Labor’s Class C radar policy

[Roger Standby]

I quite often see vfr cruising through my "E" airspace and never hear a peep.

[Dick Smith]

Ozbusdriver, I can assure you that it is in the AIP. Australia is the only country in the world that has a mandatory radio requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E. Furthermore, it is mandatory to monitor the Class E control frequency – that is why all the Class E frequency boundaries are on the charts. If the VFR aircraft hears an IFR aircraft in the vicinity, the VFR aircraft must make an announcement.

There is nothing like this anywhere in the world. It was brought in by the ‘die hards’ with the roll back of NAS 2b – obviously so that air traffic controllers will then have a liability towards VFR aircraft in Class E and can be sued by the families.

Try flying around Sydney on a weekend. The Sydney Radar frequency is coupled with control frequencies, and VFR aircraft make constant self-announcements at Brooklyn Bridge and other places. Fortunately this is reducing, but I wonder how the approach and departure controllers can cope with this.

[Dick Smith]

Roger Standby, you state:

I quite often see vfr cruising through my "E" airspace and never hear a peep.

Could this be because you, or IFR pilots flying through your airspace, are not giving full position reports? Many seem to have forgotten that there is a unique rule in Australia that even when radar identified in Class E or G airspace, IFR aircraft must give full position reports.

Why would this be so? It is so the pilots of VFR aircraft (who are monitoring the frequency by mandatory regulation) can answer – just as in the old “full position” Flight Service days. It is a complete crock – trying to keep a 1930s procedure in the 21st century.

As I have mentioned numerous times before, I’m amazed that the air traffic controllers would allow this. Having a mandatory requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor ATC frequencies means that in a radar environment the air traffic controller has a duty of care to the VFR aircraft – i.e. the controller must call the aircraft if it is getting close to another aircraft and give traffic information.

In other countries of which I know, there is simply no way that the VFR pilot can work out which is the correct ATC frequency to be on as the sector boundaries are not shown on the charts. The pilot would have to call a nearby Flightwatch or ATC outlet to find the correct frequency and the controller would have to agree to provide the VFR aircraft with a Flight Following service.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

Australia is the only country in the world that has a mandatory radio requirement for VFR aircraft in Class E. Furthermore, it is mandatory to monitor the Class E control frequency – that is why all the Class E frequency boundaries are on the charts. If the VFR aircraft hears an IFR aircraft in the vicinity, the VFR aircraft must make an announcement

I would have thought that, if I was about to run into an A380 in E commonsense/airmanship/life preservation mode would dictate that I make a broadcast, especially when I couldn't see him! That is exactly why some of us say Class E is stupid and from a bygone era of slow old DC-3/4/6 and Cessna pistons. Drag yourself out of the thirties and into the 21st century please.

Many seem to have forgotten that there is a unique rule in Australia that even when radar identified in Class E or G airspace, IFR aircraft must give full position reports.

I haven't forgotten; IFR aircraft are NOT required to give position reports when identified.

I wonder how the approach and departure controllers can cope with this.

Stop the tail wagging the dog. Manning levels by AsA should not dictate how the airspace system should be set up. Or, maybe somebody has determined that the workload is OK, therefore saving the industry money. Affordable Safety...

[Outer Marker]

your bait stinks Dick

So does yours Scurvy! There is/was an American ATC in Brisbane who came to us after 1981. He was the ATC FDP expert on the TAAATS project. This guy worked a regional tower in the US with a mix of RPT/GA movements in excess of say Adelaides with half the staff and no tower radar.

Also what you don't seem to realise or accept is the fact that in the US low level radar coverage, below 10,000, only became common in the 80's, and that the FAA still do not guarantee enroute coverage below 5,000'. So obviously there were/are many significant regional airports in the US that didn't have low level radar coverage and with the responsible enroute centre doing to arrivals and departures into a class D tower. And I can assure you that those towers handled a lot more than your average of 52 movements/day. In fact in the US Launceston would probably not. qualify for a manned tower.

NB

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

I’m amazed that the air traffic controllers would allow this. Having a mandatory requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor ATC frequencies means that in a radar environment the air traffic controller has a duty of care to the VFR aircraft – i.e. the controller must call the aircraft if it is getting close to another aircraft and give traffic information.

I'm amazed that you think the concept of a person on a radar advising one or two aircraft that they may be getting close to running into each other is amazing.

If the VFR aircraft hears an IFR aircraft in the vicinity, the VFR aircraft must make an announcement.

Wrong again. Back to the books for you, sonny.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, I understand you are a regional airline pilot, yet when I said that aircraft flying IFR which are radar identified in Class E and G airspace must give full position reports, you said:

I haven't forgotten; IFR aircraft are NOT required to give position reports when identified.

