NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie
Explain in simple terms why VFR aircraft can operate in E airspace without a clearance, where as, IFR aircraft require a clearance, but only receive IFR traffic. What benefit is this airspace to RPT operators, who pay most of the aviation charges.
Why can't VFR aircraft use their radio and request a clearance to enter CTA. If they are well trained pilots, surely they must be able to use a radio. I mean, I hand over my controls and the lives of a couple of hundred passengers to these people, trusting that their transponder will give me a final chance to avoid an aluminium shower.
Why should the people of Broome and Karratha be treated as second class citizens because they live on the wrong coast. Why should they be exposed to a higher risk than passengers flying out of the east coast?
Explain in simple terms why VFR aircraft can operate in E airspace without a clearance, where as, IFR aircraft require a clearance, but only receive IFR traffic. What benefit is this airspace to RPT operators, who pay most of the aviation charges.
Why can't VFR aircraft use their radio and request a clearance to enter CTA. If they are well trained pilots, surely they must be able to use a radio. I mean, I hand over my controls and the lives of a couple of hundred passengers to these people, trusting that their transponder will give me a final chance to avoid an aluminium shower.
Why should the people of Broome and Karratha be treated as second class citizens because they live on the wrong coast. Why should they be exposed to a higher risk than passengers flying out of the east coast?
I have never minded being in the minority, fortunately air safety is not a democracy, as the record over many years has shown, particularly in Australia. Remember the blanket (certainly a majority) opposition to the introduction of weather radar by Ansett and TAA. That is just one example.
The highest class of airspace in India is D, and that is TMAs.
So what PROVIDES the much mentioned SEPARATION ASSURANCE between an IFR aircraft in E and a VFR aircraft in E.
Leadie I think you are stuck in a circular argument and risk vanishing in a puff of logic.
In A, B, C and D there is positive sep. In G VFR are required to use radio above 5000'. In a CTAF(R) likewise. Which leaves E as the bastard child.
Where are these studies? Where does it say E is cheaper than C?
Leadie I think you are stuck in a circular argument and risk vanishing in a puff of logic.
In A, B, C and D there is positive sep. In G VFR are required to use radio above 5000'. In a CTAF(R) likewise. Which leaves E as the bastard child.
Where are these studies? Where does it say E is cheaper than C?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the TCAS RA's reported in Class C argument; Leady how many were where a standard didn't exist?
I have had about 20 TCAS RA's reported to me in my career so far (touch wood), including a multiple event in a holding pattern, but not one of those was where a standard didn't exist. TCAS can be twitchy where rates of closure are high; particularly in the vertical plain where only 1000 ft vert is going to be used.
Sydney SID/STAR integration in particular has a TCAS RA happen once or twice a month (possibly more) just because of the rates of vertical closure; but there is always going to be 1000ft applied TCAS just doesn't know it.
Class E IMHO costs more than Class C; because it distracts ATCs from other primary tasks and costs RPTs more in track miles and/or changing vertical profiles away from CDA type flight. The only "winners" are the VFRs who now don't need a clearance from those nasty ATC who may ask them to fly somewhere away from there preferred course if they choose to give them a clearance at all... PS I've only said no twice to VFR aircraft clearances in 20 years, so I personally don't think there is any reason for this at all.
What role does the ICAO ATM plan have in Australian decision making (airspace design), are you busting your hump to position yourselves behind ICAO again? Don't for a second believe that airspace reforms are not included in Nexgen. Is Australia prepared to follow the USA all the way? Or are you just going to pick and choose again.
How are the characteristics going that have been implemented already? Merging target procedure and VFR on Top comes to mind?
I have had about 20 TCAS RA's reported to me in my career so far (touch wood), including a multiple event in a holding pattern, but not one of those was where a standard didn't exist. TCAS can be twitchy where rates of closure are high; particularly in the vertical plain where only 1000 ft vert is going to be used.
Sydney SID/STAR integration in particular has a TCAS RA happen once or twice a month (possibly more) just because of the rates of vertical closure; but there is always going to be 1000ft applied TCAS just doesn't know it.
