Class E Airspace Is Safe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E Airspace Is Safe
Class E Airspace and United States Practice
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a one in at a time basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its safety, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
[email protected]
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a one in at a time basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its safety, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
[email protected]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: No fixed address.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same in continental Europe - plenty of class E and it seems to work just fine.
You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.
Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?
You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.
Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voices of Reason and the Leyland Brothers .
This sounds like a carefully crafted response, not unlike those that have been espoused by Dick Smith and his cohorts.
I would say you have been put up to this or have some vested interest in the NAS.
Leyland Brothers - no fixed address on your profile??
What do you have to hide??
Add to this the fact that you registered in 2000 and have only made 3 postings indicates to me your validity or lack thereof.
When every Professional Pilot and every Airline/Commuter pilot / Air Traffic Controller I have spoken to thinks this new system is flawed and the model doesnt suit Australia then I would sit up and listen.
Unlike Mr Smith that refuses to listen to those at the coal face so to speak and would defend this system to his grave.
Need I say more?
This sounds like a carefully crafted response, not unlike those that have been espoused by Dick Smith and his cohorts.
I would say you have been put up to this or have some vested interest in the NAS.
Leyland Brothers - no fixed address on your profile??
What do you have to hide??
Add to this the fact that you registered in 2000 and have only made 3 postings indicates to me your validity or lack thereof.
When every Professional Pilot and every Airline/Commuter pilot / Air Traffic Controller I have spoken to thinks this new system is flawed and the model doesnt suit Australia then I would sit up and listen.
Unlike Mr Smith that refuses to listen to those at the coal face so to speak and would defend this system to his grave.
Need I say more?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VoR.
I'm flabbergasted. I've watched you say eloquently, and with factual backing, every point I and others have been trying to make about the NAS debacle. Then this.
Class E airspace needs to be defined before we can even decide what you are talking about. Are you talking about ICAO Class E, European Class E, or US Class E? All of them are slightly, yet fundamentally, different.
As you may or may not be aware, the average sector size (measured in NM) is on average, much larger in oz than the US. Oz controllers on a radar sector may typically have a range setting of 475NM. Now if you are an American, with an average range setting of, say, 125NM (or smaller), you will appreciate how much easier it is to spot unknown paints and separate them from your IFRs. Right there is a huge difference between the US of A and oz, which hasn't been addressed, no matter which Class E the ausNAS is going to use (using).
As for controllers being negative; why the hell shouldn't they? They do it like they are told and get called 'criminals' etc, they see a perfectly good system torn down FOR NO BENEFIT etc etc. It would only be someone totally bereft of any interest in their job- just turning up and taking the money- who wouldn't be negative.
There is much more to this than 'culture', and it's fairly shallow of you to suggest it. I haven't time now to go on with this, but I'm sure someone else can pick up the thread.
Class E may be safe enough in the US, but until oz does it EXACTLY like the US (with manning levels, sector sizes, radar coverage, RULES, etc) then the oz version just cannot be compared. You ought to know that.
I'm flabbergasted. I've watched you say eloquently, and with factual backing, every point I and others have been trying to make about the NAS debacle. Then this.
Class E airspace needs to be defined before we can even decide what you are talking about. Are you talking about ICAO Class E, European Class E, or US Class E? All of them are slightly, yet fundamentally, different.
As you may or may not be aware, the average sector size (measured in NM) is on average, much larger in oz than the US. Oz controllers on a radar sector may typically have a range setting of 475NM. Now if you are an American, with an average range setting of, say, 125NM (or smaller), you will appreciate how much easier it is to spot unknown paints and separate them from your IFRs. Right there is a huge difference between the US of A and oz, which hasn't been addressed, no matter which Class E the ausNAS is going to use (using).
As for controllers being negative; why the hell shouldn't they? They do it like they are told and get called 'criminals' etc, they see a perfectly good system torn down FOR NO BENEFIT etc etc. It would only be someone totally bereft of any interest in their job- just turning up and taking the money- who wouldn't be negative.
There is much more to this than 'culture', and it's fairly shallow of you to suggest it. I haven't time now to go on with this, but I'm sure someone else can pick up the thread.
Class E may be safe enough in the US, but until oz does it EXACTLY like the US (with manning levels, sector sizes, radar coverage, RULES, etc) then the oz version just cannot be compared. You ought to know that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike most of the posts on this site, we HAVE provided factual information. We cannot sit by and let you make unfounded generalist statements about Class E airspace. Our comments regarding the implementation of ALL of the NAS elements are well documented so you are aware of our position on that implementation. When you criticize Class E airspace as a means of providing adequate levels of service, we must intervene.
