$5,000 RFDS reward for Class E expert
Thread Starter
$5,000 RFDS reward for Class E expert
Many PPRuNers will remember the following post about Class E from Voices of Reason. Obviously the person who has written this post has great expertise in Class E. This is a rumour network, and there are now rumours going around that there are plans to bring Class E down to lower levels. This will be fantastic, however we need someone with an expertise on Class E to do this.
I’m prepared to send a $5,000 donation to the Royal Flying Doctor Service Broken Hill branch if the person using the name Voices of Reason who wrote this post is willing to come forward and be involved in advising on the first introduction of low level Class E in Australia.
Yes, I realise that PPRuNe has the advantage of confidentiality, but in relation to this post, why would someone want their identity to remain confidential? Surely if it is factual, they would have no reason why their expertise should not be used, and also would want to help the Royal Flying Doctor Service to the tune of $5,000.
I know we all admired the VOR – which was obviously a number of different people. Surely the person who has the expertise on Class E, whether it be a man or a woman, must be interested in getting involved in helping Australia to upgrade Class G to Class E with the safety benefits that will come.
Here is the post of 21 April 2004.
I’m prepared to send a $5,000 donation to the Royal Flying Doctor Service Broken Hill branch if the person using the name Voices of Reason who wrote this post is willing to come forward and be involved in advising on the first introduction of low level Class E in Australia.
Yes, I realise that PPRuNe has the advantage of confidentiality, but in relation to this post, why would someone want their identity to remain confidential? Surely if it is factual, they would have no reason why their expertise should not be used, and also would want to help the Royal Flying Doctor Service to the tune of $5,000.
I know we all admired the VOR – which was obviously a number of different people. Surely the person who has the expertise on Class E, whether it be a man or a woman, must be interested in getting involved in helping Australia to upgrade Class G to Class E with the safety benefits that will come.
Here is the post of 21 April 2004.
Class E Airspace and United States Practice
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
Thread Starter
Boree3, why would I want to give up when success is so close? Surely you support upgrading Class G airspace to Class E – or is your mind so set in what you have done since the 1950s that nothing should ever change?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change doesn't happen just because of a study or well-worded position paper. You would be better putting the money forward for a person to write a policy for attracting the right kind of people to the ATC profession and retaining these people for as long as possible. Only then can one provide better services and lower levels of class E.
No ATC I know opposes more safety, what they don't agree with is trying to provide more and more with the same or less support (technology and humans). This is in fact less safe - overloading both the controllers and the system. We need more bodies and more consoles.
Cheers,
NFR.
No ATC I know opposes more safety, what they don't agree with is trying to provide more and more with the same or less support (technology and humans). This is in fact less safe - overloading both the controllers and the system. We need more bodies and more consoles.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NFR is correct. No one has any issues with increasing levels of safety/service. The opposition is because, Dick, you seem to be under the impression that you can get MORE blood out of the stone. YOU CANNOT GET MORE FOR NOTHING OUT OF THE ATC SYSTEM BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PARED TO THE BONE ALREADY, UNDERSTAND??
ASA are struggling to meet their "core business" requirements. They can't release ATC's from the console to instruct trainee ATC's who then could release them to go and instruct....IF you could ever convince anyone involved to spend MORE money instead of LESS, ATCs wouldnt give a fat rats clacker if you wanted CLASS C SFC - F600...happy to do it, and you'd get no opposition. Don't ask the FEW to do MORE though, you'll break the system completely.
ASA are struggling to meet their "core business" requirements. They can't release ATC's from the console to instruct trainee ATC's who then could release them to go and instruct....IF you could ever convince anyone involved to spend MORE money instead of LESS, ATCs wouldnt give a fat rats clacker if you wanted CLASS C SFC - F600...happy to do it, and you'd get no opposition. Don't ask the FEW to do MORE though, you'll break the system completely.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
What an interesting way to try and out a ppruner that has been such a thorn in your side!
By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
How does that sit with your argument about upgrading airspace?
Airservices has long since completed a risk analysis, comparing like for like, between (as I recall -- somebody correct me on the actual upper levels) 10,000' and FL200, for Class C service versus Class E service.
In both cases, the assessed collision risk probability level was several orders of magnitude below the ICAO design level.
