Labor’s Class C radar policy
Thread Starter
If the Class E above D is a measurable safety problem, why does it work so well in the USA and Canada – without even a mandatory transponder requirement below 10,000 feet in enroute airspace, and with over 50% of the 350 Class D airports in the USA not having radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D?
Surely US pilots and controllers would say something about this (or at least ask for a mandatory transponder requirement) if there was a measurable problem. See here – from the much respected Voices of Reason.
Surely US pilots and controllers would say something about this (or at least ask for a mandatory transponder requirement) if there was a measurable problem. See here – from the much respected Voices of Reason.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Class E above D is a measurable safety problem, why does it work so well in the USA and Canada – without even a mandatory transponder requirement below 10,000 feet in enroute airspace, and with over 50% of the 350 Class D airports in the USA not having radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D?
E over D is not as safe a C over D; fact.
If you increase the risk, under the ALARP and modern risk management processes, you must have an identifiable cost benefit.
ie increased risk is ok if it pays it's own way.
It isn't about E over D is not safe; it's less safe (in that airspace, leave the CTRs out of the argument).
The USA probably wouldn't have done E over D if they started with C over D first; but they didn't. To simply say they do it so we can too is simplifying the argument and not addressing our legislative requirements.
If you change our laws/regs then it may be feasible to do what you suggest; but until that happens we must follow our laws.
E over D is still possible; even with our laws, you simply have to prove why the cost benefit is viable; that's the hard part.
Thread Starter
SM4Pirate, you state:
How can you leave the workload of the controller in the CTR out of the argument? It is not a personal opinion, I have spoken to controllers all around the world in relation to this particular issue. The controllers in the United States have said that if they were responsible for Class C airspace to 8,500 feet above the D at Lihue, safety would actually be reduced. Why did they say this? They said because they wouldn’t be able to concentrate on the traffic close to the runway where the accidents are likely to happen.
SM4Pirate, you never answer this point. Are these controllers wrong?
I have always agreed that C is safer than E, but only if it is adequately staffed and you actually know where the VFR aircraft are.
When the controllers in Australia have to be responsible for huge amounts of Class C airspace as well as the D, do you accept that even to a small degree, the concentration of the controller on traffic close to the airport would be reduced – even slightly – by VFR aircraft calling and requiring a service in the Class C airspace above? It is simply logical commonsense to me and to many others I have spoken to.
I have pointed out to overseas controllers the view that Australian controllers have – that is, they can provide the extra service of C airspace above D, and believe the combination actually improves safety, not decreases safety. The overseas controllers all say this is not possible.
I find it interesting that you won’t even discuss this point and give any acceptance to the validity of the argument – even if it only has a small effect.
Is there anyone game to discuss the point made by overseas professional controllers that having too much airspace controlled by just one controller can actually reduce safety under some circumstances by capturing traffic which has very low collision risk possibility?
It isn't about E over D is not safe; it's less safe (in that airspace, leave the CTRs out of the argument).
SM4Pirate, you never answer this point. Are these controllers wrong?
I have always agreed that C is safer than E, but only if it is adequately staffed and you actually know where the VFR aircraft are.
When the controllers in Australia have to be responsible for huge amounts of Class C airspace as well as the D, do you accept that even to a small degree, the concentration of the controller on traffic close to the airport would be reduced – even slightly – by VFR aircraft calling and requiring a service in the Class C airspace above? It is simply logical commonsense to me and to many others I have spoken to.
I have pointed out to overseas controllers the view that Australian controllers have – that is, they can provide the extra service of C airspace above D, and believe the combination actually improves safety, not decreases safety. The overseas controllers all say this is not possible.
I find it interesting that you won’t even discuss this point and give any acceptance to the validity of the argument – even if it only has a small effect.
Is there anyone game to discuss the point made by overseas professional controllers that having too much airspace controlled by just one controller can actually reduce safety under some circumstances by capturing traffic which has very low collision risk possibility?
Thread Starter
By the way SM4Pirate, the so called ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) process that was introduced by Airservices is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen from any management team in all my life. Wouldn’t you want to have a system where you can allocate your resources where they have the greatest affect on safety?
More importantly, why would you want to have a system where you clearly have a greater liability and risk of litigation when it wasn’t even Government policy? The Government policy signed off by Federal Cabinet clearly shows that Class E above Class D airspace is all that was required. Airservices said, “Oh, Government, we can actually provide you with a higher class of airspace at no extra charge, even though the risk and liability to our organisation is far greater.”
I’m sure the people in the Minister’s office must have said, “Well, we may as well accept that. These people obviously have no business ability at all.” I’m sure that is what John Anderson did in relation to the wind back.
I’ve mentioned before on this site that I can see why those in power tend to want to exploit air traffic controllers. It is sad because if our air traffic controllers had the chance to talk to their colleagues in other leading aviation countries, they would quickly find that air traffic controllers in those countries will not countenance having extra liabilities over those required by Government policy – no matter what was done in the past.
