Pilots Win Review of Airspace Rules
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots Win Review of Airspace Rules
Fri "The Australian"
Pilots win review of airspace rules
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
February 20, 2004
PILOTS claimed a victory last night after Airservices Australia moved closer to rolling back its contentious airspace reforms.
Airservices chief executive Bernie Smith told staff in a memo the agency's board had agreed to two options being tested over the next three months "which could further improve the management of Class E airspace".
One involved reclassifying Class E airspace, where the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes, to Class C airspace, which is controlled.
A second option would expand the change by reclassifying all Class E airspace above 12,500 feet.
An Airservices spokesman confirmed a hazard identification meeting had been called next Wednesday to allow the industry to assess the options.
"These are the only two board-approved options at this stage, but we're not counting out the fact there may be others that emerge over the next three months," he said.
Pilots and air traffic controllers have campaigned against the changes to airspace rules introduced in November. And last night the Australian and International Pilots Association claimed success.
"It appears almost all the recommendations made during the recent consultation process with representatives of the professional aviation industry have been adopted," spokesman Richard Woodward said.
Air traffic control union Civil Air said both proposals vindicated its campaign and proved the downgraded airspace rules had deficiencies.
But a spokesman for Transport Minister John Anderson urged caution, saying no final decision had been taken.
Mr Anderson was yesterday due to receive recommendations from Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on changes they intend to make in response to a near collision between a Virgin Blue jet and a light aircraft near Launceston in December.
Recommendations already flagged include more pilot education, the use of portable radar at regional airports and putting radio frequency changes on charts.
Airservices' admission that it is pushing ahead with longer-term options clouds the situation and could delay a round of reforms due this year.
Yesterday's memo says the air traffic control corporation will start work on specifying a model of the airspace as it would finally end up.
The model will take into account government policy to match US airspace "to the maximum extent possible within statutory obligations".
"This model would then be subjected to a full design safety case and cost benefit analysis" taking 12 months.
The Airservices decision came as Qantas and Virgin Blue said they believed the changes were safe and only needed "fine-tuning".
But Qantas chief Geoff Dixon admitted the airline had concerns about Airservices decisions. The airline was watching the process closely.
===========================================
Fri "Sydney Morning Herald"
Air control tower at risk, but not the minister
By Robert Wainwright
February 20, 2004
An early-morning dash from Coffs Harbour to Adelaide has landed the federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, in an embarrassing position as he struggles to find a solution to air space management.
Mr Anderson's office, which was considering new changes in the system last night, has confirmed that his rush to attend an immigration policy launch in Adelaide resulted in the air traffic control tower at Coffs Harbour being opened at 7am - an hour early - for his Boeing 737.
The then acting prime minister had cut short a family holiday near Grafton to make the launch.
Coffs Harbour residents and aviation unions have jumped on the January 12 incident to highlight what they say is the Government's hypocrisy on air management.
The control tower has been under almost constant threat of closure by Airservices Australia for the past nine years.
Less than a week after the flight, Mr Anderson was on ABC Radio refusing to guarantee the tower's future, saying he was awaiting further advice.
The Coffs Harbour Advocate declared: "If it is not safe enough for the acting prime minster to take off from Coffs Harbour without guidance and security of the air traffic control tower, then why should it be safe for everybody else?"
The area is among those seriously affected by changes late last year that replaced some class-C airspace - where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft - with class-E air- space, where the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes.
Aviation unions say the changes increase the risk of a mid-air collision. Airservices Australia denies the claim but agreed to consider the extent of the changes. Its recommendations were handed to Mr Anderson late yesterday and are expected to be released today.
Ted Lang, president of Civil Air, which represents air traffic controllers, said tower staff were annoyed by the Anderson incident.
"It is a bit rich for this sort of preferential treatment at a time when there is so much controversy about air space management. To ask for someone to provide the very service that has been the subject of seven inquiries in nine years smacks of hypocrisy."
A spokesman for Mr Anderson denied preferential treatment.
"To suggest this has something to do with the NAS [National Airspace System] is ridiculous because John would not have even been aware of the details.
"The view of RAAF was that because there was other traffic around the area then the tower should be open. It wouldn't normally land there without air traffic control."
On the future of Coffs Harbour, the spokesman said: "The minister has given it a stay of execution before, and I am sure that the views of the local community will be an important aspect of any future decision".
