NAS rears its head again

[Howabout]

Super,

Read my previous comments on this thread regarding RAA access to zones.

I stand by those comments and have had the same opinion for several years. Trawl back and see my comments on the Launy zone and ultra-light operations.

You may find that we are violently in agreement.

There is a huge difference between the potential for RAA access and the rules preventing RAA access.

Don't confuse the two.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From the 'Land of The Long White Cloud'.....which could be called
'The Land of Sensible Aviation'....relatively speaking.....
i.e. Am Enjoying the hospitality of Wanaka at the moment....

There are 2 'E's in NZ.....The first is between the N & the W, and the second is just after the Z......

The remainder of the airspace is classed as A, C, D, or G, respectively!And,yes, the 'Below 10,000ft - 250kts max' rule is prominently displayed on the posters etc.

So why oh why, do we have this discussion re 'E' in OZ, even happening AT ALL????

If the Kiwis can get it right - in alignment with 'World's Best Practice'....

WTF??? do WE need to go looking for trouble for???

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ask yourself, SD. Which rule doesn't warrant your standard.

Meteorological conditions perhaps?

Howabout, access to airspace?

A simple thing like enough fuel?

Aeroplane correctly and legally loaded?

I am talking about rules and procedures, man! Black or White!

You either obey a rule or you break it!

In this case, we have bean-counters that judge the risk of reducing a service to a certain level that will increase the probability of an incident. The RISK is applying a level of service that will be ENOUGH to mitigate that event.

The bean counters are wishing to put a set of rules in place that will not prevented an event from happening...even though you follow the rules there is now a risk of a certain event happening...because of that risk you must now perform a procedure that is used in a lower level of airspace managment (Read this as NO MANAGMENT) to prevent that event from happening.....Statisticly and experimentally tested, this procedure has been proven to be not totally effective to prevent such an event.

Without equipping your RAA rego'd aircraft with the correct equipment and train yourself to an equivalent standard of professionalism you can give ANY chance of entering airspace higher than CTAF a long kiss goodnight!

The perceived STANDARD of RAA is not high enough to be allowed into higher levels of service...there is a real risk to other users because of this. Until this perception is changed by example of standard achieved then RAA has bucklys!

Don't come on here and try and hijack an argument about cutting a level of service equating to locking out of perceived cowboys. Black or White, sunshine...either you can do it or you can't!

NO E WITHOUT SURVEILLANCE!

[peuce]

Griffo,

You had me stumped there for a while ... but I finally worked it out

I, for one, would also like to join the "No E Without Surveillance" campaign
I would even go so far as to say that I would probably consider supporting Class E above Broome, IF:

• There was a surveillance facility in place
• Every aircraft entering the airspace had a black box that allowed it to be surveilled ... by ATS

How we would deal with aircraft that couldn't carry a black box ... I'm not sure. But I'd support attempts to try and find a way.

So, in summary, I'm not against change. I support careful and appropriate change. I don't even think ICAO had envisaged, nor encouraged, the use of Non-surveillance Class E airspace.

[Howabout]

Sorry OZ,

I suppose we beg to differ.

I take some of your points, but I do not believe that RAA drivers are a bunch of 'cowboys.' The reverse in fact.

The aircraft I have seen are well maintained, airworthy and equipped, and their pilots are not a bunch of dunces.

What I said before still applies - if they can communicate and are visible to the system, why not give them a go?

It does not mean flying over KSA! It might mean the development of a few 'special procedures' - through the Launy zone south of the highway only, for example. But these guys are not twits.

Class E airspace is an atrocity; but let's not confuse an atrocity with people who want a decent level of access and are willing to be responsible about it.

I'd far prefer a responsible RAA dude, listening out and broadcasting, than some idiot who reckons that in G all you have to do is listen to your CD player.

[superdimona]

I am talking about rules and procedures, man! Black or White!

You either obey a rule or you break it!

Really? I thought we were actually talking about _changing_ the rules or the possibility thereof, and debating if the change was safe enough.

For instance, let's take a look at your examples:

Meteorological conditions perhaps?

Do you believe that that lightning struck a rock somewhere, and the legal defination of VMC appeared? Some people got together and decided on a compromise that didn't ground planes for no good reason but was still pretty safe. Hardly black & white.

