Airservices’ impressive US Class D towers

[peuce]

Dick Smith said:

"The fact that the tower “owns” the airspace to 8,500 feet (or is it 12,500 feet?) is a hangover from the old pre-radar days. It is a bit like the FSOs keeping their airspace for many years after radar was introduced – and therefore unintentionally lowering safety."

Unfortunately, just more generalized rhetoric, Dick.

How did "FSOs keeping their airspace" ... "...lower safety"?

Firstly, as if they had any say in any decision to keep airspace. Airspace classification was well and truly others' responsibility. If it was deemed OCTA, FSOs looked after it. If it was deemed Controlled Airspace, ATCs looked after it.

Secondly, the availability of tools to perform ones duties was also in the hands of others ... specifically, at the time, you. You have stated previously on this forum that you failed in getting radar made available to FSOs.

Don't turn your lost opportunity to increase safety into someone else's fault.... sound's like your complaint about the ASA Board, doesn't it?

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight, I have spoken to controllers (admittedly a small number) who work in Class D towers and are not happy with the present system – i.e. the Class C above D. They have said that they are not game to say this publicly because they would be lynched by the small but vocal group who has a very different view.

My suggestion is that you have a look at some of the incidents that occur in Class D – things like aircraft being cleared for take off at Alice Springs and the pilot coming back and saying, “Ahh, isn’t that a vehicle on the runway?”

None of these incidents are ever looked at in relation to whether the controller made the error because of workload in separating aircraft in the Class C airspace above – without even radar.

As I have mentioned previously, the serious incident at Hamilton Island took place when the controller was holding aircraft outside the zone. What was not looked at is how much the pressure of doing this (i.e. knowing they were holding people in a single engine aircraft orbiting over water) added to the situation which allowed the error regarding the IFR airline aircraft to take place.

It is interesting that when I have explained to US controllers how the Australian system works (with a single controller operating not only the Class D airspace to 4,500 feet but also the Class C to 8,500 feet and up to 90 miles across) they say I must be mistaken. They cannot believe that such a situation can exist and that controllers would accept Class C without radar.

Of course we will only need one accident in Class D airspace to move to follow international practice. That is, where Class E airspace is above the Class D (meaning that controllers can concentrate on the airspace close to the aerodrome) or where approach radar is provided with adequate staffing levels.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, it was not so much that I “failed in getting radar made available to FSOs” but the fact that it would have been ridiculous. We would have ended up with a totally duplicated system with two different unions, and aircraft in all of the low level radar airspace would not have been provided with a separation service – as FSOs are not trained to “control” aircraft.

Are you then going to suggest that I should have got the FSOs a rating so they could “control” aircraft but still be called FSOs?

The fact that FSOs keeping their airspace lowered safety is self-explanatory. That is, for two decades the low level airspace which was covered effectively by radar between Melbourne and Cairns was operated by officers who were in a different room and did not have a radar screen. It is pretty obvious that this system lowered safety.

At least we now have that airspace covered by air traffic controllers who actually have a radar screen in front of them.

Now we have to move forward and actually provide a proper air traffic control service in the airspace covered by radar. Then we will really be doing something for aviation safety in this country.

Isn’t it amazing that with over 25 years of resistance to change, we are still only slowly moving forward? I understand that Airservices are planning to do a “trial” of low level Class E airspace at Ballina. Don’t hold your breath though. As I have said, 6 months after it comes in I bet you will find that airline pilots think it is fantastic, wouldn’t want to go back, and find that they are not unduly delayed.

[peuce]

Sorry Dick, I'm not going to let you get away with this one ...

You said:
"Are you then going to suggest that I should have got the FSOs a rating so they could “control” aircraft but still be called FSOs?"

I did not suggest this. I did not suggest anything. I only asked you to validate your statement. I'm pretty sick of throw away lines.

You said:
"The fact that FSOs keeping their airspace lowered safety is self-explanatory. That is, for two decades the low level airspace which was covered effectively by radar between Melbourne and Cairns was operated by officers who were in a different room and did not have a radar screen. It is pretty obvious that this system lowered safety."