===========================================
Pilots win review of airspace rules
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
February 20, 2004
PILOTS claimed a victory last night after Airservices Australia moved closer to rolling back its contentious airspace reforms.
Airservices chief executive Bernie Smith told staff in a memo the agency's board had agreed to two options being tested over the next three months "which could further improve the management of Class E airspace".
One involved reclassifying Class E airspace, where the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes, to Class C airspace, which is controlled.
A second option would expand the change by reclassifying all Class E airspace above 12,500 feet.
An Airservices spokesman confirmed a hazard identification meeting had been called next Wednesday to allow the industry to assess the options.
"These are the only two board-approved options at this stage, but we're not counting out the fact there may be others that emerge over the next three months," he said.
Pilots and air traffic controllers have campaigned against the changes to airspace rules introduced in November. And last night the Australian and International Pilots Association claimed success.
"It appears almost all the recommendations made during the recent consultation process with representatives of the professional aviation industry have been adopted," spokesman Richard Woodward said.
Air traffic control union Civil Air said both proposals vindicated its campaign and proved the downgraded airspace rules had deficiencies.
But a spokesman for Transport Minister John Anderson urged caution, saying no final decision had been taken.
Mr Anderson was yesterday due to receive recommendations from Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on changes they intend to make in response to a near collision between a Virgin Blue jet and a light aircraft near Launceston in December.
Recommendations already flagged include more pilot education, the use of portable radar at regional airports and putting radio frequency changes on charts.
Airservices' admission that it is pushing ahead with longer-term options clouds the situation and could delay a round of reforms due this year.
Yesterday's memo says the air traffic control corporation will start work on specifying a model of the airspace as it would finally end up.
The model will take into account government policy to match US airspace "to the maximum extent possible within statutory obligations".
"This model would then be subjected to a full design safety case and cost benefit analysis" taking 12 months.
The Airservices decision came as Qantas and Virgin Blue said they believed the changes were safe and only needed "fine-tuning".
But Qantas chief Geoff Dixon admitted the airline had concerns about Airservices decisions. The airline was watching the process closely.
===========================================
Fri "Sydney Morning Herald"
Air control tower at risk, but not the minister
By Robert Wainwright
February 20, 2004
An early-morning dash from Coffs Harbour to Adelaide has landed the federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, in an embarrassing position as he struggles to find a solution to air space management.
Mr Anderson's office, which was considering new changes in the system last night, has confirmed that his rush to attend an immigration policy launch in Adelaide resulted in the air traffic control tower at Coffs Harbour being opened at 7am - an hour early - for his Boeing 737.
The then acting prime minister had cut short a family holiday near Grafton to make the launch.
Coffs Harbour residents and aviation unions have jumped on the January 12 incident to highlight what they say is the Government's hypocrisy on air management.
The control tower has been under almost constant threat of closure by Airservices Australia for the past nine years.
Less than a week after the flight, Mr Anderson was on ABC Radio refusing to guarantee the tower's future, saying he was awaiting further advice.
The Coffs Harbour Advocate declared: "If it is not safe enough for the acting prime minster to take off from Coffs Harbour without guidance and security of the air traffic control tower, then why should it be safe for everybody else?"
The area is among those seriously affected by changes late last year that replaced some class-C airspace - where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft - with class-E air- space, where the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes.
Aviation unions say the changes increase the risk of a mid-air collision. Airservices Australia denies the claim but agreed to consider the extent of the changes. Its recommendations were handed to Mr Anderson late yesterday and are expected to be released today.
Ted Lang, president of Civil Air, which represents air traffic controllers, said tower staff were annoyed by the Anderson incident.
"It is a bit rich for this sort of preferential treatment at a time when there is so much controversy about air space management. To ask for someone to provide the very service that has been the subject of seven inquiries in nine years smacks of hypocrisy."
A spokesman for Mr Anderson denied preferential treatment.
"To suggest this has something to do with the NAS [National Airspace System] is ridiculous because John would not have even been aware of the details.
"The view of RAAF was that because there was other traffic around the area then the tower should be open. It wouldn't normally land there without air traffic control."
On the future of Coffs Harbour, the spokesman said: "The minister has given it a stay of execution before, and I am sure that the views of the local community will be an important aspect of any future decision".