A simple thing like enough fuel?

How do you decide what the fixed and variable reserves should be? More fuel could be safer but might cost an operator valuable payload. Not black & white.

Aeroplane correctly and legally loaded?

How do you decide the minimum climb angle? And you can bet your aircraft won't instantly crash if the CoG is 1mm outside the limits. There are margins involved. How do you calculate the acceptable margin?

I would respond to your anti-RAA rhetoric but I don't want to derail the thread. Besides, I doubt either of us are going to change our opinions, so let's just agree to disagree.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK..too aggressive...

Howabout...nothing wrong at all with your position. In fact, I agree!
The RAAus guys do have some hoops chucked in front of them. Makes it hard for individuals to prove their worth when there is a perception to the contrary.

SD, We could lob hand grenades at each other all day and see no change. Funnily enough, you may find I am on your side wrt the RAAus. I am not anti-RAAus. Why would I be? If an RAAus aircraft is equipped then why not access class E.

The proposed changes to put E over D are not safe.

SD, it would seem you take offence to my position on rules. It's what pees me orf about RAA. I cannot legally fly a J230 two up under the 540kg (its a bit better under LSA600kg rule)...even if I lose weight I still cannot get a legal load to fly more than an hour. Thats rules for you!

[Howabout]

Thanks OZ,

I suppose the point I was trying to make is that us 'fundamentalists' who 'resist change' are probably more positive about giving a fair go, where it can be done safely, than the 'true believers.' The 'true believers' just think about themselves - VH/VFR going anywhere and bugger the IFR. Before anyone jumps, that ain't all VH operators, just the protagonists of Russian Roulette airspace (Class E terminal).

The RAA folk that I've met would bend over backwards to comply with reasonable conditions that would allow them to have some access. As I said before:

I'd far prefer a responsible RAA dude, listening out and broadcasting, than some idiot who reckons that in G all you have to do is listen to your CD player.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Sri Peuce.....

I know I was a bit 'obtuse', but then I figured that this WHOLE F#^kin argument about "E" is 'F&^kin OBTUSE..........

But, I know that U being the Guy U is, would fully understand ........

Cheers...

[Howabout]

Nice observation DNS. I've also wondered where those 'dozens and dozens' of ATC who reckon that E is easier than C hang out in their spare time.

Mountain climbing is a possibility. Maybe, this time of year, they've gone all religious and are on some sort of pilgrimage sponsored by beloved Chairman Two.

[Mike Barry]

Where are they?

I've also wondered where those 'dozens and dozens' of ATC who reckon that E is easier than C hang out in their spare time.

yes, c'mon......out yourselves!

Do what they do in some other parts of the globe...Class A above the transition level!! Woo-hoo!

We made do for years with A, C and F in Muscat...and then A, C and G in UAE. Never felt the need to use E...I agree with the statement, no E without surveillance...primary too, so you can see the little guys sneaking about not talking to anyone.

Mind you, several vodka and cokes into this missive, I will admit that I also liked the olden days before Dick's arrival...henceforth known as "BD", when there was just controlled and uncontrolled airspace and everyone seemed to get on just fine.
If the VFR dudes flew more than 50 miles from departure point they put in a plan, if they flew above 5000 they were full reporting, otherwise SARTIME or NOSAR.
I'm sure Dick could point out to everyone just how much money he has saved the industry since those days with all those changes.
Getting rid of flight Service was a great idea wasn't it? Now the ATCs do the same job, remotely, for way more salary and no offence to the guys/gals that are still doing it, but the old outstations had what no amount of technology can offset...local knowledge. But like Griffo, I'm just getting old and the mind starts to wander.

[Howabout]

Jeez Mike, you're now a fully-fledged heretic. Your international experience counts for nothing; nothing!

How dare you say E isn't needed. I want to fly my aircraft VFR - I do, I do, I do - stamps feet - and I don't need people like you telling me that the IFR A380 (500 pax) above, on descent and on my nose can't keep a proper look out and avoid me when I just want to go in a straight line and save 10 bucks worth of gas. Hell, I can see him (maybe) and he can see me (OK, maybe he can't), but for Godsake's man it's a big sky. What's the chance of a MAC. 'Vanishingly Small' I hear.

