Airservices’ impressive US Class D towers
Thread Starter
Airservices’ impressive US Class D towers
Most people in the industry know that for the last three years Airservices Australia has been operating US Class D towers in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan.
I was recently asked to accompany a group from Avalon Airport to look at the Airservices operation on the Island of Kauai. The tower is situated at the town of Lihue.
Our small team (including the Avalon Airport Managing Director, David Fox, and the Avalon Airport Manager Tim Anderson) departed Honolulu in the scheduled Hawaiian Air Boeing 717 which in this case was full to the brim – even though this is the off-season.
Honolulu is Class B airspace to 9,000 feet with Class E above. Our aircraft left the top of the Class B airspace at about 20 miles to the north west of Honolulu Airport, and then climbed in Class E. The pilot then elected to fly at 13,000 feet in the Class E airspace rather than climb above FL180 and operate in Class A. Then again, Qantas and Jetstar fly through the Class E from FL180 to 9,000 feet into Honolulu many times a week, so it is a pretty safe airspace. In fact, I understand that no Qantas or Jetstar pilot has complained about operating in Class E airspace at Honolulu.
US pilots and controllers tend to love Class E (see Voices of Reason’s post here).
It is about 90 miles between the two airports. We descended from 13,000 feet into the Class D, which measures about 4.3 nautical miles in radius up to 2,500 feet AGL. There are a couple of small Class E extensions from this Class D airspace. These extensions cover the instrument approaches.
We visited the tower and I spoke to the manager and the controllers. I also spoke to a number of commercial operators at Lihue and also at Kona on the big island. All the commercial operators (mainly helicopter operators) are aware that the towers are now operated by an Australian company and they say the service is superb.
One helicopter pilot said in 15 years of flying he has never been held outside the Class D. 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.
Now before everyone jumps on me, I fully realise it is not the controllers’ fault in this situation. I have said that our controllers are as good as any in the world. It is obvious that we have archaic procedures for Class D airspace.
Controllers in Lihue simply give traffic information between IFR and VFR. The procedures are very similar to what we use at our secondary airports. Then again, why shouldn’t they be? Our secondary airports were copied in 1986 from the US Class D procedures.
The tower is funded by a ticket tax on airline passengers (which goes to the FAA Trust Fund) and also a fuel tax on Avgas. This means that Avgas in the USA is slightly more expensive than Avgas in Australia. There is no location specific pricing in the USA.
The tower manager told me that this small airport has about 28,000 RPT movements per year. That is about 80 RPT airline movements per day, with everything from 717s and 757s to the occasional DC10. The total passenger count is about 1.5 million, which is similar to the figures Avalon will be achieving in the near future.
Airservices are obviously doing a good job there. The controllers were motivated and positive about their jobs and the airspace they operate.
I asked the controllers about how they would go with the Australian system, where we have Class D with Class C above, with the controller responsible for the Class C to 8,500 feet (as at Albury to 45 miles – i.e. 90 miles across). They all basically thought I’d had a misunderstanding and couldn’t believe that the Australian system could work in such a way.
One controller said:
By proper staffing I understand that he meant a correct number of approach controllers and by proper equipment I understand he meant a proper primary and secondary terminal radar unit.
The controllers were all very happy with the dimensions of the Class D airspace. One said that he would not want it any larger. At the present time, with a pair of binoculars they can sight aircraft at 4.3 miles, and this assists in their ability to give a traffic information service that they can rely on.
They have no problems with the Class E airspace above – which goes from 2,600 feet to 18,000 feet. I asked about over-flying VFR traffic. There did not seem to be much. This airport is a bit like Hobart – aircraft over-flying would have to be going somewhere many miles away in the ocean.
Of course there are over 350 Class D towers in the USA. Many of them have quite a high density of over-flying VFR traffic.
There is no transponder requirement in the Class E below 10,000 feet - except within 30 miles of the Honolulu Class B. The tower had a digital bright display of secondary surveillance radar (which went to low levels) from a nearby SSR head. As they controllers were not radar rated they could only use this for guidance – as in our Class D towers in Australia.
It was obvious to all of us that a similar Class D tower, using the Government approved NAS procedures, would improve safety at Avalon. I am personally hoping that Avalon will be upgraded shortly to Class D airspace.
