Class E Airspace Is Safe

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

mjbow2, that shows a real lack of understanding of the whole issue with verifying mode C and making sure a transponder is serviceable. I have lost count of the number of pilots who when told their transponder is either not working or the Mode C is out of tolerance, has responded but the light is on and it being interrogated by the radar. Great! That doesn't mean it is working properly. A pilot knows his medical is valid, his fuel caps are on, he does not know his transponder is serviceable without having it veriefied with ATC, and the fact is, if you fly solely around Alice for example, you will never have the opportunity to have this checked by a Radar Controller because there aint no radar out there (which considering the mix and level of traffic is a disgrace).

[5miles]

VoR - I think you're scalloping.

"Forget whether you have radar or not – it is essentially irrelevant. "

If that is true and TCAS is not to be considered as a mitigator for an airprox, then why is the following mandatory?

“All aircraft, except aircraft operating to the VFR which are not fitted with an engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering a transponder, must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.”

[gaunty]

Creampuff me old

I was burnt at the stake about the eleventy ninth time for suggesting that if the transponder was supposed to be on in E and there was no radar, how was one to establish that it was actually working and/or accurate? Pretty fundamental I thought and especially since it is appears to be part of the TCAS primary defence mechanism in our wonderful new Alice in Wonderland airspace system.

But maybe the Emperor was wearing clothes that day, I'm only a little short arse and it's hard for me to see over the crowds in front of me. But I'd swear I saw some dangly bits throught the legs of those in front of me.

Woomera, good one, I see the PPRuNers are still in Ready Fire Aim mode.

[druglord]

Yeah mjbow, what's your take on all this class E business? I personally don't feel unsafe flying here, but I was pretty concerned when I first got here. I've only had maybe 1 RA since I've been here and that was with traffic in sight. On the other hand I feel aussie airspace is or was safer even if it was out of sync with the rest of the world.

[mjbow2]

Creampuff- No

A.N.S.A.- just to be sure we are on the same page... I made no assertions in relation to 'verifying the servicablility' of the transponder....

Class E under and around class B. No contact required with ATC. See answer RE creampuff.

How you verify your transponder is working is not a debate that this monday morning half back wants to get into. Dont forget that aircraft without radio can operate in class E airspace also...


Ohh hey Drugie...ya snuck one by me there....well considering I have flown in oz for the first time a month or so ago I am still evaluating everything. I did all my GA stuff over there so naturally I am more comfortable with the US deal.

We only had TA's and that thing was going off all the time, especially at ORD and MSP....they put butter on the sides just to slide us in there sometimes! You know the drill! But seriously I think its mostly a culture thing, its what your used to. I am having trouble here for example coming to grips with the fact that on an IFR flight I need to be familiar with airspace boundries. As you well know....if youre IFR in the US, airspace boundries mean nothing (few exceptions noted)...IFR is IFR....you get seperation even in G (mostly you would be on an airway-therefor in E) with no radar, but you may be surrounded by G and you still get an IFR clearance and you are seperated......

I am yet to make a fully informed jugdement though on which is a safer SYSTEM despite the stats saying the US is still about the safest place to fly. Obviously my favouring the US is based on that the system as a whole is entirely more user friendly and its familiar to me.....we will see!

[the leyland brothers]

If you live in Alice Springs and want your transponder checked then you only have to ask!

Ask the driver of a parked airline aircraft to check it on his TCAS display that is.

Don’t waste your time asking air traffic control. TCAS equipped aircraft have more surveillance technology than is available to the air traffic controllers at Alice!
[a pair of high grade binoculars notwithstanding ]


A small child places their hands over their eyes and says : “You cant see me – you cant see me!” To them, the world has disappeared.

AirNoServicesAustralia selectively ignores those who’s opinions he disagrees with. To him, all dissention has disappeared, and he can once again claim hand on heart that everyone he has spoken to agrees with his opinions.


Darryl reckons : “Waddaya want with a pair o’ joustin’ sticks?”



[Edit format to appease DirtyPierre's delicate sensibilities...]

[druglord]

MJbow, Yeah apparently the controllers LOVE the 1900's...they're fast and they can do the old 240 to the marker unlike the slippery jets. Anyway, i'm thread hijacking... see whatchya think of the aussie system...yeah the airspace thing over there is ridiculously insane and needlessly complicated.

[Creampuff]

Thanks mjbow2.

The next question: how often does heavy metal in US E get RAs, and if not often, why not?

A person very close to me flies for a very large international airline in and out of LAX et al, and has done so for a very long time, and he can’t recall ever getting an RA. Why does Australia appear – repeat appear – to be getting a disproportionate number of RAs in its E?

