Senate hearing and NAS – interesting answers from CASA
Thread Starter
Senate hearing and NAS – interesting answers from CASA
During the recent Senate hearing of the Committee of Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, Bill Heffernan received some interesting answers from Mr Peter Cromarty, the head of the Office of Airspace Regulation.
Here are some examples.
Firstly, in relation to the Qantas incident at Canberra (where the crew inadvertently entered the wrong point for the holding distance and ended up heading towards Tinderry Peak, 300 feet below its altitude – see here), Senator Heffernan asked why a radar control service was not given in that airspace when the tower closed, considering that Melbourne Centre operates 24 hours per day.
“I do not know why,” – and this man is the head of the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA on a staggering salary. CASA has never asked Airservices to use the radar properly in that airspace. Surely as CASA is the regulator of safety it would be up to CASA to make the request. Why would Airservices want to have more responsibility without any extra income, unless it was a requirement of the safety regulator?
In a question relating to the NAS objective of Class E over Class D, Senator Heffernan asked Mr Cromarty:
In relation to the obvious resistance by some people in CASA to move to the NAS airspace policy, the following exchange took place about the proposed draft Airspace Policy Statement – which deletes any reference to the NAS safety upgrades that are in the current policy set by Mark Vaile.
Later, the following was said.
Senator Heffernan later referred to the fact that Peter Cromarty hailed from the United Kingdom, saying:
Very interesting times!
Here are some examples.
Firstly, in relation to the Qantas incident at Canberra (where the crew inadvertently entered the wrong point for the holding distance and ended up heading towards Tinderry Peak, 300 feet below its altitude – see here), Senator Heffernan asked why a radar control service was not given in that airspace when the tower closed, considering that Melbourne Centre operates 24 hours per day.
Senator Heffernan – I understand that, but they can actually monitor the approach so that mob there does not fly into a hill.
Mr Cromarty – I do not know why. You would have to ask Airservices that one.
Mr Cromarty – I do not know why. You would have to ask Airservices that one.
In a question relating to the NAS objective of Class E over Class D, Senator Heffernan asked Mr Cromarty:
Senator HEFFERNAN—You are a full supporter of the full implementation of the NAS class E over D airspace in Australia?
Mr Cromarty—I am a full supporter of a risk-based approach and if that is the appropriate cost-benefit solution then I am a full supporter.
Senator HEFFERNAN—That is a very good bureaucratic answer. You will never get the sack while you answer questions like that.
Mr Cromarty—I am a full supporter of a risk-based approach and if that is the appropriate cost-benefit solution then I am a full supporter.
Senator HEFFERNAN—That is a very good bureaucratic answer. You will never get the sack while you answer questions like that.
Senator HEFFERNAN—What I am trying to make sure is in people’s minds here is that there is not a conspiracy in CASA to dump the Mark Vaile version of events for some other change of events because the difficulty that some people see is that there is a document, which is the draft document, which takes out all the air safety stuff. It has all been deleted—but, anyway, I will come to that. Mr Cromarty, is there some resistance by well-meaning people in CASA to the US model of E over D?
Mr Cromarty—Not that I am aware of, Senator.
Mr Cromarty—Not that I am aware of, Senator.
Senator HEFFERNAN—Have you had an expert of the US airspace system working with the Office of Airspace Regulation in the last couple of years?
Mr Cromarty—No, Senator.
Senator HEFFERNAN—Would that have been a good idea if you had the money and the budget?
Mr Cromarty—I do not think it would, Senator, no. We act in a professional and thorough manner in the way that we do all of our—
Senator HEFFERNAN—So if I was to ask you why haven’t you, you would say, ‘We didn’t need to.’
Mr Cromarty—I would say that is the case.
Mr Cromarty—No, Senator.
Senator HEFFERNAN—Would that have been a good idea if you had the money and the budget?
Mr Cromarty—I do not think it would, Senator, no. We act in a professional and thorough manner in the way that we do all of our—
Senator HEFFERNAN—So if I was to ask you why haven’t you, you would say, ‘We didn’t need to.’
Mr Cromarty—I would say that is the case.
Senator HEFFERNAN —So, given that you hail from there and they do not have NAS, do you have a solid knowledge of the US National Airspace System that is current government policy?
