NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good discussion 
KKK
Sequencing. Tactical planning early can and does avoid circuit area problems such as having to fly wider or extra legs of the circuit to follow other traffic. An aircraft in the air less time, is less likely to conflict with other traffic. Granted, this really only applies to the approach airspace sequencing, by the time the aircraft reaches the circuit area and surrounds, the speed profile is well back. Fitting circuit traffic around arrivals [even higher speed ones] is relatively easy by comparison.
Early sequencing [speed control] in IMC conditions can mean the difference between no delay passing the IAF [as opposed to a pattern] for following traffic.
In general terms these timings can amount to between 2 [in VMC] -10 [in IMC] mins difference in flight time savings per flight, particularlly where an Instrument approach [say ILS] is to be flown. The speed reductions necessary from the IAF onwards are a given, however, If enough longitudinal spacing can be obtained prior to the IAF, well you get the picture.
That said, the bird strike issue is a valid part of the discussion. Migratory birds often cruise below A050, Raptors are often into the flight levels. Whilst not in anyway diminishing this very important issue, perhaps the reality speaks that 270kts below A050 might be more realistic given that even 'hoons'
will be slowing up by this point.
Regarding the higher flying feathered friends. Until an onboard radar can detect these beasties, it remains a risk, including Above A100 where aircraft are not limited to 250kts.
In recent years, a turbo-prop operator in Australia [DHC8's] has been using landing lights set to alternate flashing during lower level day op's.
Have they suffered any strikes since adopting this procedure?
I understand the flashing attracts the attention of our feathered cousins, who then pay attention, and get the hell outa dodge in time.
It probably makes them more visible to the unfeathered traffic as well.
KKK
why? would anyone wants lots of high-speed traffic in a terminal (sic) zone ? shudder
Early sequencing [speed control] in IMC conditions can mean the difference between no delay passing the IAF [as opposed to a pattern] for following traffic.
In general terms these timings can amount to between 2 [in VMC] -10 [in IMC] mins difference in flight time savings per flight, particularlly where an Instrument approach [say ILS] is to be flown. The speed reductions necessary from the IAF onwards are a given, however, If enough longitudinal spacing can be obtained prior to the IAF, well you get the picture.
That said, the bird strike issue is a valid part of the discussion. Migratory birds often cruise below A050, Raptors are often into the flight levels. Whilst not in anyway diminishing this very important issue, perhaps the reality speaks that 270kts below A050 might be more realistic given that even 'hoons'
will be slowing up by this point.Regarding the higher flying feathered friends. Until an onboard radar can detect these beasties, it remains a risk, including Above A100 where aircraft are not limited to 250kts.
In recent years, a turbo-prop operator in Australia [DHC8's] has been using landing lights set to alternate flashing during lower level day op's.
Have they suffered any strikes since adopting this procedure?
I understand the flashing attracts the attention of our feathered cousins, who then pay attention, and get the hell outa dodge in time.
It probably makes them more visible to the unfeathered traffic as well.
Last edited by ARFOR; 30th Mar 2010 at 20:47.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: CQ
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil,
The lack of low level radar coverage at HM doesnt allow the use of TSAD to fine tune an inbound sequence. The tower has to rely on your position report and estimate. And a lot of VFR pilots estimates can be a little bit optimistic. And only being able to see half the circuit area hinders the sequencing process.
Although a small extension of downwind for one of the jets could have allowed you in. Wake turbulence is also an issue. The list of variables goes on and on.
On that day you were obviously the Statue..and not the pidgeon!!!
The lack of low level radar coverage at HM doesnt allow the use of TSAD to fine tune an inbound sequence. The tower has to rely on your position report and estimate. And a lot of VFR pilots estimates can be a little bit optimistic. And only being able to see half the circuit area hinders the sequencing process.
Although a small extension of downwind for one of the jets could have allowed you in. Wake turbulence is also an issue. The list of variables goes on and on.
