Labor’s Class C radar policy
Thread Starter
Peuce
The thread is refering to Class E terminal airspace where there is no tower - ie where we would have class G. As post no 7 states in the UK there is a lot of class G in this situation. In Australia it's the same at places like Avalon and Proserpine.
The lesson is to be vigilent in all airspace-just look at the ATSB weekly summaries to see the number of VCA's in classC
The thread is refering to Class E terminal airspace where there is no tower - ie where we would have class G. As post no 7 states in the UK there is a lot of class G in this situation. In Australia it's the same at places like Avalon and Proserpine.
The lesson is to be vigilent in all airspace-just look at the ATSB weekly summaries to see the number of VCA's in classC
The difference is that a VCA is an ACCIDENTAL unidentified VFR in controlled airspace ... whereas Class E Airspace is INTENTIONAL unidentified VFR aircraft in controlled airspace
Should we be planning to fail ?
Should we be planning to fail ?
Thread Starter
Roger Standby,I'm sure that there are those who would say that "worlds best practice" is class A airspace. I believe that class E is better than class G -which lots of our airline services now fly in. In the USA airline services operate in a minimum of class E airspace so its certainly an upgrade on what happens here.Class E has the advantage of a separation service for IFR and a mandatory transponder requirement fo VFR.
I believe G is a Flight Service airspace and E is an ATC airspace.
I believe G is a Flight Service airspace and E is an ATC airspace.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Gods country
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe G is a Flight Service airspace and E is an ATC airspace.
Dick
That is a righteous belief but find the staff to man the extra consoles needed for E airspace. Before you say that we will not need additional staff I have been in the FS/ATC industry for 20 plus years and we will need many additional staff.
As a side the present management believe that we are only 22 short across the country? To quote a line from a movie " tell them that they are dreaming"
AsA are in crisis mode with staffing and it is only going to get worse.
But you have been told all of this previously and chose to ignore it then so I guess I am wasting my time.....
Dick
That is a righteous belief but find the staff to man the extra consoles needed for E airspace. Before you say that we will not need additional staff I have been in the FS/ATC industry for 20 plus years and we will need many additional staff.
As a side the present management believe that we are only 22 short across the country? To quote a line from a movie " tell them that they are dreaming"
AsA are in crisis mode with staffing and it is only going to get worse.
But you have been told all of this previously and chose to ignore it then so I guess I am wasting my time.....
Thread Starter
Kam16, I have not chosen to ignore what has been said on previous occasions re the staffing levels required.
I have always provided an adequate number of staff in the businesses I have operated-otherwise I would have got my staff offside and not been as successful.
To provide a class E service at a place like Birdsville with about one IFR movement per day is unlikely to require more staff however to upgrade to class E where jet airlines operate would.
If other countries with a similar wealth to ours, such as Canada, can provide class E services in the terminal area why can't we? Or at least try it out.
I totally agree that AA requires more ATCs
I have always provided an adequate number of staff in the businesses I have operated-otherwise I would have got my staff offside and not been as successful.
To provide a class E service at a place like Birdsville with about one IFR movement per day is unlikely to require more staff however to upgrade to class E where jet airlines operate would.
If other countries with a similar wealth to ours, such as Canada, can provide class E services in the terminal area why can't we? Or at least try it out.
I totally agree that AA requires more ATCs
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... there-in lies the problem.
In past years our industry was not short of people with the aptitude and intellect to do the job... all of the jobs in Aviation that required a higher intellect and aptitude. Perhaps the only organisation outside of Defence that was testing for specific cognitive skills.
Now, many organisations are aptitude-testing for a broad range of cognitive skills as a part of recruitment processes that are more sophisticated than the recruitment processes found in Aviation... and there is a significantly smaller population of candidates to choose from... and Generation Z does not have the numbers to provide what we need... and a lot of those who do have the aptitude just aren't interested in being pilots or Air Traffic Controllers... it's not what their Generation wants in life.
Dick, the bow-wave of the Baby Boomers has passed ATC by and it may be that you have to accept that an increased service may not be possible with a diminishing intake of controllers. The required numbers may never be achieved...
In past years our industry was not short of people with the aptitude and intellect to do the job... all of the jobs in Aviation that required a higher intellect and aptitude. Perhaps the only organisation outside of Defence that was testing for specific cognitive skills.
Now, many organisations are aptitude-testing for a broad range of cognitive skills as a part of recruitment processes that are more sophisticated than the recruitment processes found in Aviation... and there is a significantly smaller population of candidates to choose from... and Generation Z does not have the numbers to provide what we need... and a lot of those who do have the aptitude just aren't interested in being pilots or Air Traffic Controllers... it's not what their Generation wants in life.