Imagine if air traffic controllers said to the Government, “Look, we will be responsible for the separation of IFR traffic in Class G airspace when under radar. We can do it at no extra cost, so we may as well take on the extra responsibility and liability.”
I don’t think so. I hope the union leaders would not accept that under any circumstances.
More importantly, why would you want to have a system where you clearly have a greater liability and risk of litigation when it wasn’t even Government policy? The Government policy signed off by Federal Cabinet clearly shows that Class E above Class D airspace is all that was required. Airservices said, “Oh, Government, we can actually provide you with a higher class of airspace at no extra charge, even though the risk and liability to our organisation is far greater.”
I’m sure the people in the Minister’s office must have said, “Well, we may as well accept that. These people obviously have no business ability at all.” I’m sure that is what John Anderson did in relation to the wind back.
I’ve mentioned before on this site that I can see why those in power tend to want to exploit air traffic controllers. It is sad because if our air traffic controllers had the chance to talk to their colleagues in other leading aviation countries, they would quickly find that air traffic controllers in those countries will not countenance having extra liabilities over those required by Government policy – no matter what was done in the past.
Imagine if air traffic controllers said to the Government, “Look, we will be responsible for the separation of IFR traffic in Class G airspace when under radar. We can do it at no extra cost, so we may as well take on the extra responsibility and liability.”
I don’t think so. I hope the union leaders would not accept that under any circumstances.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you leave the workload of the controller in the CTR out of the argument?
I have spoken to controllers all around the world in relation to this particular issue. The controllers in the United States have said that if they were responsible for Class C airspace to 8,500 feet above the D at Lihue, safety would actually be reduced.
Why did they say this? They said because they wouldn’t be able to concentrate on the traffic close to the runway where the accidents are likely to happen.
SM4Pirate, you never answer this point. Are these controllers wrong?
I have always agreed that C is safer than E, but only if it is adequately staffed and you actually know where the VFR aircraft are.
When the controllers in Australia have to be responsible for huge amounts of Class C airspace as well as the D, do you accept that even to a small degree, the concentration of the controller on traffic close to the airport would be reduced – even slightly – by VFR aircraft calling and requiring a service in the Class C airspace above? It is simply logical commonsense to me and to many others I have spoken to.
I have pointed out to overseas controllers the view that Australian controllers have – that is, they can provide the extra service of C airspace above D, and believe the combination actually improves safety, not decreases safety. The overseas controllers all say this is not possible.
I find it interesting that you won’t even discuss this point and give any acceptance to the validity of the argument – even if it only has a small effect.
Is there anyone game to discuss the point made by overseas professional controllers that having too much airspace controlled by just one controller can actually reduce safety under some circumstances by capturing traffic which has very low collision risk possibility?
It is not lawful to say risk here = X risk there = y, so we can make here = Z and there = t. You need to really assess it.
Blanket assessments such as global (national) change don’t stack up very well. It might be very easy to do an individual assessment, much easier than a national one. Particularly where surveillance is actually available; the risk over Nth QLD towers and LT for example would be negligible because radar is a available; but AY, CH, TW, AS, HB might be harder to achieve the same.
I’m willing to have a real discussion rather than he said she said bs; but please don’t try and paint me as a change resistant fundamentalist, unionised ATC. I’m all for change when the benefits are real and definable; I don’t like the concept of reduction here for increase there... Why not just have reductions; surely we can afford it; maybe we could spend some of the ASA profit on improvements?
Last edited by SM4 Pirate; 11th Feb 2008 at 03:15.
Thread Starter
Just think of it – if the USA or Canada decided to have Class C over D as per Australia at their 350 Class D airports, the Class C “steps” would extend to 120 nautical miles where they contacted the Class A airspace at FL180. The Class C would cover most of the continent at this level and the “steps” would make the airspace so complex that no pilot would be able to fathom out where the boundaries were!
The whole system would basically grind to a halt.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe we could spend some of the ASA profit on improvements?
Sorry SM4 couldn't resist!Totally agree with your sentiments thought!
And I'm STILL yet to see an arugment that doesn't contain the words "United States" or "Overseas" in it... I'll say it again Dick and co, what are the benefits in AUSTRALIA using the AUSTRALIAN system with an AUSTRALIAN aircraft. I don't give a rats about IFR turbo-props dodging VFR twins at what would qualify as our lower flight levels over in the US. Just because THEY class it as ACCEPTABLE risk, why should we blindly accept that same risk here?? About the same stupidity as blindly following the US into several wars in recent history eh??
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just think of it – if the USA or Canada decided to have Class C over D as per Australia at their 350 Class D airports, the Class C “steps” would extend to 120 nautical miles where they contacted the Class A airspace at FL180. The Class C would cover most of the continent at this level and the “steps” would make the airspace so complex that no pilot would be able to fathom out where the boundaries were!
