NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eeeeeewwwwww grouse 
Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts
No offence intended of course towards those two or three who are clealy infatuated with 'THE' electonic DICK 
Think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts
No offence intended of course towards those two or three who are clealy infatuated with 'THE' electonic DICK
Gotta ask, Leadie. GrandPa Aerotart is a current ATPL flying full time between here and Europe...Rotorblades is a current ATC pushing tin here and experienced OS, ARFOR is current ATC, Bloggs is a current skipper on regionals flying domesticly, Dog One is current ATC...........
Leadie, when was the last time you renewed your ATPL and when was the last time you ACTUALLY poled a widebody? You seem to take great delight in pointing the finger at everyone else's experience, so, pony up!
Leadie, when was the last time you renewed your ATPL and when was the last time you ACTUALLY poled a widebody? You seem to take great delight in pointing the finger at everyone else's experience, so, pony up!
In the spirit of keeping this rolling ...
Does VB have the same SOPs as QF?
Does Tiger have the same SOPs as VB?
Hell, does JQ even have the same SOPs as QF?
Í'm guessing the answer to all questions is ... NO
But doesn't QF have tested and safe SOPS ... proven over many, many years?
Why don't the others just copy QF?
Are they just stubborn fundamentalists? or is there another reason?
Does VB have the same SOPs as QF?
Does Tiger have the same SOPs as VB?
Hell, does JQ even have the same SOPs as QF?
Í'm guessing the answer to all questions is ... NO
But doesn't QF have tested and safe SOPS ... proven over many, many years?
Why don't the others just copy QF?
Are they just stubborn fundamentalists? or is there another reason?
Been talking about this to a mate who pushes tin for a living on one of the regional consoles.
This is what he said about programmed tailored arrivals
...only the names and aircraft have been changed to protect the innocent but a very true story and only a day old!
Leadsled, care to respond on your furphy argument?
This is what he said about programmed tailored arrivals
-"turbo prop RPT out of a regional into a major, he's programmed a 2 minute delay behind a 738. I notice on maestro there's a 4 minute gap ahead of the 738. I go to the flow and say 'Before I slow turboprop down will you be speeding 738 up?' (Giving the 73 a high speed descent would have eliminated the turbo prop delay) Flow's reply: 'No the 738 is on a tailored arrival' can you believe it? A tailored arrival is creating a delay for the aircraft behind it!"
Leadsled, care to respond on your furphy argument?
Chuck , I just wished I kept all the BS material I received in the mail in the eighties and nineties. I have a few CAA newsletters with the then Chairman of the CAA spouting off how good TAAATS was going to be and how, with the help of all the built in automatic alarms for terrain, tracking and air to air conflicts, the current controllers would easily be able to do the job of FS as well as their own....And everyone believed Dick
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll repeat this one last time, then give up:
The following excerpt from a previous post is also pertinent:
OZ and the rest of you (post 381), as I pointed out previously, from my perspective that is the end game. The pro-NAS boys are deliberately keeping quiet on this one because they think they've got a cunning plan and, if they can just keep quiet for a while, universal E over US D at all those other places will fall into their laps with little/no effort.
From where I stand there's an admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning with this plan that goes like this:
"We are getting E over D at BME and KTA. The directive is already out to convert GAAP to E over US D, and AV will be the same without any additional pot-stirring or lobbying on our part. Do not rock the boat at this stage - no need.
"Once we have these changes locked down, we then go into lobby mode. We point out that we now have a 'totally confusing' system, whereby we now have two completely different sets of procedures and airspace types operating across the 'non-major' airports. At BME, KTA, AV and all the ex-GAAPs, we have, 'safe,' 'proven' US airspace. Yet at places like AY, LT, HB, TW, AS, etc, etc we have 'unique' Australian, 'Galapagos' D with overlying C. Surely this is at the very least confusing and non-standardised, and at the very worst, dangerous.
"The obvious solution Minister (sucker), is to reclassify all those other ports as E over US D for 'standardisation.' Otherwise, the confusion will generate incidents/accidents and, Minister, 'you'll have blood on your hands,' or something equally dramatic - there's a certain amount of form here going back to NAS. The pressure will also be applied via the media, who don't know any better, and the gullible couch potato that is well-informed through his reading of the Tele and seeing 'aviation experts' on A Current Affair.
Believe me boys and girls, who drive the regionals and the heavy metal going into places like Coffs, Albury, Alice, Hobart, Launy and all those others, you're in the gun-sights and are about to be comprehensively snookered unless you get it in a pile right now.
If you don't, you'll be mixing it with uncontrolled VFR traffic to all of those 'country' destinations to which you fly.
