Labor’s Class C radar policy
Thread Starter
During my flight in the Caravan to the Old Station fly in on 9 June 2007, when in Class E airspace at 9,000 feet near Armidale in good radar coverage, I specifically asked the controller if I should be giving full position reports. He said yes, that was a requirement, however not all aircraft complied.
Here we have a Brisbane controller saying there is a requirement to give full position reports if you are flying IFR in radar Class E airspace. Capn Bloggs, are you telling me the air traffic controller’s advice was incorrect?
As I’m planning to fly the Caravan in Class E airspace tomorrow, I phoned the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA to ask them if I should give full position reports. The person I spoke to did not know the answer but said he would get back in touch with me. I’ll publish the answer here.
Here we have a Brisbane controller saying there is a requirement to give full position reports if you are flying IFR in radar Class E airspace. Capn Bloggs, are you telling me the air traffic controller’s advice was incorrect?
As I’m planning to fly the Caravan in Class E airspace tomorrow, I phoned the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA to ask them if I should give full position reports. The person I spoke to did not know the answer but said he would get back in touch with me. I’ll publish the answer here.
Thread Starter
Pera, why is it that when I’m flying VFR in Class E or G radar airspace, occasionally I will have air traffic control calling VFR aircraft in my general area? When I answer, they give me traffic on another VFR aircraft in my area.
I understood this was done because lawyers have advised air traffic controllers that they have a duty of care in this situation (if their workload is not too high) because Airservices has come up with a system where VFR aircraft must, by regulation, be monitoring the ATC sector frequency.
I understood this was done because lawyers have advised air traffic controllers that they have a duty of care in this situation (if their workload is not too high) because Airservices has come up with a system where VFR aircraft must, by regulation, be monitoring the ATC sector frequency.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pera, why is it that when I’m flying VFR in Class E or G radar airspace, occasionally I will have air traffic control calling VFR aircraft in my general area? When I answer, they give me traffic on another VFR aircraft in my area.
I suggest that you have to monitor the frequency so that you obtain a FIS. I don't think that this requirement makes ATC responsible for traffic alerts.
I would think that ASA, CASA etc would be liable if ATC was held responsible for two vfr aircraft colliding in class E. AIP is very clear about the ATC responsibilities. It even states:
ENR 18.1.2 Traffic information services provided by ATC do not relieve pilots of their responsibilities for continued vigilance to see-and-avoid
other aircraft.
I guess if you have to monitor the frequency to get FIS, it makes sense that you make a broadcast if you think you are in conflict with an IFR aircraft, especially in non radar class E.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,
The Australian airspace system certainly was unique, and provided no one from the outside came to visit us nothing could go wrong because we all understood the 'language'. We had a duplicate ATC/FS system where each group zealously protected their own patch. I'll never foreget the day a FS Supervisor rushed into the area control room and with great concern in his voice annouced that they had had a penetration of OCTA (the ATC had missed the departure coord on an IFR DC3). We used to use the word 'cruise' in our airways clearances, until in the early 90's there was a near miss to the NE of Sydney between and American and an Australian B747. Check out the ICAO definition of 'cruise'. Then we had that other empire, Operational Control, where ATC could close airspace due weather, refuse to sighn off on your flight plan, make you carry additional fuel etc.
Over the years wiser heads (Leave Dick out of this) have made decisions to try and bring us into line with common world wide practice in an attempt to reduce the possibility of confusion with our unique procedures. I believe that you are a regional airline pilot, that probably means you drive turboprops and operate normally below 20,000'. Well on a trip to the US associated with the TAAATS Project the team flew from Washington Dulles to Otawa in Canada in a Beech 1900 at 17,000'. Guess what? the whole enroute trip was in Class E. Chicago O'Hare and Atlanta Hatsfield regularly move between 2000 and 2500 aircraft a day, most of them RPT jet aircraft (Sydney averages around 800/day). Check out a US sectional chart sometime and you will see that like all of their major airports the terminal area is Class B airspace buried in Class E that goes down to 700 AGL and up the the base of the overlying Class A at 18,000'. The top of the Class B airspace is around 8500'. This means that the jet traffic into and out of these airports flies through a lot of class E between the A and B. But of course we all know that that is unsafe as can be shown by all the mid-air collision between GA and RPTs they have had.
Even when it is recommended that we adopt a US system (GA airport procedures) it is fiddled with and we get GAAP and again we have another Australian unique procedure, and that has been in place since 1978.