===========================================
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're about to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The VFR climb/descent and IFR pickup is working fine in regional areas where I work. The only fine tuning needed was to keep RPT traffic in controlled airspace as they descend into and climb out of capital city and some regional airports.
The VFR climb/descent and IFR pickup is working fine in regional areas where I work. The only fine tuning needed was to keep RPT traffic in controlled airspace as they descend into and climb out of capital city and some regional airports.
Portable Radar.
Are they like SAMS without the SAM?
Just call them S.
Where are these S's going to be set up?
How much does each unit cost?
Must be some second-hand units going cheap somewhere.
Are they like SAMS without the SAM?
Just call them S.
Where are these S's going to be set up?
How much does each unit cost?
Must be some second-hand units going cheap somewhere.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this quote sums up the minister's knowledge
Is he now going down the path of I didn't really know what was in the NAS implementation, I just supported and passed it??? What a great transport minister. Almost like a cartoon..."well I implemented it, but I didn't know the details of what I was implementing".
Says it all really!!!
A spokesman for Mr Anderson denied preferential treatment. "To suggest this has something to do with the NAS [National Airspace System] is ridiculous because John would not have even been aware of the details.
Says it all really!!!
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In amongst the euphoria, it would be prudent to remember that the REALLY dangerous airspace changes of NAS Stage 2c and Stage 3 are coming closer, and indeed their pace seems to be accelerating.
I hope everyone has got their response polished for the NPRM – if not go there via this link:
http://www.perthpilots.org/mbz_nprm.htm
I hope everyone has got their response polished for the NPRM – if not go there via this link:
http://www.perthpilots.org/mbz_nprm.htm
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not so sure if NAS stages 2c and 3 will occur in the near future, despite the NPRM. NPRM's have been deferred before and can be again. Based on the available information, rollback of NAS 2b is still possibly three or more months away. The completion of the subsequent design safety case after rollback will also be a lengthy process with the levels of consultation that will be required.
Airspace reform is at a stage where nobody really understands the risks of the pre-November airspace model, or any NAS stages planned, because no-one has completed a detailed risk analysis. The idea that the NAS model in the USA was OK therefore it must be OK in Oz has now been formally discredited by recent events. We all have opinions, but we need analysis to back up the statements or planning assumptions.
A design safety case is needed to benchmark the level of risk of the pre-November 2003 airspace model. Whatever that risk level is, it should be deemed to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) because it was the accepted airspace model in use for a long time. Any future airspace reform program be it NAS or something else, also needs a design safety case that also quantifies the risks. These risks can then be compared with those of the current model, and value judgements can be made by industry about whether the benefits of the reform are compatible with the levels of risk. It may be that in a future stage of airspace reform, the levels of risk do increase against the pre-November benchmark. However, they could still be deemed (by industry) to be an ALARP acceptable level of risk, if there were also benefits that justified the level of risk. But at least the decision would have be made from a base of knowledge that is currently not available. No airspace model has zero risk, so where do we start and where do we want to go?
In summary, my point is that most of industry has a viewpoint about NAS, some for and some against. All our collective opinions have been based on our experience and knowledge of the industry group we belong to.
However none of us actually know what the levels of risk are of the pre-November or current NAS airspace models - this analysis has never been carried out. We all have opinions, and recent events have confirmed that some of or opinions have turned out to be right and others to be wrong. When it comes to the determination of risk, gut feel is a good start, but it must be backed up by reasoned analysis based on all the available evidence that we collectively as an industry can offer.
We must all assist with the hazard analysis and risk determination processes for the pre-November airspace model (and any subsequent reforms down the track). In this way we can all get to understand the basis of the risk equation through appropriate analysis and then apply our collective industry knowledge to make reasoned judgements about benefits.
Airspace reform is at a stage where nobody really understands the risks of the pre-November airspace model, or any NAS stages planned, because no-one has completed a detailed risk analysis. The idea that the NAS model in the USA was OK therefore it must be OK in Oz has now been formally discredited by recent events. We all have opinions, but we need analysis to back up the statements or planning assumptions.