As I said, in my opinion an 'admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning,' I dips my lid. But don't wake up one morning and claim you didn't see it coming - it will be too late!
From where I stand there's an admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning with this plan that goes like this:
"We are getting E over D at BME and KTA. The directive is already out to convert GAAP to E over US D, and AV will be the same without any additional pot-stirring or lobbying on our part. Do not rock the boat at this stage - no need.
"Once we have these changes locked down, we then go into lobby mode. We point out that we now have a 'totally confusing' system, whereby we now have two completely different sets of procedures and airspace types operating across the 'non-major' airports. At BME, KTA, AV and all the ex-GAAPs, we have, 'safe,' 'proven' US airspace. Yet at places like AY, LT, HB, TW, AS, etc, etc we have 'unique' Australian, 'Galapagos' D with overlying C. Surely this is at the very least confusing and non-standardised, and at the very worst, dangerous.
"The obvious solution Minister (sucker), is to reclassify all those other ports as E over US D for 'standardisation.' Otherwise, the confusion will generate incidents/accidents and, Minister, 'you'll have blood on your hands,' or something equally dramatic - there's a certain amount of form here going back to NAS. The pressure will also be applied via the media, who don't know any better, and the gullible couch potato that is well-informed through his reading of the Tele and seeing 'aviation experts' on A Current Affair.
Believe me boys and girls, who drive the regionals and the heavy metal going into places like Coffs, Albury, Alice, Hobart, Launy and all those others, you're in the gun-sights and are about to be comprehensively snookered unless you get it in a pile right now.
If you don't, you'll be mixing it with uncontrolled VFR traffic to all of those 'country' destinations to which you fly.
As I said, in my opinion an 'admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning,' I dips my lid. But don't wake up one morning and claim you didn't see it coming - it will be too late!
The writing is on the wall guys and the clock is ticking. At the risk of boring you, go back to posts 386 and 394. Also Leads's admission that E over US D is the universal end-state (post 388).
If that doesn't put the breeze up you, nothing will, and you'll be staring out of limited vis cockpits, with 100+ punters down the back, looking for that Tobago north of Launy (that you don't actually know about!).
If that doesn't put the breeze up you, nothing will, and you'll be staring out of limited vis cockpits, with 100+ punters down the back, looking for that Tobago north of Launy (that you don't actually know about!).
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARFOR
I understand your burning desire to only list those airports that serve aircraft of Part 121 carriers with 31 seats or more. This is an unfortunate, misguided and deliberate attempt to mislead the unsuspecting reader.
And by the way, I don’t know why you care what airports aren’t in the contiguous U.S but you might check the location of Long beach California (LBG).
Part 139-airport class classification, has absolutely NOTHING to do with airspace determination. Part 139 details airport specifications for airports wishing to serve air carrier operations. Simply put, Class 1 for Part 121 > 30 seats, Class 2 for Part 121 < 30 seats.
Many class 1 airports serving high capacity RPT jets in the United States are in fact CTAF and Class E over D towered airports.
I WILL REPEAT THIS FACT:
Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers.
Your post compares some of our bigger airports that have similar aircraft movements to ones in the United States. It shows admirably that we have Class C appropriately allocated to these busy airports when compared to the U.S. Well done.
Here is another accurate comparison, like for like as you say.
Broome CTAF
36,162 movements, Aprx 410,000 pax 2007 (CASA aeronautical study)
Eagle/Vail non radar, E over D
36,417 movements 430,686 pax 2008 (FAA/ KEGE airport)
Pretty similar aren’t they?
One country's airspace has been assigned on the basis of a scientific Cost Benefit Analysis. Can you guess which one?
Projected cost of lives lost over 15 years (at Aprx USD $1m per life) divided by the cost of saving those lives by upgrading the airspace. Obviously the cost of upgrading the Eagle airports class D to Class C is significantly less than 1 when divided into the projected cost loss of lives.
Why you rant on and on about TRSA surrounding class D in the U.S. is perplexing. The first TRSA was established back in the early 1980’s prior to the FAA using the ICAO class A-G airspace classification and prior to the FAA adopting their current scientific Cost Benefit Analysis.
Contrary to what you believe, TRSA’s are NOT being upgraded to class C. Some class D airports get upgrade to class C only after a Cost Benefit Analysis has been performed weather there is an existing radar facility (TRSA) or not. Just like Class C airspace will be upgraded to Class B when traffic levels justify it.
Howabout
I apologise if my comments appeared as combative. That was not my intention. Sometimes as you know in these contentious debates, strong assertions can sometimes be lost in a somewhat venomous tone. This detracts from the evidence offered. I’m sorry.