The whole system would basically grind to a halt.
The whole system would basically grind to a halt.
This is where you fall down Dick in your mantra for change; somebody logically explains the reasons why we need to do assessments and the reasons we have what we have and instead of engaging in that element of debate you bring it back, sceptics 101 style, to your fundamental position. Not why we just can't, but, what we should. Yes, but what about the issues raised in the "why we just can't side."
As I have said, I'm all for change, I'd like to see lots of low level sectors and lots of ADS-B and lots of better mapped terrain (radar terrain) paths, lots of easily determined RNAV approaches, lots of Multi-Lat, radar surveillance, ADS-B in stations etc; GBAS/GRAS/GLS for better precision approaches, protected ILS GP huts etc. Hell if everything that flew was visible to a controller and we could really use 'segregation' not separation when one is a VFR, real pilot and ATC education, then I'd say go for it; make all of Australia E at A1200 ft. But back to reality, it all costs money and for whatever reasons people resist change, like ADS-B, GBAS etc; right?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind E over D or C over D - surely lets get some D first. As a fare paying passenger, when I buy a ticket to fly I would expect the operator to guarantee that, outside of an act of god, or a human factors or mecahnical failure, I will get to my destination safely utilising a best practice well managed, risk assessed, ATM network of routes, airspace equipment rules and procedures applied by a competent (motivated = well paid) ATC workforce! Thats what an ANSP exists and is paid for right? Overseas , if I can use that word , by design and some evolution , this generally means flight wholly within controlled airspace. i.e. within a known traffic environment where conflictions can be deconflicted either proactively via flightplanning, flow, etc, or reactively by radar advice etc as per class G in UK for example. Although even in Uk, corners , literally are being cut by some CAT (Civilian Air transport operators = Oz RPT ; resulting in increased risk for all with only cost benefit to the CAT; hence one of the reasons for the latest ATSOCAS review - Air Traffic services outside controlled airspace- For those interested
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20070607...ase2report.pdf
If an ATM system, for whatever reason, (cost v profit = Oz ANSP ?) chooses not to provide an ATC service (TIBA?) which, elsewhere in the world is generally deemed necessary in dealing with RPT; as lacking at Avalon and Hamilton, for example, then the safety case and risk management starategies should be transparent and perhaps open to some form of 3rd party scrutiny? Would that be CASA's job by any chance?
Appreciate its horses for courses and that Oz is a big place ; but the big sky theory is getting a bit pear shaped these days. More traffic same acreage of sky! And to not have a tower providing some form of ATC service to fare paying RPT types is unacceptable!
Reasonable people accept the status quo and nothing ever changes! Unreasonable types often challenge the status quo and this can result in change, which over time ensures some form of evolution. Perhaps, for the benefit of the majority not the minority, its time for a few more aviation types to be a little more unreasonable if we seek to evolve Oz ATC.
DogGone:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20070607...ase2report.pdf
If an ATM system, for whatever reason, (cost v profit = Oz ANSP ?) chooses not to provide an ATC service (TIBA?) which, elsewhere in the world is generally deemed necessary in dealing with RPT; as lacking at Avalon and Hamilton, for example, then the safety case and risk management starategies should be transparent and perhaps open to some form of 3rd party scrutiny? Would that be CASA's job by any chance?
Appreciate its horses for courses and that Oz is a big place ; but the big sky theory is getting a bit pear shaped these days. More traffic same acreage of sky! And to not have a tower providing some form of ATC service to fare paying RPT types is unacceptable!
Reasonable people accept the status quo and nothing ever changes! Unreasonable types often challenge the status quo and this can result in change, which over time ensures some form of evolution. Perhaps, for the benefit of the majority not the minority, its time for a few more aviation types to be a little more unreasonable if we seek to evolve Oz ATC.
DogGone:
Last edited by BurglarsDog; 12th Feb 2008 at 03:21. Reason: factual correction
Thread Starter
Gear Down & Welded, you state:
My belief is that we should copy the best from overseas, whatever country it is from, and keep what we do best here.
For example, when I first proposed that we accept overseas type certification from leading aviation countries, it was violently opposed by the airworthiness people who worked for me at the CAA. Many of the same reasons were given as are given now against following the best airspace and procedures. Since we have accepted “first of type” certification from leading aviation countries, millions of dollars have been saved and there has been no measurable effect on safety.
Are you suggesting we should move back to unique Australian certification standards – such as having the Flight Data Recorder in a 747 sample more times per second than the unit provided by Boeing? Or how about a requirement for special and expensive metal guards over the baggage compartment light in Citations – once again adding unnecessarily to costs and resulting in bags being ripped as they were placed in the compartment.
And I'm STILL yet to see an argument that doesn't contain the words "United States" or "Overseas" in it...