1. How did FSOs "keep" their airspace?
2. What is the data on which you base your statement that "safety was lowered"? Lowered from what?

I'll save you some time in trying to read between my lines.

Safety was never lowered by CAA retaining FSOs to manage Uncontrolled Airspace.

I think what you meant (correct me if I've got it wrong) is that safety was not improved ... because the airspace was not given to the Controllers who had Radar.

The success and efficiency of that eventual move could also be debated ... at another time.

[TCFOR]

Yes Yes Yes, but in the interests of honest amusement; Dick, did you follow up with the FAA on the bloke in the wheeelchair who got the free aero's in Hawaii? I can't wait for that one...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Tch Tch Tch...Again....

'Holy **** BATMAN' = Gee Dick = Just W H E R E do I start???

FSO's with RADAR??

We did actually try for that one, ...BUT.....the ability for FSO's to give the 'Directed Traffic Information Service' was not really in doubt - we would much have preferred to have the facility so that we could then give MEANINGFUL DTI - instead of simply relying on pilots to report positions 'ON TIME' @ a Location!!

Some pilots were not entirely 'honest' , as you can well imagine......
e.g. I said I would be there at time ...36...so, at time 36 I made the call...your honour!!!

Services were then provided with a VERY CLEAR CUT BOUNDARY - CTA / OCTA!!

Easy!!!!

Let the ATC's actually control those acft in CTA, and....wait for it......I know its gunna hurt to hear it......but.....then those 'pesky' FSO's could actually provide the Directed Traffic Info to those OTHER acft which were actually flying O C T A, and on ANOTHER FREQ so that there would be NO CONGESTION!!!

You see, we all know that FSO's were never actually employed to 'CONTROL' acft, just to provide the filling in the 'gaps' of info to the then MAJORITY OF AIRCRAFT - FOKKERS, PIPERS, CESSNAS, BEECH QUEENAIRS, and the like - who were then the MAJOR OCTA RPT & CHARTER OPERATORS.....operating into the majority of OZ airspace........you know, away from the "J" curve??? Excuse me, I'm shouting now......

Now, we have mostly high-flyers (Turbos) doing the same work. (IN CTA...UNTIL they DESCEND.....) So the times, they are a'changin'.......

Now, I realise full well we ain't goin' back - but - when you realise what we HAD vs what we've GOT....welll....I have to ask ya....WAS IT WORTH IT???

Considering that the $$$'s go back to the GOVT Consolidated revenue to finance whatever..... BUT NOT TO IMPROVE the present 'SYSTEM' ...or lack thereof????

All to save a few bucks at the coalface.....

And, not forgetting, then, as is now, very little of that magic RADAR away from the "J" curve = the rest of OZ!!!!

[Howabout]

Oh, Ex FSO GRIFFO, if only you knew how much I remember and lament the passing of FS. A wonderful organisation dismantled by a zealot (would the term 'fundamentalist' apply?). Many were the days in the north that I recall an absolutely professional and friendly service. I was only a kid, but my uncle flew charter, and I used to go along for the ride. I had a lot of contact in the Top End with the FS guys through my uncle. Sure, it cost the Commonwealth a few bucks, but when you are over the East Alligator River in a C172 that starts sneezing, FS always knew where you were. On the other hand, maybe I'm so far out of date that a flight note would replace the: assistance, advice, monitoring, traffic information, hazard alerts, get your clearance into controlled airspace and generally make you feel that someone was listening out for you that actually gave a rat's.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, I too liked the Flight Service system and I have stated this many times. The problem is that it wasn’t the Commonwealth paying for it, it was our industry. This was a decision made by the Labor Government before my involvement.

It was also obvious that the airline industry was going to force those who benefited from Flight Service to pay for it. It seemed sensible to train the FSOs as ATCs – for the ones who wanted this additional training – and then change the system so it is basically operated by ATCs.

