without Radar that some commercial pilots weren't keen on. Subtleties Dick, subtleties. The world is not black/white, us/them.

[Office Update]

Mangalore used to have a Control Tower and a Control Zone; re-activate the facility.

[KRviator]

But - But - everyone has ADS-B now. That'll fix everything! :}

[Derfred]

How does non-radar Class E assist in a VFR-VFR collision?

[mmm345]

How does non-radar Class E assist in a VFR-VFR collision?
The incident was IFR-IFR, VFR will visually seperate regardless of class of airspace

[Hoosten]

Covid-19 will be a significant and convenient block to airspace reform in this country. The organisations that were spending money on projects aren't anymore due to significant loss of revenue. What would be a golden opportunity to re-structure the lot in line with onesky is probably gone. On the subject of whether pilots are for or against, they don't know enough about it. Heavily tainted views from pilots with vested interests scuttled it last time. Having said that, a lot of the prior incarnation was done without the appropriate surveillance. E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

[Dick Smith]

In Australia there is a mandatory transponder requirement in class E for VFR aircraft.

Surely that adds to safety compared to class G at the same location.

[Hoosten]

Without surveillance that only helps TCAS or traffic equipped aircraft. There's not a whole lot of that in the GA fleet at the moment.

Gimme Class E any day over the pre-historic and backward Class G, but it needs the surveillance.

[andrewr]

E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

Procedural separation?

It puzzles me that pilots think they can do a better job of arranging separation via radio than ATC. When pilots do their own IFR separation in Class G it seems to be based on the principle that if no-one saw it, it never happened. Whereas if ATC are arranging separation, you know when there was a problem. You can guarantee that for every collision or known loss of separation in Class G, there were hundreds more that went unreported.

[mgahan]

Originally Posted by Hoosten View Post (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/632067-commercial-pilots-still-against-class-e.html#post10769387)
E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

Not too busy this weekend so I guess I'll have time to review the report of the CASA study: RFQ 09-342: Safety Benefits of Surveillance in Airspace. International study team (US, European, UK, Australia and NZ, all with 25 years plus airspace management experience) and peer reviewed.

Don't worry trying to find it on the CASA website - they decided not to publish it because it failed to toe the party line.

MJG

[Mr Approach]

Hoosten - E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky - ALL airspace is safer with surveillance.

Mr Flappy - VFR used to be separated in Australia when we just had CTA and OCTA however a conundrum existed.
For instance, two VFR aircraft approach a control area self separating, they are then split up by ATC, before going back to self separating when they exit the control area. Where is the sense in that? Worse what if they can no longer see each other but ATC washes their hands of them anyway!

For mgahan the Coolangatta mid-air was a classic example of an airspace long overdue for surveillance - we typically waited for four people to die before putting surveillance in there. You will also remember that the RAAF took back approach control at Townsville because the CAA was still living 30 years behind the traffic.
Nothing has changed!
(PS Have you got a link for RFQ 09-342? I cannot find it)

[Hoosten]

Procedural separation?

I don't think the intent of Class E is to be non-surveillance therefore procedural sep, do-able, no probs. There are huge advances in surveillance and much cheaper than setting up radar heads all over the place.

Hoosten - E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky - ALL airspace is safer with surveillance.

I hear you, my reply above yours is probably applicable to you too I reckon?

[mgahan]

Approach - PM sent.

MJG

[Vref+5]

So, Australian pilots of IFR aircraft would prefer to arrange themselves to no particular standard. rather than have ATC apply defined separation standards , even when ATC have both aircraft identified via ADS-B ? You know? That equipment that you had to have fitted under the mandatory ADS-B requirements? You paid all that money yet don’t expect any return??

[andrewr]

I don't think the intent of Class E is to be non-surveillance therefore procedural sep

The intent of class E is to separate aircraft in IMC. Surveillance or non surveillance is secondary, and would be dependent on traffic and availability of the equipment.

[andrewr]

E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky

It is slow and clunky because that is what is required to ensure separation.