Dick, the bow-wave of the Baby Boomers has passed ATC by and it may be that you have to accept that an increased service may not be possible with a diminishing intake of controllers. The required numbers may never be achieved...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spin doctors say we are ONLY down 22 operational and 14 instructors = 36.
Seeing we are only down that many we are trying to get 170 plus through the college in 2008/09.
Some enterprising journalist care to ask the question?
Over the next 2 years we will lose conservatively 150-200 controllers @ 30 years experience each. Bye bye to 4500-6000 years of accumulated wisdom.
Seeing we are only down that many we are trying to get 170 plus through the college in 2008/09.
Some enterprising journalist care to ask the question?
Over the next 2 years we will lose conservatively 150-200 controllers @ 30 years experience each. Bye bye to 4500-6000 years of accumulated wisdom.
Dick S said:
Rubbish! It might be called G after your alphabet soup airspace, but our class G has mandatory radio use above 5000ft, full directed traffic information for IFR, and mandatory radio use at CTAF Rs. Our sort of class G is a damn-sight more flexible as (and safe as) non-radar Class E, where you have Dick Jack-Boots flying around with not a care in the world looking at his GPS/MAP/all the new gadgets on board, listening to his Ipod hopefully with his Transponder on (not that it's actually tested).
You really are a furphy-merchant, Dick. Why not tell it like it REALLY is?
I believe that class E is better than class G -which lots of our airline services now fly in.
You really are a furphy-merchant, Dick. Why not tell it like it REALLY is?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s the most sanctimonious post I’ve heard for a while Bloggs.
How would you know this to be a fact, or have you allowed your prejudices to color your judgment? Yes, I get it……..all operations except the ones you are involved in are totally unsafe and the aircraft are flown by some be-goggled clot who has no idea what he is doing – right?
For your information all VFR aircraft with a transponder are required to have both the transponder and encoder tested by a licenced engineer every two years under AD RAD 43 and AD RAD 47. Since you have no way of knowing anything about the truth or otherwise of your statement, to post it merely demonstrates your contempt for others.
where you have Dick Jack-Boots flying around with not a care in the world looking at his GPS/MAP/all the new gadgets on board, listening to his Ipod hopefully with his Transponder on (not that it's actually tested)
For your information all VFR aircraft with a transponder are required to have both the transponder and encoder tested by a licenced engineer every two years under AD RAD 43 and AD RAD 47. Since you have no way of knowing anything about the truth or otherwise of your statement, to post it merely demonstrates your contempt for others.
Vans,
My post was slightly tongue in cheek (apart from the bit about Dick not telling the whole story). I sincerely hope that most lighty pilots DO NOT fly around listening to their ipods, but I wouldn't be so sure, especially these days. When some VFR cannot even comply with the very basics of R/T, what else are they not doing right?
Transponders may well be serviceable, but are they on? I don't really care about the "serviceability" of the transponder (I assume that that is taken as a given assuming you are correct). I said "tested". That means does it work in the context of me picking it up on my TCAS. Despite numerous suggestions, transponders are never checked on the day to see if they are actually on and working properly. Almost every other piece of aircraft equipment (apart from emergency gear) is checked/used on each flight. Given that transponders are the only mitigator of an otherwise stupid airspace concept (ie VFR and IFR swanning around looking out for each other to avoid midairs) it is dumb not to have a on-the-day check when in radar E, at least. That is what I meant by "tested".
The system would look a bit dumb if a Transponder failed 1 day after the two year check and a midair resulted...
My post was slightly tongue in cheek (apart from the bit about Dick not telling the whole story). I sincerely hope that most lighty pilots DO NOT fly around listening to their ipods, but I wouldn't be so sure, especially these days. When some VFR cannot even comply with the very basics of R/T, what else are they not doing right?
Transponders may well be serviceable, but are they on? I don't really care about the "serviceability" of the transponder (I assume that that is taken as a given assuming you are correct). I said "tested". That means does it work in the context of me picking it up on my TCAS. Despite numerous suggestions, transponders are never checked on the day to see if they are actually on and working properly. Almost every other piece of aircraft equipment (apart from emergency gear) is checked/used on each flight. Given that transponders are the only mitigator of an otherwise stupid airspace concept (ie VFR and IFR swanning around looking out for each other to avoid midairs) it is dumb not to have a on-the-day check when in radar E, at least. That is what I meant by "tested".
The system would look a bit dumb if a Transponder failed 1 day after the two year check and a midair resulted...
Thread Starter
That is, there are those who believe that whatever the Government has said or done in the past must be correct
If Governments in the past have put in a particular airspace system and procedures, then this must be correct and should not be doubted in any way.
I am naturally sceptical in relation to what the Government tells me. I like to get my own facts. There are those who have a fundamental belief which is quite different. They accept what they are told by the Government and believe that anyone who doubts the Government’s view is suspect.
