NAS rears its head again

[ARFOR]

Leadsled

I have not quoted publicly available information, because it is exactly that, publicly available

Not to this public. Why [if it were real] would you not post it in support of your argument

Mr Smith

I know the standard answer … our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all

As has been stated, where is the incident data that suggests Australian D+C terminal tower operations are problematic?

I put to you this question:-

The C, D or E airspace [above A045] below huge amounts of 'en-route' C and or E above. Can controllers do both en-route and terminal area without any problems at all?

Is that what you are saying? Everyone would know these answers if:-

Risk analysis, CBA and proper process was followed to find out.

The US system? ... No it is not, not without dedicated approach and departures controllers [TRACON equivalent]

mjbow2

OK, lets have the list of these Class D airports, then we will cross reference them against the FAA ATADS database for US Part 139 Class 1 airports licenced for Scheduled Air Carrier [>30pax seat capacity]

Remember like for like comparisons mjbow

Here is a hint, here is the list of the top 100 [in order top to bottom] Scheduled Air Carrier moves for 2008 at Part 139 Class 1 airports in the US and Australia combined [the same classification Australian Regional Towered Airports would hold in the US]

ATL, ORD, DFW, DEN, LAX, PHX, LAS, JFK, CLT, SEA, MIA, MCO, EWR, MSP, YSSY, SFO, PHL, IAH, DTW, MEM, LGA, BWI, YMML, FLL, BOS, MDW, IAD, DCA, SLC, TPA, SAN, YBBN, PDX, HNL, OAK, STL, MCI, ANC, SJC, IND, SAT, HOU, YPPH, AUS, SMF, BNA, SDF, SJU, DAL, PIT, SNA, MSY, RDU, CVG, YPAD, ABQ, ONT, CLE, RSW, ORF, MKE, BDL, JAX, PBI, RNO, BUR, CMH, BUF, YBCS, PVD, BOI, YSCB, GEG, TUS, ELP, OMA, OGG, MHT, BHM, OKC, YBCG, YPDN, RIC, TUL, KOA, LGB, YBTL, ROC, ALB, LIT, ISP, COS, CAK, LIH, DAY, SYR, CHS, GUM, FAT, GSO, SAV

You know how many of those are not Class B or C airspace? 4 and none of those 4 are on the 'continental' United States.

Shall we look at the other US class B and C airspace airport locations compared with Australian Regional Towered Airports?

[Capn Bloggs]

MJBOW,

Firstly Class E, both in terminal and enroute areas is for the benefit of IFR not VFR,

Rubbish. Martha King said as much at the roadshow/Publicity Stunt in 03 (I think it was). The ONLY reason E exists is so VFR can do what they want. If there was no VFR, why would IFR want (or need, for that matter) anything less than C? So we could do the fabled IFR Pickup??

[ARFOR]

mjbow

Here is the remaining list [Air Carrier movements - top to bottom] of US Part 139 Class 1 Airports with Class B or C airspace. I have included the remaining Australian towered airports [that would qualify as US Part 139 Class 1 airports] within to make it easy for you:-

DSM, YBRK, MYR, GRR, PWM, ICT, SRQ, YMHB, LBB, YBMK, BIL, BTV, ABE, HRL, PNS, YMLT, SFB, AMA, FNT, ACY, HSV, STT, TYS, JAN, YBMC, TOL,YMAY, YBAS, CAE, MAF, MSN, XNA, YMAV, CID, YSCH, MLI, GSP, PSC, DAB, GRB, SGF, SHV, YSTW, LAN, SBA, BGR, TLH, SBN, YBHM, CRP, CHA, BTR, PIA, YMEN, MOB, ROA, FWA, CSG, LEX, LFT, AVL, MRY, FAY, LNK, ABI, CRW, CMI, EVV, SPI

Of the remaining [not in either of the Class B or C airspace lists posted] Part 139 Class 1 licenced airports:-

- How many have Class D TRSA?
- How many require prior permission for Unscheduled Air Carrier [>30 seat capacity]?