You say
As and RPT airline pilot, I SUPPORT Class E. It is truly extraordinary that any reasonable thinking person can say that there can only be Class C and Class G and NOTHING in between in the terminal or enroute environment. What a remarkably illogical thing to say.
Why can I not get positive IFR and terrain separation in places like Proserpine, Ballina and even Canberra after hours? Because fundamentalist cannot accept that E is perfectly safe and insist that G is somehow magically the safer class of airspace.
Surely you can see that if the currently assessed risk of collision is so remote in these places as to warrant class G, then it would then be that much safer for IFR to have class E?
My suspicion is however, that Australia is completely devoid of any real scientific risk assessment when it comes to airspace.
Chimbu Chuckles
I agree. Can you tell me why I have to fly a Boeing in radar covered Class G airspace in Australia?
Why after 15 years since its introduction, am I not able to fly through Class E instead of Class G in radar covered airspace along the J Curve?
Is it because fundamentalist have stomped there feet, covered their ears, closed there eyes and repeated often enough…. Not class E, we’ll all die!
Stick to your guns Chimbu! If you say it enough times class G will magically become safer than E, but only if you really, really believe it. Good luck!
I understand your burning desire to only list those airports that serve aircraft of Part 121 carriers with 31 seats or more. This is an unfortunate, misguided and deliberate attempt to mislead the unsuspecting reader.
And by the way, I don’t know why you care what airports aren’t in the contiguous U.S but you might check the location of Long beach California (LBG).
Part 139-airport class classification, has absolutely NOTHING to do with airspace determination. Part 139 details airport specifications for airports wishing to serve air carrier operations. Simply put, Class 1 for Part 121 > 30 seats, Class 2 for Part 121 < 30 seats.
Many class 1 airports serving high capacity RPT jets in the United States are in fact CTAF and Class E over D towered airports.
I WILL REPEAT THIS FACT:
Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers.
Your post compares some of our bigger airports that have similar aircraft movements to ones in the United States. It shows admirably that we have Class C appropriately allocated to these busy airports when compared to the U.S. Well done.
Here is another accurate comparison, like for like as you say.
Broome CTAF
36,162 movements, Aprx 410,000 pax 2007 (CASA aeronautical study)
Eagle/Vail non radar, E over D
36,417 movements 430,686 pax 2008 (FAA/ KEGE airport)
Pretty similar aren’t they?
One country's airspace has been assigned on the basis of a scientific Cost Benefit Analysis. Can you guess which one?
Projected cost of lives lost over 15 years (at Aprx USD $1m per life) divided by the cost of saving those lives by upgrading the airspace. Obviously the cost of upgrading the Eagle airports class D to Class C is significantly less than 1 when divided into the projected cost loss of lives.
Why you rant on and on about TRSA surrounding class D in the U.S. is perplexing. The first TRSA was established back in the early 1980’s prior to the FAA using the ICAO class A-G airspace classification and prior to the FAA adopting their current scientific Cost Benefit Analysis.
Contrary to what you believe, TRSA’s are NOT being upgraded to class C. Some class D airports get upgrade to class C only after a Cost Benefit Analysis has been performed weather there is an existing radar facility (TRSA) or not. Just like Class C airspace will be upgraded to Class B when traffic levels justify it.
Howabout
I apologise if my comments appeared as combative. That was not my intention. Sometimes as you know in these contentious debates, strong assertions can sometimes be lost in a somewhat venomous tone. This detracts from the evidence offered. I’m sorry.
You say
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?
Why can I not get positive IFR and terrain separation in places like Proserpine, Ballina and even Canberra after hours? Because fundamentalist cannot accept that E is perfectly safe and insist that G is somehow magically the safer class of airspace.
Surely you can see that if the currently assessed risk of collision is so remote in these places as to warrant class G, then it would then be that much safer for IFR to have class E?
My suspicion is however, that Australia is completely devoid of any real scientific risk assessment when it comes to airspace.
Chimbu Chuckles
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!
Why after 15 years since its introduction, am I not able to fly through Class E instead of Class G in radar covered airspace along the J Curve?
Is it because fundamentalist have stomped there feet, covered their ears, closed there eyes and repeated often enough…. Not class E, we’ll all die!
Stick to your guns Chimbu! If you say it enough times class G will magically become safer than E, but only if you really, really believe it. Good luck!
As and RPT airline pilot, I SUPPORT Class E. It is truly extraordinary that any reasonable thinking person can say that there can only be Class C and Class G and NOTHING in between in the terminal or enroute environment. What a remarkably illogical thing to say.
mjbow2, Why are you happy to accept unnecessary extra risk on behalf of your load of pax?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2,
No need to apologise; but I do appreciate the olive branch - I do not like rational debate descending to name calling either.