I should mention that when the Lihue Class D tower closes at 10 pm, the Class D airspace becomes Class E, and IFR aircraft still get a full air traffic control service from the Honolulu radar facility.
Note that in Australia, when our Class D towers close, the airspace (including the Class C airspace above which is controlled by the tower) becomes Class G – with no air traffic control separation service provided to any aircraft. That happens to the Class C in Canberra, where it becomes an uncontrolled “black hole” when the tower controllers go home.
Before everyone starts attacking, please think constructively about whether it would be a good idea to upgrade Avalon from Class G to a NAS style Class D. AOPA have been opposed to any upgrade of Avalon Airport because they have been told that it would be Class C, and VFR pilots would be held outside the airspace on many occasions.
I was recently asked to accompany a group from Avalon Airport to look at the Airservices operation on the Island of Kauai. The tower is situated at the town of Lihue.
Our small team (including the Avalon Airport Managing Director, David Fox, and the Avalon Airport Manager Tim Anderson) departed Honolulu in the scheduled Hawaiian Air Boeing 717 which in this case was full to the brim – even though this is the off-season.
Honolulu is Class B airspace to 9,000 feet with Class E above. Our aircraft left the top of the Class B airspace at about 20 miles to the north west of Honolulu Airport, and then climbed in Class E. The pilot then elected to fly at 13,000 feet in the Class E airspace rather than climb above FL180 and operate in Class A. Then again, Qantas and Jetstar fly through the Class E from FL180 to 9,000 feet into Honolulu many times a week, so it is a pretty safe airspace. In fact, I understand that no Qantas or Jetstar pilot has complained about operating in Class E airspace at Honolulu.
US pilots and controllers tend to love Class E (see Voices of Reason’s post here).
It is about 90 miles between the two airports. We descended from 13,000 feet into the Class D, which measures about 4.3 nautical miles in radius up to 2,500 feet AGL. There are a couple of small Class E extensions from this Class D airspace. These extensions cover the instrument approaches.
We visited the tower and I spoke to the manager and the controllers. I also spoke to a number of commercial operators at Lihue and also at Kona on the big island. All the commercial operators (mainly helicopter operators) are aware that the towers are now operated by an Australian company and they say the service is superb.
One helicopter pilot said in 15 years of flying he has never been held outside the Class D. 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.
Now before everyone jumps on me, I fully realise it is not the controllers’ fault in this situation. I have said that our controllers are as good as any in the world. It is obvious that we have archaic procedures for Class D airspace.
Controllers in Lihue simply give traffic information between IFR and VFR. The procedures are very similar to what we use at our secondary airports. Then again, why shouldn’t they be? Our secondary airports were copied in 1986 from the US Class D procedures.
The tower is funded by a ticket tax on airline passengers (which goes to the FAA Trust Fund) and also a fuel tax on Avgas. This means that Avgas in the USA is slightly more expensive than Avgas in Australia. There is no location specific pricing in the USA.
The tower manager told me that this small airport has about 28,000 RPT movements per year. That is about 80 RPT airline movements per day, with everything from 717s and 757s to the occasional DC10. The total passenger count is about 1.5 million, which is similar to the figures Avalon will be achieving in the near future.
Airservices are obviously doing a good job there. The controllers were motivated and positive about their jobs and the airspace they operate.
I asked the controllers about how they would go with the Australian system, where we have Class D with Class C above, with the controller responsible for the Class C to 8,500 feet (as at Albury to 45 miles – i.e. 90 miles across). They all basically thought I’d had a misunderstanding and couldn’t believe that the Australian system could work in such a way.
One controller said:
Sir, we would not do Class C unless we were properly staffed and had proper equipment. That is just the way the system works here.
The controllers were all very happy with the dimensions of the Class D airspace. One said that he would not want it any larger. At the present time, with a pair of binoculars they can sight aircraft at 4.3 miles, and this assists in their ability to give a traffic information service that they can rely on.
They have no problems with the Class E airspace above – which goes from 2,600 feet to 18,000 feet. I asked about over-flying VFR traffic. There did not seem to be much. This airport is a bit like Hobart – aircraft over-flying would have to be going somewhere many miles away in the ocean.
Of course there are over 350 Class D towers in the USA. Many of them have quite a high density of over-flying VFR traffic.