It did mean quite a number of people losing their jobs. I was aware of that and did not like it in any way – but surely this was better than destroying a whole industry where three or four times as many people could lose their jobs. I know a number of FSOs who trained to be ATCs and worked through to retirement earning additional money along the way.

Direct.no.speed, you do not seem to understand what I am trying to explain and why in other countries Class D airspace is small. It is small in dimensions so the controller can concentrate on the traffic that is most likely to collide – i.e. on the runway and close to the airport. If you then give that same controller airspace responsibilities that are 20, 30, or 40 miles away, and capture lots more traffic, the result is obvious – less concentration on the traffic that is close.

Show me an airport in the world that is similar to Albury – where one controller in the tower controls Class C airspace to 8,500 feet that is 90 miles across. You will find there is no such place in the world – other than Australia – because it results in a lowering of safety.

It is beyond me why controllers in Aussie Class D towers would want this extra responsibility when Government policy says they do not need to have it, and there is no additional income for Airservices – and therefore for the controllers.

[GaryGnu]

Class vs Allocation

Dick,

Some of the points you have are valid, BUT, none of them have to do with the Airspace Classification. Your arguments revolve around the way the airspace is allocated between controllers. Whether it was Class E or C makes little difference. In fact there might even be an argument that Class E presents a higher workload for controllers, but I'll leave that to others.

Why does the airspace above the Control Zone have to be Class E in order for it to be controlled by a "TRACON" type unit. Would not it be just as effectively be operated as Class C outside of Tower hours (i.e when its dark and therefore no VFR traffic)?

I will give you a tip, if you want to gain the support of the professional pilots in this country (not just the AOPA brigade) advocate airspace changes that move up the ICAO scale, not down. Yes that does suggest a Towered Control Zone at Avalon of any Class would get support if it is introduced properly and according to transperent processes.

Give up on introducing Class E in lieu of Class C over any control zone (D or C). It will simply not get the support of the industry. You saw what happened after NAS 2b.

I have a few questions for you:

The Dimensions you suggest for the US style Class D control zones would not contain a typical instrument approach profile (10nm/3000ft). Do you propose that we cover the residual of the approach with Class E, creating a mish mash of airspace classes in a small area? This was already suggested at Albury but thankfully sane heads prevailed and alternate solutions were sought.

In relation to the low level Class E airspace procedures to non-controlled terminal areas. I refer to your often stated vsion that an RPT aircraft will be able to state to the controller "Cancel IFR, procedding VFR" and then land at the non-controlled aerodrome. Would any operator holding an AOC issued under CAO 82.5 be able to do so? I refer to CAO 82.5 Section 7. Feel free to correct any misunderstanding I may have of the US system, or indeed your vision of it.

[Dick Smith]

GaryGnu, you don’t seem to understand. The only reason we have an airspace system is because of VFR traffic. Otherwise everything would be Class A like Heathrow.

The key to maximum safety is allocating the resources effectively. If all you do is to move up the ICAO scale and do not do any “balancing” you will simply increase costs and drive GA out of business – which is happening.

If you had read Unsafe Skies (see here) you would understand that we originally had two types of airspace. One was controlled, where we controlled everything, and one uncontrolled where we didn’t give any control service at all. Modern countries such as the USA have seven classifications of airspace – so the resources are allocated more effectively and higher safety is the result.

Imagine if in our road system we simply had dirt roads and toll ways. Surely it is obvious to you that more lives would be lost. The fact is that we spend money on roads as the risk increases in a stepped way. That is the best way to save the most lives in airspace management.

The link airspace above Class D towers has a measurably lower collision risk than that of the airspace close to the aerodrome at locations like Ayers Rock or Avalon. Surely it is sensible to move the resources to where the increased risk is.

The Class C service over Albury (which used to be the equivalent of Class B) is a definite over-allocation of the airspace categories. Surely it is better to have the controllers concentrating on the airspace close to the tower where the collision risk is higher, and have more of these controllers and more towers.