A design safety case is needed to benchmark the level of risk of the pre-November 2003 airspace model. Whatever that risk level is, it should be deemed to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) because it was the accepted airspace model in use for a long time. Any future airspace reform program be it NAS or something else, also needs a design safety case that also quantifies the risks. These risks can then be compared with those of the current model, and value judgements can be made by industry about whether the benefits of the reform are compatible with the levels of risk. It may be that in a future stage of airspace reform, the levels of risk do increase against the pre-November benchmark. However, they could still be deemed (by industry) to be an ALARP acceptable level of risk, if there were also benefits that justified the level of risk. But at least the decision would have be made from a base of knowledge that is currently not available. No airspace model has zero risk, so where do we start and where do we want to go?
In summary, my point is that most of industry has a viewpoint about NAS, some for and some against. All our collective opinions have been based on our experience and knowledge of the industry group we belong to.
However none of us actually know what the levels of risk are of the pre-November or current NAS airspace models - this analysis has never been carried out. We all have opinions, and recent events have confirmed that some of or opinions have turned out to be right and others to be wrong. When it comes to the determination of risk, gut feel is a good start, but it must be backed up by reasoned analysis based on all the available evidence that we collectively as an industry can offer.
We must all assist with the hazard analysis and risk determination processes for the pre-November airspace model (and any subsequent reforms down the track). In this way we can all get to understand the basis of the risk equation through appropriate analysis and then apply our collective industry knowledge to make reasoned judgements about benefits.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Media Release - Friday, 20 February 2004
CASA moves to fine-tune new airspace system
A range of initiatives to fine-tune the new National Airspace System have been put forward by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The initiatives respond to the findings of the investigation of an air incident that occurred near Launceston in December last year that involved a light aircraft and a Boeing 737.
CASA consulted with Airservices Australia and the National Airspace Implementation Group on the initiatives, which will adopted as quickly as possible. The initiatives have been reported to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport, John Anderson.
CASA is confident the changes will further enhance the safety of the new system by providing additional information and advice to pilots.
CASA will also continue to actively consult with all sections of the aviation industry to monitor the progress of the new airspace system, as well as to listen to concerns and constructive suggestions.
CASA’s chief executive officer, Bruce Byron, says the initiatives directly address lessons that have been taken from the Launceston incident.
“The report into the Launceston incident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is the only objective assessment to date of the introduction of the National Airspace changes,” Mr Byron says.
“CASA has looked carefully at the findings and determined that some fine-tuning of the information being made available to pilots will further improve the new system.
“In particular, CASA supports placing air traffic control frequencies on all visual charts, the inclusion of instrument flight rules routes on appropriate visual charts and the provision of additional pilot training and education material.
“Training and education should re-emphasise that pilots must monitor appropriate radio frequencies, make radio contact with other aircraft where there is the potential for conflict and remember the additional flexibility of the new system brings some added responsibilities.”
Mr Byron says CASA found no reason to recommend radical changes to the new airspace system after reviewing the report into the Launceston incident.
He said pilots should review the extensive eduction and training material they have been given on NAS to make sure they continue to correctly follow the new procedures and make sure they obtain and study new material as it becomes available.
http://casa.gov.au/media/2004/04-02-20.htm
CASA moves to fine-tune new airspace system
A range of initiatives to fine-tune the new National Airspace System have been put forward by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The initiatives respond to the findings of the investigation of an air incident that occurred near Launceston in December last year that involved a light aircraft and a Boeing 737.
CASA consulted with Airservices Australia and the National Airspace Implementation Group on the initiatives, which will adopted as quickly as possible. The initiatives have been reported to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport, John Anderson.
CASA is confident the changes will further enhance the safety of the new system by providing additional information and advice to pilots.
CASA will also continue to actively consult with all sections of the aviation industry to monitor the progress of the new airspace system, as well as to listen to concerns and constructive suggestions.
CASA’s chief executive officer, Bruce Byron, says the initiatives directly address lessons that have been taken from the Launceston incident.
“The report into the Launceston incident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is the only objective assessment to date of the introduction of the National Airspace changes,” Mr Byron says.
“CASA has looked carefully at the findings and determined that some fine-tuning of the information being made available to pilots will further improve the new system.
“In particular, CASA supports placing air traffic control frequencies on all visual charts, the inclusion of instrument flight rules routes on appropriate visual charts and the provision of additional pilot training and education material.
“Training and education should re-emphasise that pilots must monitor appropriate radio frequencies, make radio contact with other aircraft where there is the potential for conflict and remember the additional flexibility of the new system brings some added responsibilities.”
