emulating the US?
Bottums Up
Chris,
Reference your comment,
I fly a 146 in and out of Alice Springs on a regular basis, as do many others. We're in Class E from FL245 to A045. There is no descent profile we can fly that alleviates conflict with VFR Traffic.
Conflicting VFR traffic moitoring the appropriate frequency, could be on Alice Tower - 118.3, Melbourne Centre - 128.85, though they are encouraged not to talk on an ATC frequency, or 119.8 the local Class G frequency.
As IFR I'm handed from Melb Centre, 128.85 to Alice Tower 118.3 or vice versa. I've only got two VHF and can't monitor both of the other two logical possibilities.
As an aside, I was asked about the airspace this weekend gone by two lawyer friends, one a Law Dean at a Southern Uni, the other a high flyer in the Attourney General's dept. Both were aghast.
turbine aircraft are kept on a descent profile that for the most part alleviates conflicts with VFR traffic.
Conflicting VFR traffic moitoring the appropriate frequency, could be on Alice Tower - 118.3, Melbourne Centre - 128.85, though they are encouraged not to talk on an ATC frequency, or 119.8 the local Class G frequency.
As IFR I'm handed from Melb Centre, 128.85 to Alice Tower 118.3 or vice versa. I've only got two VHF and can't monitor both of the other two logical possibilities.
As an aside, I was asked about the airspace this weekend gone by two lawyer friends, one a Law Dean at a Southern Uni, the other a high flyer in the Attourney General's dept. Both were aghast.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret, sorry for long wait.....
I have been especially busy with the snow these last two weeks, luckily the company paid me a whole bunch of overtime, now I can afford to sit by my fireplace and write back.
I used to fly for the old Tillair and actually lived in Alice Springs in 1987.
The basic problem that the Australian Airspace model continues to have is:
1) Too much IFR with non-reporting VFR.
2) Too little radar coverage.
3) Non Controlled Airspace that extends too high, close to trunk-line airports.
Your BAE-146/ Avro experience on descent actually sounds very typical for any airliner. Although I fly Hawker 1000s now, I am typed on the 73' and used to teach the 75/767 for a major airline here in the US.
The NAS could benefit from what I can only refer to as a shallower upside-down wedding cake. I would put the top of the E Airspace at only around 15,000 feet. Anyone that needs to be on supplemental oxygen or needs to have traffic cleared for an emergency descent, shouldn't be doing it VFR anyway.
Anything above, say 15,000 feet should be Class A ICAO, requiring an IFR clearance, end of story.
Like Americans, Australians value their freedoms, but there is one underlying freedom that we must not ignore. The general public, who may or may not partake in aviation, has a right to be reasonably protected from aircraft crashing through their living room windows while they eat dinner with their families.
Most countries, including the United States, require instrument ratings for commercial rated flights outside of 25 miles radius. This is certainly a difficult propositon for pilots that fly for months in the outback without seeing a cloud, so I don't really see it as a practical Australian proposition.
Restricting airspace between RPT and GA flights that are not operating IFR is the only sensible response to a country that does not have adequate radar coverage to emulate the "American" system. There is no reason to prevent IFR flights by private and other General Aviation aircraft in a positive control zone, they must simply be IFR equipped, rated and reporting.
Something tells me, I'm probably going to have to go back down there one of these days to help sort some of this mess out.
I used to fly for the old Tillair and actually lived in Alice Springs in 1987.
The basic problem that the Australian Airspace model continues to have is:
1) Too much IFR with non-reporting VFR.
2) Too little radar coverage.
3) Non Controlled Airspace that extends too high, close to trunk-line airports.
Your BAE-146/ Avro experience on descent actually sounds very typical for any airliner. Although I fly Hawker 1000s now, I am typed on the 73' and used to teach the 75/767 for a major airline here in the US.
The NAS could benefit from what I can only refer to as a shallower upside-down wedding cake. I would put the top of the E Airspace at only around 15,000 feet. Anyone that needs to be on supplemental oxygen or needs to have traffic cleared for an emergency descent, shouldn't be doing it VFR anyway.
Anything above, say 15,000 feet should be Class A ICAO, requiring an IFR clearance, end of story.
Like Americans, Australians value their freedoms, but there is one underlying freedom that we must not ignore. The general public, who may or may not partake in aviation, has a right to be reasonably protected from aircraft crashing through their living room windows while they eat dinner with their families.
Most countries, including the United States, require instrument ratings for commercial rated flights outside of 25 miles radius. This is certainly a difficult propositon for pilots that fly for months in the outback without seeing a cloud, so I don't really see it as a practical Australian proposition.
Restricting airspace between RPT and GA flights that are not operating IFR is the only sensible response to a country that does not have adequate radar coverage to emulate the "American" system. There is no reason to prevent IFR flights by private and other General Aviation aircraft in a positive control zone, they must simply be IFR equipped, rated and reporting.
Something tells me, I'm probably going to have to go back down there one of these days to help sort some of this mess out.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 12th Dec 2003 at 11:08.
Kwaj
The troops brought home to protect Australia and NZ from invasion. What are you suggesting?
NZER
Bloody good rear echolon troops the Kiwis. Nothing more and nothing less.
The tokenism nature of the rear echelon to efforts abroad usually has Third World nations contributing. What a bonus to have English speaking Kiwis in the rear.
And on boat people . How about we fuel them up and send them onto NZ like our Muslim friends up north do to us?
The troops brought home to protect Australia and NZ from invasion. What are you suggesting?
NZER
Bloody good rear echolon troops the Kiwis. Nothing more and nothing less.
The tokenism nature of the rear echelon to efforts abroad usually has Third World nations contributing. What a bonus to have English speaking Kiwis in the rear.
And on boat people . How about we fuel them up and send them onto NZ like our Muslim friends up north do to us?