Mr Cromarty —I have a solid knowledge of the current government policy, yes.
Senator HEFFERNAN —Do you support that policy?
Mr Cromarty —I do.
Mr Cromarty —I have a solid knowledge of the current government policy, yes.
Senator HEFFERNAN —Do you support that policy?
Mr Cromarty —I do.
Very interesting times indeed.
Heffernan asking questions on NAS. Yeh right.
Re E over D:
"Put it this way, senator. What would your opinion of E over D be if, for example, at Alice Springs, a jet operated by "that mob" carrying 180 people collided with a Cessna that had been flying over the airport at 6000ft not in radio contact with the tower, whereas for absolutely no extra cost, both aircraft could be positively separated by an Air Traffic Controller (as is currently the case with C over D)? Well Senator? Would you like to contact your brain's trust?"
"Current Policy"? You mean cajoled into by powerful lobbyists...
Re Canberra: make sure the tower is open. Although it could also be argued that EGPWS technology was used there to save Airservices the cost of keeping open another TAAATS station (what was the value you were quoting a few years back Dick, $1m per annum?) just to monitor the IFRs that try to run into a hill.
What does your cost-benefit analysis tell us about manning the extra TAAATS stations to provide coverage for your beloved E airspace?
Heffernan asking questions on NAS. Yeh right.
Re E over D:
"Put it this way, senator. What would your opinion of E over D be if, for example, at Alice Springs, a jet operated by "that mob" carrying 180 people collided with a Cessna that had been flying over the airport at 6000ft not in radio contact with the tower, whereas for absolutely no extra cost, both aircraft could be positively separated by an Air Traffic Controller (as is currently the case with C over D)? Well Senator? Would you like to contact your brain's trust?"
the NAS safety upgrades that are in the current policy set by Mark Vaile.
Re Canberra: make sure the tower is open. Although it could also be argued that EGPWS technology was used there to save Airservices the cost of keeping open another TAAATS station (what was the value you were quoting a few years back Dick, $1m per annum?) just to monitor the IFRs that try to run into a hill.
What does your cost-benefit analysis tell us about manning the extra TAAATS stations to provide coverage for your beloved E airspace?
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs, go on, keep your mind closed – it is almost as if it is set in concrete.
What you constantly leave out is that while Class C may be safer than Class E when it is adequately staffed, you don’t mention that Airservices don’t put on extra staffing – they leave the controller in the Class D airspace below (normally one person) to be responsible for procedural separation in huge amounts of Class C.
It is obvious that one day, if the workload is high in the Class C, resulting in an accident in the Class D below - where the risk of collision is far higher - many people could die.
Bloggs, open up your mind.
What you constantly leave out is that while Class C may be safer than Class E when it is adequately staffed, you don’t mention that Airservices don’t put on extra staffing – they leave the controller in the Class D airspace below (normally one person) to be responsible for procedural separation in huge amounts of Class C.
It is obvious that one day, if the workload is high in the Class C, resulting in an accident in the Class D below - where the risk of collision is far higher - many people could die.
Bloggs, open up your mind.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Jun 2009 at 01:48.
they leave the controller in the Class D airspace below (normally one person) to be responsible for procedural separation in huge amounts of Class C.
So Dick, by saying that extra controllers would be required to run C over D, you are implying that there is obviously a lot of VFR traffic in E. That very traffic, in E over D, would then become invisible apart from a shaky transponder requirement in a non-radar environment where there is no need or indeed no way of checking that said transponder is actually working.
I think it is you who needs to open up your mind. This is not DC-3 verses low-perf low speed lighty of the 50s and 60s. As I have said numerous times, nobody in their right mind in this day and age, if designing a piece of airspace, would knowingly mix no-radio VFR with IFR, especially high-cap, transponder or not. Get over it, Dick. E is is from a bygone era.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS - Goodbye
Dick,
I have stated elsewhere that all the questions asked by Senator Heffernan achieved was to publicly highlight the current Government's intention to remove the NAS policy from the forthcoming Australian Airspace Policy Statement. If they do in fact do that I, for one (and perhaps Capn Bloggs for two?) will applaud them. It is not an illegitimate policy change however much you campaign against it.