What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia? Put aside the designation of areas and detail exactly what part of your basic Class E procedures is different from those applied in the United States. Forget whether you have radar or not it is essentially irrelevant. Detail EXACTLY what part of your Class E procedures is different to those applicable in the United States.
In the United States, controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights in EXACTLY the same way as is done in Class A, B, C and D airspace, and in exactly the same way Australian controllers separate aircraft in Class A, C and D airspace.
In the United States, controllers pass traffic on observed VFR traffic and when asked and able, provide suggestions for avoidance. Most often, however, pilots are intelligent enough to realize that if passed traffic by a controller they take whatever action they deem necessary.
In the United States, traffic information on VFR traffic is passed when it is available and relevant that is, when in the opinion of the controller the aircraft are on a collision course. If it is assumed that they will miss BY WHATEVER DISTANCE traffic is rarely passed. That appears to be the fundamental misunderstanding by Australian controllers. If separation is NOT required in Class E airspace why concern yourself when aircraft pass with less than you would use as a controller.
We know that your controllers went through a difficult cultural change when Class G airspace was ceded to them, having to pass traffic in apparent and obvious conflict situations yet aircraft did nor hit. This is fundamentally no different.
We have stated on several occasions that we do NOT support the change process that was used in Australia. We have stated on many occasions that your training and education packages were deficient. But we cannot stand by and allow Class E airspace to be maligned as an airspace management tool when it is the process of use and application and not the airspace classification itself that is at fault.
What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia? Put aside the designation of areas and detail exactly what part of your basic Class E procedures is different from those applied in the United States. Forget whether you have radar or not it is essentially irrelevant. Detail EXACTLY what part of your Class E procedures is different to those applicable in the United States.
In the United States, controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights in EXACTLY the same way as is done in Class A, B, C and D airspace, and in exactly the same way Australian controllers separate aircraft in Class A, C and D airspace.
In the United States, controllers pass traffic on observed VFR traffic and when asked and able, provide suggestions for avoidance. Most often, however, pilots are intelligent enough to realize that if passed traffic by a controller they take whatever action they deem necessary.
In the United States, traffic information on VFR traffic is passed when it is available and relevant that is, when in the opinion of the controller the aircraft are on a collision course. If it is assumed that they will miss BY WHATEVER DISTANCE traffic is rarely passed. That appears to be the fundamental misunderstanding by Australian controllers. If separation is NOT required in Class E airspace why concern yourself when aircraft pass with less than you would use as a controller.
We know that your controllers went through a difficult cultural change when Class G airspace was ceded to them, having to pass traffic in apparent and obvious conflict situations yet aircraft did nor hit. This is fundamentally no different.
We have stated on several occasions that we do NOT support the change process that was used in Australia. We have stated on many occasions that your training and education packages were deficient. But we cannot stand by and allow Class E airspace to be maligned as an airspace management tool when it is the process of use and application and not the airspace classification itself that is at fault.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Your apparent backflip (or sellout?) is a matter of concern to me, VoR.
You have previously posted many sensible, authoratative and informative articles here, all espousing SAFETY as being the singular, over-riding factor to be considered in every instance, but now, surprisingly, you state...
The answer is SAFETY - simply because we have an "adventurer" who has implemented a LESS SAFE system in place of one that has provided air travellers with a BETTER, SAFER system, because he "believes" that it might give G.A. in Australia a boost.
Earlier postings by you, VoR, make it quite difficullt to believe that this is now the one and same SAFETY-orientated author(s) who has posted this latest topic!
You have previously posted many sensible, authoratative and informative articles here, all espousing SAFETY as being the singular, over-riding factor to be considered in every instance, but now, surprisingly, you state...
If separation is NOT required in Class E airspace why concern yourself when aircraft pass with less than you would use as a controller.
Earlier postings by you, VoR, make it quite difficullt to believe that this is now the one and same SAFETY-orientated author(s) who has posted this latest topic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have watched as thread after thread on this site is hijacked by ignorance!
You have NOT read what we have said.
At NO point have we condoned your current airspace model, nor have we condoned the manner in which it was implemented. We have made NO judgment on whether or not Class E airspace is appropriate in the areas in which it has been implemented in Australia.
We HAVE said in this series of posts that Class E airspace, properly applied, is safe. If you can provide facts or evidence that Class E airspace NOT its application in Australia but Class E airspace itself is unsafe, then do so.