The fact is, and if you look at my previous posts, my question remains unanswered:
Why should we accept E, when positive, guaranteed, separation can be provided with C? It's just not logical.
As regards my thoughts on G as opposed to E, that is location specific. Under G, and BME CTAF(R) there is a mandatory reporting requirement within 30nm. With E, no such requirement exists. Tell me which is better. An environment where at the minimum, you get a traffic alert, or where you just don't know what's out there under E procedures?
Once again, I do not want to descend to invective. But the question remains - if a higher level of service is achievable, why not provide it?
No need to apologise; but I do appreciate the olive branch - I do not like rational debate descending to name calling either.
The fact is, and if you look at my previous posts, my question remains unanswered:
Why should we accept E, when positive, guaranteed, separation can be provided with C? It's just not logical.
As regards my thoughts on G as opposed to E, that is location specific. Under G, and BME CTAF(R) there is a mandatory reporting requirement within 30nm. With E, no such requirement exists. Tell me which is better. An environment where at the minimum, you get a traffic alert, or where you just don't know what's out there under E procedures?
Once again, I do not want to descend to invective. But the question remains - if a higher level of service is achievable, why not provide it?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Shoot me down if I am wrong here...better still I will delete the post, but on the face of it I think mjbow has said;
Class E is better than G. And he is talking more remote areas not necessarily over the top of D towers.
..............they are all CTAF's
Recently I made the same comment about Ballina and in IMC conditions E would be better but it really needs radar or it becomes very restrictive. This topic is not about that. Lets face it E is just G with seperation by ATC for IFR, but ATC work best with a screen of useful info to work with.........ohhh and yes ATC's to look at the useful info.
What Mr mjow has said is apples and oranges I feel. In other words comparing proserpine or Ballina to say Launie or Hobart.
J
and in a remote area with a CTAF and perhaps radar or wamlat
Class E is better than G. And he is talking more remote areas not necessarily over the top of D towers.
Why can I not get positive IFR and terrain separation in places like Proserpine, Ballina and even Canberra after hours?
Recently I made the same comment about Ballina and in IMC conditions E would be better but it really needs radar or it becomes very restrictive. This topic is not about that. Lets face it E is just G with seperation by ATC for IFR, but ATC work best with a screen of useful info to work with.........ohhh and yes ATC's to look at the useful info.
What Mr mjow has said is apples and oranges I feel. In other words comparing proserpine or Ballina to say Launie or Hobart.
J
and in a remote area with a CTAF and perhaps radar or wamlat
KEGE, sevicing the township of Eagle Colorado...population 3032 and Gypsum, Colorado...population 3654...claim to fame? feeder airport for the nearby Vale ski resort...
9000ft runway at 6548ft AGL
Lessee what else we can find?
WOW 2 scheduled flights a day to and connecting from Denver with Skywest.
CRJ900s(76pax) and CRJ700s(70pax and a 3 class 66pax) and CRJ200(50 pax) And AA put a 757 in daily to DFW
Looks like those numbers are heavily inflated for the ski season. In fact numbers for KEGE are
83 flights per day on average
42% transient GA
21% air taxi
17% military (helicopter training)
12% local GA
9% commercial...thats about 8 flights a day on average.
430686 passengers on 2726 commercial flights of which 1095 are the regular services, wow 157 pax per flight...every flight...figures are looking a bit rubbery there, mjbow2. Methinks you will find the majority of pax come in on their own aircraft. 12723 flights every year. GA...
Now what do we know about GA in the US...they much prefer to stay away from controlled airspace...according to the zealots...so for GA class E is a damn fine deal pardner
EDIT- AA appears to connect through DEN using a CR7 with UA so may even be less flights.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 12th Apr 2010 at 09:06.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow
No burning desire [I’d suggest the ‘burning’ is elsewhere in this debate], rather ensuring that readers have the ‘full’ picture on which to consider the relative merits or otherwise. There is nothing misguided in raising these comparative points. Misguided is to suggest E over D without surveillance, without approach and departures controllers [TRACON], without tower services resourced as they are in the USA. The deliberate nature of that assertion put by the NAStronauts can only be considered misleading to the unsuspecting reader.
I think you do. I am glad you picked up on Longbeach, did you note the class C airspace serviced airports above and below Longbeach.
LGB - Long Beach /Daugherty Field/ Airport | SkyVector.com [note the Airport Services comments]
SkyVector.com - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning [note the class B airspace above A050, A025 to the North, Los Angeles, and Los Alamitos AAF next door]
Here is the next ‘comparison’ point I knew you would want to discuss:-
LONG BEACH TOWER: 119.4(RY 30 APCH RY 12 DEP) 120.5(RY 12 APCH RY 30 DEP) 257.6
LONG BEACH GROUND: 133.0 257.6
SOCAL APPROACH: 124.65 316.125
SOCAL DEPARTURE: 127.2 269.6
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 118.15
F.S.S HAWTHORN
That’s 4 VHF tower frequencies [including clearance delivery] and 2 VHF Approach and Departures Radar frequencies.