What I am saying is don’t always believe what you are told. Sometimes Governments get it completely wrong and resist change in every way until change is forced upon them. I hope we don’t end up with a 737 hitting Tinderry Peak before we use the radar in the area properly.
Edited to remove reference to Hicks.
Much Ado
If Governments in the past have put in a particular airspace system and procedures, then this must be correct and should not be doubted in any way.
I am naturally sceptical in relation to what the Government tells me. I like to get my own facts. There are those who have a fundamental belief which is quite different. They accept what they are told by the Government and believe that anyone who doubts the Government’s view is suspect.
What I am saying is don’t always believe what you are told. Sometimes Governments get it completely wrong and resist change in every way until change is forced upon them. I hope we don’t end up with a 737 hitting Tinderry Peak before we use the radar in the area properly.
Edited to remove reference to Hicks.
Much Ado
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with plazbot
Dick I edited your post of the Hicks references...and I deleted two infantile personal attacks from Capt_Snafu and mjbow2.
If anybody objects...I really don't care.
Stay on topic or thread gets locked.
Stop attacking the man, whomever he is, or the thread gets deleted.
If anybody objects...I really don't care.
Stay on topic or thread gets locked.
Stop attacking the man, whomever he is, or the thread gets deleted.
Thread Starter
Much Ado, I support your editing totally. The problem was that the original post attacking me about Mr Hicks was left on for quite a while (perhaps you missed it) so I thought I should explain my position. I’m delighted that the whole issue has been removed because as you state, it really has no bearing on the thread.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
What was wrong with the old FSO/ATC set up?
Sure over the year’s advancements in technology is improving the way that ATC's can do their jobs.
But what was wrong with keeping FSO/ATCs as they were with the new technology to help them?
Someone mentioned "controlled" and "uncontrolled" airspace. Class E just doesn't make sense. Bugger off Class E. Give back G to the FSO's and free up these EnRoute controllers from worrying about some VFR bugger in the weeds wanting some help.
Surely these EnRoute guys have enough in their “controlled” airspace to worry about without the extra work created when YOU made redundant the FSO’s And as far as I can tell giving most of the FSO work load to the ATC guys. (At least that which was IFR anyway) why don’t VFR guys get any service these days beyond controlled airspace?
Are you aware of the Bud lite radio ad campaign “Bud Lite presents real men of genius”
Today we salute you Mr. Airspace Reform Expert Guy
When things have been set up and run by experts for over 40yrs, why not leave them be. When, if you have a lot of money and time on your hands, you can F
k it up for everyone else.
(Back up singer) I’m an important man yeah!
Sure you can fly a plane, with 2 or 4 GPS units, airconditioning and a weather radar. But it takes a real man to sit there time after time and make a real DICK of himself.
(Back up signer) o he’s a massive dick yeah
Class D towers? Ha! Who needs them?
FSOs... what a waste of space.
Class E airspace reform…... now we’re cooking! So step aside let ME show you how it's done....... The American way!
(Back up singer) God Bless America.
So crack open a nice cold bud lite Mr. Airspace Reform Expert Guy. Because when it comes to the affordable safety of our flying public, the bottom dollar is in YOUR account.
What was wrong with the old FSO/ATC set up?
Sure over the year’s advancements in technology is improving the way that ATC's can do their jobs.
But what was wrong with keeping FSO/ATCs as they were with the new technology to help them?
Someone mentioned "controlled" and "uncontrolled" airspace. Class E just doesn't make sense. Bugger off Class E. Give back G to the FSO's and free up these EnRoute controllers from worrying about some VFR bugger in the weeds wanting some help.
Surely these EnRoute guys have enough in their “controlled” airspace to worry about without the extra work created when YOU made redundant the FSO’s And as far as I can tell giving most of the FSO work load to the ATC guys. (At least that which was IFR anyway) why don’t VFR guys get any service these days beyond controlled airspace?
Are you aware of the Bud lite radio ad campaign “Bud Lite presents real men of genius”
Today we salute you Mr. Airspace Reform Expert Guy
When things have been set up and run by experts for over 40yrs, why not leave them be. When, if you have a lot of money and time on your hands, you can F
k it up for everyone else.(Back up singer) I’m an important man yeah!
Sure you can fly a plane, with 2 or 4 GPS units, airconditioning and a weather radar. But it takes a real man to sit there time after time and make a real DICK of himself.
(Back up signer) o he’s a massive dick yeah
Class D towers? Ha! Who needs them?
FSOs... what a waste of space.
Class E airspace reform…... now we’re cooking! So step aside let ME show you how it's done....... The American way!
(Back up singer) God Bless America.
So crack open a nice cold bud lite Mr. Airspace Reform Expert Guy. Because when it comes to the affordable safety of our flying public, the bottom dollar is in YOUR account.