Happy hunting!

[Howabout]

mjbow2,

I am not in a combative mood, but I could not but help but pick up on your comment, as follows:

Howabout is still under the illusion that somehow an airliner descending into Class G now is somehow in less danger of colliding with a NORDO VFR should that same airspace be renamed Class E. Extraordinarily illogical!

I can't actually remember any such assertion on my part. But please remind me with a quote to that effect.

My argument, from the outset, has been that a positive separation service with C can be provided from within the existing resource base.

As for mentioning NORDO, and that's a peculiarly US term, I haven't the foggiest. For the life of me, I cannot remember a single post where I've used the term. Please elaborate.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

NORDO, short for "No Radio", is a North American aviation term for aircraft flying without a radio. The term may originate from the 5-character uppercase abbreviated notation "NORDO" displayed on controllers' radar scopes when an aircraft transmits the "radio failure" code on its transponder. An alternate explanation is that "NO RDO" was the standard note made on maintenance and equipment sheets used in military aviation, starting in the 1930s, as a code to identify planes which needed radio repairs or were not equipped with radios.

Another little Americanism to creep into the vernacular..had to google it to be sure.

[Chimbu chuckles]

MJBOW, Dick, LS - yes jets descend in G airspace where they run the gauntlet of 'GA' aircraft making full use of their 'Free in G' 'rights' as confered by Dick during his 'rein' at CAA.

There was a time when anyone above 5000' or travelling more than 50nm was required to file a flight plan and be full reporting/constant 2 way coms with ATC/FS. An RPT crew would be given all this detail and be able to nut something out - "ok its a Baron and he was over XYX at 24 @ 8000' and his estimate for Blah VOR is 51. Hmmm 3 miles a minute so he's clear/Hmmm 3 miles a minute, hey its close we'll maintain 9000' until well clear/we'll call him up (we knew what frequency they were on remember?) and talk to him.

I would argue that the vast majority of pilots in those days who, while below 5000'/within 50nm/nosar no details etc, STILL had the discipline/knowledge/training to be on the right frequency and listening out and be responsive to the pilots around them.

I remember that system - it worked well.

Then Dick et al destroyed that system - and the RPT pilots went "ummm...ahhh...well gee, I mean, fck"

When you destroyed that system you also destroyed the sense of inclusiveness and discipline that the system engendered among the vast majority of the users both professional and recreational. We have since had a couple of decades of propaganda aimed at finishing the job YOU started - who could forget that DILL glowering from the front of the CASA rag like a psycho headmaster at errant students - how dare you little people use your radios!!!

Now we have yet more of the same HORSE**** from Dick but this time its E over D. Its like the death of a thousand cuts!

From an international harmonisation point of view NOTHING beyond minor tweaking needed doing to the system as used by international long haul crews. Radio phraseology, stop heights on SID charts etc. And NO international jets in uncontrolled airspace. I don't care what they do in the US that is there business. I fly in Asia, Australia, NZ, ME, Europe and UK and we are NEVER outside A, B or C airspace.

Domestically RPT flight in G must ONLY be tolerated to the absolute minimum extent that Australia's unique technology and demographic circumstances demand.

The aviation system and infrastructure exists FOR ONE REASON ONLY - commerce - its a nationally and internationally vital system of commerce . Without it western society implodes. 'C' airspace is Commercial Airspace.

I have said it before and I will say it again - if tomorrow at midnight EVERY aircraft below 5700kg ceased to exist the system would not change in ANY way shape or form. The same could NOT be said if all the jets went away.

For that reason alone E over D or any other whacko airspace ideas you might come up with Dick are utterly without logical foundation. YOU might think E over D is the next logical step in your crusade to democratise airspace but who asked you?

Having (Hicap/RPT) jets outside controlled airspace on climb/descent, the highest workload phases, just defies any logic. There is not a SINGLE good reason that justifies the additional risk no matter how small YOU deem it to be. Its stupid, its irrational - its moronic!