On that day you were obviously the Statue..and not the pidgeon!!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The land down-under
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACP Submission
As posted last night on Civil Air's website
Tuesday, March 30 2010
Operations Manager, Office of Airspace Regulation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601
CC: Executive Manager, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation
Dear Graeme,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the airspace classification proposals for Karratha and Broome. As the professional organisation representing Australian Air Traffic Controllers, Civil Air has a number of points we would like to raise with respect to the proposed airspace models:
Class D to A025 with E Airspace Above
In Civil Air's view, this model is the least desirable for Broome and Karratha. The restriction of Class D airspace is such that it will not encapsulate all instrument approaches and thus ensure separation with VFR aircraft while aircraft are in the critical final stages of flight. IFR aircraft may also be required to monitor multiple frequencies during a period of high cockpit workload during their approach. With the small lateral boundaries of the Class D zone, VFR aircraft will be quite close to the aerodrome before they will be required to call for a clearance to enter control area. This gives the controller less time to evaluate, plan and implement a sequence, and ensure separation from other arriving and departing aircraft. VFR aircraft will be able to operate directly over the aerodrome at relatively a low level without requiring a clearance, giving faster moving traffic less time to "See and Avoid". This is a particular issue for high performance departures.
Class D to A045 with E Airspace Above
This solution provides increased margin as the Class D portion of the airspace will encapsulate aircraft manoeuvring for instrument approaches, and VFR aircraft will be required to call the tower earlier for a clearance to enter the control zone. This provides the tower controller increased time to arrange their sequence of aircraft, and more room to achieve the required separation but is still limited in the same manner as the proposal for D to A025, albeit with increased margins.
Class E above D - General Comments
Civil Air has concerns regarding the use of Class E airspace above Class D. The premise of E above D at Broome and Karratha is predicated upon an improvement in service level over existing Class G. Whilst demonstrably an improvement, it ignores practicalities of actual airspace management and, in our view, ignores the “As Low As Reasonably Practical” (ALARP) principle of risk management applied almost universally in aviation studies nationally.
In terms of airspace management, the modelling of C over D, as currently provided at all regional towers, offers improved separation integrity and virtually no additional operational costs to either the services provider or airspace users. Under ALARP it is impossible to justify E over D on either cost or safety basis when measured against the current C over D. It would be an untenable position for the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) to mandate a lower level of airspace, when a higher level of airspace is available for no additional cost. OAR would then risk being accused of putting ideology ahead of safety.
E over D introduces a new airspace model not in use elsewhere in Australia. This departure from accepted practice introduces a variation upon the standard operating procedures at all regional towers across Australia. It is also contrary to the provision of services under US NAS (Part 139 Class 1 Airports licensed for Scheduled Air Carrier with >30 pax seat capacity) in respect of airspace modelling. In most scenarios these operations are conducted under a C over D model.
VFR aircraft operating in Class E airspace will be unknown to both the controllers in the local tower, and Enroute centres in Brisbane and Melbourne. Separation between VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace and IFR aircraft arriving and departing from these locations will rely upon "Unalerted See and Avoid" procedures, which greatly increases collision risk, particularly considering the different operating speeds of typical VFR aircraft and the jet or high capacity/performance RPT turbo-prop aircraft which typically operate into Broome and Karratha. Whilst ACAS will provide some defence it is Civil Air’s view that ACAS should not be considered a mitigator in airspace design as it is intended as a last line of defence. Alerted “See and Avoid” is predicated upon surveillance availability. In the case of Broome and Karratha the only prospect of surveillance is that of ADS-B and unfortunately penetration of ADS-B Out fitment in the GA fleet is limited at best.
E over D arrangements during Tower Closure
Operations in Class E require continuous two-way communications and, for aircraft descending into deactive tower airspace (Class G services), there is often pressure to make the change to CTAF at an early stage. For single VHF aircraft this means either non-compliance with maintaining comms on the appropriate Area VHF or, in the case of low level transition to G, obtaining CTAF traffic either during the approach or with limited reaction time.
