Airspace Policy Statement 2010
Thread Starter
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
has continued an obsession with using the US as a model for Airspace architecture.
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!!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, 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".
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".
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no Non-radar E on D outside the J curve as far as I know
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 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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen Stanley;
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?
ask any RPT driver out of AY what level they get identified
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?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
No, there's no facility for it to be adjusted in any manner. The limiting factor is terrain shielding, not level filtering.