NAS was an overly prescriptive policy imposed by the Minister on the regulator and service provider (at the time the same identity) without due thought and with inadequate process and safeguards. If anything good came out of the NAS debacles it was that airspace processes were objectified to include risk and cost/benefit analyses and gave a clear separation of the regulatory and service provision functions in airspace policy.
NAS was a blip in the regulatory evolution of airspace that allowed someone outside the structures of government to have undue influence on airspace designation. That mistake has been acknowledged and may finally be removed from Government policy.
A couple of specifics.
As you would know very well the Approach Control Service for the terminal area airspace around Canberra was provided from Melbourne Centre. If I recall correctly the rostered ATC was running late that day. One of the many errors that contributed to the eventual incident. I don't yet understand what it is you are advocating for that particular airspace during tower closure hours. If it is a remote approach control service then all that is required is an extension of the current arrangements to go around the clock. I would suspect that is a matter for the regulator and service provider to determine after conducting the aforementioned analyses. If you want an enroute service through there why does it have to be Class E? Why not Class C as it would be at night and there would be little if any VFR traffic (in fact there would be little traffic at all- hence the reason for the tower closure and reversion to Class G).
I have previously questioned your apparent enthusiasm for Class E above low-level non-controlled aerodromes where it is currently Class G on the grounds of cost. I have since been told that it may be possible with little if any increase in cost. My informant could be wrong but if not then I would certainly support such an idea where appropriate. I hope this demonstrates openness to new ideas that you lament is not prevalent around this place and other more tangible arenas.
I have stated elsewhere that all the questions asked by Senator Heffernan achieved was to publicly highlight the current Government's intention to remove the NAS policy from the forthcoming Australian Airspace Policy Statement. If they do in fact do that I, for one (and perhaps Capn Bloggs for two?) will applaud them. It is not an illegitimate policy change however much you campaign against it.
NAS was an overly prescriptive policy imposed by the Minister on the regulator and service provider (at the time the same identity) without due thought and with inadequate process and safeguards. If anything good came out of the NAS debacles it was that airspace processes were objectified to include risk and cost/benefit analyses and gave a clear separation of the regulatory and service provision functions in airspace policy.
NAS was a blip in the regulatory evolution of airspace that allowed someone outside the structures of government to have undue influence on airspace designation. That mistake has been acknowledged and may finally be removed from Government policy.
A couple of specifics.
As you would know very well the Approach Control Service for the terminal area airspace around Canberra was provided from Melbourne Centre. If I recall correctly the rostered ATC was running late that day. One of the many errors that contributed to the eventual incident. I don't yet understand what it is you are advocating for that particular airspace during tower closure hours. If it is a remote approach control service then all that is required is an extension of the current arrangements to go around the clock. I would suspect that is a matter for the regulator and service provider to determine after conducting the aforementioned analyses. If you want an enroute service through there why does it have to be Class E? Why not Class C as it would be at night and there would be little if any VFR traffic (in fact there would be little traffic at all- hence the reason for the tower closure and reversion to Class G).
I have previously questioned your apparent enthusiasm for Class E above low-level non-controlled aerodromes where it is currently Class G on the grounds of cost. I have since been told that it may be possible with little if any increase in cost. My informant could be wrong but if not then I would certainly support such an idea where appropriate. I hope this demonstrates openness to new ideas that you lament is not prevalent around this place and other more tangible arenas.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I'm a bit confused; maybe I am a little slow.
On the one hand you advocate that Class E over D is the way to go, which, in my opinion, unnecessarily increases risk (see Bloggs' comments); while on the other, you attempt to tie in an upgrading of G to E as being consistent with a reversal of C to E in terminal areas. As I said, maybe I'm a bit slow, but that's adding 2 and 2 and getting 7 IMHO.
I don't think anyone would disagree with your call for G to be upgraded to E where this is possible - it makes sense. Why have an inferior class of airspace when a better service can be provided through an achievable upgrade? I think that you would have almost universal support on that one.
But, once again, there seems to be a level of inconsistency. I may be wrong, as the memory is a little hazy, but I seem to remember something along the lines of 'G = Good
,' that was repeated ad nauseum earlier in the airspace debate. Now G seems to be 'not so good
.'
I'm a bit confused; maybe I am a little slow.