In the past we would go from uncontrolled airspace with absolutely nothing, to basically Class B airspace with everything. It meant that you had ridiculous situations such as a tower being built at Gove, and never being used. Even then the powers in the old Flight Standards Department knew this was a complete misallocation of resources.

Gary, if you always insist that the only changes that can ever be made result in moving up the ICAO scale and increasing restrictions and costs, we will never be able to have an airspace system which allocates resources correctly.

Direct.no.speed, you seem to be doing everything you can to justify our 1950s system. You could put more controllers in the system to adequately man the Class C above Albury, but I’d far prefer to have more Class D towers. That is because I’m told that the risk of collision goes up something like 100 times between the link airspace above 5,000 feet and the terminal airspace below. In that case, I would rather have a lot more Class D towers with a single controller in them, rather than half as many operating Class D with Class C above.

The reason I would prefer this is that I have been told by experts all around the world that it is the way to get the maximum safety. Not only do I believe them but it fits the commonsense test – it seems logical.

We don’t even have a Class D tower at Avalon, Ayers Rock or Broome, when other countries (such as the United States or Canada) would have one. Yes, the towers in the United States and Canada only “control” a small amount of airspace, and they do have Class E airspace above. However they have more towers than we do per head of population, so that seems sensible.

[peuce]

Dick,

GaryGnu makes an interesting point, which you appear to have ignored:

"I will give you a tip, if you want to gain the support of the professional pilots in this country ......"

Reading between the lines ... who is paying the bulk of Airservices' costs?
Answer: The Airlines

Any change is going to need their support. Why would Airservices take the side of pilots using the system for free (or for a minimal cost)?

What's in it for the Airlines if airspace is changed (down) to your configuration? Unnecessary grief and a greater workload for their pilots.

The bottom line is that the Business will provide what its main Customers want... whatever that is ... and it's probably dealt with behind closed doors.

Your only way to get what you want is to either:
(a) Convince Airservices' customers that what Dick Smith wants is what they need
(b) Remove the Business/Customer nexus

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Dick,
.
Your arguments contradict themselves .... and a lot of it is just plain crap!
.
I will expand tommorrow (once I have had some sleep after the last 4 days of rubbish )

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, why won’t you address the main point that I am making? That is, that I accept that Class C airspace with proper staffing levels and radar is clearly safer than Class E. However Class C airspace that is operated as an “add on” to a lone Class D controller who is already overloaded clearly doesn’t add to safety.

Are you suggesting that in Australia a controller at a place like Albury can adequately control all the traffic in the circuit area and on the runway, while also adequately separate IFR and VFR up to 45 miles away – without radar and using some type of procedural means? Does this consist of a crayon and a ruler on a map?

I’ll say it again. Class C airspace is clearly safer than Class E if you have the adequate tools and staffing levels. If you run Class C at no cost to Airservices, by adding this extra workload to controller of the Class D below, you end up reducing safety in the Class D airspace where an accident is 100 times more likely to happen.

It is interesting how no one will comment on this. It hasn’t come from me – it has come from professional controllers from Australia and around the world. Even if you don’t agree with this, please at least address it.

I mentioned previously that when I was in the USA, controllers that operate Class D to 2,500 feet claimed that to put Class C above without radar and without extra controllers would clearly reduce safety. Why do they have such a different opinion? Why wouldn’t they want to have Class C above? Why wouldn’t the pilots in these countries want to have Class C above being controlled by the one controller who is doing the Class D below?

The answer is simple. Commonsense alone – let alone professional judgment – shows that such an airspace is an accident waiting to happen. No, the accident won’t be in the Class C airspace above, it will be in the Class D airspace. This is because the controller has diverted attention from aircraft close to the runway in order to separate an IFR and VFR aircraft that might be 40 miles away, can’t possibly be seen, and because there is no radar there is no real idea of where the VFR aircraft is.