[Here to Help]

VoR's post and reasoned argument

Creampuff wrote:

It’s duplicitous to applaud VOR for coming to a logical conclusion which you happen to like on one hand, but then lambaste VOR for coming to a logical conclusion which you happen not to like on the other.

Woomera wrote:

Pleaase lets keep this civilised shall we and read carefully what the V o R actually said.

IMHO it is a perfectly balanced argument entirely in the context of their previous posts.

Well, let's see, I have responded to VoR's assertions in this thread yet he/they/no-one have addressed it.
It is false to say that Class E is safe if you are only talking of the theoretical application for it.

Awaiting a reply....

[mjbow2]

Cream-e....


Simple answer is; I dont know!

I would suggest that many RA's are received daily over there....Like Drug-e said, his one RA came when traffic was already 'in sight' I suspect that most RA's occur in the appraoch environment with traffic 'in sight'.......

As I said our Beechlanda's only gave TA's not RA's so cant speak from experience on this one!

[Creampuff]

Thanks again, mjbow2. My source suggests that there are not many RAs received daily over there, at least not ones that are, for want of a better word, ‘unexpected’. My source suggests that at some airports where there are simultaneous opposite direction approaches to base of parallel runways, and an RA is entirely expected and normal part of the approach, given the heavy metal coming the other way and descending towards (but hopefully not to!) exactly the same point in space.

As to RAs of the kind recently investigated by the ATSB – my source can’t recall having had one.

Can any heavy metal drivers out there tell us about their RA experiences in US E?

[DirtyPierre]

Creampuff and mjbow2,

Just in regard to your discussion about RAs, are all aircraft in USA equipped with the same version of TCAS. TCAS version 7 I think might be the latest.

If not all aircraft are fitted with the same version of TCAS software, this might influence the amount of RAs and TAs.

Leyland Brothers, could you please stop "yelling" in your posts. I'm going deaf trying to read them!

TAH MUCHLY!

[WALLEY2]

VoR,

Our Chief Justice of the High Court stated:

"where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though not perhaps great, nethertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent."

What is the cost gains from reclassifying C to E airspace?

Where we are dealing with approachs to major regional airports without radar or larger airports within radar coverage as aircraft are converging and concentrating, you could not argue the risk is "remote or fanciful".

Consequently you would need a substacial cost saving for this airspace change otherwise by the Cheif Justice Gibb dictum you have commited a negligent act.

Is there any downside to having more C airspace than most countries- why apply a lower common denominator, should we tell the USA to decrease their radar in more remote areas as Australia uses less quite "safely"- is this your argument or have I missed the point ?

It is not my field of expertise but your normal clarity and insightful contribution is not so clear to me this time.

Cheers Mike

[Towering Q]

Is this the same V of R?

One thing I have noticed about V of R's posts in this thread is that they are a lot shorter than in previous contributions. Before, when reading their posts I would ensure that I had a cup of warm beverage and the wife and child were asleep.

[Creampuff]

WALLEY2: It is true the Chief Justice of the High Court said that. However, I suggest you get some expert advice as to whether a duty of care is owed, and if so by whom, in relation to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace.

There is some very solid High Court authority that says no duty of care is owed in relation to, for example, legislative acts. If the federal Parliament passed a law tomorrow to the effect that, for example, all airspace in Australia is class G, notwithstanding the evidently foreseeable risk of an increase in the risk of MACs, and notwithstanding that no cost-benefit analysis had been carried out, no court in the country would find that the legislature owed a duty of care to the people killed or injured in a subsequent MAC caused by the change to universal class G. The remedy in this example would lie in the ballot box, not the court.

It gets much, much trickier and muddier when it comes to the exercise of delegated powers. If CASA makes a CAO, is that a legislative act or an operational decision? Smells legislative to me. If AA declares airspace arrangements which accord with the standards set by CASA and apply to everyone, is that a legislative act or an operational decision? The spectrum from legislative to operational has an infinite combination of variables, and the case law identifying the border line is inconsistent and the reasoning difficult to apply other than to the particular facts of the case. It would be a very brave lawyer indeed who risks her professional indemnity insurance by expressing general views about anybody’s duty of care in relation to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace, other than to say that on any analysis, Mr Dick Smith and the ARG probably escape liability, because (as I’ve pointed out previously ad nauseum, neither he nor the ARG has ever had any legal power with respect to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace. The strings that were pulled to make NAS happen were necessarily connected to AA, and perhaps to CASA.

With respect to the authors of your report (with whose reasoning and conclusions on substantive issues, I should add, I was generally impressed) they took a considerable risk in making the unqualified suggestion that the dictum quoted necessarily constrains the exercise of legal powers with respect to standards setting for and declarations of classes of airspace.