There is no transponder requirement in the Class E below 10,000 feet - except within 30 miles of the Honolulu Class B. The tower had a digital bright display of secondary surveillance radar (which went to low levels) from a nearby SSR head. As they controllers were not radar rated they could only use this for guidance – as in our Class D towers in Australia.
It was obvious to all of us that a similar Class D tower, using the Government approved NAS procedures, would improve safety at Avalon. I am personally hoping that Avalon will be upgraded shortly to Class D airspace.
I should mention that when the Lihue Class D tower closes at 10 pm, the Class D airspace becomes Class E, and IFR aircraft still get a full air traffic control service from the Honolulu radar facility.
Note that in Australia, when our Class D towers close, the airspace (including the Class C airspace above which is controlled by the tower) becomes Class G – with no air traffic control separation service provided to any aircraft. That happens to the Class C in Canberra, where it becomes an uncontrolled “black hole” when the tower controllers go home.
Before everyone starts attacking, please think constructively about whether it would be a good idea to upgrade Avalon from Class G to a NAS style Class D. AOPA have been opposed to any upgrade of Avalon Airport because they have been told that it would be Class C, and VFR pilots would be held outside the airspace on many occasions.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Dec 2007 at 23:33.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
This a very thoughtful and well balanced essay on the way that ICAO Airspace classification and integration are supposed to work! I see no reason why staff of Air Services and the various pilot associations in Australia will not read it this way as well.
Your arguments are critically correct in every aspect of Class C usage in the USA.
Sincerely,
Chris
This a very thoughtful and well balanced essay on the way that ICAO Airspace classification and integration are supposed to work! I see no reason why staff of Air Services and the various pilot associations in Australia will not read it this way as well.
Your arguments are critically correct in every aspect of Class C usage in the USA.
Sincerely,
Chris
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by direct.no.speed
- as long as it is properly staffed and equipped, and it is adequate for the level of traffic.
And - that the training for airspace users is adequate, timely and wel publicised.
And - that the training for air traffic controllers is the same.
And - that the training for airspace users is adequate, timely and wel publicised.
And - that the training for air traffic controllers is the same.
, but then I cried 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The World
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know enough about Avalon to know whether a tower is required or not, but I do have one simple question.
Where are Airservices going to get the staff from?
They have enough trouble staffing where services are provided without thinking about more staff.
Dick, I don't disagree with you because as I said, I don't know enough about Avalon, but where Airservices need pressure put on them is to provide enough staff to provide services where ever they are required, be that Avalon or Enroute airspace that is going TIBA regularly because of a lack of staff.
Where are Airservices going to get the staff from?
They have enough trouble staffing where services are provided without thinking about more staff.
Dick, I don't disagree with you because as I said, I don't know enough about Avalon, but where Airservices need pressure put on them is to provide enough staff to provide services where ever they are required, be that Avalon or Enroute airspace that is going TIBA regularly because of a lack of staff.
Thread Starter
Missy, you ask if the FAA operates its Class B airspace without any exemptions or exceptions to ICAO.
The FAA is very smart. I understand they have filed the greatest number of differences with ICAO recommendations and standards compared to most other countries in the world. This is because the FAA considers that ICAO rules have not been properly “costed” and are basically in place for third world countries. FAA officers have told me about how astonished they are at the cargo cult recommendations that are made at ICAO which completely misallocate safety resources. I understand that there is one significant obligation for an ICAO signatory – that is, to notify ICAO of any differences with their rules and recommended practices. The USA does this all the time.
That is why, in the Cabinet approved NAS document, we did not say that we were going to comply exactly with ICAO recommendations and requirements. We made it clear that it was based on the North American system (not just the USA) and that differences, such as the GAAP/Class D difference, would be notified to ICAO.
If you read the ICAO Class B classification chart rigidly it is clear that VFR must be separated from VFR. This is sort of what we had in Sydney before about 1983. I have regularly flown VFR in the USA Class B, and their “separation” is basically giving traffic to VFR and ensuring that the radar dots don’t merge. If they are about to merge, they give one or the other aircraft a vector if they have not sighted each other.
The reason that general aviation in the USA is booming compared to other countries is because they simply notify a difference with ICAO and get on with ensuring that they have a thriving, viable and safe industry. Good on them.
Direct.no.speed and Hempy, the only airspace change in which I was ever directly involved with the training and education of pilots and air traffic controllers was the original AMATS changes. I have a feeling they went pretty well.
