NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if any real ATCs got an invite?
I can just see the line up from my former employer - Manager Regional Services, Manager Tea and Biscuits, Manager Frequent Flyer Points and a secretary.
My bet is not one coal face controller below level 4 will be there, you know someone who actually talks to aircraft and has the brains to point out the good and bad for industry rather than some contract bod who is selling the package.
We shall see.
I can just see the line up from my former employer - Manager Regional Services, Manager Tea and Biscuits, Manager Frequent Flyer Points and a secretary.
My bet is not one coal face controller below level 4 will be there, you know someone who actually talks to aircraft and has the brains to point out the good and bad for industry rather than some contract bod who is selling the package.
We shall see.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stationair8,
I wonder if the meeting(s) between Chief Pilots who operate into Broome and Karratha may have already taken place. The Broome Airspace Forum in mid-Feb was such a meeting, and a number of Chief Pilots attended. The Karratha airspace meeting preceded that.
I wonder if the meeting(s) between Chief Pilots who operate into Broome and Karratha may have already taken place. The Broome Airspace Forum in mid-Feb was such a meeting, and a number of Chief Pilots attended. The Karratha airspace meeting preceded that.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Dick, DNS and I both know the answer, do you?
Oh and by the way if anyone is interested no one PM'd for my name so obviously the anonymity angst bit is just a smokescreen for when things are not going your way!
Oh and by the way if anyone is interested no one PM'd for my name so obviously the anonymity angst bit is just a smokescreen for when things are not going your way!
Two simple rhetorical questions:
- Is Class E designated as being "controlled airspace"?
- Are Oz ATCs indemnified at law in relation to an IFR/VFR MAC in Class E (assuming all due diligence actions were effected)?
Just sayin`...
- Is Class E designated as being "controlled airspace"?
- Are Oz ATCs indemnified at law in relation to an IFR/VFR MAC in Class E (assuming all due diligence actions were effected)?
Just sayin`...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Readers might be interested in knowing the 'policy direction' hierarchy sitting above CASA's OAR 
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Stakeholder liaison [halfway down the page]
Illuminating, in the current circumstances! 
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Stakeholder liaison [halfway down the page]
Intergovernmental engagement
Aviation Implementation Group and Aviation Policy Group
The Aviation Policy Group (APG) is a CEO-level interagency group that includes the Department of Infrastructure, Airservices Australia, CASA and the RAAF. The APG was formed to establish better working relationships across the four agencies involved in aviation policy, regulation and service provision and consists of the CASA Director of Aviation Safety, the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia, the Chief of Air Force and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure. The APG met seven times during 2008–09.
The Aviation Implementation Group (AIG) is an interagency forum chaired by the Department of Infrastructure that involves high-level representation from CASA, Airservices Australia and the RAAF. It is an important forum for identifying cross-portfolio aviation issues and maintaining regular communication between the four agencies, and for identifying higher-level issues to pass on to the APG. The AIG met five times during 2008–09.
Aviation Implementation Group and Aviation Policy Group
The Aviation Policy Group (APG) is a CEO-level interagency group that includes the Department of Infrastructure, Airservices Australia, CASA and the RAAF. The APG was formed to establish better working relationships across the four agencies involved in aviation policy, regulation and service provision and consists of the CASA Director of Aviation Safety, the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia, the Chief of Air Force and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure. The APG met seven times during 2008–09.
The Aviation Implementation Group (AIG) is an interagency forum chaired by the Department of Infrastructure that involves high-level representation from CASA, Airservices Australia and the RAAF. It is an important forum for identifying cross-portfolio aviation issues and maintaining regular communication between the four agencies, and for identifying higher-level issues to pass on to the APG. The AIG met five times during 2008–09.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi OZ,
That wouldn't involve the words 'controlled and 'uncontrolled,' from a far simpler time when the concept of Russian Roulette airspace was unheard of, by any chance? That's the problem with 'experts' in any walk of life. They inevitably have to 'fix' something that isn't broken.