Class D to A085 controlled by D Tower
An alternative that may produce a better cost/benefit result than E over D is establishing Class D airspace up to A085 controlled from the tower. This also has benefits for pilot and ATC workload management. The tower controller can utilise visual and geographic standards not available to Enroute controllers to separate VFR traffic from IFR, and allows for a more efficient movement of aircraft to and from the aerodrome. VFR aircraft within a reasonable distance of the aerodrome will be "known" to the Tower controller, and their separation ensured from IFR aircraft. This model could then be considered at other locations across Australia.
Civil Air's preference remains the use of Class C airspace above Class D towers as currently used at all D towers in Australia. Outside tower hours of operations the Class C steps below A085 should be deactivated. This provides standardisation of airspace architecture across Australia. Civil Air believes that this model of airspace represents the best mix between efficiency, equity of airspace, and safety.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information or expansion of any issues raised herein.
Sincerely,
Civil Air
Operations Manager, Office of Airspace Regulation
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601
CC: Executive Manager, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation
Re: Proposed Airspace Classification – Broome (OAR 192/09) and Karratha (193/09)
Dear Graeme,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the airspace classification proposals for Karratha and Broome. As the professional organisation representing Australian Air Traffic Controllers, Civil Air has a number of points we would like to raise with respect to the proposed airspace models:
Class D to A025 with E Airspace Above
In Civil Air's view, this model is the least desirable for Broome and Karratha. The restriction of Class D airspace is such that it will not encapsulate all instrument approaches and thus ensure separation with VFR aircraft while aircraft are in the critical final stages of flight. IFR aircraft may also be required to monitor multiple frequencies during a period of high cockpit workload during their approach. With the small lateral boundaries of the Class D zone, VFR aircraft will be quite close to the aerodrome before they will be required to call for a clearance to enter control area. This gives the controller less time to evaluate, plan and implement a sequence, and ensure separation from other arriving and departing aircraft. VFR aircraft will be able to operate directly over the aerodrome at relatively a low level without requiring a clearance, giving faster moving traffic less time to "See and Avoid". This is a particular issue for high performance departures.
Class D to A045 with E Airspace Above
This solution provides increased margin as the Class D portion of the airspace will encapsulate aircraft manoeuvring for instrument approaches, and VFR aircraft will be required to call the tower earlier for a clearance to enter the control zone. This provides the tower controller increased time to arrange their sequence of aircraft, and more room to achieve the required separation but is still limited in the same manner as the proposal for D to A025, albeit with increased margins.
Class E above D - General Comments
Civil Air has concerns regarding the use of Class E airspace above Class D. The premise of E above D at Broome and Karratha is predicated upon an improvement in service level over existing Class G. Whilst demonstrably an improvement, it ignores practicalities of actual airspace management and, in our view, ignores the “As Low As Reasonably Practical” (ALARP) principle of risk management applied almost universally in aviation studies nationally.
In terms of airspace management, the modelling of C over D, as currently provided at all regional towers, offers improved separation integrity and virtually no additional operational costs to either the services provider or airspace users. Under ALARP it is impossible to justify E over D on either cost or safety basis when measured against the current C over D. It would be an untenable position for the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) to mandate a lower level of airspace, when a higher level of airspace is available for no additional cost. OAR would then risk being accused of putting ideology ahead of safety.
E over D introduces a new airspace model not in use elsewhere in Australia. This departure from accepted practice introduces a variation upon the standard operating procedures at all regional towers across Australia. It is also contrary to the provision of services under US NAS (Part 139 Class 1 Airports licensed for Scheduled Air Carrier with >30 pax seat capacity) in respect of airspace modelling. In most scenarios these operations are conducted under a C over D model.