We absolutely agree that for the same number of IFR to VFR aircraft conflict pairs, the level of risk decreases significantly as you move through airspace classifications G to A. It is absolutely correct to say that in any given volume the level of risk associated with Class C airspace is less than that associated with Class E.
It is NOT correct to say that there should be a disproportionately lower level of risk in an airspace volume simply because you CAN provide a service if that were the case, all of your airspace in Australia would be designated as Class A.
The ICAO Airspace Classification System is about ensuring a uniform and cost appropriate risk level across your country, and all countries.
You have NOT read what we have said.
At NO point have we condoned your current airspace model, nor have we condoned the manner in which it was implemented. We have made NO judgment on whether or not Class E airspace is appropriate in the areas in which it has been implemented in Australia.
We HAVE said in this series of posts that Class E airspace, properly applied, is safe. If you can provide facts or evidence that Class E airspace NOT its application in Australia but Class E airspace itself is unsafe, then do so.
We absolutely agree that for the same number of IFR to VFR aircraft conflict pairs, the level of risk decreases significantly as you move through airspace classifications G to A. It is absolutely correct to say that in any given volume the level of risk associated with Class C airspace is less than that associated with Class E.
It is NOT correct to say that there should be a disproportionately lower level of risk in an airspace volume simply because you CAN provide a service if that were the case, all of your airspace in Australia would be designated as Class A.
The ICAO Airspace Classification System is about ensuring a uniform and cost appropriate risk level across your country, and all countries.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with class E. The sector I work has had it for years. The problem I have is with replacing C with E for no gain to anyone at all. That is the problem with NAS.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VoR, you will find most people here do not have a hatred for Class E airspace in the correct areas. What people do have a problem with is the fact that huge areas of C airspace in very sensitive areas and in effect at very dangerous stages of RPT jets flights have been replaced with E. E airspace in it's place can work fine, but do you guys think it is acceptable to implement Class E airspace on the major inbound and outbound routes from the Major Capital City airports in Australia. The most difficult time to get visual with traffic, is when a jet is on descent, as it is very difficult to see below you when in a jet on descent. It is also one of the busiest phases of flight for the pilot. Surely this is not the time to make the pilot have to be looking out trying to spot conflicting unalerted VFR traffic. This is one of the big reasons NAS is a farce. Why wouldn't they design the CTA steps to allow the jets to remain in Class C airspace for these phases of their flights?
Also as Ferris said, you may not be aware but the Australian ATC system is designed with all 1200 VFR paints being of the "not concerned" variety and as such show up as a dull, very hard to distinguish light grey colour (unless thats changed since I left for sandier shores), and this in conjunction with the huge scale of Australian sectors in comparison to the US, makes it very difficult to pick up that you have VFR aircraft in your airspace, let alone decide if they are of concern.
I hope this clarifies a couple of the concerns that ATC's at least have with NAS, and the reason it may appear we are against Class E, full stop.
Also as Ferris said, you may not be aware but the Australian ATC system is designed with all 1200 VFR paints being of the "not concerned" variety and as such show up as a dull, very hard to distinguish light grey colour (unless thats changed since I left for sandier shores), and this in conjunction with the huge scale of Australian sectors in comparison to the US, makes it very difficult to pick up that you have VFR aircraft in your airspace, let alone decide if they are of concern.
I hope this clarifies a couple of the concerns that ATC's at least have with NAS, and the reason it may appear we are against Class E, full stop.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In January (in their first thread) VOR said:
The message seems to have changed since then in a most remarkable fashion. Reminds me of when John Laws had been bagging banks for months then came out with "The banks aren't that bad you know..."
Have you become an anti-Dick, and are you preparing the fight againsT PROJECT ROLLBACK?
...and competent FAA radar coverage?
The continental portion of the United States of America is a good example, where the high [but not total] coverage by secondary radar allows the application of Class E, rather than Class C, airspace...
...The third step and this is critical is to test and evaluate the risk mitigations offered by the classification...
...Some States such as the United States of America, and certain European States - have recognised that they have substantial secondary radar coverage, and have been able to factor that coverage, and widespread transponder carriage, in the assessment of risk, allowing Class E airspace to be used more widely
...The third step and this is critical is to test and evaluate the risk mitigations offered by the classification...
...Some States such as the United States of America, and certain European States - have recognised that they have substantial secondary radar coverage, and have been able to factor that coverage, and widespread transponder carriage, in the assessment of risk, allowing Class E airspace to be used more widely
Have you become an anti-Dick, and are you preparing the fight againsT PROJECT ROLLBACK?