[the leyland brothers]

What I think creamie's trying to tell you in his fancy city-slicker-lawyer mumbo-jumbo-lingo, Walley, is that your report is only good for wrapping fish and chips.

[amos2]

You know, you lot really do amaze me!

Anybody, and I mean anybody, who operated under the old system in Oz, knows it was safer than the nonsence we operate under today.

But VoR, a corporate pilot in the States, starts sprouting on an Oz forum, in the third person, about this great knowledge he thinks he has, in respect to the way airspace should be!!

And you lot fall for it.

Anybody asked VoR what his status is?

Could be a CPL for all we know!

[tobzalp]

I asked him/her/it as the first reply to the first post he/her/it made. There was a reply. Do a quick search. I think that what the point this 3rd person was making was missed way back at the start.

They were never advocating or disproving NAS but were defending the airspace that apparently they had some hand in designing (Class E ICAO). This is where their/her/its recent outburst of defence was aimed. Whilst they/her/it/whatever can sprout numbers about the risk models etc, it does not disprove that class C in Australia was provided for less cost and Greater Safety than E. FULL STOP.

[WALLEY2]

Creamy,

A CAO is a delegated legislation and therefore rest in the Senate for 14 days where it may be discussed and voted on or automatically approved.

Yes we have taken legal advise and reserved QCs for our fight if it comes to pass. A friend actually met the former Chief Justice and told him of our use of his Dictum when asked (tongue in cheek) for his advise he smiled and said "I would be very careful if I was You" Probably true words from an elderly sage.

While there is no punitive action possible against the Minister ARG etc. they cannot overwrite your rights under common law.

The question we are preparing for is whether they can direct us to do a negligent act?

If there is a loss of property or god forbid life and an adverse coronial enquiry then the baloon goes up.

In both these scenarios there is legal doubts, one solution would be for the Airport Owners Association to advise owners to close the airports or restrict access to non TCAS equipt aircraft, if an unproven terminal airspce system is to be forced upon our major regional airports. This is under consideration pending the CASA NPRM report.

Alternatively as our State Governments control worksafe practices we may well need to close active runways prior to allowing staff to caryout maintenance. Certainly we have been advised without Mandatory calls and possible aircraft without radios using the airport an active runway is not a safe working enviroment.

Then you have State Legislation against Federal legislation, normally it is the Fedral Legislation pervails however in this case it is in an area(worksafe) that is not covered by Federal Law.

Four things are certain:

1 The lawyers will make heaps

2 The Minister will have to show his hand and not hide behind others.

3 It is going to get very messy unless they have done a proper Design Safety Analysis.

4 The Senate, the State Labour Governments and the press will have a field day.


The question I keep asking is- why are we doing this to a system that has its own culture and has delivered excellent results?

Comparitive cost analysis shows our system is cost effective, there is no reputable report or analysis that demonstrates major cost savings.

Dick Smith says D Class Tower for Broome what about Ayers,KTA,KAL these towers cost Millions to instal and millions p.a. to run and by our DAS and FAA analysis are not required yet.

Airspace C to E no analysis on effects or costs. I ask again is there cost savings? VoR?

What are we doing and Why?? Why Oh Why???

[Voices of Reason]

Clarifications

First, we wish to apologize for some of the recent content under our nom-de-plume – the offending party has been removed from the roster of participants.

Second, as to credentials, suffice it to say our resumes would stand more than favorably against any offered by participants to this forum.

Now, in relation to this thread, perhaps we could go to first principles and try to clarify our original post.

As we have stated before, the entire basis for airspace service levels should be set around equitable risk management – that is, no single party should be exposed to a higher level of risk than another, unless that risk is accepted voluntarily.

By that, we mean that those that have sole responsibility for the risk to which they expose themselves – VFR pilots, glider pilots, military fighter pilots etc – may choose to operate to higher risk levels than those who have little or no control over risk – i.e., the fare paying passenger.

Good and effective airspace management is about ensuring that the fare paying passenger is not exposed to inappropriate risk levels – and just as important – inequitable risk levels.

So, the risk to a passenger flying to Sydney should be no higher than that for a passenger flying to Broome, Alice Springs, Launceston or Mildura, and vice versa.

Prior to the ICAO alphabet airspace classification system, there were as few as two classifications available in most parts of the world – controlled and uncontrolled airspace – with some States offering mid-range services such as Visual Exempt, or Instrument Visual airspace. The ICAO alphabet airspace system when finally codified offers seven layers of airspace service, and seven layers of risk management.

As we have previously stated, the system was developed by a panel whose primary responsibility was the accommodation of VFR flights in an increasingly complex environment of IFR flights – and an increasingly complex set of IFR flight parameters.