Ever since, those who were against the change have done everything they can to make sure that anyone who actually understands the reason for the change is not involved.
At the time of NAS, Angus Houston called me to a special meeting in Canberra to request that I not be “hands-on” in any way with the introduction of the system. No doubt he had been pressured by others, and we have seen the result.
I have found in the 15 years since the AMATS changes that generally you have one group or another actively opposing the changes – more for reasons of fundamentalism than anything else – and therefore they do everything they can to frustrate a proper training and education program. The whole thing is a stuff-up and they succeed in stopping it working, or getting it reversed.
The FAA is very smart. I understand they have filed the greatest number of differences with ICAO recommendations and standards compared to most other countries in the world. This is because the FAA considers that ICAO rules have not been properly “costed” and are basically in place for third world countries. FAA officers have told me about how astonished they are at the cargo cult recommendations that are made at ICAO which completely misallocate safety resources. I understand that there is one significant obligation for an ICAO signatory – that is, to notify ICAO of any differences with their rules and recommended practices. The USA does this all the time.
That is why, in the Cabinet approved NAS document, we did not say that we were going to comply exactly with ICAO recommendations and requirements. We made it clear that it was based on the North American system (not just the USA) and that differences, such as the GAAP/Class D difference, would be notified to ICAO.
If you read the ICAO Class B classification chart rigidly it is clear that VFR must be separated from VFR. This is sort of what we had in Sydney before about 1983. I have regularly flown VFR in the USA Class B, and their “separation” is basically giving traffic to VFR and ensuring that the radar dots don’t merge. If they are about to merge, they give one or the other aircraft a vector if they have not sighted each other.
The reason that general aviation in the USA is booming compared to other countries is because they simply notify a difference with ICAO and get on with ensuring that they have a thriving, viable and safe industry. Good on them.
Direct.no.speed and Hempy, the only airspace change in which I was ever directly involved with the training and education of pilots and air traffic controllers was the original AMATS changes. I have a feeling they went pretty well.
Ever since, those who were against the change have done everything they can to make sure that anyone who actually understands the reason for the change is not involved.
At the time of NAS, Angus Houston called me to a special meeting in Canberra to request that I not be “hands-on” in any way with the introduction of the system. No doubt he had been pressured by others, and we have seen the result.
I have found in the 15 years since the AMATS changes that generally you have one group or another actively opposing the changes – more for reasons of fundamentalism than anything else – and therefore they do everything they can to frustrate a proper training and education program. The whole thing is a stuff-up and they succeed in stopping it working, or getting it reversed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Gods country
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I am sure that we have all been there and done this thread in various forms over the years on PPRUNE
However my two cents worth....
Correct staffing levels, comprehensive training and Airservices can not be used in the same sentence.
I am sure that we have all been there and done this thread in various forms over the years on PPRUNE
However my two cents worth....
Correct staffing levels, comprehensive training and Airservices can not be used in the same sentence.
Our small team (including the Avalon Airport Managing Director, David Fox, and the Avalon Airport Manager Tim Anderson)
Or at the very least, make the UNICOM service there more comprehensive?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally Dick, I'd just read a post such as this and tend to agree because it all sounds good.
However, last year I was accompanied by my beautiful partner to the Island of Oahu. We flew on GO Airlines to the Island of Maui. During this short approximate half hour trip our CRJ was buffeted on two seperate occasions due to wake turbulence from passing aircraft.
The resultant aircraft movements were no less than terrifying to say the least. The second occurence saw out aircraft tip approximately 80 degrees. My partner didn't want to fly home again and subsequently I have not been able to get her into a small aircraft more than once in the last year. I'm a pilot with well over 1,000 hours and I thought my life was also coming to an end!
Had this airspace been class C or equivalent, I think this would never have happened.
Thoughts?
However, last year I was accompanied by my beautiful partner to the Island of Oahu. We flew on GO Airlines to the Island of Maui. During this short approximate half hour trip our CRJ was buffeted on two seperate occasions due to wake turbulence from passing aircraft.
The resultant aircraft movements were no less than terrifying to say the least. The second occurence saw out aircraft tip approximately 80 degrees. My partner didn't want to fly home again and subsequently I have not been able to get her into a small aircraft more than once in the last year. I'm a pilot with well over 1,000 hours and I thought my life was also coming to an end!