Separation in IMC in class G should be EVEN MORE clunky because it is being done by pilots who can't issue instructions to other aircraft and don't have an ATC-style big picture of the situation.

If it isn't more clunky than ATC procedural separation, it is because they are not applying the same safety standards.

[Hoosten]

It is slow and clunky because that is what is required to ensure separation.

Yep, I know, I did it for 18 years or so.

Separation in IMC in class G should be EVEN MORE clunky because it is being done by pilots who can't issue instructions to other aircraft and don't have an ATC-style big picture of the situation.

Yep, I know, been doing that for about 15 years, I've had the benefit of the other stuff I did for 18 years to help me out. Unfortunately a lot of IFR dudes, IFR in G, don't understand what can be provided in E.

[Hoosten]

The intent of class E is to separate aircraft in IMC. Surveillance or non surveillance is secondary, and would be dependent on traffic and availability of the equipment.

If a VFR aircraft requires a transponder in Class E airspace, I would argue that the intent of Class E airspace is for it to be survielled, Not a crack at ya, obviously Class E can be done procedurally but I don't think I'd want to be mixing it there without surveillance.

[Hoosten]

So, Australian pilots of IFR aircraft would prefer to arrange themselves to no particular standard. rather than have ATC apply defined separation standards , even when ATC have both aircraft identified via ADS-B ? You know? That equipment that you had to have fitted under the mandatory ADS-B requirements? You paid all that money yet don't expect any return??

Pretty much sums it up. Pilots need to get out a little more and see how it's done elsewhere, an open mind helps.

AOPA in the US wouldn't cop this sort of garbage, if you're mandating equipment, stump up the procedures that use it.

[andrewr]

If a VFR aircraft requires a transponder in Class E airspace, I would argue that the intent of Class E airspace is for it to be survielled

I think that's an Australianism, as I understand it a transponder is not required e.g. in the USA. I assumed it was for TCAS purposes rather than ATC, which is reasonable given the locations and small quantities of E in Australia.

If E was used more extensively as it is in the USA, you would have to allow non-transponder aircraft.

[fixa24]

Class E only benefits the VFR pilot. Otherwise, if the surveillance is there to make it a Class E airspace, you'd make it Class C or similar, but no, the VFR pilot would need a clearance in that....

[Dick Smith]

fixa 24. What an extraordinary statement. Are you suggesting class E at Mangalore would not have likely saved 4 lives? Both aircraft were operating under the IFR and would have been separated by ATC to a written standard if in E.

[Dick Smith]

Andrewr. I introduced the mandatory transponder for VFR as part of the deal to remove the “road block “ class C above D

Yes the same roadblock that forced the Mooney pilot to a low level at Coffs Harbour.

Another 2 dead.

[717tech]

I like the idea of lowering E, it’ll obviously make separation safer as the big guy behind the scope has bigger and broader picture of what’s happening. I do however think VFR should require a clearance to enter E.

[jonkster]

I like the idea of lowering E, it’ll obviously make separation safer as the big guy behind the scope has bigger and broader picture of what’s happening. I do however think VFR should require a clearance to enter E.

wouldn't that just make it C?

[717tech]

wouldn't that just make it C?
Probably, so make it Class C.

[Squawk7700]

I like the idea of lowering E, it’ll obviously make separation safer as the big guy behind the scope has bigger and broader picture of what’s happening. I do however think VFR should require a clearance to enter E.

Class E is HUGE in this country. The radar coverage would simply not be there to cover it.

[Capn Bloggs]

Class E only benefits the VFR pilot. Otherwise, if the surveillance is there to make it a Class E airspace, you'd make it Class C or similar, but no, the VFR pilot would need a clearance in that....
fixa 24. What an extraordinary statement. Are you suggesting class E at Mangalore would not have likely saved 4 lives?
No, they are not suggesting that, obviously. Read it again.

[Hoosten]

Class E is HUGE in this country. The radar coverage would simply not be there to cover it.