Like NAS, the 'problem' that the 'solution' was supposed to be addressing was never identified or quantified. Opinion won out over fact.
I still shudder when I re-read the 2008 CASA Aeronautical Study on Avalon and do a comparison with the 2009 PIR recommending E over D. I keep finding what I regard to be inexplicable inconsistencies between the Avalon documents themselves and then the Launy and Alice studies in a wider context. I'd opine that it's a total bugger's muddle.
Ultimately, and the argument has been put before, Russian Roulette airspace can place the responsibility for safe separation on the LCD. It's conceivable, and likely, that a brand new PPL will be responsible for separating himself/herself from an IFR RPT, with a full load of pax, on decent into YMAV - with tracks at right angles.
And, NAS protagonists, don't give me that rubbish about the 'obligation' of the IFR to 'see and avoid.' We've got a kid, who's just got a PPL, doesn't have much of a clue with respect to RPT, and has prime responsibility to avoid a jet with multiple pax under this stupid system.
While it doesn't apply at YMAV, Bloggs' example is apposite. In this crazy system, theoretically, the crew of an A380 are supposed to see-and-avoid a VFR C150. I don't think we live on the same planet.
That wouldn't involve the words 'controlled and 'uncontrolled,' from a far simpler time when the concept of Russian Roulette airspace was unheard of, by any chance? That's the problem with 'experts' in any walk of life. They inevitably have to 'fix' something that isn't broken.
Like NAS, the 'problem' that the 'solution' was supposed to be addressing was never identified or quantified. Opinion won out over fact.
I still shudder when I re-read the 2008 CASA Aeronautical Study on Avalon and do a comparison with the 2009 PIR recommending E over D. I keep finding what I regard to be inexplicable inconsistencies between the Avalon documents themselves and then the Launy and Alice studies in a wider context. I'd opine that it's a total bugger's muddle.
Ultimately, and the argument has been put before, Russian Roulette airspace can place the responsibility for safe separation on the LCD. It's conceivable, and likely, that a brand new PPL will be responsible for separating himself/herself from an IFR RPT, with a full load of pax, on decent into YMAV - with tracks at right angles.
And, NAS protagonists, don't give me that rubbish about the 'obligation' of the IFR to 'see and avoid.' We've got a kid, who's just got a PPL, doesn't have much of a clue with respect to RPT, and has prime responsibility to avoid a jet with multiple pax under this stupid system.
While it doesn't apply at YMAV, Bloggs' example is apposite. In this crazy system, theoretically, the crew of an A380 are supposed to see-and-avoid a VFR C150. I don't think we live on the same planet.
Last edited by Howabout; 26th Mar 2010 at 06:40.
In one, Howabout
Leadsled, I know exactly the argument your CSIRO mate would have used. After changing the quadrantal heights to hemispherical heights with IFR on 1000's and VFR on 500's there is a situation where you can have near collision course from 180deg opposite directions, where quadrantly, opposing traffic was always from your quarter so always posed a profile...easier to see.
And why did the hemispherical come in? Not because of ICAO alone..Oh no, it was because VFR no longer was under FPR so we had to separate IFR from VFR so the two would never meet...shame about the head on stuff.
Howabout, it would be so simple to impliment. ADS-B is now 100% of airspace ABV FL300 and huge amounts A010. Regional towered aerodromes with an ADS-B receiver and a feed, complete with an en-route qualed FSO to look after the airspace from the bottom of C/A to the terminal area.
I just hope those guys from the CASA are still paying attention to these threads. Guys, have a study of Flight Services and see the synergy that could apply with ADS-B equippage.
If you do, you will see that the wheel is about to turn all the way around to the exact same track. Excepting, if the dillitants had kept out of it, evolution would have done the same thing without the millions wasted on a silly experiment.