VFR aircraft operating in Class E airspace will be unknown to both the controllers in the local tower, and Enroute centres in Brisbane and Melbourne. Separation between VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace and IFR aircraft arriving and departing from these locations will rely upon "Unalerted See and Avoid" procedures, which greatly increases collision risk, particularly considering the different operating speeds of typical VFR aircraft and the jet or high capacity/performance RPT turbo-prop aircraft which typically operate into Broome and Karratha. Whilst ACAS will provide some defence it is Civil Air’s view that ACAS should not be considered a mitigator in airspace design as it is intended as a last line of defence. Alerted “See and Avoid” is predicated upon surveillance availability. In the case of Broome and Karratha the only prospect of surveillance is that of ADS-B and unfortunately penetration of ADS-B Out fitment in the GA fleet is limited at best.
E over D arrangements during Tower Closure
Operations in Class E require continuous two-way communications and, for aircraft descending into deactive tower airspace (Class G services), there is often pressure to make the change to CTAF at an early stage. For single VHF aircraft this means either non-compliance with maintaining comms on the appropriate Area VHF or, in the case of low level transition to G, obtaining CTAF traffic either during the approach or with limited reaction time.
Class D to A085 controlled by D Tower
An alternative that may produce a better cost/benefit result than E over D is establishing Class D airspace up to A085 controlled from the tower. This also has benefits for pilot and ATC workload management. The tower controller can utilise visual and geographic standards not available to Enroute controllers to separate VFR traffic from IFR, and allows for a more efficient movement of aircraft to and from the aerodrome. VFR aircraft within a reasonable distance of the aerodrome will be "known" to the Tower controller, and their separation ensured from IFR aircraft. This model could then be considered at other locations across Australia.
Civil Air's preference remains the use of Class C airspace above Class D towers as currently used at all D towers in Australia. Outside tower hours of operations the Class C steps below A085 should be deactivated. This provides standardisation of airspace architecture across Australia. Civil Air believes that this model of airspace represents the best mix between efficiency, equity of airspace, and safety.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information or expansion of any issues raised herein.
Sincerely,
Civil Air
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So what is all the fuss about.........works here!
I like the bit about unless there is a significant benefot for E ..........about summs it up!
So why are we wasting all this time and money?
1.5 Findings
In general, all airspace users consulted indicated that the airspace design and classification is suitable for its current use. This is also confirmed by the results of the simulation model constructed for Rockhampton.
The study revealed: ASIR and ESIR reports as discussed in chapter 6 indicate that failure to observe ATC instructions and VCAs are the most observed airspace related safety incidents. As summarised in chapter 6.3, these incidents cannot directly be linked with the design and classification of airspace provided at Rockhampton. The results of the fast time simulation of the airspace around Rockhampton lead to the conclusion that the Class D airspace with the relevant procedures applied will provide sufficient defences against the closest potential conflict pairs identified. Details are explained in chapters 7.12.3 and 7.12.4. The dimensions of Class D and Class C airspace around and above Rockhampton are deemed to be adequate by the airspace users and ATC (see chapter 5.5). The results of the fast time simulation did not provide any other evidence to the contrary and no documentation was found during the study indicating otherwise. All airspace users consulted indicated that the airspace classification utilised is suitable for its current use (chapter 5.5). The fast time simulation results did not show any conflict pairs for operations outside the tower hours. This can partially explained by the fact that the only data available for this time period were the Airservices EUROCAT records (see chapters 7.9 and 7.11.1). The airspace classification of Rockhampton can be considered to be appropriate for its use.
It is recommended that: CASA continue monitoring the airspace around Rockhampton with particular focus on changes in IFR and VFR numbers and traffic mix. CASA seek movement data for operations outside tower hours. Class C airspace overhead the Class D airspace at Rockhampton be maintained unless an aeronautical study using an appropriate airspace risk analysis methodology and cost benefit analysis can prove significant benefits for Class E. It is recommended that the OAR maintain a watch of activity at Rockhampton airport during the bi-annual review of movement data, and, if total aircraft movements significantly increase, or after five years, whichever occurs first, further airspace review or an aeronautical study will be conducted to reassess the risk to RPT operations.