For example, when I first proposed that we accept overseas type certification from leading aviation countries, it was violently opposed by the airworthiness people who worked for me at the CAA. Many of the same reasons were given as are given now against following the best airspace and procedures. Since we have accepted “first of type” certification from leading aviation countries, millions of dollars have been saved and there has been no measurable effect on safety.
Are you suggesting we should move back to unique Australian certification standards – such as having the Flight Data Recorder in a 747 sample more times per second than the unit provided by Boeing? Or how about a requirement for special and expensive metal guards over the baggage compartment light in Citations – once again adding unnecessarily to costs and resulting in bags being ripped as they were placed in the compartment.
Thread Starter
SM4 Pirate, I appreciate your detailed responses. I wish we could get together some time and discuss this. I will send you a PM.
The problem I see is that before I was involved in any reforms, we simply had controlled airspace and uncontrolled. The controlled airspace in a place like Sydney was actually equivalent to ICAO Class B – we separated everything from everything else, including VFR helicopters from VFR helicopters.
In moving to an airspace system which allocated the resources more effectively we needed to go to at least 5 classes of airspace and allocate these depending on the traffic density and collision risk. By moving to these 5 classes, it meant that some airspace needed to go to a higher classification (i.e. from uncontrolled to controlled) whilst other airspace needed to change to a lower category – i.e. from Class B to C or D, or (dare I say it) even E.
In recent times the people at Airservices have claimed that we can only go one way with airspace changes. That is, keep them the same or make them more restrictive. Fortunately in the past there were lateral thinking people in management at Airservices – or CAA at the time – that allowed airspace to change at places like Mount Isa, where the Class B equivalent tower (they separated everything from everything) was clearly a misallocation of resources.
Most importantly SM4 Pirate, you do not comment on the fact that the airspace is now clearly “upside down.” To have Class C airspace in the link above Class D at a place like Albury clearly shows this. Obviously the risk of collision is greater close to the airport when compared to the link airspace above. However we have the higher category Class C where the collision risk is less.
There are substantial savings to be made by going from Class C to E. For example, next week I will be flying from Gundaroo to Bendigo. Like most pilots, I will flight plan around the Albury Class C airspace so I don’t end up orbiting or being told to “remain OCTA.” I can assure you that if I try to fly through the approach airspace to the south of Albury at 7,500 feet, even if an IFR Cessna 172 is inbound to Albury, I will be held or diverted. I know because it has happened continuously in similar situations over the years.
I talk to many pilots and they all do what I do – flight plan around these huge “road blocks” of Class C. What would the cost be? No one knows because there is no way of measuring it. I would estimate it is millions of dollars of waste over the last decade or so – virtually all affecting general aviation.
In the UK all their non-radar tower airports have Class G above so aircraft can overfly and save needless waste. I don’t dare mention the USA – no, I will. Look at the diagram that I posted earlier. They have Class E airspace above all of their terminal areas so that unnecessary holding and fuel can be saved.
SM4 Pirate, you don’t cover the fact that we have Class C airspace above places like Proserpine and Avalon, but we have Class G uncontrolled airspace - without even a UNICOM - at low levels and in the circuit area where the collision risk is obviously far greater. Remember both of these airports have jet airline aircraft – with Avalon having over 1.5 million passengers per year.
In other leading aviation countries, operating jet airline aircraft without a minimum of Class E – or at least an air traffic control tower - is simply not allowed.
Fortunately there are young controllers coming along, and from their emails I get a feeling that they have a more lateral view of the situation.
To have an airspace system which is a “one way ratchet” which precludes ever correcting mistakes of the past would be an error in my view.
As mentioned above, the cost of the Class C “road block” airspace is staggering. The “road block” would be reduced if the Class C was provided with an approach radar system and adequate controllers. However everyone then says, “That’s too expensive.”
The answer seems to be, “Oh, don’t worry, just delay the VFR aircraft because if people stop flying VFR aircraft they are more likely to fly in airlines and that will give more income to Airservices.” This is a short term view. If we don’t have a viable and growing GA industry, we will end up without enough pilots to fly for the airlines – without even considering the lack of training for maintenance and other people.
SM4 Pirate, why don’t you comment on the fact that the airspace is “upside down” and clearly is reversed compared to what would be objectively sought after?
By the way, my suggestion is to have a look at the staggering number of incidents which take place in Class D airspace. Incidents like airline aircraft being cleared for take off when there is a motor vehicle on the runway, or the incident at Hamilton Island where two jets got awfully close together whilst the controller was holding VFR helicopters outside the zone. No one can tell me that holding aircraft outside the zone doesn’t add to stress and increase the chance of an error by controllers.
The problem I see is that before I was involved in any reforms, we simply had controlled airspace and uncontrolled. The controlled airspace in a place like Sydney was actually equivalent to ICAO Class B – we separated everything from everything else, including VFR helicopters from VFR helicopters.