Longbeach and the associated Radar Class D,E,B airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?
Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons!
Correct, however the overwhelming evidence proves that most RPT/PTO serviced airports servicing Part 121 >30 pax seat capacity aircraft in significant number in the US have CLASS C or B airspace associated. FACT!
I’m glad you are finally acknowledging the fact.
Wrong.
The busiest US Class D [without Terminal Radar Service Area rules] with E above in the US in 2008 was:-
Joe Foss Field [FSD], Sioux Falls, South Dakota
FSD - Joe Foss Field Airport | SkyVector.com
It recorded 8,745 Air Carrier movements 2008
The Class D [Sioux Falls] is equipped with:-
SIOUX FALLS TOWER: 118.3 257.8
SIOUX FALLS GROUND: 121.9 348.6
SIOUX FALLS APPROACH: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
SIOUX FALLS DEPARTURE: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
F.S.S.: HURON
Sioux Falls Class D, E Radar airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?
Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons!
Assuming your figures are accurate, a simple division of the number of Class D [including those with TRSA] that have any Air Carrier [including those smaller than 30 pax seat capacity] which is around 140 smaller airports according to the FAA. They move on average 1,428 Air Carrier Op’s [Turbo-prop and piston mostly] each per year
That’s the point, most of the Australian towered airports servicing Hi-Cap RPT are moving the same numbers of these aircraft as US Airports protected by Class B or Class C airspace [as well as all the other services such as radar and TRACON]
Not really
Eagle County Regional
EGE - Eagle County Regional Airport | SkyVector.com
Airport 6548 feet AMSL [Class D up to A090AMSL and a bit]
Most Air Carrier during winter [VFR moves during Winter would be?]
Much of Eagle’s movements are Mil helo training below 1,000ft AGL [see airport notes bottom of the linked page]
They record the Air Carrier/Commercial moves for 2009 as 2,724
The FAA record the Air Carrier moves for 2008 as 3,352
AND;
CLSD TO UNSKED ACR OPNS WITH MORE THAN 30 PSGR SEATS EXCP PPR CALL AMGR
Broome
Has no winter [VFR reductions] or altitude/topography limitations
Air Transport moves as at 30 June 2009 of 13,300 [all year round]
Your Pax figures for Eagle include all operations, not just Scheduled Air Carrier. Broome numbers are for Air Carrier only. Big difference wouldn’t you say.
Notwithstanding the above differences, the biggest difference:-
ATIS: 135.575
AWOS-3: 135.575 Tel. 970-524-7386
EAGLE TOWER: 119.8
EAGLE GROUND: 121.8
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 124.75
EAGLES NEST: 41.75
CTAF: 119.800
AWOS-3 at 5SM (25.1 SW): 126.075 970-384-3380
ATIS at ASE (25.3 S): 120.4
AWOS-3 at 20V (35.5 NE): 118.425 970-724-9659
Remarks:
• COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDED BY DENVER RADIO ON FREQ 122.2 (EAGLE RCO).
• APCH/DEP SVC PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQS 128.65/282.2 (KREMMLING RCAG).
• CLEARANCE DELIVERY PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQ 124.75 WHEN ATCT CLSD.
One in, one out service??
The two examples you cite mjbow are about as similar as Howler monkeys and Minky whales
Airspace requires a little bit more than a guess. How about you ask the CASA if they have a design safety case furnished from the FAA for US Class D. In the meantime, do you disagree with the numerous Aeronautical Study/Airspace reviews conducted in recent months on Australian Regional Towered Airports? That’s scientific!
An admirable attempt at to appear well informed, and reasonable. As already discussed, Eagle County, due lack of VFR traffic during winter, the fact that the class D reaches almost to A100 due airport elevation, and the lack of Scheduled Air Carrier when VFR are likely to be operating [summer] would make it somewhat unique as far as airspace management needs go. I suppose that is why you have twice tried unsuccessfully to put it forward as an example to be followed in Australia.
I don’t rant mjbow, just provide the factual information to those who would otherwise be ‘mislead’. Class D was the category implanted within TRSA. It is a fact that if you compare the locations that had TRSA at the time of alphabet airspace inception, many have been reclassified to class B or C.
Last but not least. By jove mjbow, I think you have finally worked it out. You said today:-
Quote of the day – that is two in two days for you chaps!
Proper process is what the industry in Australia is demanding. Safety Case, Cost benefit analysis, what a great idea.! Amazingly, you agree!
