Why should we be as restrictive as the US?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should we be as restrictive as the US?
New NAS proposal
Following the debacle that has been NAS implementation so far, I offer the following as a solution:
Design Criteria
1. Follow ICAO methodology as far as practicable.
2. Where compatible, follow the United States model.
3. Eliminate local variations completely, if possible.
Airspace Model
1. Class A: Above the transition layer (Compliant with the US model)
Comment: The US model of Class A airspace above the transition layer appears to be unnecessarily restrictive, in that it does not allow VFR flight. Perhaps Class B airspace could be used in Australia, to allow less restrictive procedures to apply to VFR aircraft, thus stimulating GA activity.
2. Class B: All busy airports, typically capital city and major regional airports.
3. Class C: less busy airports, such as regional centres.
4. Class D: Existing GAAP and smaller airports.
5. Class E: From 700/1200AGL up to the transition layer, outside of Class B, C and D steps. This is entirely consistent with the US model, where class E extends up to the transition layer. As noted above, Class A above the transition layer would be too restrictive, and a relaxation to Class B is warranted in Australia.
6. Class F: Not used (compliant with the US model)
7. Class G: Everywhere else (Compliant with the US model)
The above model has the following advantages:
1. It is fully compliant with both ICAO and the US model.
2. It does not require the mooted ‘enhanced’ Class E procedures which are currently being considered.
3. It removes the ‘no VFR above FL180’ restriction which exists in the US, with no discernible adverse impact on safety. This will allow GA activity in Australia which is not possible under the restrictions imposed in the US.
4. It allows the majority of VFR flights (the unpressurised light aircraft) to benefit from the freedoms of Class E airspace)
5. It affords safety to the majority of RPT operations, which would be contained within Classes B, C or D.
Comments?
Following the debacle that has been NAS implementation so far, I offer the following as a solution:
Design Criteria
1. Follow ICAO methodology as far as practicable.
2. Where compatible, follow the United States model.
3. Eliminate local variations completely, if possible.
Airspace Model
1. Class A: Above the transition layer (Compliant with the US model)
Comment: The US model of Class A airspace above the transition layer appears to be unnecessarily restrictive, in that it does not allow VFR flight. Perhaps Class B airspace could be used in Australia, to allow less restrictive procedures to apply to VFR aircraft, thus stimulating GA activity.
2. Class B: All busy airports, typically capital city and major regional airports.
3. Class C: less busy airports, such as regional centres.
4. Class D: Existing GAAP and smaller airports.
5. Class E: From 700/1200AGL up to the transition layer, outside of Class B, C and D steps. This is entirely consistent with the US model, where class E extends up to the transition layer. As noted above, Class A above the transition layer would be too restrictive, and a relaxation to Class B is warranted in Australia.
6. Class F: Not used (compliant with the US model)
7. Class G: Everywhere else (Compliant with the US model)
The above model has the following advantages:
1. It is fully compliant with both ICAO and the US model.
2. It does not require the mooted ‘enhanced’ Class E procedures which are currently being considered.
3. It removes the ‘no VFR above FL180’ restriction which exists in the US, with no discernible adverse impact on safety. This will allow GA activity in Australia which is not possible under the restrictions imposed in the US.
4. It allows the majority of VFR flights (the unpressurised light aircraft) to benefit from the freedoms of Class E airspace)
5. It affords safety to the majority of RPT operations, which would be contained within Classes B, C or D.
Comments?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4-7-11 the only thing I can see that may be restrictive in the proposal you have is that all enroute controllers will become demi-approach controllers at most aerodromes. This may cause some delays in areas not contained within good radar coverage. Other than that, I like it. Cheers,
NFR.
NFR.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last a clear concise and unambiguous post as to what the airspace criteria are worldwide. No spin, no brainwashing, no table slamming, just plain commonsense. Keep up the good works fellow professionals out there as we will win. Anybody out there (most of us in the industry) have had to put up with so many untruths etc. the last twelve months or so it`s going to make the unravelling, sorry i meant roll back, sorry i meant revision to current procedures (remember, commonsense does not apply) oh so sweet. See Dick, if only you`d listen to us you could have backed down without too much loss of face whereas now it`s a Royal Commission for you & your parasites now. It will be interesting to see the terminalogical inexactitudes proffered to get out from under the faecal matter as it falls from this one.