In moving to an airspace system which allocated the resources more effectively we needed to go to at least 5 classes of airspace and allocate these depending on the traffic density and collision risk. By moving to these 5 classes, it meant that some airspace needed to go to a higher classification (i.e. from uncontrolled to controlled) whilst other airspace needed to change to a lower category – i.e. from Class B to C or D, or (dare I say it) even E.
In recent times the people at Airservices have claimed that we can only go one way with airspace changes. That is, keep them the same or make them more restrictive. Fortunately in the past there were lateral thinking people in management at Airservices – or CAA at the time – that allowed airspace to change at places like Mount Isa, where the Class B equivalent tower (they separated everything from everything) was clearly a misallocation of resources.
Most importantly SM4 Pirate, you do not comment on the fact that the airspace is now clearly “upside down.” To have Class C airspace in the link above Class D at a place like Albury clearly shows this. Obviously the risk of collision is greater close to the airport when compared to the link airspace above. However we have the higher category Class C where the collision risk is less.
There are substantial savings to be made by going from Class C to E. For example, next week I will be flying from Gundaroo to Bendigo. Like most pilots, I will flight plan around the Albury Class C airspace so I don’t end up orbiting or being told to “remain OCTA.” I can assure you that if I try to fly through the approach airspace to the south of Albury at 7,500 feet, even if an IFR Cessna 172 is inbound to Albury, I will be held or diverted. I know because it has happened continuously in similar situations over the years.
I talk to many pilots and they all do what I do – flight plan around these huge “road blocks” of Class C. What would the cost be? No one knows because there is no way of measuring it. I would estimate it is millions of dollars of waste over the last decade or so – virtually all affecting general aviation.
In the UK all their non-radar tower airports have Class G above so aircraft can overfly and save needless waste. I don’t dare mention the USA – no, I will. Look at the diagram that I posted earlier. They have Class E airspace above all of their terminal areas so that unnecessary holding and fuel can be saved.
SM4 Pirate, you don’t cover the fact that we have Class C airspace above places like Proserpine and Avalon, but we have Class G uncontrolled airspace - without even a UNICOM - at low levels and in the circuit area where the collision risk is obviously far greater. Remember both of these airports have jet airline aircraft – with Avalon having over 1.5 million passengers per year.
In other leading aviation countries, operating jet airline aircraft without a minimum of Class E – or at least an air traffic control tower - is simply not allowed.
Fortunately there are young controllers coming along, and from their emails I get a feeling that they have a more lateral view of the situation.
To have an airspace system which is a “one way ratchet” which precludes ever correcting mistakes of the past would be an error in my view.
As mentioned above, the cost of the Class C “road block” airspace is staggering. The “road block” would be reduced if the Class C was provided with an approach radar system and adequate controllers. However everyone then says, “That’s too expensive.”
The answer seems to be, “Oh, don’t worry, just delay the VFR aircraft because if people stop flying VFR aircraft they are more likely to fly in airlines and that will give more income to Airservices.” This is a short term view. If we don’t have a viable and growing GA industry, we will end up without enough pilots to fly for the airlines – without even considering the lack of training for maintenance and other people.
SM4 Pirate, why don’t you comment on the fact that the airspace is “upside down” and clearly is reversed compared to what would be objectively sought after?
By the way, my suggestion is to have a look at the staggering number of incidents which take place in Class D airspace. Incidents like airline aircraft being cleared for take off when there is a motor vehicle on the runway, or the incident at Hamilton Island where two jets got awfully close together whilst the controller was holding VFR helicopters outside the zone. No one can tell me that holding aircraft outside the zone doesn’t add to stress and increase the chance of an error by controllers.
Thread Starter
So-long, I agree that there clearly aren’t enough controllers even to provide the present services, let alone anything a bit better. I just wonder where the $500 million or so in income actually goes.
I agree that we would not be able to use target resolution (“green in between”) under the circumstances you have quoted, but how about within 10 miles of the Williamtown radar head? You would think it may be possible there – considering that is what many other leading aviation countries do.
I’m off to go bushwalking in the south west Tasmanian wilderness so I won’t be around for a while. Everyone can relax – including me!
I agree that we would not be able to use target resolution (“green in between”) under the circumstances you have quoted, but how about within 10 miles of the Williamtown radar head? You would think it may be possible there – considering that is what many other leading aviation countries do.
I’m off to go bushwalking in the south west Tasmanian wilderness so I won’t be around for a while. Everyone can relax – including me!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I hope you truly enjoyed your hiking in the wilderness; great country. Did the overland track a few years back and apart from the few ‘tigers’ to get your heart racing at the southern end it was a great adventure. So i leave here some light reading for your edification.