...and competent FAA radar coverage?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest of respect, EVERY major airport in the United States is surrounded by Class E airspace in the climb and descent phase of flight. The highest Class B airspace extends to 7000 feet above ground (possibly 10,000 feet at one or two airports) - Class C about the same - ALL the airspace above and around Class B, C and D towers is Class E.
If you cannot see VFR traffic because of the deficiencies of your system [any system, not specifically Australia's system] - then the obligation to pass traffic in respect of observed traffic cannot be met - but the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied.
Pilots operate in this airspace comfortably and consistently on a daily basis.
We stand by all previous posts - any change to current procedures or airspace design MUST be accompanied by appropriate studies, and the contention that appropriate levels of safety are provided explicitly proven.
This thread was meant to defend Class E as a valid and legitimate airspace management option - it is NOT about WHERE it is applied in Australia, or HOW it was implemented.
If you cannot see VFR traffic because of the deficiencies of your system [any system, not specifically Australia's system] - then the obligation to pass traffic in respect of observed traffic cannot be met - but the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied.
Pilots operate in this airspace comfortably and consistently on a daily basis.
We stand by all previous posts - any change to current procedures or airspace design MUST be accompanied by appropriate studies, and the contention that appropriate levels of safety are provided explicitly proven.
This thread was meant to defend Class E as a valid and legitimate airspace management option - it is NOT about WHERE it is applied in Australia, or HOW it was implemented.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We HAVE said in this series of posts that Class E airspace, properly applied, is safe.
Do you mean that Class E, properly applied, is as safe as it can be? Well, anything, properly applied, is as safe as it can be - that's the definition of "properly" in this case. If that's what you mean then you're making a tautology. If not, then please elucidate on how to "properly" apply Class E.
Do you mean that Class E, properly applied, is safe enough? This implies some form of risk/benefit consideration. Given that you make no judgement on the apprioriateness of it's use in the currently designated areas of Australia, then this interpretation of your statement renders it contradictory or meaningless.
So what do you mean by this statement?
If you meant that "safe" is a relative term then saying "Class E, properly applied, is as safe" is meaningless without a comparison.
Sorry to concentrate on this one line of yours, but the word "safe" is a word much abused and I am seeking clarification of what you meant. I might add that you used an even less qualified statement in the thread title "Class E Airspace is Safe", which, intended or not, could serve to get people's backs up and only encourage those who use sophistry to support NAS, to lower the level of debate believing that they have your reputable pseudonymn as support.
If you can provide facts or evidence that Class E airspace NOT its application in Australia but Class E airspace itself is unsafe, then do so.
Again, is it an absolute term? a relative term?
I'll take "unsafe" to mean that, in airspace terms, there is a possibility of an accident even if all procedures are applied correctly.
From this I will demonstrate that, depending on what you wish to define as "properly" in applying procedures, that Class E is unsafe, because either the properly applied procedures allow for an accident, or that or it is impossible to for it to be applied properly. I will use one scenario as a discussion point and we'll see how far we get.
An IFR B737 is on descent into a major aerodrome. A VFR PA31 is cruising along a crossing track at FL115. The paths of the aircraft cross so that a midair collision will occur if nothing is done. Both are in Class E.
One or some of the following parts of the system must work for the collision to be avoided:
ATC sees the PA31 in his/her scan
ATC's STCA works correctly
PA31 has a working transponder
PA31 was transponder turned on
PA31 has working Mode C
PA31 has Mode C selected.
PA31 pilot can see the B737
PA31 is monitoring the ATC frequency
Pilots of the B737 can see the PA31
B737 TCAS is working correctly
Any avoiding action taken will be in different directions.
Assumption 1: Each of these factors are a necessary part of Class E being properly applied.
Because we know that they are not a guarantee it is impossible for Class E to be properly applied, it is thus impossible for Class E to be "safe", therefore it is unsafe.
Assumption 2: Some or none of these factors are part of Class E being properly applied.
If so, then in "properly" applying Class E then we have a midair collision occuring with Class E due to external factors. To talk of Class E being "safe", therefore, in isolation of these factors is to talk in isolation of actual events and therefore meaningless. Given that these factors exist, a collision is possible in Class E when applied properly, therefore Class E is unsafe.
In conclusion, either it is impossible to apply Class E properly, or it is possible. This depends on the definition of applying it "properly". Either way, a midair collision still occurs, therefore either by design or in application, Class E airspace is unsafe.