We also had our own unique DME system, until it was decided that it was not cost effective to maintain two DME systems, our 200mhz equipment and the international 1000mhz equipment. Plus the fact that because of the low production run of our stuff they cost an arm and a leg. (Very similar to the ATC/FS overlap and duplication)
The interesting thing in all this debate is that I don't believe any Australian ATC (not the US imports) has ever worked at a US ATC facility, and there are very few Australian pilots in this country that have flown with a US RPT either. So why don't we get the emotion out of all this and be big enough to look at the proposal and judge it on its merits. Take a holiday over there and do some flying in Class E, maybe around the Los Angeles Basin with a local, including a trip up the coast past LAX VFR, and see if they have a problem with it in that reasonably busy piece of airspace.
NB
The Australian airspace system certainly was unique, and provided no one from the outside came to visit us nothing could go wrong because we all understood the 'language'. We had a duplicate ATC/FS system where each group zealously protected their own patch. I'll never foreget the day a FS Supervisor rushed into the area control room and with great concern in his voice annouced that they had had a penetration of OCTA (the ATC had missed the departure coord on an IFR DC3). We used to use the word 'cruise' in our airways clearances, until in the early 90's there was a near miss to the NE of Sydney between and American and an Australian B747. Check out the ICAO definition of 'cruise'. Then we had that other empire, Operational Control, where ATC could close airspace due weather, refuse to sighn off on your flight plan, make you carry additional fuel etc.
Over the years wiser heads (Leave Dick out of this) have made decisions to try and bring us into line with common world wide practice in an attempt to reduce the possibility of confusion with our unique procedures. I believe that you are a regional airline pilot, that probably means you drive turboprops and operate normally below 20,000'. Well on a trip to the US associated with the TAAATS Project the team flew from Washington Dulles to Otawa in Canada in a Beech 1900 at 17,000'. Guess what? the whole enroute trip was in Class E. Chicago O'Hare and Atlanta Hatsfield regularly move between 2000 and 2500 aircraft a day, most of them RPT jet aircraft (Sydney averages around 800/day). Check out a US sectional chart sometime and you will see that like all of their major airports the terminal area is Class B airspace buried in Class E that goes down to 700 AGL and up the the base of the overlying Class A at 18,000'. The top of the Class B airspace is around 8500'. This means that the jet traffic into and out of these airports flies through a lot of class E between the A and B. But of course we all know that that is unsafe as can be shown by all the mid-air collision between GA and RPTs they have had.
Even when it is recommended that we adopt a US system (GA airport procedures) it is fiddled with and we get GAAP and again we have another Australian unique procedure, and that has been in place since 1978.
We also had our own unique DME system, until it was decided that it was not cost effective to maintain two DME systems, our 200mhz equipment and the international 1000mhz equipment. Plus the fact that because of the low production run of our stuff they cost an arm and a leg. (Very similar to the ATC/FS overlap and duplication)
The interesting thing in all this debate is that I don't believe any Australian ATC (not the US imports) has ever worked at a US ATC facility, and there are very few Australian pilots in this country that have flown with a US RPT either. So why don't we get the emotion out of all this and be big enough to look at the proposal and judge it on its merits. Take a holiday over there and do some flying in Class E, maybe around the Los Angeles Basin with a local, including a trip up the coast past LAX VFR, and see if they have a problem with it in that reasonably busy piece of airspace.
NB
Outer Marker,
I don't get all this FS/ATC "duplication and overlap" stuff.
FS proivded a certain service in a certain bucket of airspace, ATC provided a different service (at a different price) in their bucket of airspace.
Furthermore, Dick Smith has told us of the problems in mixing these services together ... even though this seems to be a very recent epiphany.
Yes, you told us some interesting and amusing warries ... but my question is still ...
Is what we have now, better, simpler and safer than what we had?
And Dick, don't mention the $800trillion odd that you arguably saved the Industry ... we're talking primacy of safety here.
I don't get all this FS/ATC "duplication and overlap" stuff.
FS proivded a certain service in a certain bucket of airspace, ATC provided a different service (at a different price) in their bucket of airspace.
Furthermore, Dick Smith has told us of the problems in mixing these services together ... even though this seems to be a very recent epiphany.
Yes, you told us some interesting and amusing warries ... but my question is still ...
Is what we have now, better, simpler and safer than what we had?