Class E IMHO costs more than Class C; because it distracts ATCs from other primary tasks and costs RPTs more in track miles and/or changing vertical profiles away from CDA type flight. The only "winners" are the VFRs who now don't need a clearance from those nasty ATC who may ask them to fly somewhere away from there preferred course if they choose to give them a clearance at all... PS I've only said no twice to VFR aircraft clearances in 20 years, so I personally don't think there is any reason for this at all.
What role does the ICAO ATM plan have in Australian decision making (airspace design), are you busting your hump to position yourselves behind ICAO again? Don't for a second believe that airspace reforms are not included in Nexgen. Is Australia prepared to follow the USA all the way? Or are you just going to pick and choose again.
How are the characteristics going that have been implemented already? Merging target procedure and VFR on Top comes to mind?
Grandpa Aerotart
Chimbu,
Was it you who said they operated widely internationally, and never operated in other then A, B(?)C. Have a look at the extract from the Indian AIP below.
The highest class of airspace in India is D, and that is TMAs.
Was it you who said they operated widely internationally, and never operated in other then A, B(?)C. Have a look at the extract from the Indian AIP below.
The highest class of airspace in India is D, and that is TMAs.
Yup India has only D,F and G airspace - but as with all good stories it just aint that simple - some Indian AIP excerpts;
ENR 1.1 General Rules
2. Flights on ATS routes
2.1. Introduction 2.1.1.
Area of responsibility for the control of flights on ATS routes and the units providing this service are shown in subsection ENR 2.1.
2.1.2. Separation is based on- 2.1.2.1. Estimated and/or actual times over reporting points
2.1.2.2. Radar identity
2.1.3. As position reports are most commonly used it is important for estimates to be revised and notified to ACC, if more than 3 minutes in error.
2.1.4. The pilot-in-command shall maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate air/ground frequency.
2.1.5. While operating in controlled airspace, only direct controller-pilot communication is permitted. Radio-telephony communication through interpreter shall not be permitted.
2.1. Introduction 2.1.1.
Area of responsibility for the control of flights on ATS routes and the units providing this service are shown in subsection ENR 2.1.
2.1.2. Separation is based on- 2.1.2.1. Estimated and/or actual times over reporting points
2.1.2.2. Radar identity
2.1.3. As position reports are most commonly used it is important for estimates to be revised and notified to ACC, if more than 3 minutes in error.
2.1.4. The pilot-in-command shall maintain a continuous listening watch on the appropriate air/ground frequency.
2.1.5. While operating in controlled airspace, only direct controller-pilot communication is permitted. Radio-telephony communication through interpreter shall not be permitted.
3. VFR flights shall not be operated between sunset and sunrise, except when exempted by air traffic control for local flights* and such training flights of flying club aircraft as may be cleared by air traffic control. *Local flight is a flight wholly conducted in the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome (Aircraft Manual (India), Volume I, page 113, Schedule IV, Rules of the air)
4.VFR flights shall not be operated-
4.1. Above FL50 (typo - do they mean 5000' or 50000'? Surely if the later it would be FL500)
4.2. At transonic and supersonic speeds
4.3. more than 100NM seaward from the shoreline within controlled airspace
4.VFR flights shall not be operated-
4.1. Above FL50 (typo - do they mean 5000' or 50000'? Surely if the later it would be FL500)
4.2. At transonic and supersonic speeds
4.3. more than 100NM seaward from the shoreline within controlled airspace
4. Local/Training flights
4.1. For local training or test flights conducted by scheduled/non-scheduled operators, a flight plan shall be submitted as laid down in para 3 above.
4.2. For training flights conducted by flying clubs within aerodrome traffic zone, a flight plan may be submitted on telephone giving the following information:
i) Aircraft Identification
ii) Flight rules
iii) Name of pilots and trainees if any
iv) Number of persons on board
v) Duration of flight
vi) Endurance
Note - On aerodromes where no Aerodrome Traffic zone is established or no airspace has been reserved for local flying, a circular area of radius 5NM, centered at the Aerodrome reference point and vertical limits up to 3000Ft AGL shall be treated as the vicinity of Aerodrome for VFR flights.