In general, all airspace users consulted indicated that the airspace design and classification is suitable for its current use. This is also confirmed by the results of the simulation model constructed for Rockhampton.
The study revealed: ASIR and ESIR reports as discussed in chapter 6 indicate that failure to observe ATC instructions and VCAs are the most observed airspace related safety incidents. As summarised in chapter 6.3, these incidents cannot directly be linked with the design and classification of airspace provided at Rockhampton. The results of the fast time simulation of the airspace around Rockhampton lead to the conclusion that the Class D airspace with the relevant procedures applied will provide sufficient defences against the closest potential conflict pairs identified. Details are explained in chapters 7.12.3 and 7.12.4. The dimensions of Class D and Class C airspace around and above Rockhampton are deemed to be adequate by the airspace users and ATC (see chapter 5.5). The results of the fast time simulation did not provide any other evidence to the contrary and no documentation was found during the study indicating otherwise. All airspace users consulted indicated that the airspace classification utilised is suitable for its current use (chapter 5.5). The fast time simulation results did not show any conflict pairs for operations outside the tower hours. This can partially explained by the fact that the only data available for this time period were the Airservices EUROCAT records (see chapters 7.9 and 7.11.1). The airspace classification of Rockhampton can be considered to be appropriate for its use.
It is recommended that: CASA continue monitoring the airspace around Rockhampton with particular focus on changes in IFR and VFR numbers and traffic mix. CASA seek movement data for operations outside tower hours. Class C airspace overhead the Class D airspace at Rockhampton be maintained unless an aeronautical study using an appropriate airspace risk analysis methodology and cost benefit analysis can prove significant benefits for Class E. It is recommended that the OAR maintain a watch of activity at Rockhampton airport during the bi-annual review of movement data, and, if total aircraft movements significantly increase, or after five years, whichever occurs first, further airspace review or an aeronautical study will be conducted to reassess the risk to RPT operations.
So why are we wasting all this time and money?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re the economic cost between lighties and the 'heavier' metal. My sector time was increased by 150% over the 'no traffic situation'. For the purpose of the exercise if we assume that either jet had been 'held' for 2 minutes the sector time would have been increased by around 2% over a 'no traffic delay' situation. In this case the relative economic impact was over an order of magnitude higher to the 'lightie' than the 'heavier'.
As to estimates - some of the IFR drivers need a few lessons too. I've heard estimates given for the circuit when the tower was closed that turned out to be estimates to commence the approach. On the flight referred to in my earlier post I would have have been visible from the tower with binos before the first jet entered the zone.
If I was a different person I could always do the 'holding in a single engine aircraft over water' claim - but at the time I was in an amphib and if I'd realised how long the hold was going to be I would have requested a clearance to land on the water anyway.
PS I've also been offered number 1 on times that I wouldn't have expected it (and I haven't always accepted the offer).
As to estimates - some of the IFR drivers need a few lessons too. I've heard estimates given for the circuit when the tower was closed that turned out to be estimates to commence the approach. On the flight referred to in my earlier post I would have have been visible from the tower with binos before the first jet entered the zone.
If I was a different person I could always do the 'holding in a single engine aircraft over water' claim - but at the time I was in an amphib and if I'd realised how long the hold was going to be I would have requested a clearance to land on the water anyway.
PS I've also been offered number 1 on times that I wouldn't have expected it (and I haven't always accepted the offer).
Not able to accept that he is wrong, Leadsled is now trawling Prune so that he can make personal attacks on posters who don't hold his views:
Here's what he wrote in Rumours and News on the http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-over-sfo.html thread:
That's pretty pathetic form, Sled. May I suggest you grow up.