You see, it's all down to chance. The chance of me running into a rather large aircraft is 'vanishingly small,' therefore it must be acceptable. So Mike, E is perfectly kosher - how often does the double-0 come up at the casino?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

AAAAHHH!!! Fair suck of the sav Mike........

YEP!! I'm gettin old.......
But I still know which way is 'up' I reckon......

There is one 'E' in 'wander'.....
NO 'E' in ANY airspace would be GREAT!!! (None in Kiwi Land......)

[Dick Smith]

I still have the same belief!

Funny, many Australians went to war and even lost their lives so we could keep certain freedoms.

Yet it is confirmed here that actually telling the truth about air safety and linking a name to that truth would threaten job prospects - so the truth is not stated. Wimps in my opinion!

I am amazed that so many will keep posting knowing they can't reveal their true names because they may lose their job!

I would get another job where I could be open and honest with my true beliefs.

As I have stated previously, post anonymously and no one will take any notice- so you all must have a lot of time to waste!

[Icarus2001]

...but Dick YOU are taking notice. So is the media.

Where is ONE of your dozens of ATCOs who agrees with you?

Show us ONE of Dick's dozens.

[Mr Whippy]

Much Ado,

Reckon dick is due to be dragged to the bench again?

Maybe you will be able to get him to answer the question (factually) he has ignored many times, in return for, I dunno, say posting privileges?

Dick: Where is the benefit of E as opposed to C over D?

[Much Ado]

No, Dick is sailing close hauled but hasn't gone into irons yet. My finger hovers, quivering in anticipation.

We Mods watch the contorted gyrations with a certain sense of perverse enjoyment.

It would certainly be an improvement to see answers to questions though - I mean come on Dick, its been a while

[Mike Barry]

Puhlease!

Yet it is confirmed here that actually telling the truth about air safety and linking a name to that truth would threaten job prospects - so the truth is not stated. Wimps in my opinion!

I am amazed that so many will keep posting knowing they can't reveal their true names because they may lose their job!

I would get another job where I could be open and honest with my true beliefs.

Easy to be brave when you are a millionaire Dick

Many of us have indeed moved overseas, for one reason or another, but I'll give you a tip, criticise your employer, make them look bad in the media, or give out information that you are not permitted by law to give out, and you will be lucky to just get fired.
That pretty much goes anywhere in the world.
It really is time that you gave away this stupidity of attacking anonymity just because the poster disagrees with your viewpoint.
If you argue your case logically and respectfully, people here will listen, if you attack them as cowards, and rant because someone is too stupid to see your point of view, you will continue to be held to ridicule.
Just free advice, take it or leave it, your choice...as a wise man once told me, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Could you just answer the one question though....what is the benefit of E airspace over C category airspace?

[Dick Smith]

Everyone seems to love posting copies of postings that have been made previously. In that spirit, I thought I should add this one by VOR – a highly esteemed expert on international airspace.

Mike Barry, I’ll also let VOR – suspected to be an ATC professional – to comment on Class E.

Here it is:

Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible

.

Well, possibly CASA and Airservices are now taking that advice, ie. they

should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible

Of course, this is a rumour network and the rumour is that VOR is now back working with either CASA or Airservices. Can anyone confirm this?

[ARFOR]

Most US airports servicing the level of RPT traffic serviced by Australian regional towered airports have Class C services.

US Class C services are all radar covered TRACON

TRACON are small scale/range Approach and Departure Terminal area services where controllers are specifically managing comparatively small volume compared with en-route controllers in Australia

Many terminal area volumes of airspace in the US [particularly since the quote you cite from 2004] have been reclassified C or B. That reclassification has been the result of NMAC, MAC and/or representations by US industry for change.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace

Nor is it for Class C [ICAO]

Why do the US utilise Class E outside busy RPT Terminal Area’s? The density of VFR traffic that can not be serviced to the same level it is in Europe, Australia and elsewhere.

- Does that mean the US system with Class E components is better? No, it is simply a necessity.

- Does that mean the ICAO, European or Australian system is better? No, it is simply better able to manage the lower VFR densities with less controller resources combined with the substantially less widespread ATS infrastructure such as surveillance.