Some hints, remote VHF outlets, Virtual TAAATS tracks, basing in ML BN SY and PH. Maybe at the new towered aerodromes. Virtual tracks replaced by ADS-B derived "real" tracks. Once tracks are real, dropping of the need for FPR. FSOs rated up to en-route standard. Career progression due to TAAATS experience, elimination of the dreaded TIBA. It's all in place and could have easily progressed from the eighties right to now without AIRSPACE2000 the NASdebate and the outright decimation of a very experienced workforce that could esily adapt. All it would have took was a couple of unions to kiss and make up.
Leadsled, I know exactly the argument your CSIRO mate would have used. After changing the quadrantal heights to hemispherical heights with IFR on 1000's and VFR on 500's there is a situation where you can have near collision course from 180deg opposite directions, where quadrantly, opposing traffic was always from your quarter so always posed a profile...easier to see.
And why did the hemispherical come in? Not because of ICAO alone..Oh no, it was because VFR no longer was under FPR so we had to separate IFR from VFR so the two would never meet...shame about the head on stuff.
Howabout, it would be so simple to impliment. ADS-B is now 100% of airspace ABV FL300 and huge amounts A010. Regional towered aerodromes with an ADS-B receiver and a feed, complete with an en-route qualed FSO to look after the airspace from the bottom of C/A to the terminal area.
I just hope those guys from the CASA are still paying attention to these threads. Guys, have a study of Flight Services and see the synergy that could apply with ADS-B equippage.
If you do, you will see that the wheel is about to turn all the way around to the exact same track. Excepting, if the dillitants had kept out of it, evolution would have done the same thing without the millions wasted on a silly experiment.
Some hints, remote VHF outlets, Virtual TAAATS tracks, basing in ML BN SY and PH. Maybe at the new towered aerodromes. Virtual tracks replaced by ADS-B derived "real" tracks. Once tracks are real, dropping of the need for FPR. FSOs rated up to en-route standard. Career progression due to TAAATS experience, elimination of the dreaded TIBA. It's all in place and could have easily progressed from the eighties right to now without AIRSPACE2000 the NASdebate and the outright decimation of a very experienced workforce that could esily adapt. All it would have took was a couple of unions to kiss and make up.
Re " All it would have took was a couple of unions to kiss and make up."
Sorry OZ, but I recall 'it' went a lot deeper than just that.
Despite several 'suggestions' over the years, the ATC 'heirarchy' of the time had no regard for FSO's....like they were the 'officers' and we were the 'lower ranks', the 'smellies'....came from B.O....as in Briefing Officer, which we were in many locations....
So, they refused to allow us to have RADAR training, on the grounds of....
whatever. It was made out to be so 'specialised'.
(Didn't matter that a boat I used to drive occasionally had a radar, and it wasn't THAT hard to understand and be proficient in its use....)
At one time we were scheduled to get VHF direction equipment for SAR purposes.....but.....
However, during the 'downsizing' period, post 12/12/91, 'our mob' then stuck to their guns and despite some strong opposition, actually gained access to and passed ATC training courses, and 'broke the impasse' of the times. The rest is history, as now there are many ex FSO's employed as ATC's....formerly referred to as 'The Dark Side'....
tongue in cheek....
The ATS services provided were seen by most, as the supply of specialised services for which 'ratings' were / still are required.
The commonality of the courses meant in reality, that there were a some 'bridging' ratings / subjects in both disciplines to effect a 'full rating' in either service.
So, you are quite correct in one sense, there should have been an 'integration' of ATS Personnel! Period! And let the various 'ratings' system dictate which job / task was performed by any individual.
However, the Politics were 'agin' us, and Dick wanted to get rid of us, so he did!
No foresight...IMHO!
However several of our mostly younger members now enjoy a career as an ATC, and not only here in OZ, but many are serving o/seas as well, as these pages will confirm.....and GOOD LUCK to them all!!!