Mr Byron says CASA found no reason to recommend radical changes to the new airspace system after reviewing the report into the Launceston incident.
He said pilots should review the extensive eduction and training material they have been given on NAS to make sure they continue to correctly follow the new procedures and make sure they obtain and study new material as it becomes available.
http://casa.gov.au/media/2004/04-02-20.htm
Join Date: May 2003
Location: x
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the idea of putting IFR routes on some VFR charts. Also putting frequencies back on the charts and encouraging that "pilots must monitor appropriate radio frequencies" suddenly puts much needed credibility into the new NAS. In fact, I can't think of too much that would be wrong with NAS once they implement the above features. Except for the Dick factor and the manner in which he influenced the government to implement it...
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Portable Radar
The only unit I'm aware of is the one parked out the back of the Melbourne compound at the moment. Still there this morning. Is usually used for extra coverage at special events, such as Olympics/Grand Pr1cks etc.
So Mr. Minister, what are we going to use at the Commonwealth games if the Portable radar is set in front of a stable door near Launceston?
If something interesting happens at Alice Springs or Albury will it go there instead?
Is Project Rollback bringing C airspace back to radar controlled airspace or just procedural?
You do realise that changing any detail of NAS from above will start the bikkie maker FIGHTING AGAINST THE PROJECT
So Mr. Minister, what are we going to use at the Commonwealth games if the Portable radar is set in front of a stable door near Launceston?
If something interesting happens at Alice Springs or Albury will it go there instead?
Is Project Rollback bringing C airspace back to radar controlled airspace or just procedural?
You do realise that changing any detail of NAS from above will start the bikkie maker FIGHTING AGAINST THE PROJECT
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Aust
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard the QF chief pilot on the radio today talking up NAS !.
Sounded A LOT like Johnny had been wording him up. All the buzzwords (ie Fine tuning) and crap about how safe Class E is and how the AIPA think it was a good move etc.....
Has Manning alwaya been pro-NAS or has someone suggested it would be expedient if he came out in support ??
Sounded A LOT like Johnny had been wording him up. All the buzzwords (ie Fine tuning) and crap about how safe Class E is and how the AIPA think it was a good move etc.....
Has Manning alwaya been pro-NAS or has someone suggested it would be expedient if he came out in support ??
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the CASA media release stated:
So are we back to broadcasting our intentions????
Surely crossing the ctaf/mbz etc zone has a "potential for conflict".
You know there is a hell of alot of ambiguity about at the moment.
The way I understand it is that the "powers that be" have realised the the new changes are less safe than that of which it replaced, and this has been widely admitted recently(ie woops). What changes to rectify the problem have not been communicated, but they have communicated that there will be changes. Airservices has admitted that the indroduction of the "new system" was in fact illegal, and should not have been allowed, according to the Senate Estimates Committee.
So pilots now are flying in rules that were illegally indroduced, admittedly less safe than those that were existant, and that they will be "fine tuned" in the future, of which we don't know.
And they said that those in the industry didn't have a clue!!
Training and education should re-emphasise that pilots must monitor appropriate radio frequencies, make radio contact with other aircraft where there is the potential for conflict
Surely crossing the ctaf/mbz etc zone has a "potential for conflict".
You know there is a hell of alot of ambiguity about at the moment.
The way I understand it is that the "powers that be" have realised the the new changes are less safe than that of which it replaced, and this has been widely admitted recently(ie woops). What changes to rectify the problem have not been communicated, but they have communicated that there will be changes. Airservices has admitted that the indroduction of the "new system" was in fact illegal, and should not have been allowed, according to the Senate Estimates Committee.
So pilots now are flying in rules that were illegally indroduced, admittedly less safe than those that were existant, and that they will be "fine tuned" in the future, of which we don't know.
And they said that those in the industry didn't have a clue!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sat "Melbourne Age"
Changes in air after flight safety row
By Orietta Guerrera
Canberra
February 21, 2004
Australia's national air traffic control agency will test changes to the new airspace system that would substantially roll back the controversial changes if adopted.
Airservices Australia has outlined two options to alter the system. Both will be investigated in the next three months and discussed with industry groups.
The first option would involve reclassifying some E class airspace, where light aircraft can travel among the larger planes without air traffic control clearance, to class C, where clearance is required.