I still find it amazing that Australian air traffic controllers would not insist on the Minister’s directive going ahead – i.e. that an approach radar system be provided where Class C airspace exists.

[peuce]

Dick,

Firstly, I am under no obligation to address your issues, just as you regularly ignore other posters' issues.

Secondly, My point was that airspace classification and management is no longer under your, or any other individual pilot's control. It is under the control of the Business's major Customer ... the Airlines. Stamp your feet all you like, but these airspace decisions will ultimately be made behind closed doors.

Thirdly, in the spirit of Christmas, I'll have a go at answering your question on a single Controller providing 2 different services.

• What happens overseas has NO relevance here ... fullstop
• What has relevance is the considered opinions of those providing the service in Australia, under our conditions, using our equipment, using our standards, rules and procedures
• If the Controllers (I'm not one) have a problem with the situation, I am sure they will raise a safety issue and have it dealt with through the Company ... or their Union, in need. There is no one better placed to decide if there is an issue ... or not.
• There's nothing to be gained by the Controllers "hiding" any systemic problems

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Walrus 7]

I think the underlying objection to E over D has nothing to do with safety in the D class. IFR pilots don't want to pass through E class on descent into the D. If the space above is C then they don't need to worry about "see and avoid" on the way down.

Arguments about safety in the C class are valid and glaringly obvious, but they won't win because they don't address the concerns above.

Walrus

[CaptainMidnight]

lone Class D controller who is already overloaded

The only thing worse than an armchair pilot pontificating is someone doing the same who hasn't been a pilot in the first place.

Same for neverbeen ATCs I suspect?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... poligies' for the delay in reply
.
Dick Smith said on the 18th December 2007, 10:00

LT is one of the only D regionals with PRIM and SSR Radar to surface

Why then isn’t the radar used in an effective way?

.
It is! … I have explained a bit about this to you …. and am happy to delve further i.e. we are ‘currently’ limited to using the display for SA, in other words confirmation of the procedural plan and execution. Now it is fact that we can actually move traffic more efficiently using procedural standards (close in), regional D controllers will confirm this, and we have been for years trying to have rules introduced that enable us to use the tool even more effectively. Suffice to say, many of the action items drawn from many Tower Manager conferences on this subject have been followed up by the TM experts, and little beyond that. The onsite experts have done their bit, as for the follow on ….. well I will not attempt to defend the indefensible!! …perhaps you might ask CB management who was following up, and where they are now!

In relation to the Secondary Surveillance Radar, the aircraft are forced by law to be on your tower frequency, and I understand that you and the other tower controllers are not rated to use radar.

I personally have held radar ratings, do I currently? no, WHY? … again ask why field controllers have been denied said ratings, and why the data path/s to regional towers has not been certified for said use, also whilst you are about it, ask why the latest upgrades to TSAD (with some TAAATS functionality) has not been rolled out (last I heard it was suppose to happen about 2 years ago)

If the airspace followed the North American system – and as far as I know the system in every other modern aviation country in the world – the radar covered airspace is controlled by air traffic controllers who are in the Centre or TRACON and are radar rated. It sounds sensible, doesn’t it?

…. Yup …. At least double the number of ATC positions to do the same TMA areas currently done by regional tower/app combined

It has the advantage that when the tower closes down at night (or due to staffing problems) the Centre would keep providing a full radar separation service to the lowest level of radar coverage.

…. Staffing problems …. Staffing enroute sectors as it is is apparently too hard …. and you want remote (centre) radar TMA’s at regionals as well????
.
….. at night, IMHO it would be smarter (read efficient) to have the tower/app assume low level enroute (below FL250) … enabling the wide area enroute controllers the ability to concentrate on the vast areas of enroute above FL250 … in fact, it could be argued that FL150 and below should stay with the TWR/APP unit 24/7 with additional staff (APP) during heavy traffic daylight hours!

The fact that the tower “owns” the airspace to 8,500 feet (or is it 12,500 feet?)

A085!

is a hangover from the old pre-radar days.