I understand your burning desire to only list those airports that serve aircraft of Part 121 carriers with 31 seats or more. This is an unfortunate, misguided and deliberate attempt to mislead the unsuspecting reader.
And by the way, I don’t know why you care what airports aren’t in the contiguous U.S but you might check the location of Long beach California (LBG).
LGB - Long Beach /Daugherty Field/ Airport | SkyVector.com [note the Airport Services comments]
SkyVector.com - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning [note the class B airspace above A050, A025 to the North, Los Angeles, and Los Alamitos AAF next door]
Here is the next ‘comparison’ point I knew you would want to discuss:-
LONG BEACH TOWER: 119.4(RY 30 APCH RY 12 DEP) 120.5(RY 12 APCH RY 30 DEP) 257.6
LONG BEACH GROUND: 133.0 257.6
SOCAL APPROACH: 124.65 316.125
SOCAL DEPARTURE: 127.2 269.6
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 118.15
F.S.S HAWTHORN
That’s 4 VHF tower frequencies [including clearance delivery] and 2 VHF Approach and Departures Radar frequencies.
Longbeach and the associated Radar Class D,E,B airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?
Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons!
Part 139-airport class classification, has absolutely NOTHING to do with airspace determination.
Part 139 details airport specifications for airports wishing to serve air carrier operations. Simply put, Class 1 for Part 121 > 30 seats, Class 2 for Part 121 < 30 seats.
Many class 1 airports serving high capacity RPT jets in the United States are in fact CTAF and Class E over D towered airports.
The busiest US Class D [without Terminal Radar Service Area rules] with E above in the US in 2008 was:-
Joe Foss Field [FSD], Sioux Falls, South Dakota
FSD - Joe Foss Field Airport | SkyVector.com
It recorded 8,745 Air Carrier movements 2008
The Class D [Sioux Falls] is equipped with:-
SIOUX FALLS TOWER: 118.3 257.8
SIOUX FALLS GROUND: 121.9 348.6
SIOUX FALLS APPROACH: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
SIOUX FALLS DEPARTURE: 125.8 126.9 267.9 353.6
F.S.S.: HURON
Sioux Falls Class D, E Radar airspace compares with Broome and Karratha [and other Australian regional Towered airports] how EXACTLY?
Who is deliberately misleading who regarding proper US/Australia comparisons!
I WILL REPEAT THIS FACT:
Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers.
Class D towers alone in the US handled over 200,000 AIR CARRIER operations with over 10 million passengers.
Your post compares some of our bigger airports that have similar aircraft movements to ones in the United States. It shows admirably that we have Class C appropriately allocated to these busy airports when compared to the U.S. Well done.
Here is another accurate comparison, like for like as you say.
Broome CTAF
36,162 movements, Aprx 410,000 pax 2007 (CASA aeronautical study)
Eagle/Vail non radar, E over D
36,417 movements 430,686 pax 2008 (FAA/ KEGE airport)
Pretty similar aren’t they?
Broome CTAF
36,162 movements, Aprx 410,000 pax 2007 (CASA aeronautical study)
Eagle/Vail non radar, E over D
36,417 movements 430,686 pax 2008 (FAA/ KEGE airport)
Pretty similar aren’t they?
Eagle County Regional
EGE - Eagle County Regional Airport | SkyVector.com
Airport 6548 feet AMSL [Class D up to A090AMSL and a bit]
Most Air Carrier during winter [VFR moves during Winter would be?]
Much of Eagle’s movements are Mil helo training below 1,000ft AGL [see airport notes bottom of the linked page]
They record the Air Carrier/Commercial moves for 2009 as 2,724
The FAA record the Air Carrier moves for 2008 as 3,352
AND;
CLSD TO UNSKED ACR OPNS WITH MORE THAN 30 PSGR SEATS EXCP PPR CALL AMGR
Broome
Has no winter [VFR reductions] or altitude/topography limitations
Air Transport moves as at 30 June 2009 of 13,300 [all year round]
Your Pax figures for Eagle include all operations, not just Scheduled Air Carrier. Broome numbers are for Air Carrier only. Big difference wouldn’t you say.
Notwithstanding the above differences, the biggest difference:-
ATIS: 135.575
AWOS-3: 135.575 Tel. 970-524-7386
EAGLE TOWER: 119.8
EAGLE GROUND: 121.8
CLEARANCE DELIVERY: 124.75
EAGLES NEST: 41.75
CTAF: 119.800
AWOS-3 at 5SM (25.1 SW): 126.075 970-384-3380
ATIS at ASE (25.3 S): 120.4
AWOS-3 at 20V (35.5 NE): 118.425 970-724-9659
Remarks:
• COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDED BY DENVER RADIO ON FREQ 122.2 (EAGLE RCO).