To make it a bit less esoteric: even if everyone follows the "rules" in Class E, there is still a risk of collision, unless you think the "rules" are everything that avoids and accident, of course, which is unrealistic because you cannot guarantee everything.
It is absolutely correct to say that in any given volume the level of risk associated with Class C airspace is less than that associated with Class E.
VoR your posts are appreciated by many here, and many agree with you. Your "outburst" is hard to understand. In this thread you state that the NAS implementation is flawed, however you come out with a flawed argument concluding somehow that Class E airspace is safe. For one you cite that in the US people don't complain - how is that a valid argument? It is perplexing that given such reasoned and measured arguments put forward by you previously, you come out with a blanket statement is not defined or qualified..
As many have said, so so many times:
Class E is less safe than C. There are no real benefits in replacing C with E as NAS does. Therefore there is a decrease in safety for no real benefit.
No-one has ever, on this forum, shown the actual benefits which outweigh the increased risk in Class E in NAS. The increased risk has been demonstrated, the benefits haven't.
Instead of challenging others to prove Class E as safe (fruitless exercise ; ), we should be challenging others to prove why it is needed.
HtH
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since its implementation how many pilots have you heard using the "IFR Pick Up" and VFR CLIMB/Descent"?
I have heard none. In WA all the professional operators refuse to use these new procedures, if they had I think we would have already had a mid air or at the least some very close calls. A more flexilbe system they say, then why is no one using it????
I have heard none. In WA all the professional operators refuse to use these new procedures, if they had I think we would have already had a mid air or at the least some very close calls. A more flexilbe system they say, then why is no one using it????
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say What?
VoR,
I was very surprised about your latest post.
Nowhere have I seen the ATC's or professional pilots of OZ say that E airspace (per se) was unsafe.
Read ****su-tonka's post again.
As for questioning the airspace design. Why not? Just cause, in your opinion, European and US ATC don't question, this makes OZ ATC and pilots some sort of whinging lunatic fringe. Perhaps those that question have legitimate concerns? Just because it is done in the US and Europe it is immediately acceptable for OZ. No way, baby.
It all sounds like an argument put forward by Dick. In fact, your last couple of posts read like something written by Dick, and not the reasoned, logical VoR we have heard from before.
Lets get something straight.
Fact: ATCs and pilots in OZ do not object to Class E airspace. We've been using it for over 5 years. We object to the airspace design incorporating E airspace in the descent/climb profiles of fare paying jets into busy airfields like Brisbane and Melbourne.
What is the difference between Dick and a computer?
Only have to punch the information into the computer once.
I was very surprised about your latest post.
Nowhere have I seen the ATC's or professional pilots of OZ say that E airspace (per se) was unsafe.
Read ****su-tonka's post again.
As for questioning the airspace design. Why not? Just cause, in your opinion, European and US ATC don't question, this makes OZ ATC and pilots some sort of whinging lunatic fringe. Perhaps those that question have legitimate concerns? Just because it is done in the US and Europe it is immediately acceptable for OZ. No way, baby.
It all sounds like an argument put forward by Dick. In fact, your last couple of posts read like something written by Dick, and not the reasoned, logical VoR we have heard from before.
Lets get something straight.
Fact: ATCs and pilots in OZ do not object to Class E airspace. We've been using it for over 5 years. We object to the airspace design incorporating E airspace in the descent/climb profiles of fare paying jets into busy airfields like Brisbane and Melbourne.
What is the difference between Dick and a computer?
Only have to punch the information into the computer once.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying you are not aware that the US does not OPERATE it's Class E differently to other places, and particularly, ICAO?
Have a look at the thread on the ATC forum about Class E procedures, and you will see a panorama of different applications. US controllers claim to "morally separate" as well as pass traffic, and their parameters for operating their E like C differ to how the Brits do it (1000' or 3000' for example). But all this is an aside to the oz issue; ATC is different in the US to oz. Why? Because oz controllers are wearing 3 hats while they do ATC; flight data, FS and ATC. Where in the states is en-route control done that way? All these dry arguments about comparing the US to oz don't refelct coalface reality- a common problem in ATC. I could go on for ages about this subject, but I'll just leave you with a simple question;
IF CLASS E IS "SAFE", WHY ISN'T ALL THE AIRSPACE IN THE US, OR THE WORLD, CLASS E? Note: See HeretoHelp's post.