On the one hand you advocate that Class E over D is the way to go, which, in my opinion, unnecessarily increases risk (see Bloggs' comments); while on the other, you attempt to tie in an upgrading of G to E as being consistent with a reversal of C to E in terminal areas. As I said, maybe I'm a bit slow, but that's adding 2 and 2 and getting 7 IMHO.
I don't think anyone would disagree with your call for G to be upgraded to E where this is possible - it makes sense. Why have an inferior class of airspace when a better service can be provided through an achievable upgrade? I think that you would have almost universal support on that one.
But, once again, there seems to be a level of inconsistency. I may be wrong, as the memory is a little hazy, but I seem to remember something along the lines of 'G = Good
,' that was repeated ad nauseum earlier in the airspace debate. Now G seems to be 'not so good.'
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: America/Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E vs G
I admit my bias that Class E works well and is a very flexible airspace. I admit that I have flown a lot in the US and globally in RPT operations. I understand there is great debate on the virtues of the US NAS in Aus from many different perspectives. The argument I hear most from naysayers is that Australia has so much less radar coverage that the two systems are incomparable. In previous threads I have read about the Canberra incident involving a QF 737 on arrival after tower hours.
I just cannot understand how any pilot would tolerate a system that requires flying an airliner at night after the tower closes into Australia's capital with excellent radar coverage and then just go it alone during the final stages of descent. The debate seems to focus on the great concern of the itinerant no talk no squawk VFR in Class E and the result is we end up with "Cleared to leave control area on descent....good night" Class G. Just how many itinerant non compliant VFR aircraft are droning around CB at 1130 pm?
Towers close late at night all across the US and it is unreasonable for many reasons to keep them open. But we descend in Class E with center and they are part of my team until very low level. If the crew is tired and blows an MSA, they let you know. Isn't that a good thing?
I just cannot understand how any pilot would tolerate a system that requires flying an airliner at night after the tower closes into Australia's capital with excellent radar coverage and then just go it alone during the final stages of descent. The debate seems to focus on the great concern of the itinerant no talk no squawk VFR in Class E and the result is we end up with "Cleared to leave control area on descent....good night" Class G. Just how many itinerant non compliant VFR aircraft are droning around CB at 1130 pm?
Towers close late at night all across the US and it is unreasonable for many reasons to keep them open. But we descend in Class E with center and they are part of my team until very low level. If the crew is tired and blows an MSA, they let you know. Isn't that a good thing?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duke 16,
I doubt that you will get any argument. The majority, I would guess, is with Dick on this one and would totally agree with you as well. But the rider is 'where it's achievable.' The ATC fraternity has been at pains to point out that either they don't have the staff right now or that radar coverage in certain areas precludes a service. I don't have the expertise, or knowledge, to dispute their claims, but I have not seen anyone on here from ATC say that E replacing G is a bad idea.
What is in dispute is the replacement of C with E.
I doubt that you will get any argument. The majority, I would guess, is with Dick on this one and would totally agree with you as well. But the rider is 'where it's achievable.' The ATC fraternity has been at pains to point out that either they don't have the staff right now or that radar coverage in certain areas precludes a service. I don't have the expertise, or knowledge, to dispute their claims, but I have not seen anyone on here from ATC say that E replacing G is a bad idea.
What is in dispute is the replacement of C with E.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was Senator Heffernan the clown that "Whooped" it up then ran away in the corridors in Parliment House in front of the media?
Yep I'd put my faith in him..... Good call....
Yep I'd put my faith in him..... Good call....
Duke,
A couple of points, if I may:
• The QF flight into Canberra was supposed to have the tower opened: the controller was late for his morning start. See GaryGNU's post above.
• While 1130PM may be a quiet time for lighties, you cannot have E airspace turned on or off easily. I have been in many situations where workload during CTAF segregation with VFRs (and other IFRs) would have made also complying with procedural ATC a nightmare had we had E down to 700ft at that airport. If I had cancelled IFR so I could better manage the situation what was the point of having it in the first place?
• I can see little point in being procedurally controlled by an ATC down an instrument approach. They are not going to stop me flying into a hill. Now if we had low-level ADS-B coverage, fair enough, but Dick won't let us have that. E just will not work efficiently outside surveillance (radar or ADS-B) coverage. So what's the point? To separate IFRs? Do we need it with the traffic levels we have? Ironically, in some areas, Class E would gridlock the airspace, whereas our G-Plus works well.