4.3. Flight plans for cross-country flights conducted by flying club aircraft and general aviation aircraft from airfields where ATS reporting office does not exist, shall be submitted to the FIC on phone giving the information as specified in para 4.2 above.
4.1. For local training or test flights conducted by scheduled/non-scheduled operators, a flight plan shall be submitted as laid down in para 3 above.
4.2. For training flights conducted by flying clubs within aerodrome traffic zone, a flight plan may be submitted on telephone giving the following information:
i) Aircraft Identification
ii) Flight rules
iii) Name of pilots and trainees if any
iv) Number of persons on board
v) Duration of flight
vi) Endurance
Note - On aerodromes where no Aerodrome Traffic zone is established or no airspace has been reserved for local flying, a circular area of radius 5NM, centered at the Aerodrome reference point and vertical limits up to 3000Ft AGL shall be treated as the vicinity of Aerodrome for VFR flights.
4.3. Flight plans for cross-country flights conducted by flying club aircraft and general aviation aircraft from airfields where ATS reporting office does not exist, shall be submitted to the FIC on phone giving the information as specified in para 4.2 above.
Airspace within ATS route segment is classified as ‘F’.
• Airspace outside ATS route segment and controlled airspace is classified as ‘G’.
• Airspace within controlled airspace is classified as ‘D’.
• Airspace outside ATS route segment and controlled airspace is classified as ‘G’.
• Airspace within controlled airspace is classified as ‘D’.
FL460 / FL070 up to 100NM
FL460 / FL150 between 100NM to 150NM
FL460 / FL200 beyond 150NM
Airspace is Classified as 'D'
FL460 / FL150 between 100NM to 150NM
FL460 / FL200 beyond 150NM
Airspace is Classified as 'D'
Every decent size city across the country has similar 'TMA' not just Mumbai - and NO ONE moves without a flight plan and full reporting.
When I cross India its mostly at night (no VFR allowed at night) and always on the airways system obviously (Class F and D) above FL300. A good % of the time on the northern route we use (L301) we are under positive radar control but still required to report at various places. In the southern route to Jeddah we are further than 100nm from the coast (except for a very brief period near Trivandrum) so no VFR traffic.
ICAO airspace.
Class D: Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. All flights are subject to ATC clearance. Aircraft operating under IFR and SVFR are separated from each other, and are given traffic information in respect of VFR flights. Flights operating under VFR are given traffic information in respect of all other flights.
Class F: Operations may be conducted under IFR or VFR. ATC separation will be provided, so far as practical, to aircraft operating under IFR. Traffic Information may be given as far as is practical in respect of other flights.
Class D: Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. All flights are subject to ATC clearance. Aircraft operating under IFR and SVFR are separated from each other, and are given traffic information in respect of VFR flights. Flights operating under VFR are given traffic information in respect of all other flights.
Class F: Operations may be conducted under IFR or VFR. ATC separation will be provided, so far as practical, to aircraft operating under IFR. Traffic Information may be given as far as is practical in respect of other flights.
Given the highly constrained nature of VFR GA in India and incredibly small numbers of aircraft outside a couple of aviation colleges producing airline cadets any airspace based MAC potential comparisons is mute. In a previous life I flew more 'domestic' sectors in India and Pakistan than I care to remember (Corporate jet) and the ONLY GA aircraft I ever saw in India was a beat up old B1900 that came and went while I was on the ground at Bubeneshwar for several hours and Mig17s doing circuits at Quetta while I was sat on the ground there one day for 4 hrs. The only thing you ever see or hear on the airways is other Boeings/Airbus and the odd Tupolev. I have seen a Mig 21 over Syria and heard plenty of RAF and USAF fast jets over Iraq when we first started flying that route a couple of years ago - but they were all below FL200 where we were not allowed. Never anything like that over India - they have HUGE restricted airspace over central India so I guess they play in there mostly.
You're in Class D LONG before you get to TOPD inbound to Mumbai et al and in Class D all the way down.