So, these ex FSO's, now licensed ATC's, use RADAR and ADSB etc for their job functions. So again, you are correct, except that the SERVICE has been conveniently been 'dropped' to 'when workload permits' for us bug smashers, and virtually no 'discrete' VHF to use without interrupting traffic separation services....
Nice idea OZ, but you'd have to work real hard to 'sell it' now.......
Cheers
(Forgive the 'ramble'....)
Cheers
And REGARDS to ALL..!!
Sorry OZ, but I recall 'it' went a lot deeper than just that.
Despite several 'suggestions' over the years, the ATC 'heirarchy' of the time had no regard for FSO's....like they were the 'officers' and we were the 'lower ranks', the 'smellies'....came from B.O....as in Briefing Officer, which we were in many locations....
So, they refused to allow us to have RADAR training, on the grounds of....
whatever. It was made out to be so 'specialised'.
(Didn't matter that a boat I used to drive occasionally had a radar, and it wasn't THAT hard to understand and be proficient in its use....)
At one time we were scheduled to get VHF direction equipment for SAR purposes.....but.....
However, during the 'downsizing' period, post 12/12/91, 'our mob' then stuck to their guns and despite some strong opposition, actually gained access to and passed ATC training courses, and 'broke the impasse' of the times. The rest is history, as now there are many ex FSO's employed as ATC's....formerly referred to as 'The Dark Side'....
tongue in cheek....
The ATS services provided were seen by most, as the supply of specialised services for which 'ratings' were / still are required.
The commonality of the courses meant in reality, that there were a some 'bridging' ratings / subjects in both disciplines to effect a 'full rating' in either service.
So, you are quite correct in one sense, there should have been an 'integration' of ATS Personnel! Period! And let the various 'ratings' system dictate which job / task was performed by any individual.
However, the Politics were 'agin' us, and Dick wanted to get rid of us, so he did!
No foresight...IMHO!
However several of our mostly younger members now enjoy a career as an ATC, and not only here in OZ, but many are serving o/seas as well, as these pages will confirm.....and GOOD LUCK to them all!!!
So, these ex FSO's, now licensed ATC's, use RADAR and ADSB etc for their job functions. So again, you are correct, except that the SERVICE has been conveniently been 'dropped' to 'when workload permits' for us bug smashers, and virtually no 'discrete' VHF to use without interrupting traffic separation services....
Nice idea OZ, but you'd have to work real hard to 'sell it' now.......
Cheers
(Forgive the 'ramble'....)
Cheers
And REGARDS to ALL..!!
Thanks for that Griffo, the history needs to be said. 'Tis a shame but a whole ocean has gone under that bridge. The problems of now just remind me of what could have been done as a simple evolution rather than wholesale change and change and change to get back to exactly the same pre-tech problems of providing a service for a sparsly populated country.
For the ATC guys, don't misunderstand me...this is all very ancient history. It's just the place where the NAS story began. I just hope I do not sound harsh on present company. You guys are fantastic
For the ATC guys, don't misunderstand me...this is all very ancient history. It's just the place where the NAS story began. I just hope I do not sound harsh on present company. You guys are fantastic
That the Class E airspace under the jurisdiction of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by Brisbane (BN) Centre (CEN), and may be the Tower frequency as used in the Class D
CTR),
CTR),
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
I'm confused
As a recent convert to RAA LSA who may have wanted to access this airspace for flight above 5,000ft in the "J" curve, I now find my need for a transponder redundant. I am happy to have saved the cash. Thanks a lot for telling me.
The 10,000 RAA pilots being not allowed into "controlled airspace" makes one wonder what this thread is really about if it is all "controlled airspace" anyway.
Obviously it's about "squark 1200" GA Student/Private, Pilots and not the "Recreational" sector so often blamed for transgressions. Possibly the same mob who supported mandatory radio for flight into Goodooga.