This change would largely affect airspace around airports such as Launceston, Hobart, Coffs Harbour and Tamworth.
The second option would reduce the height of the class E airspace to 12,500 feet (3810 metres).
This is the option preferred by the air traffic control association Civil Air, which yesterday welcomed the news.
It is anticipated other changes may be considered when industry workshops on the reforms begin next week.
Pilots and air traffic controllers have claimed victory after campaigning against the system, claiming it was unsafe.
The latest proposals come after Airservices this week announced immediate changes to the system, including using a transportable radar system to cover airspace without surveillance.
Under the system introduced in November, light planes were allowed into areas used by commercial airliners on a "see and avoid" basis.
A review of the system was ordered after an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report into a near-miss between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light place over Launceston on Christmas Eve found the incident occurred because of the new rules.
Association president Ted Lang said the proposed changes were vindication for those who had warned against the new system.
"I'll be doing handstands if they bring (the changes) in," Mr Lang said. "We've been saying this since August last year, that we shouldn't do this."
While the Australian and International Pilots Association also supported the proposed changes, the association's technical and safety director Richard Woodward said interim safety measures were needed.
"What they did before was akin to taking away all the level crossing lights at a railway crossing and saying, 'Well, the average car driver knows not to collide with a train now, we'll just take them away and just avoid the trains'," Captain Woodward said.
The Opposition yesterday stepped up the pressure on Transport Minister John Anderson who has consistently defended the new system.
Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said: "I think the minister is under extreme pressure to basically butt out of airspace. It's very clear that the board of Airservices Australia decided to try and fix this mess."
===========================================
Changes in air after flight safety row
By Orietta Guerrera
Canberra
February 21, 2004
Australia's national air traffic control agency will test changes to the new airspace system that would substantially roll back the controversial changes if adopted.
Airservices Australia has outlined two options to alter the system. Both will be investigated in the next three months and discussed with industry groups.
The first option would involve reclassifying some E class airspace, where light aircraft can travel among the larger planes without air traffic control clearance, to class C, where clearance is required.
This change would largely affect airspace around airports such as Launceston, Hobart, Coffs Harbour and Tamworth.
The second option would reduce the height of the class E airspace to 12,500 feet (3810 metres).
This is the option preferred by the air traffic control association Civil Air, which yesterday welcomed the news.
It is anticipated other changes may be considered when industry workshops on the reforms begin next week.
Pilots and air traffic controllers have claimed victory after campaigning against the system, claiming it was unsafe.
The latest proposals come after Airservices this week announced immediate changes to the system, including using a transportable radar system to cover airspace without surveillance.
Under the system introduced in November, light planes were allowed into areas used by commercial airliners on a "see and avoid" basis.
A review of the system was ordered after an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report into a near-miss between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light place over Launceston on Christmas Eve found the incident occurred because of the new rules.
Association president Ted Lang said the proposed changes were vindication for those who had warned against the new system.
"I'll be doing handstands if they bring (the changes) in," Mr Lang said. "We've been saying this since August last year, that we shouldn't do this."
While the Australian and International Pilots Association also supported the proposed changes, the association's technical and safety director Richard Woodward said interim safety measures were needed.
"What they did before was akin to taking away all the level crossing lights at a railway crossing and saying, 'Well, the average car driver knows not to collide with a train now, we'll just take them away and just avoid the trains'," Captain Woodward said.
The Opposition yesterday stepped up the pressure on Transport Minister John Anderson who has consistently defended the new system.
Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said: "I think the minister is under extreme pressure to basically butt out of airspace. It's very clear that the board of Airservices Australia decided to try and fix this mess."
===========================================
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mail is the 'portable radar' is going to LT. why? to save face, that is all.
How portable is portable; it's an old TAR; which has been gethering dust post CHOGM; it also costs about $250K just to get bedding concrete for this thing, so it won't fall over when it spins...
C replaces E above FL125 everywhere.
C steps into D towers, more stpes to ensure 3 degree protection.
More C steps around existing C steps (around primary aerodromes); to capture 3 degrees.
All non-radar E, i.e. FL180-FL245 becomes C.
Tassie gets lower C, reclaiming what used to be there...
All in all this is a dogs breakfast; 6 months to implement; when in reality some could be done almost instantly...
Safety at what cost?