BY THE WAY DICK, EVEN YOU MUST BY NOW REALISE THE BLEEDIN OBVIOUS.....YOUR WRONG.....
BY THE WAY DICK, EVEN YOU MUST BY NOW REALISE THE BLEEDIN OBVIOUS.....YOUR WRONG.....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the right track...
4711 and others... pretty much on the right track. We shouldn't be controlling anything in Class B, C or E that doesn't have full-time radar coverage. Even the Class D tower at a secondary airport here in Pittsburgh has a "radar-repeater", which is nothing more than a hook up to Pittsburgh's radar room.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with determining your own airspace requirements or limitations, and this is still done in all ICAO countries. My only urging is that you do not consider non-radar airspace that has non-contributing VFR traffic "controlled".
Whatever is decided, must be done quickly, so as to restore the travelling publics faith and allow instructors the time and ability to get people back into the air with a safe working knowledge of the rules.
I am very concerned about AOPA. In the past, they have only promoted doing everything as cheaply as possible, flying wherever they want, without telling anyone and paying nothing to do it.
Flying was never supposed to be cheap! It's supposed to be safe.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with determining your own airspace requirements or limitations, and this is still done in all ICAO countries. My only urging is that you do not consider non-radar airspace that has non-contributing VFR traffic "controlled".
Whatever is decided, must be done quickly, so as to restore the travelling publics faith and allow instructors the time and ability to get people back into the air with a safe working knowledge of the rules.
I am very concerned about AOPA. In the past, they have only promoted doing everything as cheaply as possible, flying wherever they want, without telling anyone and paying nothing to do it.
Flying was never supposed to be cheap! It's supposed to be safe.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Aus
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to see the transition layer raised, to allow easier access to the 10,000 to 14,000 level for VFR also. I would like to see the USA 18,000 feet used, as an altitude and FL, but if that seems too high or gives the FSS more work to do passing area QNH, the NZ (ICAO) 13,000 would be at least better than what we have right now.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4711:
Great analysis, but I propose you submit it formally to Airservices Australia, CASA, DOD and (unfortunately) the ARG (or whatever its new name is).
The idea won't do much if it just sits on this forum.
Great analysis, but I propose you submit it formally to Airservices Australia, CASA, DOD and (unfortunately) the ARG (or whatever its new name is).
The idea won't do much if it just sits on this forum.
Four Seven Eleven, it is great to see the amount of Class E airspace in your proposed airspace model considering how much it was hated by ATCs and pilots. You probably remember that under the AMATS changes Class E was originally to be introduced on a trial basis in December 1992 and be totally operating to the US system by June on 1994.
After I finished my term as Chairman of CAA those who were against change won the day.
You may remember that no Class E airspace was introduced until I came back as Chairman in 1998 and even then it required a lot of hands-on work that I am always criticised for. Even now Class E airspace is resisted and not working correctly as pilots and air traffic controllers have not been properly trained, and as you have pointed out the MATS documentation has never been correctly written for Class E. One day you will get some leaders who have vision I’m sure.
The message here is that there is always great resistance to change and it is good to see that I have had an influence and you are now pushing for more Class E airspace. Since I instigated the AMATS changes in December 1991, I have always been a strong supporter for using Class E airspace in the way the US does. It is very efficient as it has the advantages of Class A airspace when IMC exists, and the flexibility of Class G airspace when VMC exists.
After I finished my term as Chairman of CAA those who were against change won the day.
You may remember that no Class E airspace was introduced until I came back as Chairman in 1998 and even then it required a lot of hands-on work that I am always criticised for. Even now Class E airspace is resisted and not working correctly as pilots and air traffic controllers have not been properly trained, and as you have pointed out the MATS documentation has never been correctly written for Class E. One day you will get some leaders who have vision I’m sure.
The message here is that there is always great resistance to change and it is good to see that I have had an influence and you are now pushing for more Class E airspace. Since I instigated the AMATS changes in December 1991, I have always been a strong supporter for using Class E airspace in the way the US does. It is very efficient as it has the advantages of Class A airspace when IMC exists, and the flexibility of Class G airspace when VMC exists.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
%Rubbish!!
Dick,
Air traffic controllers in this country are NOT opposed to Class E airspace.