This is an amazing statement. What has happened to your training? How could a VFR aircraft complying with the mandatory radio and monitoring requirements in Class E possibly know where you were to make an announcement?

For example, in radar covered airspace, on changing frequency if you simply say to the controller, “Echo Yankee Hotel, 9,000”, how could a VFR pilot possibly know where you are?

Or what about this one? “Melbourne Centre, Echo Yankee Hotel, request traffic for descent.” Once again, how could a VFR aircraft know where you were to answer as he or she is supposed to do?

Capn Bloggs, you have shown me how this whole system has got into such a total mess. I understood you were one of the vocal people who insisted that VFR aircraft monitor and announce in Class E airspace. I understood you were one of the people who insisted the frequency boundaries be put back on the charts so they would be monitoring the correct ATC frequency so they could answer (or announce to) the IFR aircraft.

If this is so, and you are not giving full position reports when under radar control in E and G, you are simply not complying with the AIP, and the whole system that you are relying on (i.e. traffic announcements from VFR) cannot possibly work.

You may be interested in a quote from a letter I received on this matter from the CEO of Airservices on 25 July 2007. This letter was sent because regional airlines and other IFR pilots did not appear to be giving the required full position reports when radar identified in E and G airspace.

The AIP is explicit in that all IFR aircraft are required to give full position reports in all classes of airspace, except when ‘identified’ in class A, C and D airspace, and that before entering Class G airspace, IFR aircraft must also contact the ATS unit providing services in that area. The scenarios you provided in your letters indicate that the appropriate reporting is not occurring and this information will be passed onto CASA for the appropriate follow up action.

It sounds to me as if CASA will have to follow up the training system in a particular Western Australian regional airline – would you agree?

By the way, this is the AIP reference:

10.2 Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace.

I look forward to your advice on this one.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, it is getting worse. I stated in my post that VFR aircraft must make an announcement if they hear an IFR aircraft in the vicinity. You stated:

Wrong again. Back to the books for you, sonny.

I am amazed that you are a regional airline pilot and for some reason your training has been so deficient that you clearly do not understand (or have forgotten) how the wound back system works. This is a direct quote from the latest Airservices publication entitled “Quick Reference Guide, November 25 National Airspace System changes”. It states clearly:

Class E operations - Frequency Management
AIP now states that pilots of VFR flights operating in Class E airspace should monitor the Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict with another aircraft … If a pilot determines that the aircraft is in potential conflict with another aircraft, the pilot should acknowledge by transmitting own call-sign and as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions.

Capn Bloggs, are you suggesting that this Airservices publication is inaccurate?

[TrenShadow]

10.2 Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace.

Dick, as an ATC the way I read this clause (and indeed the way I have been trained), the "Except when identified" bit applies to the entire sentence. That is, any IFR flight that has been identified (radar or adsb) is not required to give position reports.

In the class E+G airspace that I am responsible for I get maybe 1 aircraft every week or two give me a position report in E/G airspace when identified. I always let them broadcast that report if they wish, to enhance the situational awareness of everyone who might be listening, but I certainly don't go chasing them all for reports at every position; my frequencies are quite congested enough as they are thank you very much.

[rack 'n stack]

Tren - you are correct.

The comma separating the excluder "Except when identified" pertains to the whole paragraph. So if you are IFR operating in ALL classes of airspace AND you are identified you do NOT make position reports.

[Capn Bloggs]

Thank you Tren and Rack.

Dick,

10.2 Except when identified, position reports are required for all aircraft in classes A, C and D airspace, and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace.

I suggest that if you are confused by this text, you have it amended. And if the CEO of Airservices thinks that we should be doing position reports in E when Radar identified, then I suggest that that would be grounds to scrap the whole silly idea of E airspace and revert to C, where everybody knows where everybody is and is separated. None of this silly "looking out the window" as the primary means of separation. I wonder if A380 pilots have VFR TCAS targets displayed on their HUDs?

VFR flights operating in Class E airspace should monitor the Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict with another aircraft … If a pilot determines that the aircraft is in potential conflict with another aircraft, the pilot should acknowledge by transmitting own call-sign and as appropriate, aircraft type, position, actual level and intentions

Note CONFLICT (AIP words) is not VICINITY (your words).

For what it's worth, I think E airspace sucks, always has and always will. GET RID OF IT and get out of the dark ages. And I do apologise: I am not particularly experienced in E operations: we got rid of it (well, most of it) some time ago.

Next?

[Dick Smith]

TrenShadow, if the way you read the AIP is correct, what is the use of mandating the monitoring by all VFR aircraft of ATC frequencies when flying in Class E radar covered airspace? The VFR pilot just gets a barrage of calls but has no idea where the IFR aircraft are. Do you think it is a good idea to clutter up the VFR pilots’ minds with dozens of radio calls that mean completely nothing?