What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia
IF CLASS E IS "SAFE", WHY ISN'T ALL THE AIRSPACE IN THE US, OR THE WORLD, CLASS E? Note: See HeretoHelp's post.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had I read this before I posted, it would have been a shorter post : )
So you would agree that a mid air collision can still happen in Class E even when "the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied." Given what I wrote previously, this surely cannot be called "safe". (In isolation from reality, talking about Class E as a design concept, sure, it could be seen as safe, but what does that mean in reality?)
I quote from the ATSB interim report, to use the most recent incident as an example and to demonstrate that this is not just an intellectual exercise:
So we had a near collision with everyone doing the right thing. In fact, the report details that all parties did more than required by the system.
If this is an unacceptable situation, then, according to your reasoning, it must be due to the location of the Class E airspace and not the design of Class E itself. It cannot be the implementation (eg education and training) because the ATSB says that all parties followed the correct Class E procedures.
Now, you say:
That's fine - and no-one here has said that all Class E should be removed - it has been part of our airspace for a number of years. No-one says that Class E shouldn't be used anywhere.
However, you do cite examples of US airspace which seem to work fine (because no-one complains and there are no controllers calling for an increase in services), which to me means that you are also implying that any similar airspace in Australia should be fine and why are we all kicking up a fuss?
If our Melbourne and Brisbane E airspace is similar to that used near cities in the US, then, given your comments on the US system, it should be perfectly OK to have E in these places.
Well,
We have Class E in this airspace
We have the procedures being applied correctly (ATSB report)
We have a TCAS RA.
This is not acceptable to many people here, regardless of how acceptable it may be in the US or Europe. The location of the Class E is wrong, and just because it seems to be acceptable for similar locations in the US, it doesn't follow that it should be acceptable in Australia.
It actually begs the question of "Why is it acceptable in the US?"
In answering this question, maybe we can reveal more about how the differences in aviation, culture and infrastructure cause this difference between Australia and the US.
If you cannot see VFR traffic because of the deficiencies of your system [any system, not specifically Australia's system] - then the obligation to pass traffic in respect of observed traffic cannot be met - but the designed procedures for Class E airspace are still satisfied.
I quote from the ATSB interim report, to use the most recent incident as an example and to demonstrate that this is not just an intellectual exercise:
..the crews of both aircraft and the ATS controller complied with the published procedures for Class E airspace under NAS.
If this is an unacceptable situation, then, according to your reasoning, it must be due to the location of the Class E airspace and not the design of Class E itself. It cannot be the implementation (eg education and training) because the ATSB says that all parties followed the correct Class E procedures.
Now, you say:
This thread was meant to defend Class E as a valid and legitimate airspace management option - it is NOT about WHERE it is applied in Australia, or HOW it was implemented.
However, you do cite examples of US airspace which seem to work fine (because no-one complains and there are no controllers calling for an increase in services), which to me means that you are also implying that any similar airspace in Australia should be fine and why are we all kicking up a fuss?
If our Melbourne and Brisbane E airspace is similar to that used near cities in the US, then, given your comments on the US system, it should be perfectly OK to have E in these places.
Well,
We have Class E in this airspace
We have the procedures being applied correctly (ATSB report)
We have a TCAS RA.
This is not acceptable to many people here, regardless of how acceptable it may be in the US or Europe. The location of the Class E is wrong, and just because it seems to be acceptable for similar locations in the US, it doesn't follow that it should be acceptable in Australia.
It actually begs the question of "Why is it acceptable in the US?"
In answering this question, maybe we can reveal more about how the differences in aviation, culture and infrastructure cause this difference between Australia and the US.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, as evidenced by VoR's constant use of the word "We", that some assimilation by the Borg has possibly taken place.
Naturally, as the cutest of that species, I approve.
Other evidence of assimilation comes from the unspoken yet dominant, "Resistance is Futile" theme.
I think you should all keep that in mind when reading future post's from VoR.
Perhaps that too explains Winstun and his drone-ish, anti-social behaviour?!
Maybe Dick as well... the apparent automaton like behaviour and the unwillingness to accept direction from anyone except the collective mind.
It bears thinking about....
I am the Cutest of Borg!!
Naturally, as the cutest of that species, I approve.
Other evidence of assimilation comes from the unspoken yet dominant, "Resistance is Futile" theme.
I think you should all keep that in mind when reading future post's from VoR.
Perhaps that too explains Winstun and his drone-ish, anti-social behaviour?!
Maybe Dick as well... the apparent automaton like behaviour and the unwillingness to accept direction from anyone except the collective mind.
It bears thinking about....
I am the Cutest of Borg!!