There are huge advances being made in ADSB surveillance, satellite even. Radar will be for very specific use, around major aerodromes where primary surveillance is required.

[Hoosten]

What’s the advantage to VFR aircraft in not requiring an airways clearance? Does it save money?

A broad practice behind Class E airspace if it is being used in the spirit it is meant to operate as, is that if the conditions are VMC that arriving IFR aircraft will cancel IFR and look after their own separation. An assumption is that if IMC conditions exist, there won't be any VFR operating in IMC in the airspace. Assumptions aren't cool in ATC or in a cockpit.

Just say 2 IFR aircraft are operating in Class E in a layer of cloud, between 6000 and 2000ft, the aircraft will be subject to positive separation from an ATC. Just say a VFR aircraft can operate legally in VMC at 75000ft in that Class E airspace. The airspace allows the VFR aircraft access to that airspace without a clearance. It frees the ATC from providing that clearance service, more time spent allocated to separating IFR aircraft. Less hassle to the VFR aircraft. If there is surveillance in this airspace, the ATC will 'see' the VFR and pass traffic to the IFR if required. The controller may even attempt to contact the VFR to gain it's intentions so they can be passed on. Hell, the VFR can also ask for a radar service whilst in this, or any other class of airspace.

VFR aircraft avoid controlled airspace in this country like the plague. For good reason, it is virtually impossible in some scenarios to get a clearance. VFR pilots (especially if they're low experience pilots) are intimidated by ATC. There are other reasons why but it upsets some people's sensibilities to hear these reasons.

The Class E airspace allows more access to airspace to VFR than they are getting now.

[Hoosten]

Class E is not meant to and never will replace Class C.

Class E has it's place. It is an upgrade to Class G airspace when traffic densities justify it. Class E is much cheaper to operate than Class C.

[fixa24]

fixa 24. What an extraordinary statement. Are you suggesting class E at Mangalore would not have likely saved 4 lives? Both aircraft were operating under the IFR and would have been separated by ATC to a written standard if in E.

Hi Dick.
I'm not suggesting that at all, theoretically that wouldn't have happened if it was E, or C, or D. Any kind of controlled airspace will give IFR aircraft that form of protection. But Class E allows VFR's in there that no-one knows about. So if you are going to go to the expense ( and have sufficient surveillance to do this) of making it E, then make it C and you can know about all the aircraft in there. If you make it E, then you still have an unknown factor.. I don't subscribe to the theory that E is cheaper than C, where would be the cost saving? Still needs equipment (Surveillance, comms, procedures) and a human looking at the screen, so there's no saving there.

[Capn Bloggs]

I don't subscribe to the theory that E is cheaper than C, where would be the cost saving? Still needs equipment (Surveillance, comms, procedures) and a human looking at the screen, so there's no saving there.
And if it is [much!] cheaper, it can only be because ATC don't have to separate VFR from anybody else. Which is obviously a copout because they are still there, it's just that nobody knows about them (Houston). That sometimes leads to midair collisions.

[Cloudee]

At least in E airspace, VFR aircraft are required to have a transponder and monitor area frequency, how is that not much better for IFR aircraft than what happens in G currently?

[Hoosten]

It is much cheaper if it is used as it is intended to be. i.e. arriving IFR cancelling IFR in severe blue. The service gets used in full anger when it's needed, in IMC.

Bloggs, they ARE known about. You don't want to acknowledge the example I gave above. Trust the controller, whenever they see the VFR paint and it affects the IFR it MUST be advised to the IFR as traffic.

I have never known any Australian ATC to try find a cop out clause. They do what the airspace mandates, give them E and they will use it appropriately. Give them C and if they're busy they'll knock back the VFR clearance every time.

It appears to me that you've never experienced Class E in its real form, either as a VFR or an IFR?

[Squawk7700]

I used to get annoyed when I’d hear pilots specifically request any IFR traffic and you’d hear a reply from ATC saying that there was perhaps one or none. Then the pilot would ask separately for any VFR traffic and the controller would come back with 5-10 more.