BTW, it's an interesting thread. A lighty doing a "hard turn" just avoids a 777, which is at...less than 1000ft AFTO (and doing a Descend RA to boot), all ticked off by the Sled as ops normal and AOK.
Here's what he wrote in Rumours and News on the http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-over-sfo.html thread:
Folks,
Note the posts of one "Captain Bloggs", who is doing his best to inject an "Australian Perspective" into the comments.
Basically, the "Australian" approach, as preferred by "Bloggs", to any but IFR/RPT is "clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" on the basis that even sighting a GA aircraft in the distance, from a heavy, is close to an emergency--- but, I hasten to add, a view confined to a small group who have been trying frantically for years, to prevent Australia adopting FAA style ICAO airspace management.
As another Australian pilot (LSA thro' B744), well familiar with operations around KSFO and the bay area, I support the view of those of you who believe this has been blown out of all proportion by the media.
In fact it could be viewed as an example of the system working, not the system failing.
Tootle pip!!
Note the posts of one "Captain Bloggs", who is doing his best to inject an "Australian Perspective" into the comments.
Basically, the "Australian" approach, as preferred by "Bloggs", to any but IFR/RPT is "clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" on the basis that even sighting a GA aircraft in the distance, from a heavy, is close to an emergency--- but, I hasten to add, a view confined to a small group who have been trying frantically for years, to prevent Australia adopting FAA style ICAO airspace management.
As another Australian pilot (LSA thro' B744), well familiar with operations around KSFO and the bay area, I support the view of those of you who believe this has been blown out of all proportion by the media.
In fact it could be viewed as an example of the system working, not the system failing.
Tootle pip!!
That's pretty pathetic form, Sled. May I suggest you grow up.
BTW, it's an interesting thread. A lighty doing a "hard turn" just avoids a 777, which is at...less than 1000ft AFTO (and doing a Descend RA to boot), all ticked off by the Sled as ops normal and AOK.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 1st Apr 2010 at 11:40.
Well, it seems the mighty Sled has hit another nerve. Check out the post below his. Puts the basic issue in focus.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5609470
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post5609470
Blogs,
I think you better do your homework re. the 250kt rule.
I don't think the DC-9 even existed when the first 250kt rule came in about early 1960s.
However, it could have had something to do with a collision between a Connie and a B707 east of New York.
I was flying around there in that period, by 1967, it was there then.
Tootle pip!!
Correction, it was a DC-8.
I think you better do your homework re. the 250kt rule.
I don't think the DC-9 even existed when the first 250kt rule came in about early 1960s.
However, it could have had something to do with a collision between a Connie and a B707 east of New York.
I was flying around there in that period, by 1967, it was there then.
Tootle pip!!
Correction, it was a DC-8.
Sled,
Given that the midair you refer to was between two IFR jets, I hardly think that even the FAA would mandate lower speeds to help prevent such midairs unless they had no confidence in the system they set up. Maybe the same loonies are still running the asylum?
Unlike you, I'll do you the courtesy of providing a link to backup my claims:
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AI.pdf
Page 47, second paragraph.
We are all still waiting for a link from you to the reports/studies that prove an overwhelming case to support E over D (or E anywhere, for that matter). Based on previous form, I think we'll be a long time waiting.
Given that the midair you refer to was between two IFR jets, I hardly think that even the FAA would mandate lower speeds to help prevent such midairs unless they had no confidence in the system they set up. Maybe the same loonies are still running the asylum?
Unlike you, I'll do you the courtesy of providing a link to backup my claims:
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AI.pdf
Page 47, second paragraph.
We are all still waiting for a link from you to the reports/studies that prove an overwhelming case to support E over D (or E anywhere, for that matter). Based on previous form, I think we'll be a long time waiting.
CLEARLY American Pilots think their airspace system is garbage as well Who would've thought?
a fundamental ideologue, or and ideological fundamentalist!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: 7.30 Report - 26/05/2004: Close calls place airspace system under close scrutiny
Broadcast: 26/05/2004
MIKE CAPLEHORN, BROOME INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT GROUP: They're going way back to the square one.