Let's face it, the only reason Class E was invented was to allow VFR free reign, off frequency, hoping they don't clobber a jet (how many RAs on VFR occur in E airspace in the US?). Nothing more, nothing less. The John and Martha King (IIRC) roadshow, sponsored by the NASIG a few years ago, said exactly that.
If we can afford to have a controller watching every IFR approach in IMC to stop them running into a hill, (or at least be manned for the worst case) then fair enough, but Dick is screaming from the rooftops about pilots losing jobs because of costs, so what is he on about? The fact is nobody has done an accurate study of just how much replacing G with E would cost. I know the controllers in my part of the world just could not cope with procedural E without a significant split-up of the sectors, based on what I hear on the radio.
Wasn't he also seen running towards Terry Hills yelling "I'm gunna get you for this!". 
A couple of points, if I may:
• The QF flight into Canberra was supposed to have the tower opened: the controller was late for his morning start. See GaryGNU's post above.
• While 1130PM may be a quiet time for lighties, you cannot have E airspace turned on or off easily. I have been in many situations where workload during CTAF segregation with VFRs (and other IFRs) would have made also complying with procedural ATC a nightmare had we had E down to 700ft at that airport. If I had cancelled IFR so I could better manage the situation what was the point of having it in the first place?
• I can see little point in being procedurally controlled by an ATC down an instrument approach. They are not going to stop me flying into a hill. Now if we had low-level ADS-B coverage, fair enough, but Dick won't let us have that. E just will not work efficiently outside surveillance (radar or ADS-B) coverage. So what's the point? To separate IFRs? Do we need it with the traffic levels we have? Ironically, in some areas, Class E would gridlock the airspace, whereas our G-Plus works well.
Let's face it, the only reason Class E was invented was to allow VFR free reign, off frequency, hoping they don't clobber a jet (how many RAs on VFR occur in E airspace in the US?). Nothing more, nothing less. The John and Martha King (IIRC) roadshow, sponsored by the NASIG a few years ago, said exactly that.
If we can afford to have a controller watching every IFR approach in IMC to stop them running into a hill, (or at least be manned for the worst case) then fair enough, but Dick is screaming from the rooftops about pilots losing jobs because of costs, so what is he on about? The fact is nobody has done an accurate study of just how much replacing G with E would cost. I know the controllers in my part of the world just could not cope with procedural E without a significant split-up of the sectors, based on what I hear on the radio.
Was Senator Heffernan the clown that "Whooped" it up then ran away in the corridors in Parliment House in front of the media?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh... Senator Heffernan... the man who, in true Liberal/National Party Coalition form, paraded fabricated evidence under protection of Parliamentary Privilege to destroy a good man's reputation... and then ran from being held accountable.
Coward.
"This sad affair really stands on its own.
It's a case of a parliamentary member using parliamentary privilege, which is an enormous privilege that he possesses, to engage in what is in my respectful opinion a scurrilous attack on a judge, a justice of the High Court.
It is without excuse."
Sir Ronald Wilson
(Appointed a justice of the High Court in 1979, and sat on that bench until 1989)
So, Mr Smith, have you chosen the disgraced Senator to champion your cause?
Coward.
"This sad affair really stands on its own.
It's a case of a parliamentary member using parliamentary privilege, which is an enormous privilege that he possesses, to engage in what is in my respectful opinion a scurrilous attack on a judge, a justice of the High Court.
It is without excuse."
Sir Ronald Wilson
(Appointed a justice of the High Court in 1979, and sat on that bench until 1989)
So, Mr Smith, have you chosen the disgraced Senator to champion your cause?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give Heffernan his due. he's the only politician who gives a RA about aviation and asks some very astute questions. Obviously should be the Minister for eveything with wheels and propellers in the next govenment.
Thread Starter
Gary, you are so right. We can’t have anyone such as an elected Minister giving a Direction as to how CASA should operate – that would be outrageous. Of course any Direction on how CASA should operate should come from a bureaucrat like Peter Cromarty, the head of the Office of Airspace Regulation.
I understand Peter’s original training was with the UK CAA. Yes, the UK CAA, which is responsible for one of the worst airspace systems in the world. Remember, this is an airspace system with vast amounts of Class G, where airline aircraft are controlled – yes, “controlled”, by air traffic control – even though the airspace is uncontrolled.