I am an aircraft owner as well as a long haul pilot - I fly a large range of aircraft from open cockpit vintage biplanes to B767s and LOTS of my workmates do too - NONE of us expect 'the system' to be shaped or biassed in favour of our light GA/recreational aviation hobby - interestingly among my PPL friends NONE of them expect it either.

So just who is your 'constituency'?

Given the total of 2 members of your cheer squad on here (its never been any more than maybe 3 over the years we have been debating this on Pprune) I actually don't think you have one - this whole 20+ years in the Aviation Hall of Doom you have been instrumental in creating is merely about your bloody ego.

All it takes is ONE. One mid air collision between a Boeing/Airbus and a lighty - just ONE caused by your Dickspace and hundreds die. The chances are NOT vanishingly small - it has happened more than once in the US. We came uncomfortably close (that is, by definition, what a TCAS RA IS!!) MORE than once in Australia.

Professional pilots and ATC feel that viscerally. You clearly don't.

You suggest the big payoff is that ATC will be relieved of some workload by E airspace and be 'better' able to monitor the D airspace. That is not a payoff that is BS justification of the most base kind.

The only airspace that makes a mid air collision 'vanishingly small' is controlled airspace, be it procedural or radar/adsb monitored. 100+++ passengers in a 737/767/777 or one of those silly French aeroplanes deserve NOTHING less.

Recreational aviation should be welcome in the system but on the system's terms not recreational aviation's terms in the same way that recreational boaties uses the seaway.

IF I want to fly my Bonanza in the same airspace as my colleagues in a jet I put in a flight plan and fit in around them - when I am descending at 400kts/3000' per minute in a 767 I damn well expect that everything airborne that can possibly hit me is known about and talking to somebody who is also talking to me.

[Capn Bloggs]

MJBOW,

Howabout is still under the illusion that somehow an airliner descending into Class G now is somehow in less danger of colliding with a NORDO VFR should that same airspace be renamed Class E. Extraordinarily illogical!

The NORDO VFR is operating illegally. You do know that carriage and use of radio by all aircraft above 5000ft in G is mandatory, don't you, as is transponders above 10,000ft in any type of airspace. Therefore, in relation to avoiding VFR, G is safer than E.

Well said, Chimbu.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

To break this down to its simplest of issues-

Before the experiment- If there was an incident in the breakdown of separation in controlled airspace, it was usually the fault of an individual...somebody didn't follow the rules or procedures.

Since the experiment- If an incident resulting in a breakdown of separation standards, in the case of a VFR in class E, noting the IFR still gets roughly the same service as was received prior to the experiment, the VFR is exempt from procedures, cause the incident but is completely protected by the regulations...all they have to say was..."I didn't think I was in conflict"

Now, if there ever is an accident in class E between a CONTROLLED IFR HVY RPT and a NON-CONTROLLED GA VFR resulting in a number of deaths???

Are you guys willing to bet the farm on this "Vanishingly small probability" incident not happening? Especially, if you continue to introduce a random event to the experiment.

[peuce]

MJBOW,

I'm with Chuckles on this, however, to answer your question:

Peuce supports Class E above D in Broome if there was surveillance and everyone had a transponder. Do you also support the original NAS proposal to upgrade existing radar covered class G to Class E in the J curve? I look forward to your response.

That's nothing much to do with this topic, but the answer is ... it depends. Airspace classifications can't be decided on surveillance availability alone. Airspace Management is not about ideology, but about rational cost benefit analyses. Which volume are you talking about? What are the IFR movements like? Is a separation service warranted? Would the surveillance be put to better use with a Class F service, for example?

And not to put words in HOWABOUT's mouth, but I think he, like others, may have been alluding to the fact that VFRs into (or transitting within 30nm of) Broome now ... are required to advise their intentions. If Class E was above Broome, that would not be the case. So ... IFRs would have less SA than they do now.

[Freedom7]

Dick

This means that the Controller’s attention is taken away from the D airspace close to the circuit area because the Controller also has to separate two aircraft twenty miles away in the C airspace. Surely it’s obvious to you?