This has been repeated many times in this forum, yet you still don't get the message!
It's where the E airspace is located which has become an issue.
We have had E airspace on the east coast of OZ, where I work, since the early nineties. It works, but not where high speed/performnce aircraft carrying fare paying passengers have to "see and avoid" non-identified, unverified, intentions unknown VFR aircraft.
Dick, you got it wrong.......again!
Air traffic controllers in this country are NOT opposed to Class E airspace.
This has been repeated many times in this forum, yet you still don't get the message!
It's where the E airspace is located which has become an issue.
We have had E airspace on the east coast of OZ, where I work, since the early nineties. It works, but not where high speed/performnce aircraft carrying fare paying passengers have to "see and avoid" non-identified, unverified, intentions unknown VFR aircraft.
Dick, you got it wrong.......again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even now Class E airspace is resisted and not working correctly…
What more needs to be said?
Dangerous amateurs – wrecking the Australian aviation industry.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee. Whatever would've oz aviation done without Dick?
Posts dripping with self-adulation are just the best!
So Dick, would you be prepared to balance the 'good' you have done, with the damage ?
And if you keep referring to US ClassE as ICAO ClassE, and the actual airspace that is in oz, you'll need to 'spin it' better than you have so far. THE CAT IS GETTING OUT OF THE BAG, AND THE PUBLIC ARE WISING UP! The clock is ticking for you (again).
Posts dripping with self-adulation are just the best!
So Dick, would you be prepared to balance the 'good' you have done, with the damage ?
And if you keep referring to US ClassE as ICAO ClassE, and the actual airspace that is in oz, you'll need to 'spin it' better than you have so far. THE CAT IS GETTING OUT OF THE BAG, AND THE PUBLIC ARE WISING UP! The clock is ticking for you (again).
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a change in attitude.
Alright, so I must admit to being guilty of this myself, but we are not helping anybody by continually beating up Mr Smith.
As a turbo-jet captain who flies with a broad spectrum of experience levels, I am still compelled to act with respect and even admiration of those subordinates that call my faults in the spirit of a safe operation. No I've not got into any trouble, but it's probably because I have fostered a strong team spirit that has allowed people to speak up without fear of reprisalty action.
Mr Smith, you have flown around the world and caught flying glimpses of the airspaces you have traversed. I have worked and fed my family for fourteen years in the US Airspace. From flying instruction in Cessnas to teaching systems and procedural training on the Boeing 757/767 in Seattle at Flight Safety/Boeing, on behalf of a major US airline.
You have claimed in the past to know of my ignorance regarding Class E airspace, but the truth is, I really wonder, with the lack of regulatory compliance, near-miss incidents, arguing and misunderstanding, whether anyone in Australia really understands what it is we actually do over here. You seem to be humbled more recently with your responses (a good sign), you've apologised on national radio (a good sign), and your posts here seem to be a little more close to the mark.
If you want to talk about this some more, call me on 0011.1.724.493.0000 or e-mail me on [email protected].
I am happy to help out any way I can, including providing a national training sylabus for whatever system you decide upon.
Sincerely,
Chris Higgins
As a turbo-jet captain who flies with a broad spectrum of experience levels, I am still compelled to act with respect and even admiration of those subordinates that call my faults in the spirit of a safe operation. No I've not got into any trouble, but it's probably because I have fostered a strong team spirit that has allowed people to speak up without fear of reprisalty action.
Mr Smith, you have flown around the world and caught flying glimpses of the airspaces you have traversed. I have worked and fed my family for fourteen years in the US Airspace. From flying instruction in Cessnas to teaching systems and procedural training on the Boeing 757/767 in Seattle at Flight Safety/Boeing, on behalf of a major US airline.
You have claimed in the past to know of my ignorance regarding Class E airspace, but the truth is, I really wonder, with the lack of regulatory compliance, near-miss incidents, arguing and misunderstanding, whether anyone in Australia really understands what it is we actually do over here. You seem to be humbled more recently with your responses (a good sign), you've apologised on national radio (a good sign), and your posts here seem to be a little more close to the mark.
If you want to talk about this some more, call me on 0011.1.724.493.0000 or e-mail me on [email protected].
I am happy to help out any way I can, including providing a national training sylabus for whatever system you decide upon.