• APCH/DEP SVC PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQS 128.65/282.2 (KREMMLING RCAG).
• CLEARANCE DELIVERY PRVDD BY DENVER ARTCC ON FREQ 124.75 WHEN ATCT CLSD.
One in, one out service??
The two examples you cite mjbow are about as similar as Howler monkeys and Minky whales
One country's airspace has been assigned on the basis of a scientific Cost Benefit Analysis. Can you guess which one?
Projected cost of lives lost over 15 years (at Aprx USD $1m per life) divided by the cost of saving those lives by upgrading the airspace. Obviously the cost of upgrading the Eagle airports class D to Class C is significantly less than 1 when divided into the projected cost loss of lives.
Why you rant on and on about TRSA surrounding class D in the U.S. is perplexing. The first TRSA was established back in the early 1980’s prior to the FAA using the ICAO class A-G airspace classification and prior to the FAA adopting their current scientific Cost Benefit Analysis.
Last but not least. By jove mjbow, I think you have finally worked it out. You said today:-
Some class D airports get upgrade to class C only after a Cost Benefit Analysis has been performed weather there is an existing radar facility (TRSA) or not. Just like Class C airspace will be upgraded to Class B when traffic levels justify it.
Proper process is what the industry in Australia is demanding. Safety Case, Cost benefit analysis, what a great idea.! Amazingly, you agree!
---- chances of meeting a light aircraft VFR no details
Who said light aircraft VFR, the aircraft I have had close encounters with over India were VFR military aircraft, and certainly not "light" --- and they do not generally talk on civil frequencies.
Tootle pip!!
Thanks for the admission that there's a wider agenda.
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.
As to appropriate "processes" to justify any particular airspace design, again refer to ICAO compliant methods of justification, I don't really think there has been any lack of "process" in the OAR, just because the answer doesn't come out as a few of you believe it should, does not mean the processes are deficient or absent.
If it is all such a disaster in waiting, why not all band together in a spirit of public protection, pool your resources (crudely called "put your money where your mouth is") and seek a Federal Court injunction restraining the OAR/CASA/Department from acting in an unsafe manner, just think of all the "safety" headlines the media would generate ---- or go on strike and refuse to operate the system, if you so passionately believe it is "not safe".
Chimbu, are you the one who said you have never flown "around the world" except in A,C or C ??? And you have been flying from where? to Jedda. Please look very carefully Indian airspace divisions, unless they have changed radically since my last set of charts, which are admittedly about 12 months out of date.
As to those of you who now want to attack my qualifications to comment: wonderful, play the man and not the ball. Do I have an ATPL, yes. Is it current, No, due medical, but hopefully it will be again quite soon.
Being up to date in a cyclic training or other CAR 217 training system has nothing to do with up to date knowledge of CNS/ATM systems.
Any more than being a Regional Captain implies any special knowledge of CNS/ATM systems, beyond operating within the system, anymore than being such implies a detailed knowledge of aircraft structural design/certification, beyond that needed to fly the aircraft in question ---- or, for that matter, that being a licensed ATC implies an in depth knowledge of CNS/ATM design.
But do carry on, and soon we will all know the final outcome in Broome and Karratha. Obviously I, for one, hope the OAR stick to their guns, and the intent of their enabling Act --- and not once again give in to possibly well intentioned but ill-informed sectional pressure groups.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled
.
And exactly what do you three think you are...a very small ill-informed pressure group.
You only think that you can get E over D up over Broome and Karratha is because there is nothing there now except a "detested" UNICOM in a CTAF.
If the threshold for establishment of a tower has been crossed then , by all means, go to a class D...However, establish the exact same airspace as would be implimented in the US, Class C.
Scientific studies have been done on similar EXISTING airspace. Not one study approves downgrading C to E For the Alice, Launi, Tamworth, Coffs or Rocky...In fact page 34 of the Alice study shows exactly where Broome and Karratha sit for the triggering criteria.
Reading through all this material...what it comes down to...you guys think class E will be safe because transponder requirments will allow TCAS equiped aircraft to detect a conflict....TCAS cannot be used for traffic mitigation....this is starkly bought into light with the Hyder review for Geraldton..That report
Now why would class E be thought of this way?
Leadsled, I have had this argument tooo many times with you...If you want this type of traffic mitigation then push for ADS-B fitment...at least then those crews get protection from being able to ACCURATELY depict conflicting aircraft in both azimuth as well as elevation. TCAS is too blunt and NOT TO BE USED for this purpose.
once again give in to possibly well intentioned but ill-informed sectional pressure groups
And exactly what do you three think you are...a very small ill-informed pressure group.