The aircraft don't even need a radio and you can come into an airport any time you want.
Now, if that happens at the same time that a large jet is going down and coming into that airport, then you have a very, very serious chance of a major crash.
It's not just Broome -- we're talking about Karratha, we're talking about Kalgoorlie, we talking about Ayres Rock, we're talking about a lot of our major regional airports and, quite frankly, it's crazy.
The wheel turns a full circle!
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: 7.30 Report - 26/05/2004: Close calls place airspace system under close scrutiny
Broadcast: 26/05/2004
MIKE CAPLEHORN, BROOME INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT GROUP: They're going way back to the square one.
The aircraft don't even need a radio and you can come into an airport any time you want.
Now, if that happens at the same time that a large jet is going down and coming into that airport, then you have a very, very serious chance of a major crash.
It's not just Broome -- we're talking about Karratha, we're talking about Kalgoorlie, we talking about Ayres Rock, we're talking about a lot of our major regional airports and, quite frankly, it's crazy.
The wheel turns a full circle!
That's the problem with history, Dick. You have a lot of it!
Without emotion. these changes are not safe. Unless radar or equivalent is supplied, class E is more dangerous than flying in dirt road G.
IFR in E is supplied with a clearance and a separation service yet must also practice see and avoid...in controlled airspace???? Why???? It mustn't be controlled and someone is being charged for a service they are not receiving.
Before there is an accident and the finger pointing starts...In aviation there are no short cuts. It is black or white...it is safe or it isn't! If I was a bureaucrat (or politician) with no aviation experience I would avail myself of EVERY advice from as many views as possible before I take the advice of ONE person and put my name to it!
There will always be accidents, just hope your name isn't attributed to one that could have been avoided...No E without surveillance!
Without emotion. these changes are not safe. Unless radar or equivalent is supplied, class E is more dangerous than flying in dirt road G.
IFR in E is supplied with a clearance and a separation service yet must also practice see and avoid...in controlled airspace???? Why???? It mustn't be controlled and someone is being charged for a service they are not receiving.
Before there is an accident and the finger pointing starts...In aviation there are no short cuts. It is black or white...it is safe or it isn't! If I was a bureaucrat (or politician) with no aviation experience I would avail myself of EVERY advice from as many views as possible before I take the advice of ONE person and put my name to it!
There will always be accidents, just hope your name isn't attributed to one that could have been avoided...No E without surveillance!
To add further-
A simple rule, every pilot must have a map and a radio. If you cross this line on the map you must be known to the people monitoring this frequency. Provided you follow the instructions given by those people and maintain your aircraft within the limits of those instructions...no harm will come to you. This is called "CONTROLLED AIRSPACE" it matters not if it is A,B,C or ICAO D.
There are those who wish to remove themselves from these rules and fly as they see fit. They are not professional pilots Do you wish to make rules that favour these people..or..professional pilots?
In all simplicity, this is what it comes down to! A line on a map, being able to talk on a radio and follow instructions.
A simple rule, every pilot must have a map and a radio. If you cross this line on the map you must be known to the people monitoring this frequency. Provided you follow the instructions given by those people and maintain your aircraft within the limits of those instructions...no harm will come to you. This is called "CONTROLLED AIRSPACE" it matters not if it is A,B,C or ICAO D.
There are those who wish to remove themselves from these rules and fly as they see fit. They are not professional pilots Do you wish to make rules that favour these people..or..professional pilots?
In all simplicity, this is what it comes down to! A line on a map, being able to talk on a radio and follow instructions.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before there is an accident and the finger pointing starts...In aviation there are no short cuts. It is black or white...it is safe or it isn't!
It obviously isn't a great idea to fly paying passengers overwater in an aircraft with a single engine - if that engine quits, things get ugly. Two engines are better. Four engines are better still. However there are diminishing returns, and an aircraft with 10 engines would not be economical. So we end up approving ETOPS operations and consider it "safe enough".