In fact, both D and E collision risk probabilities were "vanishingly small", as assessed by Airservices, the statistical equivalent of zero, off the bottom of the ALARP scale,(bring the lower level down to 4500', and it's still on the bottom of the ALARP scale) and far less than, say;
----the collision risk probability when PARM approaches are in progress.
----or a loss of an aircraft due to multiple failures whilst conducting an Autocoupled Approach/ Autoland in Cat II or Cat III conditions;
----or the loss of an aircraft due to multiple failures during an ETOPS flight.
----or, sadly, the loss rate of small piston and turboprop twins in day to day operations.
VOR is quite correct, and replacing the unnecessary C with E produces a level of flexibility we are now denied as IFR flights, for absolutely no safety dividend. "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" does come to mind.
"safety" simply is not an issue, despite all the arm waving and teeth gnashing that goes on, as soon as E over D is mentioned, or replacing C with E.
As for all the claims of "no talk, no squawk", VOR is again quite correct, the ridiculous levels of resistance to change is the problem, not "radar coverage" or "weekend warriors".
With all the other probabilities of "something to ruin your whole day" that we take in our stride, the probability of it being a collision with another aircraft is vanishingly small.
Tootle pip!!
PS: If the JCP forecast Australian traffic levels out to 2025 are actually achieved, they will still only be between one fifth and one tenth of US traffic levels pre. the present downturn.
Last edited by LeadSled; 22nd Jun 2009 at 15:48.
Leadsled, how much money has been p!ssed up against the wall to achieve exactly what? A tiny bit of convenience for a tiny number of users. THAT is why we're not bloody well interested.
Thread Starter
$5,000 reward – Class E expert
Ferris, do I have to explain it again? “Downgrading” (to use your word) Class C to Class E will improve safety because it will allow the Class D controller below to concentrate where the collision risk is greatest.
At the present time our Class C above Class D is quite often operated by one controller in the tower below. Must we wait until we have a more serious incident than the one at Hamilton Island, possibly turning into an accident? This was the one where the controller nearly put two jet airline aircraft together because of the high workload. Holding other aircraft outside the control zone was part of this.
I will say again to everyone. If you want to put Class C airspace in, put in proper manning and radar so it can be operated properly. The Class C airspace we have is a sham. If a VFR aircraft flew right across the top of Albury’s airspace at 7,500 feet, 20 miles from the aerodrome, no one would know the difference. That is, until a collision occurred.
Class C airspace requires radar – running it any other way is a con, purely to put profits in front of safety.
I can assure you that the US system has large amounts of Class E so controllers can concentrate where the collision risk is highest.
That is what VOR was getting at Ferris – i.e. more safety. Open up your mind, mate.
At the present time our Class C above Class D is quite often operated by one controller in the tower below. Must we wait until we have a more serious incident than the one at Hamilton Island, possibly turning into an accident? This was the one where the controller nearly put two jet airline aircraft together because of the high workload. Holding other aircraft outside the control zone was part of this.
I will say again to everyone. If you want to put Class C airspace in, put in proper manning and radar so it can be operated properly. The Class C airspace we have is a sham. If a VFR aircraft flew right across the top of Albury’s airspace at 7,500 feet, 20 miles from the aerodrome, no one would know the difference. That is, until a collision occurred.
Class C airspace requires radar – running it any other way is a con, purely to put profits in front of safety.
I can assure you that the US system has large amounts of Class E so controllers can concentrate where the collision risk is highest.
That is what VOR was getting at Ferris – i.e. more safety. Open up your mind, mate.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why we're playing this game with Dick again, but it's like lighting a flame in front of a moth.
I've looked through every book and manual and standard and publication on the matter - and nowhere - not anywhere - can I find any reference to the need for radar to provide a Class C service. If that were the case, then you'd most certainly need radar for Class A airspace - and that would mean putting radar through all the upper airspace in Australia.
On the subject of risk, if there is a certain level of collision risk between an IFR aircraft and another aircraft in Class C airspace, with all traffic known, and all traffic positively separated, then there is a higher level of risk in Class E airspace to that same IFR aircraft, where not all traffic is known, and not all traffic is positively separated. This is an INDISPUTABLE statement - even you can work this out, Dick.
That's not to say you actually need Class C airspace - it's just that we want you to admit, Dick, that for the same volume of traffic operating in any given airspace, the level of risk increases as you go from Class A to Class G.
Having admitted that, you'll get most of the contributors here back on side.