You only think that you can get E over D up over Broome and Karratha is because there is nothing there now except a "detested" UNICOM in a CTAF.
If the threshold for establishment of a tower has been crossed then , by all means, go to a class D...However, establish the exact same airspace as would be implimented in the US, Class C.
Scientific studies have been done on similar EXISTING airspace. Not one study approves downgrading C to E For the Alice, Launi, Tamworth, Coffs or Rocky...In fact page 34 of the Alice study shows exactly where Broome and Karratha sit for the triggering criteria.
Reading through all this material...what it comes down to...you guys think class E will be safe because transponder requirments will allow TCAS equiped aircraft to detect a conflict....TCAS cannot be used for traffic mitigation....this is starkly bought into light with the Hyder review for Geraldton..That report
considers nominating a ‘Designated Transponder Area’ (DTA) in Class G
airspace to formalise and extend the Traffic Collision Avoidance System
(TCAS) protection afforded to PT aircraft from other aircraft that are fitted with transponders. CTAFs do not require any aircraft to be transponder equipped. Although AIP (ENR 7.1.2) specifies that ‘Unless advised otherwise by ATC or in accordance with para 7.1.9, pilots of Mode 3A or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft operating in Australian airspace must activate their transponders, and where a Mode C capability is also available it must be activated simultaneously with Mode A’. PT stakeholders have reported many instances where aircraft operating within the CTAF(R) were not transponding.
Another mechanism for requiring transponders would be to reclassify the airspace above the aerodrome as Class E. However this would require further in-depth safety studies.
airspace to formalise and extend the Traffic Collision Avoidance System
(TCAS) protection afforded to PT aircraft from other aircraft that are fitted with transponders. CTAFs do not require any aircraft to be transponder equipped. Although AIP (ENR 7.1.2) specifies that ‘Unless advised otherwise by ATC or in accordance with para 7.1.9, pilots of Mode 3A or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft operating in Australian airspace must activate their transponders, and where a Mode C capability is also available it must be activated simultaneously with Mode A’. PT stakeholders have reported many instances where aircraft operating within the CTAF(R) were not transponding.
Another mechanism for requiring transponders would be to reclassify the airspace above the aerodrome as Class E. However this would require further in-depth safety studies.
Leadsled, I have had this argument tooo many times with you...If you want this type of traffic mitigation then push for ADS-B fitment...at least then those crews get protection from being able to ACCURATELY depict conflicting aircraft in both azimuth as well as elevation. TCAS is too blunt and NOT TO BE USED for this purpose.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 12th Apr 2010 at 19:02.
Going back to this link-
http://files.aea.be/Speeches/Operators_Harmo.pdf
and going again to page 2...The Europeans are coming from a system unified from patched together systems of civil and military ATMs...yet..as a group..these guys consider the way the US does it is just downright dangerous
This is not hot air blowing off, the European Airline Companies have serious issues with the US ATM....and we just want to blindly copy them..
I have a prediction...The US FAA will move to two levels of airspace with the coming full implimentation of Free flight...No points for guess whoes airspace it will resemble....And that sad joke is that it's just history repeating
http://files.aea.be/Speeches/Operators_Harmo.pdf
and going again to page 2...The Europeans are coming from a system unified from patched together systems of civil and military ATMs...yet..as a group..these guys consider the way the US does it is just downright dangerous
US ATM system faces safety issues
! TCAS RA’s
" AEA members flying to the USA have analyzed TCAS RA’s
on approach comparing major US airports with European
major airports " The rate at some US airports (Newark, LAX, Denver,
Philadelphia, SFO) is 100 times the rate at major European
airports (LHR, CDG, SPL, FRA etc)
! Compliance with ICAO
" Various serious safety incidents linked to the US ATM
environment with loss of separation or near collision. In
light of the Ueberlingen accident, all TCAS RA’s have to
be complied with (ICAO), a modus operandi which is not
fully understood in the USA
! US ATM safety issues need to be tackled with urgency
! TCAS RA’s
" AEA members flying to the USA have analyzed TCAS RA’s
on approach comparing major US airports with European
major airports " The rate at some US airports (Newark, LAX, Denver,
Philadelphia, SFO) is 100 times the rate at major European
airports (LHR, CDG, SPL, FRA etc)
! Compliance with ICAO
" Various serious safety incidents linked to the US ATM
environment with loss of separation or near collision. In
light of the Ueberlingen accident, all TCAS RA’s have to
be complied with (ICAO), a modus operandi which is not
fully understood in the USA
! US ATM safety issues need to be tackled with urgency
I have a prediction...The US FAA will move to two levels of airspace with the coming full implimentation of Free flight...No points for guess whoes airspace it will resemble....And that sad joke is that it's just history repeating