And Dick, don't mention the $800trillion odd that you arguably saved the Industry ... we're talking primacy of safety here.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outer Marker... on that trip through Class E airspace, were Heavy Wake Turbulence Category RPT jets transiting Class E airspace during the climb/descent phase?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quokka,
Yes. Earlier on that same trip we arrived at Washington Dulles in a BA B747-400 from Heathrow in daylight. I was fortunate enough to be in the cockpit for arrival. Some 40 minutes out we were descended by ATC to 14,000 and maintained that level for well over 20 minutes. During that time we were given traffic on a VFR C421 at 14,500 ahead of us on the same route, and during approach into Dulles on at least three lighties crossing our path beneath us in E before we entered the B airspace. The only comment from the very British BA crew came when we called the tower at 10 miles and were immediately cleared to land, although two more departures were then cleared for take-off before we crossed the threshold. (Discretionary landinf and take-off clearances as allowed by ICAO).
NB
Yes. Earlier on that same trip we arrived at Washington Dulles in a BA B747-400 from Heathrow in daylight. I was fortunate enough to be in the cockpit for arrival. Some 40 minutes out we were descended by ATC to 14,000 and maintained that level for well over 20 minutes. During that time we were given traffic on a VFR C421 at 14,500 ahead of us on the same route, and during approach into Dulles on at least three lighties crossing our path beneath us in E before we entered the B airspace. The only comment from the very British BA crew came when we called the tower at 10 miles and were immediately cleared to land, although two more departures were then cleared for take-off before we crossed the threshold. (Discretionary landinf and take-off clearances as allowed by ICAO).
NB
Thread Starter
Pera, you don’t seem to understand the subtle difference between the unique system that has been introduced by Airservices with the wind back, and that which is in other modern aviation countries.
The difference is that in Australia, the actual ATC sector boundaries are marked on the charts and it is mandatory for a VFR aircraft to monitor the frequency in that particular sector. This means that ATC will clearly have a responsibility to two VFR aircraft which are on radar and close to each other.
In no other country in the world that I know of are the air traffic control sector boundaries marked on charts. Yes, the Flight Service or Flightwatch and ATC outlet locations are generally shown on the charts. If pilots want to monitor one of these, they simply change to that frequency, but the pilot has no idea if that frequency complies with the particular airspace in which the pilot is flying. This means that it is normally not possible for the air traffic controller to call a particular aircraft as it could well be on a different frequency. This removes the duty of care and makes it quite clear to pilots and air traffic controllers that G and E airspace is not D – where a traffic information service is provided to VFR aircraft.
The other difference is that in Class E airspace in other countries, VFR pilots are not permitted to start making announcements. They can either call ATC for a workload permitting Flight Following service, or they must shut up. It is completely different.
The difference is that in Australia, the actual ATC sector boundaries are marked on the charts and it is mandatory for a VFR aircraft to monitor the frequency in that particular sector. This means that ATC will clearly have a responsibility to two VFR aircraft which are on radar and close to each other.
In no other country in the world that I know of are the air traffic control sector boundaries marked on charts. Yes, the Flight Service or Flightwatch and ATC outlet locations are generally shown on the charts. If pilots want to monitor one of these, they simply change to that frequency, but the pilot has no idea if that frequency complies with the particular airspace in which the pilot is flying. This means that it is normally not possible for the air traffic controller to call a particular aircraft as it could well be on a different frequency. This removes the duty of care and makes it quite clear to pilots and air traffic controllers that G and E airspace is not D – where a traffic information service is provided to VFR aircraft.
The other difference is that in Class E airspace in other countries, VFR pilots are not permitted to start making announcements. They can either call ATC for a workload permitting Flight Following service, or they must shut up. It is completely different.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference is that in Australia, the actual ATC sector boundaries are marked on the charts and it is mandatory for a VFR aircraft to monitor the frequency in that particular sector. This means that ATC will clearly have a responsibility to two VFR aircraft which are on radar and close to each other.
This removes the duty of care and makes it quite clear to pilots and air traffic controllers that G and E airspace is not D – where a traffic information service is provided to VFR aircraft.
I don't disagree with you wanting to operate class E without the frequency requirements for VFR, but your assumptions that a frequency requirement places extra expectations of ATC are not supported by AIP.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pera agree, AIP is very clear.
Outer Marker, please explain;
How many staff?, How much airspace?