Is Class E designated as being "controlled airspace"? Yep. AIP ENR 1.4 section 1.1.2.
The 10,000 RAA pilots being not allowed into "controlled airspace" makes one wonder what this thread is really about if it is all "controlled airspace" anyway.
Obviously it's about "squark 1200" GA Student/Private, Pilots and not the "Recreational" sector so often blamed for transgressions. Possibly the same mob who supported mandatory radio for flight into Goodooga.
G'Day 'Owen',
And I appreciate your response. The 'politics' were always against us 'integrating' in 'dem good ole' days...' - which was proposed by some, to be simply 'Air Traffic Services' many years ago, with the various ratings at the various locations describing your job.
However....all under the bridge now, and ALL the VERY best in your new career!!
Just one thing, the 'FULL SAR', i.e. VFR Full Reporting was largely optional as I remember, - except if you were CHTR, or operating in a 'Designated Remote Area' and did not carry an EPIRB.
For AWK, training flights, unless you were in CTA where Full Position Reporting was required, for the obvious reasons, then the choice was 'Full SAR' or SARTIME.
This was at a time when a Flight Plan was required for flights over 50nm from DEP AD...then it wasn't....then it was..again...this time reinstituted I think when a C310 dep Griffith in NSW for BK, and never arrived....the wreckage was found some time later on the reverse slope of a hill not too far from GTH, despite a big search around the Blue Mountains area....so it was brought back in again...if my memory bank is correct...
Anyway, I do recall that the 'Full SAR' option and requirements were removed from VFR flights WEF 12/12/1991, with a view to requiring less staff to enable FSO's to be made redundant.....and so to 'cost the industry less...and your safety will be enhanced'....B/S B/S wonk wonk..!!!....and eventually, CTAF and MBZ replaced AFIZ...etc etc...ALL in the name of 'Self Help' and 'cost cutting'....GOT TO get rid of thse 'pesky FSO's'......
Oddly enough, at the time I did hear that Canada actually preferred our 'AFIZ system', and was supposed to have closed some remote Towers, and introduced the 'FS operated AFIZ' - whether by that or another name , I do not know...anyhow can't vouch for it...its only what we heard...and we heard MANY 'things' in those days...
And, Yep! I see it from 'both sides' as well, Still have my CPL, although don't use it much no-more...
OOOps sorry, 'Rambling again'....
ALL the best
And I appreciate your response. The 'politics' were always against us 'integrating' in 'dem good ole' days...' - which was proposed by some, to be simply 'Air Traffic Services' many years ago, with the various ratings at the various locations describing your job.
However....all under the bridge now, and ALL the VERY best in your new career!!
Just one thing, the 'FULL SAR', i.e. VFR Full Reporting was largely optional as I remember, - except if you were CHTR, or operating in a 'Designated Remote Area' and did not carry an EPIRB.
For AWK, training flights, unless you were in CTA where Full Position Reporting was required, for the obvious reasons, then the choice was 'Full SAR' or SARTIME.
This was at a time when a Flight Plan was required for flights over 50nm from DEP AD...then it wasn't....then it was..again...this time reinstituted I think when a C310 dep Griffith in NSW for BK, and never arrived....the wreckage was found some time later on the reverse slope of a hill not too far from GTH, despite a big search around the Blue Mountains area....so it was brought back in again...if my memory bank is correct...
Anyway, I do recall that the 'Full SAR' option and requirements were removed from VFR flights WEF 12/12/1991, with a view to requiring less staff to enable FSO's to be made redundant.....and so to 'cost the industry less...and your safety will be enhanced'....B/S B/S wonk wonk..!!!....and eventually, CTAF and MBZ replaced AFIZ...etc etc...ALL in the name of 'Self Help' and 'cost cutting'....GOT TO get rid of thse 'pesky FSO's'......