False statement.

Of course, I know the standard answer … our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all.

This is absolute rubbish – just why they would make such a claim is quite extraordinary. I think I know the reason and it will come to the fore one day.

Your statement is absolute rubbish, let us all know what the reason is?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just in case-

Πριν από το πείραμα-Αν υπήρχε ένα συμβάν στην κατανομή του διαχωρισμού σε ελεγχόμενο εναέριο χώρο, ήταν συνήθως η υπαιτιότητα ενός ατόμου ... κάποιος δεν ακολουθεί τους κανόνες ή διαδικασίες.

Δεδομένου ότι το πείραμα-Αν ένα συμβάν που προκύπτει σε μια ανάλυση των προτύπων διαχωρισμού, στην περίπτωση μιας VFR στην κατηγορία Ε, επισημαίνοντας την IFR παίρνει ακόμα σχεδόν την ίδια υπηρεσία, όπως είχε ληφθεί πριν από το πείραμα, το VFR εξαιρείται από τις διαδικασίες, να προκαλέσουν το περιστατικό, αλλά είναι εντελώς προστατεύεται από τους κανονισμούς ... όλα έχουν να πουν ήταν ... "Δεν πίστευα ότι ήμουν σε σύγκρουση"

Τώρα, αν ποτέ υπάρχει ένα ατύχημα στην τάξη E μεταξύ ΕΛΕΓΧΟΜΕΝΕΣ IFR HVY RPT και μια μη ελεγχόμενη ΓΣ εξ όψεως με αποτέλεσμα σε μια σειρά θανάτων?

Είναι εσείς πρόθυμοι να στοιχηματίσετε στο αγρόκτημα σε αυτό το "Vanishingly μικρή πιθανότητα» περιστατικό δεν συμβαίνει; Ειδικά, αν συνεχίσετε να εισαγάγει ένα τυχαίο γεγονός για να το πείραμα.

Here it is in Greek.....so there are no excuses

[Dog One]

Following on from OzBusDriver above, if there is a close near miss by a heavy RPT and a light GA and the GA aircraft loses control in the wake turbelence and crashes, the heavy crew would be blame less, because we are not aware of any traffice other than IFR, or would one expect the amateur aviator to don the accident investigator cap and pronounce that it was the RPT's fault because they should have seen and avoided the unknown light aircraft, ATC because they were looking the wrong way, or were busy seperating aircraft in C airspace 300 miles away.

Its all great in theory, but in practice, it will not work, and the snake oil sales men will vanish well before the body count begins.

[Icarus2001]

Thank you Dick for replying to my question.

It’s all about improving safety. If we had C over D and there was adequate staffing and tools (ie. surveillance radar), it would of course be safer.

So the issue then is lack of staffing and tools?

Surely you would agree that procedural C, which works fine is safer than non radar E?

We give large amounts of Class C airspace - often without radar – to the low level Class D Controller.

Well that is one way. C does not have to be operated by the tower, centre can and does do it.
You say controller, singular, if that is the issue then put another controller in the cab. This goes back to my first point which is YOUR point, the right STAFFING & TOOLS.

This means that the Controller’s attention is taken away from the D airspace close to the circuit area because the Controller also has to separate two aircraft twenty miles away in the C airspace. Surely it’s obvious to you?

Okay I see that. So if their attention should not be diverted away from the risky circuit airspace to control C how can they control the E, with IFR traffic you have created the same problem. Except now the responsible VFR aircraft in the area will be piping up on frequency adding to the workload.

We have had examples above of the R/T traffic and many controllers here, perhaps even dozens , have said that it is easier and more efficient for all to issue sep instructions to the VFR. It takes less R/T time than a VFR announcing and then the two and fro of negotiating some sep. Or are you suggesting that the VFR stay silent? So they become radio invisible and the RPT jet pilot does not know that they are there. The controller does not know they are there. Unfortunately the laws of physics mean that regardless of the airspace letter they can still hit each other.