Even that, as imperfect as it is, is its better than Class E in a country where there is LOTS of VFR GA activity.
Hey if ya wanna have Class D around Broome to FL460/150nm and everyone, VFR included, on flight plans/full reporting I am sure Capn Bloggs won't complain
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 20th Apr 2010 at 21:16.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled,
Thanks for the response.
E, for me, will never provide me any assurance whilst ever there are aircraft ( mainly VFR ) operating without the same level of situational awareness, particulary WRT IFR waypoints and be on the correct frequency.
C, well everyone has to have a clearance and is separated, pretty simple.
If all aircraft were ADSB-out, sure E might be a go'er, but lets not ignite that little gem.
I'm just wondering, would you seriously see anything other than full separation as acceptable ?.
Thanks for the response.
E, for me, will never provide me any assurance whilst ever there are aircraft ( mainly VFR ) operating without the same level of situational awareness, particulary WRT IFR waypoints and be on the correct frequency.
C, well everyone has to have a clearance and is separated, pretty simple.
If all aircraft were ADSB-out, sure E might be a go'er, but lets not ignite that little gem.
I'm just wondering, would you seriously see anything other than full separation as acceptable ?.
Thanks for the insight on India, CC. As always it appears the truth doesn't match the BS used as an argument.
Still waiting on those answers, Mr Sled....use of probability and who supplies the assurance and by what means.
Still waiting on those answers, Mr Sled....use of probability and who supplies the assurance and by what means.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When I go to Broome I will go in IFR, but if I do some scenics around the traps it will be VFR.......whats in it for me with E?
Just so I know how much money I saved myself.
Just so I know how much money I saved myself.
If its going to cost the same for ATC.....Who gets a better deal?
if ya wanna have Class D around Broome to FL460/150nm and everyone, VFR included, on flight plans/full reporting I am sure Capn Bloggs won't complain
As for those recalcitrant Indians, of Class F, it "should not be of a permanent nature, but rather should be used only as an interim measure until such time as controlled airspace (Class A, B, C, D or E) can be established",
I shall be reporting them immediately to the International Court of Dickus Smithus for prosecution for not implementing ICAO airspace as they should!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of Broome, E over D would have to be better than G over CTAF.
C over Broome might be a bit of over kill.
There are lots of bug smahers ( fixed and rotary ) in that area that are presently not transponder equiped.
C over Broome might be a bit of over kill.
There are lots of bug smahers ( fixed and rotary ) in that area that are presently not transponder equiped.
Josh, you need to read the whole thread. But, in a nutshell:
Transponders are required by all aircraft above 10k in any airspace, and in E at any level. The original plan was for E above 2500ft. Hopefully we have knocked that on the head.
The only advantage of E is that IFR aircraft are separated. VFR do not participate in the system (nor are they encouraged to), nobody knows where they are, and everybody flies around looking out the window hoping to spot each other prior to colliding.
Most here are arguing that because class C can be provided for the same cost as E, and that C raises the safety to an acceptable level, class C should be implemented, given that the only reason for the airspace "upgrade" is because of increased traffic levels (VFR and IFR).
Of course, the NAStronauts say:
- E provides a suitable level of safety - we say rubbish, the two airproxs demonstrating that E is not safe enough (unalerted See and Avoid is a dumb way of ensuring the safety of fare-paying passengers);
- C must be provided with radar, which is of course again rubbish, as we operate quite happily with non-radar C now (and have done in the terminal area for decades).
- VFR should be free to go about the sky talking to no-one and not being hindered in any way. Selfish, arrogant, and unprofessional. Just like insisting on taking the horse and cart down the freeway because they want to.
Not necessarily. The tower will improve safety, for sure, at a cost to all concerned. However, comms-wise, G/CTAF is better, as the Broome CTAF is a CASA-mandated large area ERSA refers), and with VFR required to be on-freq and talking above 5000ft in G, at least RPT jets have a chance of finding out where the VFR is to self-segregate. This will not occur in E (it's certainly not designed to, anyway).