Sincerely,
Chris Higgins
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How will GAAP towers provide a D service under the current separation rules without causing significant delays to IFR?
How will enroute controllers provide an non-radar separation service to IFR's into/out of regional non-towered airports with E airspace down to 700' or 1200' when there is more than one aircraft and conditions are IMC?
Has anyone considered how inefficient the IMC E airspace system can be?
How will enroute controllers provide an non-radar separation service to IFR's into/out of regional non-towered airports with E airspace down to 700' or 1200' when there is more than one aircraft and conditions are IMC?
Has anyone considered how inefficient the IMC E airspace system can be?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG now we are getting more towards the real picture. It is because of the low level of E airspace (700') that IFR pick Up is required. With the current airspace it is never (well maybe once or twice) used. When VMC exists it should be Hunky Dorey but I bet a pound of no****sherlock that the regionals will not use it so effectively for the IMC will always exist.
The sysytem was working Nov 26 last year. VFRs could go many more places then than they can now (not above 180 now) and it cost exactly the same to fly the same flight then as now and the rediculous flight plan/non flight plan pop up requests are dealt exactly the same way now as then. But as we see in another thread, some $75million has been wasted to stroke some retard's ego.
The sysytem was working Nov 26 last year. VFRs could go many more places then than they can now (not above 180 now) and it cost exactly the same to fly the same flight then as now and the rediculous flight plan/non flight plan pop up requests are dealt exactly the same way now as then. But as we see in another thread, some $75million has been wasted to stroke some retard's ego.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CH,
You are both brave and generous, but I fear your generousity is misplaced as the the named individual will with all probability not contact you. To do so would be a tacit admission that he is wrong (which never happens) and that the problems are to some degree of his making (thus disproving the "it was a conspiricy against me/they resist change/it is a union beat up/they don't understand the underlying premis that is based on my beliefs" explainations).
But thanks anyway
You are both brave and generous, but I fear your generousity is misplaced as the the named individual will with all probability not contact you. To do so would be a tacit admission that he is wrong (which never happens) and that the problems are to some degree of his making (thus disproving the "it was a conspiricy against me/they resist change/it is a union beat up/they don't understand the underlying premis that is based on my beliefs" explainations).
But thanks anyway
With the greatest respect to 4711, class E airspace sucks, period. In busy non-radar airspace, all it does is lumber IFR with huge separation standards that destroy economical operations. But you didn't come and ask us, did you Dick? AusNAS VMC Climb and Descent do not exist in the USA above very low levels, because they're almost always on radar so these tin-pot half-baked workarounds for the severe limitations of non-radar E are not necessary. Additionally, ICAO VMC Climb and Decsent require the approval of BOTH parties, and it is NOT permitted above A100.
For the Australian application, Class F (as we have now) provides the greatest flexibility, with an adequate level of safety, in non-radar airspace. Ask any West Group controller what it'd be like covering the WA Goldfields with Class E down to FL145 or, god forbid, lower. And don't forget the extra cost.
Let's remember the ONLY reason Dick likes E: it allows him to go where he pleases, when he pleases, talking to no-one.
For the Australian application, Class F (as we have now) provides the greatest flexibility, with an adequate level of safety, in non-radar airspace. Ask any West Group controller what it'd be like covering the WA Goldfields with Class E down to FL145 or, god forbid, lower. And don't forget the extra cost.
Let's remember the ONLY reason Dick likes E: it allows him to go where he pleases, when he pleases, talking to no-one.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to insult anyone....
Captain Bloggs and all....
I really think that our group therapy on this and the long volumes of Dick bashing have to come to an end. We need to go forward now.
I will agree that Mr Smith has taken a very defensive posture on what he saw as an attempt at progress. Maybe his implementation lacked proper planning...remember, he is an entrepreneur. Let's pick up where he left off and fix the problem.
That way there will be nobody to blame...because, there will be no problem!
Sincerely,
Chris Higgins
I really think that our group therapy on this and the long volumes of Dick bashing have to come to an end. We need to go forward now.
I will agree that Mr Smith has taken a very defensive posture on what he saw as an attempt at progress. Maybe his implementation lacked proper planning...remember, he is an entrepreneur. Let's pick up where he left off and fix the problem.
That way there will be nobody to blame...because, there will be no problem!
Sincerely,
Chris Higgins