Also, if you are correct in your deciphering of the AIP, why did Greg Russell write me the letter of 25 July 2007? In the letter he says:

The AIP is explicit in that all IFR aircraft are required to give full position reports in all classes of airspace, except when ‘identified’ in class A, C and D airspace ...

Interesting?

Also, and most importantly, in July 2007 when Airservices contacted CASA in relation to taking appropriate follow up action regarding IFR aircraft not giving position reports, why didn’t CASA notify Airservices that reports were not required?

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, this is ridiculous. The VFR pilot would not be able to make announcements or reports if in CONFLICT (AIP words) or in the VICINITY (my words) if he didn’t know the position of the IFR aircraft. If you are not giving position reports, there is no way that this Airservices educational material can work.

By the way Capn Bloggs, you state:

And if the CEO of Airservices thinks that we should be doing position reports in E when Radar identified…

I understand that though the letter was signed by the CEO of Airservices, it was prepared and vetted by his air traffic control and airspace experts. I can assure you that I have checked with my contacts at Airservices, and they 100% stand by the letter that was prepared for the CEO.

So now what is your answer?

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

It sounds to me as if CASA will have to follow up the training system in a particular Western Australian regional airline – would you agree?

Perhaps a visit by CASA to Terry Hills might be more appropriate?

I agree with you on one thing: it is ridiculous...

More to the point, these procedures are probably an attempt by the AsA lawyers to cover their rear ends in these days of duty of care. Can you possibly imagine what would happen if a A380 was taken out by a lighty in E airspace? Just for the "right" of VFR to fly unimpeded through the sky?

It still amazes me that anyone would consider allowing big and little aircraft to mix it without any attempt to keep them apart. I don't care what the Septics do.

[vans]

I’m afraid I have to agree with Capn Bloggs on this one Dick. I’ve never been under the impression that I have to make position reports as an IFR in E if identified (perhaps I’m wrong). If I’m identified, ATC knows where I am, and because I’m in a radar environment, they can also see the primary paint of a transpondered VFR aircraft. If ATC can see a potential conflict, they advise the IFR of the potential conflict with the VFR, and the VFR upon hearing this, should respond. If the VFR is in any doubt as to whether or not this conflict involves him or not, it would be good airmanship for him to respond anyway. In any case there is nothing to stop ATC from asking the VFR to identify himself

and for IFR flights or flights using the IFR Pick-up procedure after initial contact with ATC in classes E and G airspace

In this situation, the IFR has not yet been identified, hence the need for a position report.

The AIP is explicit in that all IFR aircraft are required to give full position reports in all classes of airspace, except when ‘identified’ in class A, C and D airspace ...

The AIP is obviously not explicit, otherwise there would not be all this confusion. It is a poorly written piece of text in this instance.

I have often heard VFR aircraft respond in the above scenario, albeit perhaps not as many as should.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, they are welcome here at any time. I can take them for a fly in the Jetranger or the Agusta.

I do have a simple request of CASA. I ask someone from the Office of Airspace Regulation to simply make a post on this thread which explains the CASA interpretation of the AIP. From my previous discussions with CASA, they believe the requirement is for all IFR aircraft to make full position reports when in radar Class E and G airspace. If that is the case (or not the case), I ask CASA to post here.

[rack 'n stack]

Perhaps the CEO is receiving advice from people who are not currently rated controllers? Or they could be the same people telling him that there is only a shortfall of 36 controllers Australia wide?

[Pera]

As I have mentioned numerous times before, I’m amazed that the air traffic controllers would allow this. Having a mandatory requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor ATC frequencies means that in a radar environment the air traffic controller has a duty of care to the VFR aircraft – i.e. the controller must call the aircraft if it is getting close to another aircraft and give traffic information.

The responsibilities that ATC have in each class of airspace are clearly defined.

VFR aircraft in class E are provided with a FIS. FIS is provided by all stations broadcasts, so if the VFR aircraft is monitoring the correct frequency as required by AIP they will receive hazard alerts etc. ATC will be providing this service to all aircraft so there is no extra workload or responsibility.

[Walrus 7]

Vans,

There has never been a document issued by CASA, DOTARS or AsA that is not a poorly-written piece of text.

Walrus

[Capn Bloggs]

I do have a simple request of CASA. I ask someone from the Office of Airspace Regulation to simply make a post on this thread which explains the CASA interpretation of the AIP.

That is not the way to go about it. Regardless of what CASA says, I'll not make pos reports in radar E because the AIP says I don't have to (in my opinion). Besides, you will get various interpretations from various people in CASA. The words must be changed. The required words are pretty obvious, depending on what your point of view about the matter is!