… and alphabet airspace came in when?
most areas above D’s are in radar coverage
perhaps you might point out which ones and their traffic mix and airspace arrangements including tower and tracon/enroute ATC numbers
without radar, what would they use do you suppose, one in one out?
Average of 52 is a false statement.
40+ Turbo-jet moves during TWR Hours, WX and associated, what do you think the real average is when the VFR’s are out to play?, and approach management during IMC?
Do you believe all traffic is being captured in stats?
In fact, you are wrong. Mind you using lures in stead of stinky dead things is not a bad play, still no bites though!
Outer Marker, please explain;
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.
40+ Turbo-jet moves during TWR Hours, WX and associated, what do you think the real average is when the VFR’s are out to play?, and approach management during IMC?
Do you believe all traffic is being captured in stats?
In fact in the US Launceston would probably not. qualify for a manned tower.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots?? Unless I'm tracking reference two airports or two navaids then how are they supposed to know where I am??
For Example if I call at SPIDR tracking to WENDY how on earth would I expect a VFR pilot to know where these points in space are?? Not to mention that it may be some time between these points so during the ensuring 20+ minutes I'm not saying anything!?
Can someone explain how aircraft are seperated where there are no broadcast or DTI requirements?? Are you expected to continue cruising though the clouds IFR and just pray that there isn't a VFR just under the layer that no-one knows about? Sounds like a good way to have an "Aluminum Shower"!
See and avoid doesn't work when one party is IMC!
I'm not resistant to change, I just need proof of concept other than the usual diatribe of "Well that's how the Yanks do it"... as my mother used to say... if someone jumped off the Westgate Bridge would you do it??
For Example if I call at SPIDR tracking to WENDY how on earth would I expect a VFR pilot to know where these points in space are?? Not to mention that it may be some time between these points so during the ensuring 20+ minutes I'm not saying anything!?
Can someone explain how aircraft are seperated where there are no broadcast or DTI requirements?? Are you expected to continue cruising though the clouds IFR and just pray that there isn't a VFR just under the layer that no-one knows about? Sounds like a good way to have an "Aluminum Shower"!
See and avoid doesn't work when one party is IMC!I'm not resistant to change, I just need proof of concept other than the usual diatribe of "Well that's how the Yanks do it"... as my mother used to say... if someone jumped off the Westgate Bridge would you do it??
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots?? Unless I'm tracking reference two airports or two navaids then how are they supposed to know where I am??
Gear Down & Welded Your mother is a wise woman. No doubt she looked at the results the last time someone else jumped off a bridge and has urged you not to do it. Class E is just like the Westgate bridge. So refusing to look at the USA's exceptional success with class E and copying it is a bit like jumping off the Westgate bridge despite the best available advice
You say
Are you expected to continue cruising though the clouds IFR and just pray that there isn't a VFR just under the layer that no-one knows about?
Thread Starter
Gear Down & Welded, you state:
My very point exactly. The whole requirement for position reporting by IFR in radar airspace, and the requirement for VFR aircraft to monitor and announce was introduced by Airservices in the wind back. Remember, under NAS 2b we had removed the air traffic control frequencies from the charts. No other country in the world has such a system, and there is no airspace which really complies with what Airservices are doing with the wind back.
The reason the Airservices experts wrote to me on 25 July 2007 and said that is it mandatory for IFR aircraft in Class E and G radar covered airspace to give position reports is because this is the only way their sham airspace system can work. It is sort of the old pre-AMATS system coupled into Class E airspace.
Remember, under NAS 2b, there was no requirement for VFR in E and G to monitor air traffic control. The requirement when enroute and in the approach and departure airspace of an airport was to monitor the airport frequency. When enroute there was no mandatory requirement to monitor ATC – although it was recommended that pilots monitor a nearby VHF outlet.
Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots??
The reason the Airservices experts wrote to me on 25 July 2007 and said that is it mandatory for IFR aircraft in Class E and G radar covered airspace to give position reports is because this is the only way their sham airspace system can work. It is sort of the old pre-AMATS system coupled into Class E airspace.
Remember, under NAS 2b, there was no requirement for VFR in E and G to monitor air traffic control. The requirement when enroute and in the approach and departure airspace of an airport was to monitor the airport frequency. When enroute there was no mandatory requirement to monitor ATC – although it was recommended that pilots monitor a nearby VHF outlet.
Outer Marker
They've killed far more in jet-lighty collisions than we have. How many deaths are enough, just to satisfy the desires of people like Dick to fly around unhindered as though they are hte only ones in the airspace?