I feel like coverage and procedure have improved significantly in the last 10 years as you don’t hear those types of things these days. I’ve also started getting a lot more of the “unidentified aircraft 15 miles east of Romsey, you’ve got another aircraft converging at your 2 o’clock.

Thumbs up for that ATC’ers.

[jonkster]

And if it is [much!] cheaper, it can only be because ATC don't have to separate VFR from anybody else. Which is obviously a copout because they are still there, it's just that nobody knows about them (Houston). That sometimes leads to midair collisions.

I am not really getting the problem with E.

In VMC, VFR aircraft must have transponders and must be monitoring the frequency, they will be operating at VFR levels and will be using see and avoid for other VFR aircraft, just like G (and D).

IFR aircraft will be operating at IFR levels, separated from other IFR and also will be given traffic info on VFR

When it is IMC there won't be VFR aircraft there.

Sure if people do not follow the requirements that is a different matter but wouldn't that be the same problem no matter what airspace category it was?
ie: if someone blundered into E with no transponder and on the wrong frequency and at an IFR level they would be a big hazard but wouldn't they be the same hazard if we made it C and they blundered into it in the same way?

How often have there been midairs between IFR and VFR in E - and when it has happened, how many of those would have been avoided if it was class C?

Am I missing something?

[Hoosten]

jonkster, no, you're not missing anything.

[Lead Balloon]

No you're not, jonkster.

The pilots who oppose E replacing some G in Australia are essentially saying that - somehow - VFR pilots are more incompetent in E than they are in G.

The passengers carried on RPT in G are very lucky the sky is very big. That some of the pilots of those RPT aircraft actually believe that they'd be less safe if some of that G airspace were instead E just goes to show why they are generally their own worst enemies.

[Mr Approach]

Secondhand story only - CASA told local VFR operaters at an airport where Class E to 1200 AGL was proposed that the IFR aircraft in Class E would be on the ATC area frequency until reach 1200 AGL. Only then would ATC transfer them to the CTAF !!!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Mr Approach, describe to us then how you think it should work in the Mangalore scenario. Coffees will be provided to pilots holding at the holding point (or on the parking bay if there's only one taxiway) for more than 10 minutes.

Hey Leddee, essentially, it looks like Hoosten is his own worst enemy...:ouch:

[Vref+5]

So Bloggs prescribes efficiency over safety!! Don’t want the safety improvements that class E provides for IFR aircraft, because it might delay a departure. Of course if it’s VMC the departing aircraft could decide to depart VFR with an IFR pickup thus removing the need for ATC to hold the aircraft, but that’s too difficult for some.
The main excuse given all those years ago, why US style class E wouldn’t work here was because we didn’t have the surveillance at low level. We were the first country to mandate ADSB, there is suitable low level coverage at Mangalore, but it’s still class G as per industry’s demands all those years ago.
Result? 2 IFR aircraft equipped with ADSB and being observed by ATC had a mid air collision in class G.

[Mr Approach]

Capn Bloggs - it would work like any other controlled airspace, let's say a D Tower like Albury, but without the "cleared for take-off" bit. There are always many variables so I will only explain one:
A is on ground, has advised taxiing and requested IFR clearance. ATC acknowledge with "will advise".
B is in the air and is requesting clearance for whatever instrument approach.
Controller then makes an assessment of the relative positions and times and does one of the following:
- B is to hold at 4000 - A is cleared to 3000 but on an outbound track that will, after a few minutes, provide lateral separation (This is very easy if there is surveillance), or
- B has already been cleared for the instrument approach so no clearance is available for A until [time calculated by ATC]
- A can wait of depart VFR, weather permitting, with traffic advisories from ATC, or wait;
ATC then manages the two aircraft in turn through the IFR approaches.
It is very easy for a competent controller and requires far less R/T than traffic information. The pilots can also concentrate on flying instaed of trying to separate themselves.
If the trainee pilots are destined for jobs overseas than we will also be training them for what happens in advanced aviation countries.