Oddly enough, at the time I did hear that Canada actually preferred our 'AFIZ system', and was supposed to have closed some remote Towers, and introduced the 'FS operated AFIZ' - whether by that or another name , I do not know...anyhow can't vouch for it...its only what we heard...and we heard MANY 'things' in those days...
And, Yep! I see it from 'both sides' as well, Still have my CPL, although don't use it much no-more...
OOOps sorry, 'Rambling again'....
ALL the best
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 27th Mar 2010 at 08:07.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
You confuse some of the sentiments on here with illogical CASA rulings.
It's only my personal take, but I cannot figure why restrictions are placed on perfectly airworthy aircraft from the RAA side of the house. I, for one, support access provided some basic provisions are met.
Years ago, I met a lovely bloke by the name of Eugene Reid and visited his operation north of Launy. All he wanted was access to the Launy zone, to get quick access to the south. He could have been separated from airfield activity by being south of the highway, which was no big deal (ATC confirmed this when I visited for a chat - I have to get a life on holidays). It could have been done safely with no detriment to other operations.
The blunt CASA ruling was that 'sports aircraft' could not fly in control zones..period. I think, but don't know, that the attitude is the same today. One size fits all.
I was totally impressed by Eugene's operation. He told me at the time that there was no way he'd ever operate without a radio or teach his students anything other than radio carriage and compliance. And he operated/operates trikes.
His summation was that if he was downwind at YDPO, there's no way he wouldn't be listening out and transmitting. He had no desire to be run over by a Dash-8 in the same piece of airspace downwind.
I still don't see a single piece of solid evidence that supports the exclusion of RAA aircraft from controlled airspace, provided they can communicate and are visible within the system.
Just my take.
You confuse some of the sentiments on here with illogical CASA rulings.
It's only my personal take, but I cannot figure why restrictions are placed on perfectly airworthy aircraft from the RAA side of the house. I, for one, support access provided some basic provisions are met.
Years ago, I met a lovely bloke by the name of Eugene Reid and visited his operation north of Launy. All he wanted was access to the Launy zone, to get quick access to the south. He could have been separated from airfield activity by being south of the highway, which was no big deal (ATC confirmed this when I visited for a chat - I have to get a life on holidays). It could have been done safely with no detriment to other operations.
The blunt CASA ruling was that 'sports aircraft' could not fly in control zones..period. I think, but don't know, that the attitude is the same today. One size fits all.
I was totally impressed by Eugene's operation. He told me at the time that there was no way he'd ever operate without a radio or teach his students anything other than radio carriage and compliance. And he operated/operates trikes.
His summation was that if he was downwind at YDPO, there's no way he wouldn't be listening out and transmitting. He had no desire to be run over by a Dash-8 in the same piece of airspace downwind.
I still don't see a single piece of solid evidence that supports the exclusion of RAA aircraft from controlled airspace, provided they can communicate and are visible within the system.
Just my take.
Yes, we've been "touched" by some strange rules over the years, haven't we.
Along the lines of Griffo's tales, one of the strangest was the building and positioning of Flight Service Units ... so the FSOs couldn't see the aerodrome from the window ... less they actually advised an aircraft where another aircraft actually was.
And yes, Canada was actually (don't know if they still are) operating Towers, manned by FSOs ... providing an Aerodrome Advisory Service. However, even during "fact finding missions" overseas, Australian FSOs weren't allowed to inspect these facilities ... only Australian ATCs. What that means, I don't know ... but it's just the facts.
All these bits of historical "ramblings" may appear off topic, but I think they certainly add to the jigsaw puzzle of why and how we are where we are.
Along the lines of Griffo's tales, one of the strangest was the building and positioning of Flight Service Units ... so the FSOs couldn't see the aerodrome from the window ... less they actually advised an aircraft where another aircraft actually was.
And yes, Canada was actually (don't know if they still are) operating Towers, manned by FSOs ... providing an Aerodrome Advisory Service. However, even during "fact finding missions" overseas, Australian FSOs weren't allowed to inspect these facilities ... only Australian ATCs. What that means, I don't know ... but it's just the facts.