Well despite your beliefs this is what I understand ALRAP to be; you have three types of risk under ALARP, Unacceptable Risk, Tolerable Risk and Acceptable Risk; where Risk is Unacceptable you must do something; and when risk is at the ‘higher end’ of tolerable the idea is to conduct a CBA to see if you can lower the risk.
But despite your beliefs in the ‘government policy’ the government laws (REGS) prevented increase in risk (in all areas, i.e. no trade off’s) without cost benefit. The idea is if you have Acceptable risk you don’t make it a tolerable risk; you keep what you have and then reduce risk in other areas approaching intolerable (unacceptable) risk unless the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained.
Culturally that is not acceptable; why would we do it, let alone stepping outside your beautifully supported ICAO airspace definitions (sic!) If we are going to be responsible for separation (which includes applying a standard) in G; as opposed to avoiding action suggestions which is simply target resolution or level advice the I suggest to you that is and would be a significant increase in costs ad resources; despite your beliefs.
Perhaps you misunedrstand why we have a union, industrial negotiation is one thing, keeping a professional voice and clout is another; IMHO it’s a stupid idea.
Alas I won’t be able to meet with you, I’m exposed enough thanks all the same; such is the nature of my employer. Also, I’m not exactly sure what influence you think I have, perhaps it’s been significantly over-estimated.
No argument from me that’s against the spirit of the current global aviation climate and the ICAO rules as ratified in 1990 (alphabet airspace).
Well yes, but. Since changing to the ICAO airspace adaptations much has changed in terms of regulations. AFAIK, we can reduce services if there is a tangible cost benefit, providing the range is still ‘tolerable risk’ ; but to increase risk you must reduce costs. There are ways to reduce risk and reduce costs; it’s about better mitigation. I understand that ICAO is considering allowing TCAS as a mitigator; but ICAO still doesn’t allow it to be the ‘golden gate’ mitigator to risk, there must be something else available.
Like above, I didn’t see that question directed at me. The upside down nature of the risk is your opinion. You believe the risk is higher on the ground relating to circuit traffic at AY; I suggest it is more complex. If there are more traffic mixing above AY then it is conceivable that the risk is higher because of the increased conflict pairs; arguable this risk is worth without due regard and knowledge of VFR traffic. Essentially I agree with what you say, but I’m stating it’s not as simple as you suggest. The conflicts that resulted in much media attention, near CANTY, near YMLT, and Near YBMC, in NAS days were ‘evidence’ that because “you can” doesn’t mean “you should”, or that “you can” safely.
There is probably extra cost in increasing the ATC resources which may or may not offset the savings to VFRs, providing C, I have always stated is cheaper than E “in radar” as you don’t need to deal with unknowns and can utilise coping mechanisms when you get busy. Additionally your example highlights my above answer, because you don’t need to avoid (despite little evidence in clearance knock backs, I’m sure it does happen but it’s extremely overstated IMHO) the airspace you increase the conflict pairs and thus potentially increase the risk that your ‘upside down’ airspace risk model creates.
I;m now appraoching 20 years of ATC duties and I have ‘knocked back’ a VFR clearance twice over that time (sh!ts were trumps). I encourage early calls, flight planning etc. Using your analogy ‘road blocks’ are created by the poor design and by the users.
And in the UK all airports that service RPT Jets have at least a Class D tower. In the USA there are approximately 135 D towers without ‘circuit’ radar coverage; but how many are there without ‘enroute’ radar coverage to 5000 AGL? How many of these towers are getting M-LAT; ADS-B, radar facilities to capture the missing (dare I say riskier) ‘black hole’ airspace. How many of those class D towers service RPT jets.
No argument from me on that, again Didn’t know I was being asked.
Risk improvements can be made easily IMHO at places like YWLM, YBRM, YPSP, YMAV; but does that mean a tower? There are other options; most of which will require some sort of ATC at some stage to do it. Where radar coverage is good what is the true collision risk? At places like YMAV, YWLM, YPSP what is the measured risk where there is no tower service, but everything leaving the above airspace is ‘regulated’? I’d suggest that is very different risk profiles to non-radar E; despite it being ‘terminal’ airspace.
I believe that this is IFATCA and dare I mention Civil Air, oops I did, policy. The current government policy is to protect PTOs (passenger transport operations) first and foremost, therefore there are things to be done.
Now CASA is responsible for airspace, controllers of all descriptions will have very little impact in designs.
Well yes and no, it currently would be too expensive; but in a few years it may be very achievable. Why does it need to be an approach service? Why not have good surveillance and manage the airspace appropriately. Good surveillance would IMHO would save about 50 controllers currently allocated to Procedural Sectors; because of the high workloads that non-radar creates; these could easily be directed to the airspace abutting the D towers with significant safety benefits.