I assume going in the same direction. What would have happened had the 421, say 2nm in front, commenced a descent without prior warning to 12,500ft?
Had Operational Control been in operation at various airports around the world, hundreds (if not thousands) of people would still be alive today. Some pilots like trying to land in fog and some keep trying until they crash, as they have done on numerous occasions. Part of Operational Control is the tower telling pilots they can't land in fog. But that would be a silly idea wouldn't it?
DME A was mandated in Aus RPT in 1955. Was DME I available then? Do you realise the importance, in those days, of having DME (any sort?) in the outback. Obviously not.
Gear down and welded
Because it gives the weakest link in the chain, the VFR (who may or may not be transponding - even though he is supposed to - because there is no requirement to check that he/she is) a chance to know where the jet near him is.
Dick doesn't agree that that is necessary. He just flies around with his eyes out the window hoping he'll pick up the jet that is about to ram him.
But of course we all know that that is unsafe as can be shown by all the mid-air collision between GA and RPTs they have had.
Some 40 minutes out we were descended by ATC to 14,000 and maintained that level for well over 20 minutes. During that time we were given traffic on a VFR C421 at 14,500 ahead of us on the same route
Then we had that other empire, Operational Control, where ATC could close airspace due weather, refuse to sighn off on your flight plan, make you carry additional fuel etc.
We also had our own unique DME system, until it was decided that it was not cost effective to maintain two DME systems, our 200mhz equipment and the international 1000mhz equipment. Plus the fact that because of the low production run of our stuff they cost an arm and a leg.
Gear down and welded
Dick, How does me making an IFR position report whilst radar identified help the VFR pilots??
Dick doesn't agree that that is necessary. He just flies around with his eyes out the window hoping he'll pick up the jet that is about to ram him.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to mis-understand my point... I'm all for having the VFR on frequency, but point being that if I say I'm tracking from point A to point B gives no useable information to a VFR pilot at all. For all intents and purposes I could very well say that I'm tracking to the moon! Same as saying on a CTAF that I'm overhead bla bla Sierra Bravo conducting the RNAV approach, means absolutely ZERO to a VFR pilot unless you happen to have someone that is IFR savvy on the other end.
As for terminal class E, I had a very animated discussion with Mike Smith on this. Flying overhead AY I was monitoring TWR (as required to under 2b) just so happened to call the quiet tower controller and tell him my position and intentions (Over Wodonga at A055 and tracking AY then WG). Bloody good thing I did because there just so happened to be a Saab340 (not yet on the frequency) who was coming the other way. Without positive seperation being provided by the controller (which under E he was not obliged to give) I would have at best been involved in an AIRPROX and TCAS event! With the seperation we passed within 200ft of each other (well seperated laterally though). So I hate to think what could have happened that day!!
My suggestion to Mike Smith at the time, relating to the above experience thus terminal E airspace, was why not have a requirement to have VFR call the tower (they are required to be on freq anyways) with self announce of who they are, where they are, and where they intend to go. This way the controller is aware of them and their intentions and can offer seperation guidance as appropriate?? Terminal E is gone, but the same could be said for enroute class E... no requirement for a clearance, just a requirement to announce what you are doing.
From the other side of the coin from an IFR perspective(back to my original topic!), the IFR guys are much more likely to know where the VFR guys are than the other way around. Alerted See and Avoid is workable, the original 2b concept with VFR on any (if at all) frequency he likes plying the skies whilst hopefully looking out the window and not playing with his charts, or playing with his GPS (or G1000!)... is more like 'pray to avoid' than see and avoid.
Anyone done the math on exactly how much time you have if you have say two SR22's going nose to nose?? It's a small aircraft so won't be recognised until they are very close, with 360kts closure... seconds if that!
As for terminal class E, I had a very animated discussion with Mike Smith on this. Flying overhead AY I was monitoring TWR (as required to under 2b) just so happened to call the quiet tower controller and tell him my position and intentions (Over Wodonga at A055 and tracking AY then WG). Bloody good thing I did because there just so happened to be a Saab340 (not yet on the frequency) who was coming the other way. Without positive seperation being provided by the controller (which under E he was not obliged to give) I would have at best been involved in an AIRPROX and TCAS event! With the seperation we passed within 200ft of each other (well seperated laterally though). So I hate to think what could have happened that day!!