For example, at Plymouth airport the whole non-radar tower, complete with air traffic controllers, sits in uncontrolled airspace with an ILS. Controllers actually “control” airline aircraft on the ILS, whilst other aircraft can fly in cloud right through the ILS approach path – totally legally.
It is obvious that there is not one person in the British CAA with enough ability to upgrade the airspace and take on people like yourself who will resist change in every way.
Also remember that the British CAA has singlehandedly destroyed one of the best aviation systems in the world. In the UK they originally manufactured both airline and general aviation aircraft. Now virtually nothing is made there. There is some part manufacturing, and those units are sent to the USA for professional completion.
The UK CAA is so incompetent and without any proper decision making that it insists a resident fire fighting service is required for flight training. This has resulted in such high prices for flight training in the UK, that English magazines are full of ads from American companies offering the UK licence in Florida, where the cost of fire fighting is not required.
Yes, go ahead Gary – resist change in every way you can. I don’t know how you ever moved up to a 737 cockpit. Surely you would be more comfortable in a DC-4 – at least it has 4 engines, not just 2!
I understand Peter’s original training was with the UK CAA. Yes, the UK CAA, which is responsible for one of the worst airspace systems in the world. Remember, this is an airspace system with vast amounts of Class G, where airline aircraft are controlled – yes, “controlled”, by air traffic control – even though the airspace is uncontrolled.
For example, at Plymouth airport the whole non-radar tower, complete with air traffic controllers, sits in uncontrolled airspace with an ILS. Controllers actually “control” airline aircraft on the ILS, whilst other aircraft can fly in cloud right through the ILS approach path – totally legally.
It is obvious that there is not one person in the British CAA with enough ability to upgrade the airspace and take on people like yourself who will resist change in every way.
Also remember that the British CAA has singlehandedly destroyed one of the best aviation systems in the world. In the UK they originally manufactured both airline and general aviation aircraft. Now virtually nothing is made there. There is some part manufacturing, and those units are sent to the USA for professional completion.
The UK CAA is so incompetent and without any proper decision making that it insists a resident fire fighting service is required for flight training. This has resulted in such high prices for flight training in the UK, that English magazines are full of ads from American companies offering the UK licence in Florida, where the cost of fire fighting is not required.
Yes, go ahead Gary – resist change in every way you can. I don’t know how you ever moved up to a 737 cockpit. Surely you would be more comfortable in a DC-4 – at least it has 4 engines, not just 2!
Thread Starter
By the way Gary, you now seem to think that by demonstrating “openness to new ideas” that we will now move to Class E airspace. Ha ha. That won’t happen unless the Office of Airspace Regulation is ordered to do so. Surely you understand that they make no decisions. Simply look at the last few years since they were established.
I don’t want the approach control service to be going for 24 hours per day for Canberra. That would be ridiculous. The cost would be too high and the approach controller would sit there with nothing to do. I want the proven NAS system, where the enroute controller – who has virtually no workload – is trained to do the approach work when approach closes down. What could be more logical?
The cost is nil because the radar is going all the time, and the controller is present at the console.
Before everyone starts abusing me and saying that it would require extra training, yes, I’ve always said that. When we moved to the safer NAS system, enroute controllers will have to be trained to provide the approach service.
Before everyone yells that the sectors are too big, yes, we would have to remove the ridiculous stratification of the sectors so they are smaller, with the same number of controllers.
I don’t expect this to come from the Office of Airspace Regulation or from Airservices. It will have to come from a Direction by the Minister.
Gary re Government NAS policy, you would have to be joking. The Minister has to personally sign the airspace policy statement. Do you really delude yourself into thinking that he will sign a document which removes all of the NAS safety initiatives that the opposition pushed for, but were not completed by CASA? I can guarantee that there will be no chance of the Minister removing these NAS safety initiatives.
Remember the CASA statement when Airservices reversed the airspace?
What do you think of improving the safety of GAAP airports by changing to Class D? Yes, I realise IFR would be separated from IFR in certain circumstances, but that is the safety improvement I want. Or do you want to keep the less safe GAAP system, which is obviously the policy of the Office of Airspace Regulation?