You _have_ to compromise somewhere. You just have to decide where to draw the line. We could, for instance, ban all VFR flights from entering controlled airspace at all. This would lower the risk of midairs but hurt a lot of people. We could go further, ground anything without a transponder or with a piston engine, ban all private flying, then charge all aircraft a $5000 tax and use the money to make all of Australia class C. This would be a lot safer for RPT with the cost of virtually killing GA.
If we ended up insisting on absolute 100% safety then aircraft would never leave the ground.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No E without surveillance!
Great catch cry OzBusDriver.
Perhaps its the time for professional pilots to make some noise about E airspace. I remember the noise AOPA and its leader made about wanting freedom to fly.
Perhaps it time to get polictical and ask those in power will they accept responsibility if a mid air occurs?
Perhaps its time that the media were told the dangers fare paying passengers face operating in E without surveillance. I am sure the tourist operators would be knocking their respective member's doors down to get support for C airspace protection.
No E without surveillance!
No E without surveillance!
Great catch cry OzBusDriver.
Perhaps its the time for professional pilots to make some noise about E airspace. I remember the noise AOPA and its leader made about wanting freedom to fly.
Perhaps it time to get polictical and ask those in power will they accept responsibility if a mid air occurs?
Perhaps its time that the media were told the dangers fare paying passengers face operating in E without surveillance. I am sure the tourist operators would be knocking their respective member's doors down to get support for C airspace protection.
No E without surveillance!
No E without surveillance!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
superdimona,
If you go back through this thread, nobody is calling for '100% safety' or 10-engined aircraft. Your argument is as simplistic, and as misleading as the arguments pertaining to 'dirt-road-airspace,' 'manual telephone exchanges' and 'turning off the radar' during the Class G airspace trial.
The thrust of this thread is that a superior separation service can be provided that will not expose passenger carrying RPT aircraft, unneccesarily, to Russian Roulette airspace in the terminal area. And it can be provided from within the same resource base needed to provide terminal E.
What idiot would support an E service, that allows VFRs to mix it with IFRs with no separation, when a C service can be provided from the same resource base?
I eagerly wait your reply.
If you go back through this thread, nobody is calling for '100% safety' or 10-engined aircraft. Your argument is as simplistic, and as misleading as the arguments pertaining to 'dirt-road-airspace,' 'manual telephone exchanges' and 'turning off the radar' during the Class G airspace trial.
The thrust of this thread is that a superior separation service can be provided that will not expose passenger carrying RPT aircraft, unneccesarily, to Russian Roulette airspace in the terminal area. And it can be provided from within the same resource base needed to provide terminal E.
What idiot would support an E service, that allows VFRs to mix it with IFRs with no separation, when a C service can be provided from the same resource base?
I eagerly wait your reply.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was responding to the blanket statement "In aviation there are no short cuts. It is black or white...it is safe or it isn't!" - which is wrong.
I didn't once say if I supported or opposed the proposed new airspace. Since you're interested in my opinion, I'd love to see E, only because as a mere RAA pilot John McCormick considers me not fit to undertake training to transit class C (and I don't want to pay inflated PPL prices, but thats a topic for another forum).
However that is my own selfish point of view and _if_ C can truly be brought in for the same cost of E, then why not do it. But please leave enough E lying around so that us unworthy RAA types aren't locked out of the sky.
I didn't once say if I supported or opposed the proposed new airspace. Since you're interested in my opinion, I'd love to see E, only because as a mere RAA pilot John McCormick considers me not fit to undertake training to transit class C (and I don't want to pay inflated PPL prices, but thats a topic for another forum).
However that is my own selfish point of view and _if_ C can truly be brought in for the same cost of E, then why not do it. But please leave enough E lying around so that us unworthy RAA types aren't locked out of the sky.