The only reason the FAA says they have E over D is so the resources (ie. Controller expertise) can be concentrated where the risk is greatest.

Okay. Do they have much E airspace without radar coverage? I believe the answer is no. So the VFR traffic is then visible to the system and can be managed.

Of course, I know the standard answer … our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all.
This is absolute rubbish – just why they would make such a claim is quite extraordinary. I think I know the reason and it will come to the fore one day.

Dick I have a great deal of respect for what you have achieved in your business life. I do not understand why you have so little respect for the views of professional ATCOs. Yes there are ratbag ATCOs just like there are ratbag pilots and entrepeneurs but to dismiss their views shows that you are doing the opposite of what you always say you do, that is, listen to the experts and pinch the best ideas.

If the controller can do E over D from the tower, surely they can do C over D. I am sure you must agree.

Again to make a statement like "this is absolute rubbish" does little to help your case. Where is the DATA that you are basing this on?

No government agency makes a decision of this importance without modelling the costs (roof insulation aside) so the DATA must exist to back you up.

Rather than going around in circles comparing this bit of US procedure to that bit of Aus procedure we (the industry not pprune) need to see the business case for it. AsA as you well know has the capability to model this in off line sims, the OAR should be presented and presenting this data so we can see how the decision is made. Open and accountable. You know, the stuff people went to war for.

Cheers.

[LeadSled]

With regard to the CDA's into Heathrow, it is not generally par of the course to allocate a CDA from cruise. It is worked out more of a CDA from leaving the hold.

Rororblades,
With respect, tell me something I don't know, but you would have to agree that, as far as possible, the aim is a CDA to minimise noise. And most times it works damned well. The tenor of pilot respect for the efforts of UK NATS is a polar opposite of much pilot opinion on ATC in this country. Airservices isn't all too often referred to Airnoservices for nothing.

As to sequencing into EGLL, the "bedpost" holding points are much derided in Australian ATC circles, where many years of attempting to use far out speed control for sequencing is hopeless and nothing like the "across the fence" sequencing accuracy of EGLL is ever achieved here. For more years than I care to remember, we have not failed to notice the ability of you and your colleagues to handle a a wide variety of traffic, with a wide variety of pilot ability, and still maintain the movement rates you do.

Owen,
Watch you blood pressure, old chap, we wouldn't like you to blow a foooffle valve, you provide too much entertainment. As to any rational contribution to the subject in hand, that is a different matter.

As to the chap who flies around the world, but only ever in A.B,C (I think he said), that is rather miraculous, or more probably, he can't read a Jepp (or equivalent) chart. I'm not going to argue about it, just go get the charts and have a look.

Hint, what is the class of airspace not far off the coast at KLAX, outside the US continental boundary, or say around the coast at Vandenberg, or around Ventura, as described in the US equivalent of the Designates Airspace Handbook ---- and all shown on Jepp charts -- If you understand the charting convention of Jepp. Or the Upper Airspace over India, Pakistan etc. Or much of Africa.??

It's all there for those who want to look.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Its must be 25 years ago, that we ran the first trial of CDA to a nominated touchdown time ( using the onboard FMC predictions) in Brisbane, it was not long after "new" Brisbane opened, and it was very successful ----- but the trail was killed further up the food chain ---- for entirely unmeritorious reasons. Haven't mad much progress since, have we.

[le Pingouin]

Leadie, wanna know why such trials work so well? Because the aircraft get priority to allow them to demonstrate the principle. Doesn't mean it will transfer to "real life".

[le Pingouin]

With respect, tell me something I don't know, but you would have to agree that, as far as possible, the aim is a CDA to minimise noise. And most times it works damned well. The tenor of pilot respect for the efforts of UK NATS is a polar opposite of much pilot opinion on ATC in this country. Airservices isn't all too often referred to Airnoservices for nothing

Management is so focussed on the process that they've long lost sight of core business. And who do you think initiated the state of perpetual restructuring we now find ourselves in?