I don’t want the approach control service to be going for 24 hours per day for Canberra. That would be ridiculous. The cost would be too high and the approach controller would sit there with nothing to do. I want the proven NAS system, where the enroute controller – who has virtually no workload – is trained to do the approach work when approach closes down. What could be more logical?
The cost is nil because the radar is going all the time, and the controller is present at the console.
Before everyone starts abusing me and saying that it would require extra training, yes, I’ve always said that. When we moved to the safer NAS system, enroute controllers will have to be trained to provide the approach service.
Before everyone yells that the sectors are too big, yes, we would have to remove the ridiculous stratification of the sectors so they are smaller, with the same number of controllers.
I don’t expect this to come from the Office of Airspace Regulation or from Airservices. It will have to come from a Direction by the Minister.
Gary re Government NAS policy, you would have to be joking. The Minister has to personally sign the airspace policy statement. Do you really delude yourself into thinking that he will sign a document which removes all of the NAS safety initiatives that the opposition pushed for, but were not completed by CASA? I can guarantee that there will be no chance of the Minister removing these NAS safety initiatives.
Remember the CASA statement when Airservices reversed the airspace?
By reversing some of the elements introduced in NAS 2b, further progress towards the improved airspace system would seem difficult to achieve.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Jun 2009 at 00:33.
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs, you are so ill-informed. You state:
This is painful, but let me explain again. The reason Class E exists is because you cannot see other aircraft when in cloud. So Class E is like Class A when IMC exists – you are separated from other aircraft for safety purposes. When VMC exists, a sensible pilot will operate in Class E as if it is Class G – which we have now, and you seem to like so much.
In Class E, the pilot will cancel IFR and still be given IFR traffic information (just as they were when it was Class G) but also be able to facilitate moving in and out of an airport without any IFR procedural separation delays.
You don’t seem to understand that Class E has the advantages of Class A when IMC exists, and the advantages of Class G when VMC exists.
By the way, I totally support low level ADS-B coverage. I just don’t support a delusion that the airline industry is going to pay for ADS-B in all VFR aircraft – they are not. I recommend to any operator to fit ADS-B. Indeed, I have been trying for over 12 months to have ADS-B fitted to my Caravan, my Agusta and my CJ3 – all to no avail. I haven’t been able to get a quote for a properly certified unit.
Now that the ADS-B outlets are going in, they will be completely useless with Class G airspace. We already know of traffic on the other aeroplane. However if Class E is extended to low levels, the controller will be able to use an ADS-B standard to separate one aircraft in IMC from the other – this will be highly efficient.
Bloggs, you seem to think everything has to be mandated for responsible operators and pilots to comply. This actually is not so. Airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers don’t require TCAS in Australia, however many operators have complied – they are responsible.
If I had cancelled IFR so I could better manage the situation what was the point of having it (Class E) in the first place?
In Class E, the pilot will cancel IFR and still be given IFR traffic information (just as they were when it was Class G) but also be able to facilitate moving in and out of an airport without any IFR procedural separation delays.
You don’t seem to understand that Class E has the advantages of Class A when IMC exists, and the advantages of Class G when VMC exists.
By the way, I totally support low level ADS-B coverage. I just don’t support a delusion that the airline industry is going to pay for ADS-B in all VFR aircraft – they are not. I recommend to any operator to fit ADS-B. Indeed, I have been trying for over 12 months to have ADS-B fitted to my Caravan, my Agusta and my CJ3 – all to no avail. I haven’t been able to get a quote for a properly certified unit.
Now that the ADS-B outlets are going in, they will be completely useless with Class G airspace. We already know of traffic on the other aeroplane. However if Class E is extended to low levels, the controller will be able to use an ADS-B standard to separate one aircraft in IMC from the other – this will be highly efficient.
Bloggs, you seem to think everything has to be mandated for responsible operators and pilots to comply. This actually is not so. Airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers don’t require TCAS in Australia, however many operators have complied – they are responsible.
Obviously should be the Minister for eveything with wheels and propellers in the next govenment.
and Deputy PM to Prime Minister McGauran!!
Have you actually read any Hansard of the two gentlemen?
Thread Starter
Howabout, there is no inconsistency at all. You do not seem to understand risk management. The best way to ensure the safer system is to allocate our resources effectively. To over allocate resources where the risk is small means you have less money to spend where the risk is higher.
