Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Airspace Policy Statement 2010

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Airspace Policy Statement 2010

Old 16th Dec 2009, 08:24
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,834
Airspace Policy Statement 2010

Folks,
In all the excitement about the brave new world of the Aviation White Paper, the release of the Airspace Policy Statement has been overlooked.

Those who were hoping to see the end of "NAS" will be profoundly disappointed, and mortified by para. 39.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...APS_081209.pdf

This makes interesting reading. Any of you who had access to one version of the draft of the "new" Airspace Policy statement, mid last year, would have noted that "CASA" had expurgated many of the major points in the then existing policy statement.

Two features missing from that "CASA/OAR Draft" were references to "Risk Management" and, surprise, surprise, NAS. Also the "Class C Radar" directive.

The Minister and his staff, and particularly the "Department" and its new Secretary, are to be congratulated for not falling for such nonsense.

See the policy in general, and note the following:

37 The Government‟s airspace strategy, to be implemented by CASA, involves the adoption of a risk-based approach to determining Australia‟s future airspace needs.

38 The implementation of this strategy requires the identification of risks to aviation safety using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and ultimately the safety judgment of CASA as the airspace regulator.

39 The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.

40 ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) also provide an important basis for airspace administration. The airspace strategy requires any deviations from ICAO SARPs to be well justified, documented, and formally notified to ICAO as a difference.


For those who are multi-lingual, including bureaucratese, this is a very strong statement. As I am sure you all know, this Airspace Policy automatically forms part of the Airspace Act, it's not just pollywaffle.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2009, 09:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 128
NAS - Be Gone??

Leadslead,

I will gladly admit to wanting to see the end of NAS. I think you are right in that the Government, for no good reason I can think of, has continued an obsession with using the US as a model for Airspace architecture.

However, my favourite section of the AAPS is Section 43

The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives.
One of my biggest issues with the NAS policy is that it arbitrarily dictated that volumes of airspace relative to an aerodrome should have certain designations. I am therefore optimistic that we will in good time gain an appropriate airspace composition without it being dictated by special interest(s).

The original NAS document contained various ATC techniques based on US practice e.g. Implied Clearance. The AAPS still requires that such characteristics be subject to relevant analyses.
GaryGnu is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2009, 11:48
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,834
has continued an obsession with using the US as a model for Airspace architecture.
Gary,

Could the "obsession" with the US model perhaps be because it forms the very basis of all ICAO CNS/ATM. There is not a more thoroughly proven system.

Why does Australia always remind me of the "Little Old Lady", watching her darling offspring in the march past: " Ooohh look, Freddie's the only soldier in the Battalion in step".

We have a great record for trying to re-invent the wheel, and it ends up with corners.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2009, 22:04
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Also:

25. The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.

This means the priotity of airspace design is protecting the innocent passenger, not self interest groups.
twodogsflying is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2009, 23:43
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,834
Owen,
Just take a deep breath and count to ten, we wouldn't like you to blow a fooofle valve!!
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2009, 23:48
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,732
Owen,

Don't forget the first country to mandate seat belts in cars....not.

Non radar E over D is just plain dumb. Get over it, leadsled.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2009, 00:07
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,834
Bloggsie,
You are entitle to your own opinion, of course.

However, starting with ICAO, there is quite a deal of heavyweight opinion against you, and not just FAA or us "fundamentalists". Including countries that Owen would probably warm to, given said countries' virulently anti-US politics.

You should have a look around the world, and have a look at the variety of answers.

C over D, or C without radar, is a bit of a rarity. Or better still, develop a bit of an understanding of the risk management basis of ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace management.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2009, 00:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Non radar E over D is just plain dumb
Is it OK at say, Rockhampton?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2009, 00:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 516
Try again - Rocky has radar coverage.
topdrop is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2009, 01:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
So the answer is yes, which accounts for most of the J curve and busiest part of the continent doesn't it? Where exactly is this "dumb" airspace.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2009, 05:51
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
The count so far is one.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2009, 12:56
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,732
Frank, not too sure about your line of questioning, but there is no Non-radar E on D outside the J curve as far as I know. There used to be but that was quickly converted back to C when a Tobago pilot almost killed a bunch of fare-paying pax (and some crew) in a Virgin 737 at Launy.

If the loonies win, the same E on D arrangement will exist at Karratha and Broome. I'm waiting (still) for ledsled or Dick to tell me WHY this is such a good idea compared to C on D. All they can say is "that is the way it is done eslewhere so cut ya whingeing".
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2009, 22:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
no Non-radar E on D outside the J curve as far as I know
My point exactly.

Grey areas around Albury, should be fixed if it's dangerous. Then there would be no "dumb" airspace.

Out of curiosity, what is wrong with G over D in places like Broome and Karratha instead of controlling everything up to the Ionosphere?

Just asking.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2009, 23:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,699
Frank I think that would be better than E over D in Broome because you'd then have the freedom to manoeuvre as required for traffic separation.

I'd be interested to know how big the Class D zone will be. If it is smaller than the current 30nm MBZ (yeah it's not called an MBZ but that's what it is) then I can see problems with VFR aircraft operating outside the zone and possibly over the top of it without talking to anyone, where as at present everyone is required to monitor and broadcast within 30nm of Broome.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2009, 23:19
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Owen Stanley;

ask any RPT driver out of AY what level they get identified
Out of curiosity, and referring to the Benalla accident for geographical comparison, exactly how low does the radar coverage at Albury go to. If I recall correctly some radar mapping was done around Benalla and some of the mapped countryside went down way below 4,000ft.

Is ther a capacity for the radar you use to be set to a lower coverage/ (even if the quality is not as good), and as you use it now, is it set to a particular lowest altitude?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2009, 03:31
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 43
Posts: 447
Frank: At AY during the day most tracks drop out at about 8000ft. Sometimes, if the atmospheric conditions are right, you may get a sniff down to 6000 or 7000ft. However, it is in no way usable for separation as it is intermittent and 'jumps' around a bit. During the night, any traffic going overhead or slightly south of AY FL140 and below gets treated as a non-radar aircraft for separation purposes as they pop in and out of coverage along those routes, sometimes for periods in excess of 5 minutes.

Benalla, IIRC, is pretty useless below 6000ft. With the right conditions in the atmosphere, alignment of the planets, etc, you may see them below that slightly. Again, not well enough to use for separation. I don't think there's any way in which the radar can be tweaked to look lower, but I'm no boffin so I may be wrong.

Cheers,

NFR.
No Further Requirements is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2009, 04:31
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,684
Frank, the whole point of using radar for separation/monitoring is it needs to be good reliable coverage. If the quality is "not so good" it's useless because you don't know what you'll be getting from moment to moment.

No, there's no facility for it to be adjusted in any manner. The limiting factor is terrain shielding, not level filtering.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2009, 04:45
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,461
The statment also includes-
shall take advantage of advances in technology wherever practicable.
One wonders what the technolgy will be?
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2009, 06:30
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
ADSB "OUT" would be the logical technological evolution of the existing radar system.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2009, 07:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
I don't think there's any way in which the radar can be tweaked to look lower, but I'm no boffin so I may be wrong.
Confirmed. No adjustment possible.
man on the ground is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.