[Capn Bloggs]

Of course if it’s VMC the departing aircraft could decide to depart VFR with an IFR pickup thus removing the need for ATC to hold the aircraft, but that’s too difficult for some.
See and Avoid DOESN'T WORK. Comprehendi??

So Bloggs prescribes efficiency over safety!!
I see your point. I'll put in a suggestion the roundabout up the road gets changed to a set of traffic lights. Hasn't been a crash there for 30 years. Could be one just around the corner, so to speak.

Sure if people do not follow the requirements that is a different matter
How about we wait for the report...

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

See and Avoid DOESN'T WORK. Comprehendi??

See and avoid works for VFR traffic in VMC. Which is why, in the scenario described above, your IFR pickup could only be delivered while you're in VMC.

And, if your argument is valid (that see and avoid doesn't work), why are you arguing against class E, which can provide both IFR separation, and a traffic service to VFR, like it does elsewhere in the world?

[717tech]

Class E is HUGE in this country. The radar coverage would simply not be there to cover it.
That is my point. If there's no surveillance available, then ATC won't know about the VFR TFC. Some ports I frequent, we're not ADSB identified till around 8000' or so.
It's great we'd get procedural separation from other IFR TFC, but we're no better than G when it comes to VFR.

[Capn Bloggs]

And, if your argument is valid (that see and avoid doesn't work), why are you arguing against class E, which can provide both IFR separation, and a traffic service to VFR, like it does elsewhere in the world?
There's no radar coverage, VFR don't have ADS-B so no "surveillance", and Dick Smith can't stand inter-pilot talking on the Class E freq because we should be "Seeing and Avoiding". It's a conundrum, isn't it?
See and avoid works for VFR traffic in VMC. Which is why, in the scenario described above, your IFR pickup could only be delivered while you're in VMC.
I'm in a 100+ pax jet. Could somebody explain to me why, without my agreement, I should be faced with somebody coming at me, who is going to be so close that ATC can't give him a clearance? And so the segregation radio chatter commences... Was that on the CTAF or the ATC freq?

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

There's no radar coverage, VFR don't have ADS-B so no "surveillance", and Dick Smith can't stand inter-pilot talking on the Class E freq because we should be "Seeing and Avoiding". It's a conundrum, isn't it?
Class E is transponder airspace. Ergo, if a VFR is in there without ADS-B, they are not supposed to be there.

I don't think anyone is saying that class E should be done with no surveillance. What a lot of people are saying is that, by design (and given historical precedent for ADS-B implementation), ADS-B should be sufficient for class E to be implemented, and for proper ATC control of IFR.


I'm in a 100+ pax jet. Could somebody explain to me why, without my agreement, I should be faced with somebody coming at me, who is going to be so close that ATC can't give him a clearance? And so the segregation radio chatter commences... Was that on the CTAF or the ATC freq?

In your scenario, your clearance would be limited to an altitude at which the conditions are 100% IFR (because, remember, you're actually getting clearances until you're out, or on your way out of, E). Again, as others have mentioned, it works in other countries (that conflicting traffic will be given an instruction to remain clear of class E, or to remain VFR).

Notably, how is your scenario any different than what happens right now? With class E, you will have a) ATC notice of departing traffic, and b) clearances, in addition to all the tools you have today in case those fail.

(Also, RE: CTAF/ATC frequencies - this is where the airspace design comes in. At busier fields, have E down to 0 AGL. At quiet ones? You could probably get away with 3000' AGL, plenty to make your inbound calls, coordinate with traffic, and get the hand-off from ATC.)

[topdrop]

I have heard that a lot of operators are not allowed by their insurance company to depart VFR and then change to IFR when traffic allows an ATC clearance (IFR pickup). Is it correct that some are not allowed IFR pickup for insurance reasons and if so, how prevalent is it?

[Vag277]

AVF
VFR aircraft are required to have a transponder, NOT ADSB. Not the same thing.