Transponders are required by all aircraft above 10k in any airspace, and in E at any level. The original plan was for E above 2500ft. Hopefully we have knocked that on the head.
The only advantage of E is that IFR aircraft are separated. VFR do not participate in the system (nor are they encouraged to), nobody knows where they are, and everybody flies around looking out the window hoping to spot each other prior to colliding.
Most here are arguing that because class C can be provided for the same cost as E, and that C raises the safety to an acceptable level, class C should be implemented, given that the only reason for the airspace "upgrade" is because of increased traffic levels (VFR and IFR).
Of course, the NAStronauts say:
- E provides a suitable level of safety - we say rubbish, the two airproxs demonstrating that E is not safe enough (unalerted See and Avoid is a dumb way of ensuring the safety of fare-paying passengers);
- C must be provided with radar, which is of course again rubbish, as we operate quite happily with non-radar C now (and have done in the terminal area for decades).
- VFR should be free to go about the sky talking to no-one and not being hindered in any way. Selfish, arrogant, and unprofessional. Just like insisting on taking the horse and cart down the freeway because they want to.
E over D would have to be better than G over CTAF.
Leadsled said:
And that just about sums up the reason that we are sceptical, suspicious and paranoid about Airspace decisions. The mandated transparency does not exist 
But on the other hand, we are required to accept all the rest of the "mandated" policies ...without question
Much as I would like to post the comments here, I am not going to pay $30 for an FOI, which is the only way I could make them available legally
But on the other hand, we are required to accept all the rest of the "mandated" policies ...without question
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Bloggs, IMHO, WRT to Broome,
No doubt C over D would be safer ( clearance / separation etc etc ).
Without RADAR, C over D would still be safer than E over D.
As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:
E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.
C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.
With a higher number of movements, I would guess the controllers will be doing a smaller area per controller due to increased workload......
Places like JT must have C ontop.
No doubt C over D would be safer ( clearance / separation etc etc ).
Without RADAR, C over D would still be safer than E over D.
As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:
E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.
C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.
With a higher number of movements, I would guess the controllers will be doing a smaller area per controller due to increased workload......
Places like JT must have C ontop.
Josh,
Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, and all opinions are welcome here, I think the majority of ATCs on this thread would disagree with you. I assume you are a pilot and might not be too familiar with ATC procedures ( behind the scenes).
Strangely, it can be much easier to control an aircraft than to provide traffic ... or ignore it. Let's look at the Broome example. All IFRs will be separated from each other ... whether E or C. The big difference is in how VFRs are treated.
In E, they will be unknown (to ATC). IFR pilots may become aware of them ... either by sight or TCAS. The pilot, if in conflict, will want to take appropriate manouvers to miss the VFR. This will entail, if time permits, coordination with ATC ... and a subsequent "game change" all round. Big workload. If time doesn't permit, an immediate change of trajectory ... which again, will cause extra work "downstream".
In C, the Controller will have a prepared "game plan" and all aircraft will be processed within it. That is much easier than "cleaning up after the mess" .
So, what might sound like less work on the surface, may equate to more work/time/cost (for everyone) when you dig a bit deeper.
As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:
E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.
C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.
E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.
C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.
Strangely, it can be much easier to control an aircraft than to provide traffic ... or ignore it. Let's look at the Broome example. All IFRs will be separated from each other ... whether E or C. The big difference is in how VFRs are treated.
In E, they will be unknown (to ATC). IFR pilots may become aware of them ... either by sight or TCAS. The pilot, if in conflict, will want to take appropriate manouvers to miss the VFR. This will entail, if time permits, coordination with ATC ... and a subsequent "game change" all round. Big workload. If time doesn't permit, an immediate change of trajectory ... which again, will cause extra work "downstream".
In C, the Controller will have a prepared "game plan" and all aircraft will be processed within it. That is much easier than "cleaning up after the mess" .
So, what might sound like less work on the surface, may equate to more work/time/cost (for everyone) when you dig a bit deeper.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce,
Thanks, yes pilot, so will happily defer to an ATC persons opinion on workload of C and E being same/similar etc etc.