The fact that I want to upgrade some Class G airspace to Class E – especially in the terminal area where we have jet airline aircraft, mountains, and good radar coverage – is quite consistent with me wanting to change Class C above D to Class E. As I have said many times before, this is so the controller in the Class D airspace below can concentrate where the risk is highest. That is the only reason other countries have small amounts of airspace around their towers. That is where the risk is highest, and if you have a controller responsible for circuit traffic and keeping aircraft apart on the runway also being responsible for procedural separation of IFR and VFR aircraft over 20 miles away, it is obvious that safety will be reduced.
The amount of effort required to procedurally separate an IFR and a VFR aircraft in Class C is actually far greater than separating aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. Remember, in these Class D towers, we often have just one controller. That controller needs to concentrate where the risk is highest. Do you understand that?
The fact that I want to upgrade some Class G airspace to Class E – especially in the terminal area where we have jet airline aircraft, mountains, and good radar coverage – is quite consistent with me wanting to change Class C above D to Class E. As I have said many times before, this is so the controller in the Class D airspace below can concentrate where the risk is highest. That is the only reason other countries have small amounts of airspace around their towers. That is where the risk is highest, and if you have a controller responsible for circuit traffic and keeping aircraft apart on the runway also being responsible for procedural separation of IFR and VFR aircraft over 20 miles away, it is obvious that safety will be reduced.
The amount of effort required to procedurally separate an IFR and a VFR aircraft in Class C is actually far greater than separating aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. Remember, in these Class D towers, we often have just one controller. That controller needs to concentrate where the risk is highest. Do you understand that?
Dick,
Thank you for your concern but I do have a grasp of what E is all about.
I say again:
In VMC, I have to battle lightys in the CTAF. I do not want to be hassled at the same time by procedural separation by ATC so I cancel IFR and get IFR traffic, just like I have in G Plus now. So what's the point of E?
In IMC, there are no lightys. I do not need IFR separation from the one or two other IFRs in the area because I can do it myself much more efficiently than procedural ATC can. So what's the point of E?
The only conceivable reason could be to provide TAAATS terrain avoidance (and only if surveillance [RADAR/ADS-B]) is available), and that could be easily implemented by instructing the Class G controller to pipe up on the low level ATC freq. After all, it would be exactly the same person we would talk to if E were in place, but without all the hassles of controlled airspace. We are required to maintain comms with ATC at all time's you know... And that is of marginal value now that EGPWS is the norm.
Sometimes I wonder whether you do this just to get a bite. When the Airspace 200 debacle was in full swing, the delegation to the USA was told that IFR in G are treated exactly as your quote! I quote from page 4 of Robin BA's report:
You're clutching at straws. Leave it alone and enjoy your retirement.
Thank you for your concern but I do have a grasp of what E is all about.
I say again:
In VMC, I have to battle lightys in the CTAF. I do not want to be hassled at the same time by procedural separation by ATC so I cancel IFR and get IFR traffic, just like I have in G Plus now. So what's the point of E?
In IMC, there are no lightys. I do not need IFR separation from the one or two other IFRs in the area because I can do it myself much more efficiently than procedural ATC can. So what's the point of E?
The only conceivable reason could be to provide TAAATS terrain avoidance (and only if surveillance [RADAR/ADS-B]) is available), and that could be easily implemented by instructing the Class G controller to pipe up on the low level ATC freq. After all, it would be exactly the same person we would talk to if E were in place, but without all the hassles of controlled airspace. We are required to maintain comms with ATC at all time's you know... And that is of marginal value now that EGPWS is the norm.
Yes, the UK CAA, which is responsible for one of the worst airspace systems in the world. Remember, this is an airspace system with vast amounts of Class G, where airline aircraft are controlled – yes, “controlled”, by air traffic control – even though the airspace is uncontrolled.
When the question of IFR in Class G airspace was raised at the FAA headquarters in Washington, Mr Reggie Matthews, Manager Airspace and Rules Division, who is the FAA executive with policy authority to make an interpretation on ATC regulations, stated that FAA policy requires IFR aircraft in Class G airspace to operate on a clearance. This policy is not documented, however Mr Matthews advised that it is current custom and practice, both for industry and FAA, to function in this manner, and that if an interpretation was required it would come to him for decision.