[Awol57]

I don't think anyone is saying that class E should be done with no surveillance. What a lot of people are saying is that, by design (and given historical precedent for ADS-B implementation), ADS-B should be sufficient for class E to be implemented, and for proper ATC control of IFR.]
The 2 northwest towers had procedural E back in 2011 so it is certainly being done. That was pre ADS-B as well. I think that is all gone now (beneath the D steps to 1200AGL LL).

[CaptainMidnight]

At busier fields, have E down to 0 AGL.

In Canada you might have that, if a difference has been registered with ICAO.

ICAO airspace design says CTA (control areas) can't extend down to ground level.

I also make the point that in Australia transponders are not mandatory for VFR in Class E for all aircraft types. Many are exempt that are unable to power one.

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

In Canada you might have that, if a difference has been registered with ICAO.

ICAO airspace design says CTA (control areas) can't extend down to ground level.

I also make the point that in Australia transponders are not mandatory for VFR in Class E for all aircraft types. Many are exempt that are unable to power one.

In Canada, those would be called "MF" (Mandatory Frequency"), and are a kind of control zone lite. I mentioned in another thread that something along those lines might be a solution appropriate for Australia, but, for the discussion in this thread, that level of detail seemed too much.

Not mandating transponders in non-G class airspace is very strange, except for situations where class E needs to be transited (ie: your track requires you to cross an airway). Which, if that's the case, at least explains some of the arguments against class E.

[Lead Balloon]

RPT aircraft must continue to operate in G in Australia. It's in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

Everyone knows why two IFR aircraft collide: Pilot error.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

[MarcK]

I've been following this thread for a long time, and I still don't understand how Oz Class E differs from USA Class E. In the USA, Class E is predicated on having some sort of surveilance (radar, etc.) available. That's why almost all of the Class G airspace above 1200 feet has been changed to Class E over the years. There is no requirement for transponders or ADS-B except above 10,000'. There is no requirement for VFR traffic to have a clearance or to be in communication with anyone. The primary difference from Class G is the increased visibility (3 miles vs. 1 mile) and cloud clearance requirements. IFR traffic is separated by ATC in Class E and traffic advisories are given to IFR traffic, where it is not in Class G. That's because surveilance is possible in Class E. For certain airports that do not have a tower, Class E can extend to the surface in order to protect IFR operations. For VFR aircraft in good visibility, there is no diffeence between E and G.

Seems to work pretty well, here. What is there about the traffic situation in Australia that makes it not work, there?

[Vref+5]

Just remember, there are no separation standards in Class G, pilot to pilot sorting it out IS NOT a defined separation standard. You in your 100+seat jet-tell your passengers that you’re just going to use the MIUAWGA standard. Any argument raised about IFR/VFR issues in Class E also apply in G. And if you raise delays for IFR aircraft as another reason, you’re putting efficiency before safety.

[Bodie1]

Is this not a 'no brainer?'

At the moment, in Class G as an IFR you get Directed Traffic Information on other IFR and known traffic on VFR (observed by ATC on radar and in contact with ATC).

ASA are offering IFR an 'upgrade' from DTI to Separation. Where there was G, now we'll give you E. Now where there's info, we'll separate you. But not only that, we'll mandate transponders for VFR in E, unlike the US where there's no requirement for a transponder.

Why is IFR against an upgrade to their safety?

I don't get it.

[Mr Approach]

Marck - there is no difference between Class E in Australia and Class E in the US except for it's application and a requirement for VFR aircraft to operate a transponder. VMC is the same but applied to both E and G below 10,000 feet. We do not have any E below 3000 feet where G VMC still requires 5000 metres visibility but only clear of cloud. We also have CTAF's following the US model and we allow UNICOM-type radio operations but there is no low level Class E airspace, even around airports that support jet airliner movements.

My oft stated view is that ATC in Australia is a money-making enterprise managed by our Federal Government, not a service provided on the basis of need. Hence the Federal Government's ATC organisation, known misleadingly as Airservices Australia, simply cannot provide loss making ATC services. Now this is important, unless the Federal Government tells it to! Now why would they do that - purely because of political pressure! Mainly from airlines but also through the news media. Unfortunately the four pilots who died at Mangalore are not getting much media attention.