Had this airspace been class C or equivalent, I think this would never have happened.
Thoughts?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX
You sound like a journalist with emotive unsubstantiated drivel like this.
So your CRJ left from Honolulu on Ohau which is in fact Class B and landed on Maui, Kahului which is Class C where the airport does not cater for anything over the weight of a Gulstream IV business jet. So we know your death defying wake turbulence did not happen in that Class C which leaves Honolulu Class B as the 'culprit airspace'.
Any garbage to cast doubt. I have said it before that there is a strong resistance to change here in Australia and garbage like this to cast doubt is a commonplace symptom of the level of resistance.
MJ
You sound like a journalist with emotive unsubstantiated drivel like this.
The resultant aircraft movements were no less than terrifying to say the least. The second occurence saw out aircraft tip approximately 80 degrees. My partner didn't want to fly home again and subsequently I have not been able to get her into a small aircraft more than once in the last year. I'm a pilot with well over 1,000 hours and I thought my life was also coming to an end!
Any garbage to cast doubt. I have said it before that there is a strong resistance to change here in Australia and garbage like this to cast doubt is a commonplace symptom of the level of resistance.
MJ
Thread Starter
CaptainMidnight, the owners of Avalon Airport will do whatever is required for safety. In this case they are waiting for the Office of Airspace Regulation at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to tell them what airspace and service is required at Avalon. This is how it should be. Why else would we have a so-called independent Civil Aviation Safety Authority?
If CASA told the airport owners that a UNICOM was necessary in the short term, they would put one in immediately.
I personally believe that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority – which has been responsible for airspace for nearly 6 months now – has totally let down the more than 1 million passengers who go through Avalon every year.
There is a very simple and straightforward establishment and discontinuance formula that is available to see whether Avalon meets the criteria for Class D airspace. For some reason CASA has refused to use this simple study.
I understand that at the present time they are looking at a more complicated study which is going to be done next year. My belief is that this is just a delaying tactic so a decision will never have to be made. Why would you invent a new form of cost benefit study for Class D towers when a proven one – that has been used for many years in Australia and other countries – already exists?
I know Lindsay Fox personally. I admire the man. He is paranoid about safety. He and his management team will make sure that whatever is required by CASA in the interests of safety will go ahead at Avalon.
Remember that Qantas made $1 billion in profit last year. Possibly a small amount of that could go towards manning the tower – even if it was with a qualified UNICOM operator in the short term – to give their fare paying passengers an adequate level of safety.
But don’t hold your breath. Qantas seems to be immensely powerful in Canberra.
If CASA told the airport owners that a UNICOM was necessary in the short term, they would put one in immediately.
I personally believe that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority – which has been responsible for airspace for nearly 6 months now – has totally let down the more than 1 million passengers who go through Avalon every year.
There is a very simple and straightforward establishment and discontinuance formula that is available to see whether Avalon meets the criteria for Class D airspace. For some reason CASA has refused to use this simple study.
I understand that at the present time they are looking at a more complicated study which is going to be done next year. My belief is that this is just a delaying tactic so a decision will never have to be made. Why would you invent a new form of cost benefit study for Class D towers when a proven one – that has been used for many years in Australia and other countries – already exists?
I know Lindsay Fox personally. I admire the man. He is paranoid about safety. He and his management team will make sure that whatever is required by CASA in the interests of safety will go ahead at Avalon.
Remember that Qantas made $1 billion in profit last year. Possibly a small amount of that could go towards manning the tower – even if it was with a qualified UNICOM operator in the short term – to give their fare paying passengers an adequate level of safety.
But don’t hold your breath. Qantas seems to be immensely powerful in Canberra.
Thread Starter
VH-XXX,
Wake turbulence, which rolls a CRJ airline aircraft to approximately 80°, would certainly be reported by the pilot.
You would know the date of your flight. Can you give that date to me, and I will make enquiries with the FAA to get you the information on what caused the upset?
I have flown in airlines all around the world and I have never ever been in an airline that has rolled 80°, so I am wondering if you may be exaggerating slightly or possibly the whole story is a furphy so we can keep our present airspace system.
Wake turbulence, which rolls a CRJ airline aircraft to approximately 80°, would certainly be reported by the pilot.
You would know the date of your flight. Can you give that date to me, and I will make enquiries with the FAA to get you the information on what caused the upset?