I don’t think anyone thinks that way at all. But I don’t want unknown VFRs mixing it with Jets or fast moving Turbos; why increase the risks (the law says you can’t); yes they do it now, but why make it worse; unless you can prove the benefits, so far it’s anecdotes and waffle, sorry but true from my position. The number one detractor from the “Willoughby Report” was that it wasn’t tangible; if it wasn’t made to look so good with headline figures but actually had real evidence or at least arguable evidence then it would have had a much better chance.
Again, you published a list of D tower incidents of which three or four (out of the 130 claimed events) were of the nature of which you claimed. Please show us some evidence of this large number of conflict in D. And the reasons why they happened, controller error, pilot error, combination, unkown etc. Then compare that to a similar time period of the NAS 2b or the GNAF airspace. PS no bird strikes etc; like last time.
PS The government inherited Airspace policy, where plans were due by September 2007; where are these plans? Will the policy be reviewed by the new government? Not to mention the current C directive issued 3 or 4 ministers ago, is it still active?
By the way SM4Pirate, the so called ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) process that was introduced by Airservices is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen from any management team in all my life. Wouldn’t you want to have a system where you can allocate your resources where they have the greatest affect on safety?
More importantly, why would you want to have a system where you clearly have a greater liability and risk of litigation when it wasn’t even Government policy? The Government policy signed off by Federal Cabinet clearly shows that Class E above Class D airspace is all that was required. Airservices said, “Oh, Government, we can actually provide you with a higher class of airspace at no extra charge, even though the risk and liability to our organisation is far greater.”
Imagine if air traffic controllers said to the Government, “Look, we will be responsible for the separation of IFR traffic in Class G airspace when under radar. We can do it at no extra cost, so we may as well take on the extra responsibility and liability.”
I don’t think so. I hope the union leaders would not accept that under any circumstances.
SM4 Pirate, I appreciate your detailed responses. I wish we could get together some time and discuss this. I will send you a PM.
The problem I see is that before I was involved in any reforms, we simply had controlled airspace and uncontrolled. The controlled airspace in a place like Sydney was actually equivalent to ICAO Class B – we separated everything from everything else, including VFR helicopters from VFR helicopters.
In recent times the people at Airservices have claimed that we can only go one way with airspace changes. That is, keep them the same or make them more restrictive. Fortunately in the past there were lateral thinking people in management at Airservices – or CAA at the time – that allowed airspace to change at places like Mount Isa, where the Class B equivalent tower (they separated everything from everything) was clearly a misallocation of resources.
Most importantly SM4 Pirate, you do not comment on the fact that the airspace is now clearly “upside down.” To have Class C airspace in the link above Class D at a place like Albury clearly shows this. Obviously the risk of collision is greater close to the airport when compared to the link airspace above. However we have the higher category Class C where the collision risk is less.
There are substantial savings to be made by going from Class C to E. For example, next week I will be flying from Gundaroo to Bendigo. Like most pilots, I will flight plan around the Albury Class C airspace so I don’t end up orbiting or being told to “remain OCTA.” I can assure you that if I try to fly through the approach airspace to the south of Albury at 7,500 feet, even if an IFR Cessna 172 is inbound to Albury, I will be held or diverted. I know because it has happened continuously in similar situations over the years.
I talk to many pilots and they all do what I do – flight plan around these huge “road blocks” of Class C. What would the cost be? No one knows because there is no way of measuring it. I would estimate it is millions of dollars of waste over the last decade or so – virtually all affecting general aviation.
In the UK all their non-radar tower airports have Class G above so aircraft can overfly and save needless waste. I don’t dare mention the USA – no, I will. Look at the diagram that I posted earlier. They have Class E airspace above all of their terminal areas so that unnecessary holding and fuel can be saved.
SM4 Pirate, you don’t cover the fact that we have Class C airspace above places like Proserpine and Avalon, but we have Class G uncontrolled airspace - without even a UNICOM - at low levels and in the circuit area where the collision risk is obviously far greater. Remember both of these airports have jet airline aircraft – with Avalon having over 1.5 million passengers per year.
Risk improvements can be made easily IMHO at places like YWLM, YBRM, YPSP, YMAV; but does that mean a tower? There are other options; most of which will require some sort of ATC at some stage to do it. Where radar coverage is good what is the true collision risk? At places like YMAV, YWLM, YPSP what is the measured risk where there is no tower service, but everything leaving the above airspace is ‘regulated’? I’d suggest that is very different risk profiles to non-radar E; despite it being ‘terminal’ airspace.
In other leading aviation countries, operating jet airline aircraft without a minimum of Class E – or at least an air traffic control tower - is simply not allowed.
Fortunately there are young controllers coming along, and from their emails I get a feeling that they have a more lateral view of the situation.
To have an airspace system which is a “one way ratchet” which precludes ever correcting mistakes of the past would be an error in my view.
To have an airspace system which is a “one way ratchet” which precludes ever correcting mistakes of the past would be an error in my view.