Now, for an airspace designer starting with a clean sheet of paper, it would be relatively simple to codify Australian airspace, so that the levels of risk are set to appropriate levels, and no single section of the community is subject to abnormally high levels of risk – except, as we stated before, where they choose to accept that risk. Some service leveling would be required to ensure that the model was not overly complex – so naturally there would be apparent over-servicing in certain areas. This occurs in all States.

We said “appropriate levels of risk”. Here is where it can get exceptionally difficult, even for a clean sheet approach. What one section of the aviation community will accept as appropriate may differ by one or two orders of magnitude to another section of the community. So a glider pilot might well be prepared to accept risk levels one hundred times higher than an airline pilot, or ten times higher than a VFR general aviation pilot. A VFR general aviation pilot might accept risk at a level ten times higher than an airline pilot. Is this wrong – basically no. The point of most contention comes where the high risk acceptor and the low risk acceptor come together. Here the airspace designer may need to impose an airspace classification that accommodates the lower risk threshold, or establish mitigating procedures.

So far, this is a lesson in theory.

The practicality of your debate in Australia is the superimposition of a model which may, or may not, set appropriate risk levels, over a system that has been in place for quite some time, and has therefore established a defacto risk standard.

Yes, it is absolutely true to say that for a given volume of airspace, with a set volume of traffic, the risk associated with Class G is higher than Class F, which is higher than Class E, which is higher than Class C etc. It is also true to say that if you have been providing a higher level of service for some time, the reduction from, say, Class C to Class E may appear either cost neutral or cost negative – i.e., a reduction for no cost benefit.

In fact, by our research into the airspace reforms conducted over the last 15 years in Australia, we have seen enormous overall cost benefit associated with the change in service levels – without any provable or demonstrable change in risk.

We understand that you have transitioned from over 2500 air traffic and flight information staff to around 1100. We accept that a large part of that was due to a technology change – nevertheless, traffic levels have increased, so the cost effectiveness has increased.

We expect that your responses will be along the lines of “we can provide the service, so why don’t we?”. This goes to one respondent’s quotation from Justice Gibbs. We have seen this, and other similar statements – particularly those associated with the United Kingdom and European Occupational Health and Safety directorates. The statements, on there own, are misleading, and need to be linked to the benefit side of the equation. Effectively, it is the passengers who will determine risk tolerability versus cost, a fact that Broome has tested. So, if a passenger can fly from Broome to Perth for $100.00, they may tolerate a “safety tax” of $5.00, but would baulk at $50.00. So the fact that a service can be provided is not necessarily an indicator that it should be provided, particularly when it can be demonstrated that risk is within an acceptable bound.

We suspect that some years ago, talk of controllers simultaneously providing traffic information in Class G airspace and separation services in Class C airspace would have been anathema. We understand it is done routinely now. Yes, the change from Class C to Class E does increase risk – but is it an unacceptable level of risk – probably not. Are the incidents in Class E airspace indicative of a safety deficiency – yes. Is it a deficiency in airspace design – probably not. It is more likely to be a misapplication of the procedures associated with Class E airspace. Despite the protestations from some that Australia is somehow “different” to the rest of the world, evidence in other States with Class E airspace would seem to indicate that the design of Class E itself is not deficient.

Now to the question of transponders in Class E airspace.

Our research – and we would challenge any participants in this thread to look back through airspace change documentation to validate this information – indicates that the transponder carriage and activation proposal was mooted as part of a reform initiative called Airspace 2000, and was offered as a trade-off by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association as a safety enhancement mitigators, in return for reduction or elimination of airspace charges.

The regulations giving effect to the transponder carriage and activation in Class E airspace were put in place immediately before Class E airspace was implemented on your east coast, several years ago. We understand that it had originally been planned to implement Class E airspace along your entire east coast, from the north of Queensland to South Australia, at 8500 feet and above, and that charts had been printed and distributed. We understand that a Richard Harold Smith ordered the charts withdrawn and the implementation stopped, in favor of a much smaller implementation in New South Wales, two months later. We understand that charts were re-printed and issued – but on instruction from the director of your regulator, apparently at the specific behest of the same Richard Harold Smith, the effective date was deferred for two weeks whilst a debate raged around the need for mandatory transponders. We understand the carriage and activation of transponders was opposed by the same Richard Harold Smith.

As we have stated previously, the carriage and activation of transponders is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace. Yes, it does enhance its application – but it is not a requirement. As we have also stated, the carriage and operation of transponders should only be seen as a means by which the traffic alerting characteristic of Class E airspace is better enabled – and NOT as a way to alert TCAS carrying aircraft to the presence of VFR flights.

We trust this provides clarification.