I see Bill Hamilton and AOPA have different official positions again?
Bottle or Rum
How portable is portable; it's an old TAR; which has been gethering dust post CHOGM; it also costs about $250K just to get bedding concrete for this thing, so it won't fall over when it spins...
C replaces E above FL125 everywhere.
C steps into D towers, more stpes to ensure 3 degree protection.
More C steps around existing C steps (around primary aerodromes); to capture 3 degrees.
All non-radar E, i.e. FL180-FL245 becomes C.
Tassie gets lower C, reclaiming what used to be there...
All in all this is a dogs breakfast; 6 months to implement; when in reality some could be done almost instantly...
Safety at what cost?
I see Bill Hamilton and AOPA have different official positions again?
Bottle or Rum
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Caloundra, QLD, Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, are all the TWR controllers at YMLT to get "portable" radar ratings?
Who is going to train them in "portable" radar procedures?
Is the "portable" radar compatible with TAAATS procedures? Who is rated to train people in "portable" radar procedures?
How "portable" is the radar? One week in YMLT, the next in YSCH? YBAS looks good and maybe YAYE on every second Tuesday!
Who is going to train them in "portable" radar procedures?
Is the "portable" radar compatible with TAAATS procedures? Who is rated to train people in "portable" radar procedures?
How "portable" is the radar? One week in YMLT, the next in YSCH? YBAS looks good and maybe YAYE on every second Tuesday!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Portable Radar
The proposed use of "portable radar"is questionable.
To my knowledge ASA only have the one unit. The RAAF have some as well, but doubtfull they are available or suitable for civil use.
The winding back of NAS or changing any of the elements is a "risk" and needs to be planned in accordance with established change and risk management procedures. Some of the changes could no doubt be done in quick time, perhaps by NOTAM but others will have to be subject to mail outs, new charts (at what cost?) and education etc. This will all take time.
In the meantime the NASIG must be in damage control and what is occuring in that office now? Any proposed changes for this year are now obviously in the bin.
And all this we are paying for it!! No wonder aviation in Oz is suffering... A government that does not care about it and an ATS provider that is interested in dollars and legal responsibilities before safety... Keeping GA out of the airways system is close to criminal I believe. Certainly not the case in the USA.
And you cant say ASA did not know. The board safety committee were told the issues etc about 2 years ago I am advised. But politics obviously has been the driver.
geeez!
To my knowledge ASA only have the one unit. The RAAF have some as well, but doubtfull they are available or suitable for civil use.
The winding back of NAS or changing any of the elements is a "risk" and needs to be planned in accordance with established change and risk management procedures. Some of the changes could no doubt be done in quick time, perhaps by NOTAM but others will have to be subject to mail outs, new charts (at what cost?) and education etc. This will all take time.
In the meantime the NASIG must be in damage control and what is occuring in that office now? Any proposed changes for this year are now obviously in the bin.
And all this we are paying for it!! No wonder aviation in Oz is suffering... A government that does not care about it and an ATS provider that is interested in dollars and legal responsibilities before safety... Keeping GA out of the airways system is close to criminal I believe. Certainly not the case in the USA.
And you cant say ASA did not know. The board safety committee were told the issues etc about 2 years ago I am advised. But politics obviously has been the driver.
geeez!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Design areonatical safety study
All I can say is thank god we commissioned our aeronautial safety study last June.
I find it astounding that you don't do a study, introduce a new system, have a near miss, and then require a Study before you change the dangerous bits back.
Sir Humphrey at his best, I'd love to be at the back of a supreme court when you tried to explain this is sound management!!!
Anyway Broome Internaional Airport Aeronautical Design Safety Study is only two weeks away. We thought it should be done before implementation of proposed terminal airspace changes.
We thought at the time we would be comparying our findings with AA or NASIG and seeking a determination by CASA.
Silly me !!!!
I find it astounding that you don't do a study, introduce a new system, have a near miss, and then require a Study before you change the dangerous bits back.
Sir Humphrey at his best, I'd love to be at the back of a supreme court when you tried to explain this is sound management!!!
Anyway Broome Internaional Airport Aeronautical Design Safety Study is only two weeks away. We thought it should be done before implementation of proposed terminal airspace changes.
We thought at the time we would be comparying our findings with AA or NASIG and seeking a determination by CASA.
Silly me !!!!