I am sure that the US suffers from this also and I am equally sure there would be a different airspace plan if it was run at the whim of your airlines. Instead you have a very sophisticated lobby working on behalf of GA that, through Congress, insures that current practices continue.

[Lead Balloon]

Is this not a 'no brainer?'

At the moment, in Class G as an IFR you get Directed Traffic Information on other IFR and known traffic on VFR (observed by ATC on radar and in contact with ATC).

ASA are offering IFR an 'upgrade' from DTI to Separation. Where there was G, now we'll give you E. Now where there's info, we'll separate you. But not only that, we'll mandate transponders for VFR in E, unlike the US where there's no requirement for a transponder.

Why is IFR against an upgrade to their safety?

I don't get it.

So far as I can tell, the ‘logic’ of the pilot detractors is:

(1). They don’t ‘know’ whether and where VFRs are in E because the VFRs don’t have to tell anybody they are in E.

(2). They do ‘know’ whether and where the VFRs are in G - or at least when the VFRs are in the vicinity of an aerodrome where carriage of VHF is mandatory.

It’s a combination of a fear of a known unknown (I know there are VFRs in E but I don’t know where they are because they don’t have to tell me) and a mistaken belief that VFRs in G are a known known (the VFRs have to tell me where they are when in the vicinity of the aerodrome I’m doing my IFR procedure in/out of).

In this ‘logic’, VFR pilots are somehow more incompetent in E than they are in G. Apparently they can manage to have the radio tuned the correct frequency more often in G than when they are in E, manage to get their position and estimates correct more often in G than when they are in E, and manage to make better judgments about when to speak up in G than when they are in E. Go figure!

And then there’s the weird and whacky world of the internal politics of Air ‘Services’ and the Office of Airspace ‘Regulation’.

[Bodie1]

And then there’s the weird and whacky world of the internal politics of Air ‘Services’ and the Office of Airspace ‘Regulation’.

I'm led to believe that ASA don't have a problem with implementing more G, that the real sticking points (organisations) are CASA and airspace groups that 'supposedly' represent airspace users.

[triadic]

As a professional pilot and one that has used class E on a regular basis, I am of the belief that much of this discussion is associated with a lack of understanding of how E should work, together with our Oz culture of not wanting to embrace any change, especially when the education is poor to non existent and is certainly not standardised. E has its place, but like other parts of pilot education, to date I believe airspace design and procedures has been lacking somewhat. To my knowledge it is still not subject to many/any questions in the various licence exams(??).
The MNG accident shows that even experienced instructors can get it wrong. I have been there many times on training flights with sometimes lots of traffic about, but it all seems to have worked out ok in my time.
The way that class E is viewed by current VFR and IFR pilots is sometimes very different and this in my view unfortunately relates to the above mentioned poor education and lack of standardisation.

Mention of how they do it in the States, reminds me of a chap I spoke to once on this matter and he said that once clear of the airfield of departure in Class E (which in most of the US has a base of 1500ft) he turns the radio down and the music up!!

[Lead Balloon]

I agree (though I think you’re a tiny bit premature in asserting that the instructors in the MNG accident got it wrong).

[Vref+5]

Me Lead Balloon, you described it perfectly, congratulations.

it was this logic that Air Services used to identify E over D as so dangerous. Firstly by increasing the error rate of VFR pilots operating in this airspace to unrealistically high numbers, but when that didn’t do it, they then increased the numbers of flights until they rang the ALARP bell. Justification for increasing the numbers? It’s a new procedure, pilots need retraining in it...

[Lead Balloon]

What’s that word? That’s it: “corrupt”.

[mcgrath50]

One of the many reasons that I had difficulty in lowering Class E airspace to the circuit area is that many professional pilots were against it. They all claimed that the self-separation they had been doing for many years was satisfactory.

Now that we have had this terrible accident at Mangalore, with four fatalities, have professional pilots changed their minds? What do people think?