If E and C cost around the same to operate, yet no one could seriously argue that C is not the safest option, why have E at all ?, i.e. apparent less safety for the same cost ?.
Thanks, yes pilot, so will happily defer to an ATC persons opinion on workload of C and E being same/similar etc etc.
If E and C cost around the same to operate, yet no one could seriously argue that C is not the safest option, why have E at all ?, i.e. apparent less safety for the same cost ?.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a spectator for most of the time on this thread, all I can say is I now understand why some in the animal kingdom eat their young.
Is that so? I have read that the Tech Committee of the AFAP supported the installation of weather radar
You need to read further (and not only about ICAO CNS/ATM airspace classifications), the AFAP only changed its position after the loss of the Viscount into Botany Bay.
Another example was the refusal to wear shoulder harnesses on T/O and landing, until a DC-4 was lost.
Remember the demands for 3 pilot crews on B737?? The strike at TAA ??
And so on, a long history of Australian domestic pilots resisting development ----- don't forget I was on the AFAP Tec. sub-committee (as it was than) for quite a few years ---- until we could no longer live with the AFAP, and formed AIPA.
As you may recall, the AFAP demanded E/Os on B767, we simply would not go along with such arrant nonsense. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.
D in India is only for towered airfields, you will find E,F and G in the airway system, you can verify that from the link provided. Hundreds of large aircraft fly through that airspace every day ---- probably greater than the number of RPT in Australian domestic airspace in any 24 hour period.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Apr 2010 at 08:40.
Josh,
You highlight (as we have done numerous times before) the paradox of E.
When the VFR traffic levels are low, they can (and should be) "in the system" ie C/D so RPT pax get the safety they deserve.
When VFR traffic levels get so high that they cannot be accommodated "in the system" and more controllers are required (increase in expense for C airspace) and E is theoretically the only ICAO airspace type that would "work" as VFRs have disappeared from the system, this means that the risk of IFR midairs with unnotified VFRs is so high that the risk would be unacceptable and therefore C would be needed to protect IFR.
My point: E airspace is a furphy and has no practical or safe application as far as protecting IFR aircraft from midair collisions with VFR.
As to you staement that the cost of E and C being the same, well I disagree:
E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.
C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.
E = clearance/traffic for IFR, any VFR info available, so clearance for say 100 movements per months ?.
C = clearance and separation for eveybody, so all of a sudden the +2,000 (guestimated figure) odd VFR movments plus the 100 IFR = 2,100 per month would require clearance and separation, a hugely larger number.
When the VFR traffic levels are low, they can (and should be) "in the system" ie C/D so RPT pax get the safety they deserve.
When VFR traffic levels get so high that they cannot be accommodated "in the system" and more controllers are required (increase in expense for C airspace) and E is theoretically the only ICAO airspace type that would "work" as VFRs have disappeared from the system, this means that the risk of IFR midairs with unnotified VFRs is so high that the risk would be unacceptable and therefore C would be needed to protect IFR.
My point: E airspace is a furphy and has no practical or safe application as far as protecting IFR aircraft from midair collisions with VFR.
---- Indian FIR above FL300 it does look, sound and feel like (horribly dysfunctional) Class C. Its a disgrace that it isn't.
As I have previously posted, you find all about what it all really means in India after an incident, as I have found from personal experience. All care and no responsibility.
I have a lot of experience (not just overflying) in the area, sadly it is not going to change any time soon. The impenetrable bureaucracy makes ours look good.
As an airport manager told me, one day during a particularly ridiculous delay, and I quote: Ahhh!!, Captain Sahib, it is all your fault, because it is all about bureaucracy, and it is you British who taught us how".
In the real world, as we ( and I am certain this includes you) all put a lot of effort into keeping a plot of anything around us (+/- 20 mim & +/- 10,000') it probably doesn't matter what the nominal classification is. I can nominate A airspace in the general area, where the classification may as well be G, for all the difference it make.
All you can guarantee is that, whatever happens, it will be the Captain(s)'s fault(s).
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Apr 2010 at 08:42.