Then you need to convince CASA to FINALLY bite the bullet and actually determine what level of risk they're prepared to accept - then find an airspace classification that matches the risk.
It's not rocket science - surely the overpaid bureaucrats at CASA, after so many years, can be forced to at least give us an acceptable risk number. Everything falls into place after that. Airservices can staff accordingly, systems can be adjusted accordingly, training can be provided accordingly, and you FINALLY get what you want - risk based services.
I've looked through every book and manual and standard and publication on the matter - and nowhere - not anywhere - can I find any reference to the need for radar to provide a Class C service. If that were the case, then you'd most certainly need radar for Class A airspace - and that would mean putting radar through all the upper airspace in Australia.
On the subject of risk, if there is a certain level of collision risk between an IFR aircraft and another aircraft in Class C airspace, with all traffic known, and all traffic positively separated, then there is a higher level of risk in Class E airspace to that same IFR aircraft, where not all traffic is known, and not all traffic is positively separated. This is an INDISPUTABLE statement - even you can work this out, Dick.
That's not to say you actually need Class C airspace - it's just that we want you to admit, Dick, that for the same volume of traffic operating in any given airspace, the level of risk increases as you go from Class A to Class G.
Having admitted that, you'll get most of the contributors here back on side.
Then you need to convince CASA to FINALLY bite the bullet and actually determine what level of risk they're prepared to accept - then find an airspace classification that matches the risk.
It's not rocket science - surely the overpaid bureaucrats at CASA, after so many years, can be forced to at least give us an acceptable risk number. Everything falls into place after that. Airservices can staff accordingly, systems can be adjusted accordingly, training can be provided accordingly, and you FINALLY get what you want - risk based services.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Dick, I'll certainly never have $5000 to give away like this, so I guess you're either smarter than me or luckier ... or both !
Nevertheless, I'm surprised that, after all these years, you haven't realised that throwing money around won't necessarily get what you want ...
Nevertheless, I'm surprised that, after all these years, you haven't realised that throwing money around won't necessarily get what you want ...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely my point on the other thread OS as regards risk. I don't care how 'vanishingly small' (what a ridiculous term) the risk is alleged to be. The NMAC at Launy that you mentioned was enough to convince me that positive separation beats chance and 'see and be hit' in the terminal area.
I thought in the last few weeks Mr. Dumsa told you on another thread the cirumstances of who he believed VoR was, Dick?
If what he said was correct, and it certainly made sense, not much chance for the RFDS seeing any money - barring a miracle - literally.
Hell of a shame, too.
If what he said was correct, and it certainly made sense, not much chance for the RFDS seeing any money - barring a miracle - literally.
Hell of a shame, too.
Thread Starter
An Interested Party, welcome to PPRuNe. What a pity you can’t post under your own name. Isn’t it incredible that anyone who has anything to say against NAS has to operate under a false name? This makes many people think there is a con going on.
You state:
I agree with this totally, so surely that should get most contributors here back on side.
What you don’t listen to is the fact that if you are going to have that Class C airspace operated by a controller who has to take his attention away from traffic in Class D airspace, the total result could indeed be a decrease in safety.
Let me explain it simply. You could get a small increase in risk reduction in Class C – because the risk of collision is small – but a large increase in collision risk in the Class D – because the collision risk is higher.
Has it ever dawned on you that countries such as the USA and Canada would put Class C above D if it would give a higher level of safety, and if it didn’t need any more staffing or even radar? They would be getting something for nothing.
By the way, CASA has determined the level of risk they are prepared to accept. CASA has made clear that they accept the Government policy on NAS. This means they accept the level of risk that the US system has in Class G, Class E, D and C. These figures are readily available.
It also stands to reason that if we follow similar procedures in Class E in Australia, we will end up with similar safety results. Yes, I know all the rubbish about radar. What I’m saying is that we follow similar procedures used in radar covered Class E airspace in the USA, and similar procedures used in non-radar covered Class E airspace.
After all, I managed to convince the industry that we could accept Boeing 747s here without a complete recertification. The plan was that we would accept the certification and the resultant level of safety that was accepted by the FAA. If we can do it with a 747, why can’t we do it with airspace?
Owen Stanley, if you look at the number of RAs during the NAS 2b year, they were less (using the same criteria) than before or after. That clearly showed that the airspace was safer.