My suggestion to Mike Smith at the time, relating to the above experience thus terminal E airspace, was why not have a requirement to have VFR call the tower (they are required to be on freq anyways) with self announce of who they are, where they are, and where they intend to go. This way the controller is aware of them and their intentions and can offer seperation guidance as appropriate?? Terminal E is gone, but the same could be said for enroute class E... no requirement for a clearance, just a requirement to announce what you are doing.
From the other side of the coin from an IFR perspective(back to my original topic!), the IFR guys are much more likely to know where the VFR guys are than the other way around. Alerted See and Avoid is workable, the original 2b concept with VFR on any (if at all) frequency he likes plying the skies whilst hopefully looking out the window and not playing with his charts, or playing with his GPS (or G1000!)... is more like 'pray to avoid' than see and avoid.
Anyone done the math on exactly how much time you have if you have say two SR22's going nose to nose?? It's a small aircraft so won't be recognised until they are very close, with 360kts closure... seconds if that!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My suggestion to Mike Smith at the time, relating to the above experience thus terminal E airspace, was why not have a requirement to have VFR call the tower (they are required to be on freq anyways) with self announce of who they are, where they are, and where they intend to go. This way the controller is aware of them and their intentions and can offer seperation guidance as appropriate?? Terminal E is gone, but the same could be said for enroute class E... no requirement for a clearance, just a requirement to announce what you are doing.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear Down,
I think you've hit on the most likely scenario for a See-&-Avoid failure in Class E... it might be the A330 on descent through the preceding high-wing lighty without it's transponder on... but its more likely to be an opposite-direction lighty with a high-performance turbo-prop... nil-transponder on the lighty, with the pilot head-down playing with his brand new Garmin that Mr Smith endorsed on PPRUNE...
I think you've hit on the most likely scenario for a See-&-Avoid failure in Class E... it might be the A330 on descent through the preceding high-wing lighty without it's transponder on... but its more likely to be an opposite-direction lighty with a high-performance turbo-prop... nil-transponder on the lighty, with the pilot head-down playing with his brand new Garmin that Mr Smith endorsed on PPRUNE...
Freedom 7
A pity you (and many others) have, apparently, no knowledge of the development of airspace management practices over the years since WWII.
ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace is, quite simply, based on the concepts developed by the FAA to handle the US traffic levels, as they have grown over the years.
What is now called "E", for convenience and understanding, the most widely used low/mid-level classification in US, FAA-wise was previously called "VFR Exempt" for short, or more fully "CTL(VFR Exempt).
ICAO adopted the US risk management based approach to provision of CNS/ATM services, because the FAA system was proven to work, and work reasonably efficiently and economically (particularly compared to pre-AMATS Australia) and with an outstanding safety record.
For anybody who wants to dispute the US safety record, please look at the statistics, they are readily available ---- and for anybody who wants to quote the loss of the B727 at San Diego, or the DC-9 at Cerritos (LAX) please look up the NTSB reports first.
Instead of such bald assertions, how about some researched figures, giving particular regard to the fact that traffic in US is, using a broad average (and just IFR) 25 to 30 times Australia, as a conservative figure, because not all IFR and very little VFR is recorded in the FAA ATC stats.
Again, all the facts and figures are easily available, for anybody who want to actually be informed of the facts.
Tootle pip!!
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 alphabet airspace came in when?
ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace is, quite simply, based on the concepts developed by the FAA to handle the US traffic levels, as they have grown over the years.
What is now called "E", for convenience and understanding, the most widely used low/mid-level classification in US, FAA-wise was previously called "VFR Exempt" for short, or more fully "CTL(VFR Exempt).
ICAO adopted the US risk management based approach to provision of CNS/ATM services, because the FAA system was proven to work, and work reasonably efficiently and economically (particularly compared to pre-AMATS Australia) and with an outstanding safety record.
For anybody who wants to dispute the US safety record, please look at the statistics, they are readily available ---- and for anybody who wants to quote the loss of the B727 at San Diego, or the DC-9 at Cerritos (LAX) please look up the NTSB reports first.
But of course we all know that that is unsafe as can be shown by all the mid-air collision between GA and RPTs they have had.
They've killed far more in jet-lighty collisions than we have. How many deaths are enough, just to satisfy the desires of people like Dick to fly around unhindered as though they are hte only ones in the airspace?
Again, all the facts and figures are easily available, for anybody who want to actually be informed of the facts.
Tootle pip!!