As mentioned above, the cost of the Class C “road block” airspace is staggering. The “road block” would be reduced if the Class C was provided with an approach radar system and adequate controllers. However everyone then says, “That’s too expensive.”
The answer seems to be, “Oh, don’t worry, just delay the VFR aircraft because if people stop flying VFR aircraft they are more likely to fly in airlines and that will give more income to Airservices.” This is a short term view. If we don’t have a viable and growing GA industry, we will end up without enough pilots to fly for the airlines – without even considering the lack of training for maintenance and other people.
By the way, my suggestion is to have a look at the staggering number of incidents which take place in Class D airspace. Incidents like airline aircraft being cleared for take off when there is a motor vehicle on the runway, or the incident at Hamilton Island where two jets got awfully close together whilst the controller was holding VFR helicopters outside the zone. No one can tell me that holding aircraft outside the zone doesn’t add to stress and increase the chance of an error by controllers.
PS The government inherited Airspace policy, where plans were due by September 2007; where are these plans? Will the policy be reviewed by the new government? Not to mention the current C directive issued 3 or 4 ministers ago, is it still active?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez SM4, I appreciate your passion, but it's just too long - again. I'd just register the observation that when Dick goes hiking, airspace isn't an issue with the majority - clearly there are a small number of sycophants (dare I say fundamentalists) that bang the drum, wag their tails and hang out for a pat on the head from Dick. 90% plus couldn't care less and are focussed on more important issues regarding the future of aviation in this country.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...which brings us to a point where it might be appropriate to have a little poll... Moderator?
Which ICAO Class Airspace should a paying passenger on an airline jet fly through on descent into a capital city airport... Class C? Class E?
Which ICAO Class Airspace should a paying passenger on an airline jet fly through on descent before arriving at an aerodrome for which Class D tower services are provided? Class C? Class E?
Moderator?
Which ICAO Class Airspace should a paying passenger on an airline jet fly through on descent into a capital city airport... Class C? Class E?
Which ICAO Class Airspace should a paying passenger on an airline jet fly through on descent before arriving at an aerodrome for which Class D tower services are provided? Class C? Class E?
Moderator?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 good post.
Read it all.
Dont loose the passion!
I have lost a little and now commute 15000km each way to teach within a system that doesnt have the same challenges as Oz! We dont have any primary radar or procedural training either for that matter, buts thats in some one elses in tray !
However, beer is a $1 a schooner ; so feedback on anything and everything with anyone, is always loud but honest! 5 ex controllers 6 opinions!!
Result - occasionally = 1 change for the safer!
DogGone
Read it all.
Dont loose the passion!
I have lost a little and now commute 15000km each way to teach within a system that doesnt have the same challenges as Oz! We dont have any primary radar or procedural training either for that matter, buts thats in some one elses in tray !
However, beer is a $1 a schooner ; so feedback on anything and everything with anyone, is always loud but honest! 5 ex controllers 6 opinions!!
Result - occasionally = 1 change for the safer!
DogGone
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quokka
Sorry to post twice but"
a: Class C please - Full sep Guaranteed would be nice! Any subsequent loss of separation and the finger of liability can be pointed = ATC get litergated! Also the plan/ sequence set up en route can be followed through efficienctly and safely to the threshold - no surprises! Controller workload may be lower therefore more density should be achieved - maybe!
b: Class C again thanks. During descent an IFR aircraft doing 200- 300kts or whatever, could fly straight through the level of any cruising, climbing, descending, VFRs level. Potentially Ooch! But once into D, ATC can identify any potential confliction, and take responsibility for sequencing, passing traffic info and or instructions to sequence and thereby separate to the threshold. No standard needs be applied between VFR and IFR so no delay needed. (Eh Dick!)
DogGone
Sorry to post twice but"
a: Class C please - Full sep Guaranteed would be nice! Any subsequent loss of separation and the finger of liability can be pointed = ATC get litergated! Also the plan/ sequence set up en route can be followed through efficienctly and safely to the threshold - no surprises! Controller workload may be lower therefore more density should be achieved - maybe!
b: Class C again thanks. During descent an IFR aircraft doing 200- 300kts or whatever, could fly straight through the level of any cruising, climbing, descending, VFRs level. Potentially Ooch! But once into D, ATC can identify any potential confliction, and take responsibility for sequencing, passing traffic info and or instructions to sequence and thereby separate to the threshold. No standard needs be applied between VFR and IFR so no delay needed. (Eh Dick!)
DogGone
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn, despite my previous post, I can't help myself. I pose the following to controllers working 'upside-down' airspace. Dick maintains that providing separation in C is a distraction from providing separation where the action is - circuit area and rest of the D zone. I'd put it another way. If I only knew about the IFR in overlying E and could unintentionally run them into an unknown VFR, I think I would be in a permanent state of 'cacking my pants' - which would be a whole heap more distracting than knowing where everybody was and keeping them apart. Comments anyone?