If the UK system is so wonderful & all without vast swathes of E airspace why aren't we aiming for that?

[Capn Bloggs]

I was wondering how long it would take you to drag out the old "G over Afghanistan when I flew 7-Os in the 70s" waffle. Get with the times, Bloggs.

Where is that CBA on E over D? There isn't one, is there, because the answer wouldn't suit your argument, would it?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Leadsled...why is it OK for C over D for Tamworth, Coffs, Launy and Rocky with the study NOT recommending E over D. Yet, you guys are pushing for E over D in equally as busy airspace at Broome and Karratha?

CivilAir is on the money....Ideology ahead of Safety.

If D and no surveillance then procedural C over D cannot be argued against......

Carnnnn Brisbane!

[rotorblades]

Hi All,
Thanks for the notes on my post.
I hate to keep harping on about UK this & UK that because each country needs to decide what is best for its traffic, and not just copy what someone else does because it looks good.
As for airlittleservice they need a major kick up the bum to sort out staffing so that sectors arent constantly running short of staff so that sectors have to be combined. Or trying to plaintitively bleat that only need one controller on duty from 10pm to 6am (although regularly there is only one rated controller on site from 7pm until 6am). there should always be two rated controllers on site at all times, regardless of traffic (it only takes 2). It wasnt that long ago I did a 9 hour shift with only 2 10min breaks. No time for dinner. And that was working very busy a,c,e & g airspace from surface to FL600 (major capital route). But not replacing the staff numbers is part of "affordable safety" apparently
The UK mainly has only 3 class of airspace in regular use A, D & G. There are patches of C & E but not too near any major routes. Heathrow's control zone is A airspace (one of the few A control zones) but before I left to come down here they were talking about degrading it to C to allow better access to the area for VFR flights (the control zone was a fair size about 15-20nm around ish), places like gatwick, Stansted, London City were all D Control Zones (All airways airspace being A. (around London anything above 2500-3500 was A.)
There are no airfields that take RPT & bizjets etc that are completely within G airspace. On a regular flight the lowest Class an airline pilot can expect to fly in is D, within the approach area. If going to Heathrow wont leave A for its entire flight in the UK FIR.

Having worked down here for 2.5 years now and now using A, C, E & G regularly I can see definate advantages in some C airspace around airports/airfields with RPT flights. However E is a complete crock. You still get VFRs randomly flying through and we (as ATC) dont know who they are, where they are going or what level they are (we cant assume mode C is correct).
They also recently changed the airspace around an airfield that goes uncontrolled when the airforce go home, it went from G sfc to 8500 to G sfc to 4500 & E from 4500 to 8500+. This has just caused untold confusion and restriction to jets & turbos. IFRs (mainly transitting twin/light) regularly go thrashing through it without a clearance. RPTs who do well when on departure have to cap their climb to 4000 until clearance (previously they could climb to 8000)(lowest safe alt outside of 25nm is 6600), inbound have to stay 'on' frequency until they leave at 4500', which for an A320 or B737 is not that far from the CTAF area and can lead to rushed calls and incidents.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

They also recently changed the airspace around an airfield that goes uncontrolled when the airforce go home, it went from G sfc to 8500 to G sfc to 4500 & E from 4500 to 8500+. This has just caused untold confusion and restriction to jets & turbos. IFRs (mainly transitting twin/light) regularly go thrashing through it without a clearance. RPTs who do well when on departure have to cap their climb to 4000 until clearance (previously they could climb to 8000)(lowest safe alt outside of 25nm is 6600), inbound have to stay 'on' frequency until they leave at 4500', which for an A320 or B737 is not that far from the CTAF area and can lead to rushed calls and incidents.

ohhhh rotorblades, don't say that....Willy is the Dick's little chestnut. Class E there can do no wrong.

mind you, class E is still controlled airspace so IFRs (mainly transitting twin/light) regularly go thrashing through it without a clearance is somewhat disturbing,

EDIT- we are the pride of Brisbane town.....