No one with professional expertise, not even the ATSB, said that the airspace should be reversed because of the two RAs. They happened early on in the NAS 2b airspace. Once pilots recognised how it should be operated, there were no more RAs.
Owen Stanley, it is almost as if you don’t understand proper risk management techniques.
You state:
That's not to say you actually need Class C airspace - it's just that we want you to admit, Dick, that for the same volume of traffic operating in any given airspace, the level of risk increases as you go from Class A to Class G.
What you don’t listen to is the fact that if you are going to have that Class C airspace operated by a controller who has to take his attention away from traffic in Class D airspace, the total result could indeed be a decrease in safety.
Let me explain it simply. You could get a small increase in risk reduction in Class C – because the risk of collision is small – but a large increase in collision risk in the Class D – because the collision risk is higher.
Has it ever dawned on you that countries such as the USA and Canada would put Class C above D if it would give a higher level of safety, and if it didn’t need any more staffing or even radar? They would be getting something for nothing.
By the way, CASA has determined the level of risk they are prepared to accept. CASA has made clear that they accept the Government policy on NAS. This means they accept the level of risk that the US system has in Class G, Class E, D and C. These figures are readily available.
It also stands to reason that if we follow similar procedures in Class E in Australia, we will end up with similar safety results. Yes, I know all the rubbish about radar. What I’m saying is that we follow similar procedures used in radar covered Class E airspace in the USA, and similar procedures used in non-radar covered Class E airspace.
After all, I managed to convince the industry that we could accept Boeing 747s here without a complete recertification. The plan was that we would accept the certification and the resultant level of safety that was accepted by the FAA. If we can do it with a 747, why can’t we do it with airspace?
Owen Stanley, if you look at the number of RAs during the NAS 2b year, they were less (using the same criteria) than before or after. That clearly showed that the airspace was safer.
No one with professional expertise, not even the ATSB, said that the airspace should be reversed because of the two RAs. They happened early on in the NAS 2b airspace. Once pilots recognised how it should be operated, there were no more RAs.
Owen Stanley, it is almost as if you don’t understand proper risk management techniques.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, Dick, you make it hard.
There shouldn't be different risk levels anywhere across the airspace. The OAR should calculate the risk at points all across the system, then find an airspace classification, and a set of other things like radar, and try to level out the risk so that no-one flying in a passenger plane is exposed to higher or lower levels of risk than anyone else.
And no, CASA hasn't set a risk level, and no, the US NAS system hasn't determined a risk number - they just rely on years of experience. IF they measured risk levels like CASA wants us to do here, they'd probably get the fright of their lives. And no, we shouldn't say their experience is better than ours, because it isn't. We're just as safe as they are, and we don't have any higher or lower number of accidents or incidents.
Anyway, I don't want to play any more, and maybe all the other wouldbe participants should just refrain from posting and starve the oxygen from this debate [yeah, I know, I should have listened to my own advice!].
One good thing - NAS will all be over soon when the White Paper is published. Absolutely nothing you can do about it, Dick, and I can't wait for this to end.
Sorry Dick, but you lose, and common sense finally wins.
There shouldn't be different risk levels anywhere across the airspace. The OAR should calculate the risk at points all across the system, then find an airspace classification, and a set of other things like radar, and try to level out the risk so that no-one flying in a passenger plane is exposed to higher or lower levels of risk than anyone else.
And no, CASA hasn't set a risk level, and no, the US NAS system hasn't determined a risk number - they just rely on years of experience. IF they measured risk levels like CASA wants us to do here, they'd probably get the fright of their lives. And no, we shouldn't say their experience is better than ours, because it isn't. We're just as safe as they are, and we don't have any higher or lower number of accidents or incidents.
Anyway, I don't want to play any more, and maybe all the other wouldbe participants should just refrain from posting and starve the oxygen from this debate [yeah, I know, I should have listened to my own advice!].
One good thing - NAS will all be over soon when the White Paper is published. Absolutely nothing you can do about it, Dick, and I can't wait for this to end.
Sorry Dick, but you lose, and common sense finally wins.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Downgrading” (to use your word) Class C to Class E will improve safety because it will allow the Class D controller below to concentrate where the collision risk is greatest.
Why you continually push for a retrograde, dirt-road airspace system, instead of embracing the future, is beyond me. Your change resistance is hampering your thinking. Certainly, your plan would be far less efficient and cost many pilot jobs as the industry is burdened with more unnecessary costs.