Why should we be as restrictive as the US?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. Special VFR
Chris, if you are referring to my post, then yours doesn't make sense.
Current GAAP rules don't include special VFR.
For D airspace, special VFR for VFR category only, states that there be no undue delay for IFR traffic. Special VFR allows VFRs to fly clear of cloud (instead of 1000' vertically and 1500m horizontally).
I don't think an IFRy descending on an instrument approach into the circuit to get visual, being given traffic on VFRs in the circuit, of which there are many, and operating close to the cloud base, is a feasible way to operate.
As for radar hand-offs, Bankstown is the only radar display (TSAD) equipped GAAP tower in the country.
If the airspace is D, then all IFR's have to be separated from each other, and under current rules, this may prove difficult, with the amount of traffic currently at GAAP airports.
CG
Chris, if you are referring to my post, then yours doesn't make sense.
Current GAAP rules don't include special VFR.
For D airspace, special VFR for VFR category only, states that there be no undue delay for IFR traffic. Special VFR allows VFRs to fly clear of cloud (instead of 1000' vertically and 1500m horizontally).
I don't think an IFRy descending on an instrument approach into the circuit to get visual, being given traffic on VFRs in the circuit, of which there are many, and operating close to the cloud base, is a feasible way to operate.
As for radar hand-offs, Bankstown is the only radar display (TSAD) equipped GAAP tower in the country.
If the airspace is D, then all IFR's have to be separated from each other, and under current rules, this may prove difficult, with the amount of traffic currently at GAAP airports.
CG
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith's contact
Despite assurances from many that Dick Smith would not contact me, he did so right away...at his own expense and talked at great length about his many concerns over the latest changes to the Australian Airspace.
He was both respectful and energetic in his views and I found him to be very professional and respectful of my experiences here in the States.
I look forward to working with him some more and with the many of you who have solutions to the problems that we are confronted with.
Let's fix the problem! Stop shooting down reputations.
He was both respectful and energetic in his views and I found him to be very professional and respectful of my experiences here in the States.
I look forward to working with him some more and with the many of you who have solutions to the problems that we are confronted with.
Let's fix the problem! Stop shooting down reputations.
What??!! He actually listened? Unbelievable. My ears are still ringing from 5 years ago.
Chris Higgins I could not agree more. I am sure you will get plenty of support for your call...
The issue seems to be though that "the problem" is the NAS and the changes that came in on 27 Nov 2003.
When you say...
Are you talking about the changes Dick is pushing for or the changes to his beloved NAS required by CASA and AsA (the professional bodies responsible for aviation in Australia)?
CASA does not want US CTAFs. MBZs are here to stay. They are to be relied on as experts are they not?
AsA issued new supplementary charts to all pilots showing the area frequency boundaries that NAS had removed. They considered this necessary and the right thing to do.
Are these the changes Dick is concerned about?
Let's fix the problem! Stop shooting down reputations
When you say...
(Dick)...talked at great length about his many concerns over the latest changes to the Australian Airspace.
CASA does not want US CTAFs. MBZs are here to stay. They are to be relied on as experts are they not?
AsA issued new supplementary charts to all pilots showing the area frequency boundaries that NAS had removed. They considered this necessary and the right thing to do.
Are these the changes Dick is concerned about?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Bloggs,
I agree completely with your assertions about non-radar class E.
Without surveillance E starting at mid levels is potentially a reduction in safety compared to the currently implemented G.
Consider the situation of a busy non-radar environment with E base F145 in IMC, IFR aircraft depart from aerodromes in G and call for clearances, the ATC cant provide everyone clearances because procedural separation standards are very big, so the aircraft are delayed at F140 and below - burning oodles of gas and getting closer to all the other aircraft also stuck at F140 than they should, artificially increasing the traffic density at the levels immediately below CTA. Anyone who has flown in the goldfiields knows this can happen. At least now you get the benefit of the big sky up to F180.
With ADSB or some other form of surveillance we could push CTA down, but to do it when we cannot actually provide the service levels required is just plain dumb.
I agree completely with your assertions about non-radar class E.
Without surveillance E starting at mid levels is potentially a reduction in safety compared to the currently implemented G.
Consider the situation of a busy non-radar environment with E base F145 in IMC, IFR aircraft depart from aerodromes in G and call for clearances, the ATC cant provide everyone clearances because procedural separation standards are very big, so the aircraft are delayed at F140 and below - burning oodles of gas and getting closer to all the other aircraft also stuck at F140 than they should, artificially increasing the traffic density at the levels immediately below CTA. Anyone who has flown in the goldfiields knows this can happen. At least now you get the benefit of the big sky up to F180.
With ADSB or some other form of surveillance we could push CTA down, but to do it when we cannot actually provide the service levels required is just plain dumb.