All these bits of historical "ramblings" may appear off topic, but I think they certainly add to the jigsaw puzzle of why and how we are where we are.
Yep, it all helps understand how we were all robbed of a system that actually worked for our limited resources and sparse polulation.
Smith, you have a mental block with Class E. If there is no radar or radar like surveillence, you cannot guarantee separation for anyone and certainly not IFR. In the clag you have a chance, in CAVOK you want IFR to practice see and avoid because of conflicts with VFR trundling through CONTROLLED AIRSPACE unannounced.
Everything else about NAS from FAA D to CTAF is just procedure and can be ..begrudgingly for some...relearned. However, Class E is inherantly DANGEROUS. You are mixing non-controlled traffic with controlled traffic IN THE BLIND! Until surveillence is put in place AND VFR is required to REPORT a position regardless of receiving a service is the day Class E will be safer.
The experiment with FAA D and adjoining Class E...what are you guys thinking! We may as well have our old D and adjoining class C and be safer in the procedure.
Smith your previous example. the B200 will be in conflict with a non-controlled aircraft who is UNKNOWN to the tower, in your words he is too far away to see. Depending how big the envelope of Tower controlled Class E is opposed to the Class E supplied by BN, your B200 could be just changing frequency as the conflict occurs...getting messy out there...Once again, change for change sake with changes to the changes to attempt to make it as safe as possible.
The REAL OLD SYSTEM was that VFR if was going more than 50nm would have had a plan and would have reported to the PTH FS with an estimate for their destination. The B200 would have already be talking to FS from when they popped out of class C over 100nm away with an estimate for PTH. there is no tower because the local traffic practices the basic calls and is also on the same frequency as FS..guess what, they are known too..That old dirt road with its "Drive on the Left" rules still stands up today with passing DTI
The trick is not actually SEEING the traffic, its knowing the traffic. If you know there is traffic you will see it before there is a problem. What's it called...oh yes...ALLERTED SEE AND AVOID
From a previous forum. Dick, YOU'RE WRONG!
Smith, you have a mental block with Class E. If there is no radar or radar like surveillence, you cannot guarantee separation for anyone and certainly not IFR. In the clag you have a chance, in CAVOK you want IFR to practice see and avoid because of conflicts with VFR trundling through CONTROLLED AIRSPACE unannounced.
Everything else about NAS from FAA D to CTAF is just procedure and can be ..begrudgingly for some...relearned. However, Class E is inherantly DANGEROUS. You are mixing non-controlled traffic with controlled traffic IN THE BLIND! Until surveillence is put in place AND VFR is required to REPORT a position regardless of receiving a service is the day Class E will be safer.
The experiment with FAA D and adjoining Class E...what are you guys thinking! We may as well have our old D and adjoining class C and be safer in the procedure.
Smith your previous example. the B200 will be in conflict with a non-controlled aircraft who is UNKNOWN to the tower, in your words he is too far away to see. Depending how big the envelope of Tower controlled Class E is opposed to the Class E supplied by BN, your B200 could be just changing frequency as the conflict occurs...getting messy out there...Once again, change for change sake with changes to the changes to attempt to make it as safe as possible.
The REAL OLD SYSTEM was that VFR if was going more than 50nm would have had a plan and would have reported to the PTH FS with an estimate for their destination. The B200 would have already be talking to FS from when they popped out of class C over 100nm away with an estimate for PTH. there is no tower because the local traffic practices the basic calls and is also on the same frequency as FS..guess what, they are known too..That old dirt road with its "Drive on the Left" rules still stands up today with passing DTI
The trick is not actually SEEING the traffic, its knowing the traffic. If you know there is traffic you will see it before there is a problem. What's it called...oh yes...ALLERTED SEE AND AVOID
From a previous forum. Dick, YOU'RE WRONG!