…. Pre-radar has nothing to do with it!

It is a bit like the FSOs keeping their airspace for many years after radar was introduced – and therefore unintentionally lowering safety.

…. Or reducing services to IFR and VFR outside the surveillance veil (G) and arguably increasing loading on the ATC sectors above?!

To anyone with an open mind who is reading this, in other modern aviation countries Class D airspace changes to Class E when the tower closes and a full separation service is still provided to IFR aircraft from the Centre. In Australia, airline pilots are forced to change off the radar frequency to a “calling in the blind” CTAF frequency – even when in good radar coverage.

… I say again, who is gunna provide the ‘surveillance' (cost), the class E service (cost and resources) and how is that justifiable when D or better could be provided for the same or less cost (factoring IFR delays with remote E)???

It is all about resistance to change – i.e. “This is the way we used to operate it in the 1950s – no one must ever change it.”

… resistance to change? Or resistance to changing an entrenched position despite reasoned argument? …… pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle … over

Scurvy, by the way, there won’t be much data on non-transponder VCAs in non-radar Class C airspace as no one would know the aircraft was there!

unless they saw them or TCAS went ballistic!!!!?

Surely you must understand this. In many cases the only way you would know the aircraft was there would be because of a collision.

….. and the data on said OZ VCA collisons/NMAC’s is?????

[rosscoe]

Put up or shut up Dick

Hi Dick

It's about time for you to show us your evidence of this:

Dick Smith
"
This is in complete contrast to our Class D at a place like Hamilton Island, where the local helicopter operator is consistently held outside the zone, orbiting with passengers in a single engine aircraft over water because one IFR aircraft happens to be approaching in CAVOK conditions.
"

You keep saying this but have never provided any evidence to justify the statement so now I'm calling you on it.

Most people here would know who I am and where I work so yes I do have a vested interest in this.

But as per usual you making statements without any evidence to back it up. So come on show us some evidence of your statement.

Of the 30 plus helicopter movements today at Hamilton Island not one was held and if there was approaching IFR traffic they were sequenced as appropriate with traffic information. Several of which were the IFR traffic to follow the helicopters. It was not CAVOK with some IFR doing IAL's and some on visual approaches and diverting around large CB's.

Actually in the last 4 days I can not think of any time anyone, being fixed wing or helicopter, was held "outside the zone doing orbits" and not one of those days was CAVOK.

Even if they were held outside the zone doing orbits over water what difference is that to doing orbits over water watching whales on the way to the barrier reef in a single engine helicopter or 500' over water at Heart Reef doing orbits so that the paying passengers can take happy snaps.

[werbil]

I can confirm that I have not heard any aircraft being denied access to the YBHM zone in recent times - it has been a long time since I have heard a "remain outside controlled airspace" call from YBHM tower. One controller (who I have not heard for many, many months) was notorious for this call. The actual restrictions depend on the controller - if we have the traffic picture we can usually guess the clearance depending on whose voice we hear.

However, given the cloud base today (around 1000' to 1500') I would be very surprised if any VFR aircraft in the zone maintained the required distance from cloud for their whole flight. Even in float planes we like height when flying over rough water, bumming along at 500' under a 1500' cloud base is just poor airmanship IMHO. If SVFR clearances were requested I suspect that at least some of these aircraft would have had to hold outside the zone.

The last time I received the "clearance not available, remain outside controlled airspace" call was when a MLJ was about to fly through the zone. I ended up in the same G airspace that the MLJ had to cross as it entered the zone.

I don't think any local VFR pilot has any real issues with the way access to the zone is handled at the moment. The two tower closures during the day create some confusion. The busiest time of the day for movements is after the tower closes at the end of the day when everyone is returning home.

[SM4 Pirate]

The two tower closures during the day create some confusion. The busiest time of the day for movements is after the tower closes at the end of the day when everyone is returning home.

Suggest you lobby ASA and CASA to change the hours, use the RAPAC system. I could go for a gig up there if they needed to up staffing by one