I have flown in airlines all around the world and I have never ever been in an airline that has rolled 80°, so I am wondering if you may be exaggerating slightly or possibly the whole story is a furphy so we can keep our present airspace system.
Thread Starter
Direct.no.speed, yes I agree that you are supporting change and I do agree with your post – i.e. there has to be proper training for both pilots and air traffic controllers, it has to be timely and it has to be well publicised. I was simply explaining one of the reasons why this didn’t happen.
You have my total support for a properly managed change process. I agree that we haven’t had such a thing for over 10 years.
You have my total support for a properly managed change process. I agree that we haven’t had such a thing for over 10 years.
Remember that Qantas made $1 billion in profit last year. Possibly a small amount of that could go towards manning the tower – even if it was with a qualified UNICOM operator in the short term – to give their fare paying passengers an adequate level of safety.
Why should the fare-paying passenger have to fork up when the major threat to them at AVV is a lighty?
Let's face it, a CA/GRS would be more than sufficient if the only aircraft in the sky at AVV were big jets. If any other (higher) standard is required, then the participants that cause that requirement can contribute to the cost. Stop trying to gouge the fare-payers for you own convenience/safety, Dick.
You have my total support for a properly managed change process. I agree that we haven’t had such a thing for over 10 years.
I too am all for change when it actually provides tangible benefits ie increases safety or costs everybody less.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld,Aust
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captn Bloggs,
That must be a wind up........however I'll bite.
Do you really believe that the only people that should be using AV are "Big Jets"
And
How can you say that the"lightys" are causing the hazard. There may be a hazard, but might it be caused by Jets and lightys occupying the same airspace?? and not just the lightys being present!!
If someone is to pay then it should be the people that benefit from the changes/ increased safety i.e. the fair paying passengers!!!
I am not against the "private operators" also contributing, but fair is fair.
You should really go sit down and have a think about the dribble that you just typed.
Yakka
That must be a wind up........however I'll bite.
Do you really believe that the only people that should be using AV are "Big Jets"
And
How can you say that the"lightys" are causing the hazard. There may be a hazard, but might it be caused by Jets and lightys occupying the same airspace?? and not just the lightys being present!!
If someone is to pay then it should be the people that benefit from the changes/ increased safety i.e. the fair paying passengers!!!
I am not against the "private operators" also contributing, but fair is fair.
You should really go sit down and have a think about the dribble that you just typed.
Yakka
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries Dick, no wind-up. 20/11/2006, 5:13AM AEST - Photo taken, so perhaps about haf an hour after that. (could be a day earlier or later as my camera date is a day out now, not sure if it was back then) Oahi - Maui.
No complaints with airspace whatsoever and happy for your suggestions to be implemented. 80 degrees, yep, no embelishing of the truth there. The disturbing thing at the time was that it barely seemed to raise an eyebrow of even the hosties. It was suggested that they were used to such events occurring due to the "business" of the airspace between the islands.
I've been on half a dozen trips to and across the US, similarly in OZ and have never experienced such an event.
I should have been concerned when I saw the pilot wearing a baseball cap and chewing gum.
No complaints with airspace whatsoever and happy for your suggestions to be implemented. 80 degrees, yep, no embelishing of the truth there. The disturbing thing at the time was that it barely seemed to raise an eyebrow of even the hosties. It was suggested that they were used to such events occurring due to the "business" of the airspace between the islands.
I've been on half a dozen trips to and across the US, similarly in OZ and have never experienced such an event.
I should have been concerned when I saw the pilot wearing a baseball cap and chewing gum.
Bloggs , you haven't changed. Have you?
Gather round kiddies, the skygod speaks.
If it wasn't for fare paying passengers there would not be a need for a control zone!
Get off your high horse Bloggs, ATC is provided for fare paying passenger's safety! The service is for them so they should pay for it!
It is criminal that you guys are relying on dirt road tactics to save a buck for your bosses and then have the gall to blame lightie drivers.
Gather round kiddies, the skygod speaks.
Why should the fare-paying passenger have to fork up when the major threat to them at AVV is a lighty?
Get off your high horse Bloggs, ATC is provided for fare paying passenger's safety! The service is for them so they should pay for it!
It is criminal that you guys are relying on dirt road tactics to save a buck for your bosses and then have the gall to blame lightie drivers.