Hi Dick,

I'm sure if you contacted the Safety and Technical Officers at AusALPA you would be able to get an update on what professional pilots think. But I'm sure a man of your experience in aviation knew that already...

[Dick Smith]

Is this some type of secret organisation?

Surely if they supported upgrading of G to E at places like Mangalore or Ballina they would say something!

[mullokintyre]

I have written a post on this subject a few times, but then decided against submitting.
But i think it is time.
Not being an IFR pilot, I don't know what half the people are talking about on this subject. ( I suspect the other half don't either, but thats another issue!).
I was at Wahring on the morning of the accident, horrible weather, so no flying for me. I spent my time trying to adjust an attachment mechanism to a powered tractor to pull the plane out of the hangar.
The following day, I was discussing the incident with an IFR rated instructor/chopper pilot.
He noted that when an IFR aircraft entered a non towered aerodrome, they switched to the local freq to communicate their intentions.
Most IFR aircraft are fitted with a second radio to enable them to monitor ATC while communicating on local freq.
He said, it was "common practice" to turn the ATC radio down so that the pilot could hear the response from any other local traffic in the area.
Myv aircraft has two radios, and although only ever VFR, I usually have ATC monitored on the second radio, especially if I use flight following.
I myself turn the secondary radio off when communicating to local Frequency, getting ATS etc, so I can see where this would be practical.
Now what I next have to say is heresay via a third party, and I have no way of verifying it.
He said that there was at least one and possibly two other aircraft on the same ATC freq following the Travellair towards YSHT.
One of them heard a frantic ATC controller trying to contact both aircraft on ATC freq warning them of a serious conflict, but got no response.
His calls became increasingly frantic until there was silence and a new operator came on.
My immediate thought was why didn't the other following aircraft switch to the mang local and try to warn the aircraft, but perhaps they did not have time, or did switch to the local freq but the mid air had already occurred.
Could the turn down the second radio "standard procedure" be one of the root causes here?

Mick

[Mr Approach]

Dick - I think, from reading AusALPA's correspondence on their web site, they oppose the replacement of D and C airspace with E, but a spokesperson told OAR that they would prefer E to G over Ayres Rock:

Issue: An Airline Pilot Representative organisation consider that improving levels of safety at Ayers Rock would require the following; to provide surveillance based IFR / IFR separation services to low level to expedite arrivals and departures.There is currently a lack of separation services between IFR aircraft when surveillance is available.
Finding: Current Air Navigation Service Provider of IFR/IFR services are based on procedural separation standards. Analysis reveals no recorded instances via ATSB or safety issues.Airservices considers that there is merit in conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock. Lowering Class E airspace could enhance service delivery to IFR aircraft at no additional cost to Airservices.Airspace users (including VFR aircraft) could benefit from fitment of ADS-B avionics through the use of surveillance separation standards and surveillance information services.
Recommendation: Airservices should investigate the benefits of conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock

The Preliminary review of December 2018, that contains the above reference does not seem to have been finalised.
However Airservices has a fact sheet on their web site for a "trial" that was supposed to commence in November 2019 <https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-Trial-of-Class-E-Airspace-at-Ayers-Rock.pdf>
But will commence on 21 May 2020 according to AIC H26/20. Unfortunately traffic at Ayers Rock is down by about 90% so I imagine it will be deferred.
IFR aircraft will have 4000 feet of G airspace in which to become identified before being cleared into E.

CASA OAR also has the following on their web site:
Strategic - Assessment of options to enhance Class E airspace (AAPS 29-32AAPS 40-41) Collaborate with Airservices Australia to identify opportunities to enhance controlled airspace by increasing Class E airspace. Started September 2017 - Ongoing
Strategic - Australian Airspace Concept (AAPS 37) Deliver a concept for the future implementation of airspace architecture and solutions in Australian administered airspace (including Performance Based Navigation) Started October 2017 to be finished by June2020

[Capn Bloggs]

Mullo, an interesting post. Thanks for the contribution. The devil is in the detail...