NAS rears its head again

[le Pingouin]

I have alway's supported proper ATC staffing levels.

And if Aussie ATC's cannot provide the safer FAA style service with 24 hour approaches in E then update the rules so you can.

Then why the hell aren't you flogging proper ATC staffing like there's no tomorrow?!? And kicking mjbow in the nads for saying CivilAir is feathering our nest?

There is no way we can handle vast extra swathes of E, let alone provide approach services in the vast low level sectors we now have. You can't introduce more services without having the controllers in place to match first. Nothing else is safe.

Exactly what "rules" are you referring to changing? Time & space? If I could take that ability home with me I might agree......

[Howabout]

Nice Dick.

I'd ask you to also answer the previous questions, but your last comment totally intrigues me. As follows:

Class C without radar is a sham as a VFR aircraft can transit the airspace without detection by ATC.

Equally, isn't E a sham because

a VFR aircraft can transit the airspace without detection by ATC.

By the way, I'd really appreciate, just once, an attempt to answer the questions that are put to you.

Do me a favour Dick; we joust in a good-natured way and I will not descend to invective - doesn't serve any purpose - but will you please address my comments at Post #603.

Finally, there are a lot of us that grew up in a (healthy) nationalistic environment where there was admiration. You cheapen that and disappoint by making statements about fellow Australians like:

Maybe they consider their jobs as some type of charity position.

[Dick Smith]

Post 605 is my answer to 603

E isn't a sham because that's the way it is designed to work.

And there is nothing wrong in doing work for charity.

[Howabout]

Dick, your post#605 came nowhere near answering my post #603!

One simple point, among all the others that remain unanswered - direct me to the authoritative reference whereby radar is mandatory for Class C airspace.

I'll ignore everything else that you refuse to answer on post #603 if you can just shed light on this really simple one.

It was, after all, the nub of the 'radar direction' letter. So, I'll repeat:

Where is the authoritative reference that mandates radar services for Class C airspace?

[Dick Smith]

The " authoritative reference" is as follows

The federal cabinet was presented with the NAS document by the Minister.

Cabinet approved this document as the basis for airspace change.

The document made one clear reference to class C viz para 2.4

"Class C airspace will exist in radar based controlled terminal areas"

You can't get much clearer than that.

See the real cabinet approved NAS document on the Dicksmithflyer site.

If there is an accident in C without radar no doubt the cabinet decision will be referred to- not the anonymous rantings on a rumour site!

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith

Just come a little closer to the microphone.

Who was responsible for the Australian NAS document presented to Cabinet?

If there is an accident in E with or without radar no doubt the cabinet decision will be referred to

[Capn Bloggs]

Dear Sir Humphrey Smith,

The " authoritative reference" is as follows

The federal cabinet was presented with the NAS document by the Minister.

Cabinet approved this document as the basis for airspace change.

The document made one clear reference to class C viz para 2.4

"Class C airspace will exist in radar based controlled terminal areas"

Waddya ya reckon, we came down in the last shower??

[ozineurope]

"Class C airspace will exist in radar based controlled terminal areas"

That is - if the TMA is controlled by radar then the airspace must be Class C. That statement does not mandate a radar for C it mandates C for radar.

So where there is no radar the airspace may still be classified as Class C but if there is a radar then it MUST be class C. See the difference?

[le Pingouin]

Very nicely put Oz

[Howabout]

No, Dick, that is not an authoritative reference in any way, shape or form. And you know it. Cabinet knows squat about airspace and is not an 'authority.' For the last time, it's the authority I'm after.

It's a nice argument, but my question related to 'authoritative' support for Class C requiring radar.

Cabinet considered a documnet presented by 'the worst transport minister we've ever had.' Those were your words I believe. Plus the document, I understand, was authored by you. Is that correct?

Once again, tell me where Class C requires radar in order to comply with ICAO SARPS. Hell, I'll even cut you some slack and ignore ICAO.

Give me a reference whereby Class C cannot be controlled without radar.

[ferris]

Leadsled TOTALLY dismantled by ARFOR.

Great thread!!

Dick, still trying to polish a turd. Give up.

[Howabout]

Dick,

I can still see your light on. I think you've had a fair while to reply if, indeed, you have any confidence in your position.

Mrs Howabout has just about lost patience and wants to play mahjong on the computer

File your disagreements and we'll take them up tomorrow.

[max1]

Dick,

A few of your experts quotes explained for you.

It is a total waste of time answering the questions. I have said numerous times that experts have told me that Class C airspace IS safer than E if it is correctly manned and the proper tools are given to Air Traffic Controllers.

If the Class C is manned by an already overloaded Controller for the Class D airspace below, it is most likely that the safety of the total system will be reduced.

A controller can better regulate and positively separate in Class C. If the controller is overloaded in D it may be because they weren't planning further out in C.
You seem to have the impression that we can 'catch' any aircraft and fit them in somewhere. Ask yourself, why is the controller overloaded in D? How did they get to be overloaded? That is the real question. How would E help this?
Judging by your comments about how you think ATC is done,this may come as a shock but it's like flying, you need to be in front of events and planning for what you are doing, not just reacting to what is happening.

The experts tell me that is because the risk close to a runway is greater than in the link airspace further away from the runway.

The experts are correct but have you understood why that risk is greater? It is not 'just because'. From an ATC perspective you have less room to move aircraft about and pilot or controller errors /mistakes are more time critical. This is why the risk is greater.

This is the common sense part you missed,in actuality the further out you can start to deal with separation problems the less problems you will have closer in. The risk is only higher closer in because the aircraft are closer together.

The experts say to me – and it seems to fit in with commonsense – that if an Air Traffic Controller’s concentration is taken away from where the collision risk is greatest, that an accident is more likely to happen.

See last point. The Continental US, compared to Australia, has fantastic radar coverage and more than ten times the controllers. The US controllers can pass unknown and unverified level traffic due to their radar coverage and far greater controller numbers. What have we got? Due to our far less traffic, we would not need as many controllers as the US, but would still need an increase in some form of surveillance. ADS-B would have been great, but that puppy was still-born.

The experts tell me that the only reason the US has Class E over D is so safety can be improved because of the facts stated above

.
See last two points.

When I mention what the experts have told me and what reflects airspace design in many other countries, I am told by a small number of Air Traffic Controllers in Australia that in their case, they can handle the Class C airspace – at huge volumes – as well as the Class D airspace without any extra manning (normally just one Controller) and without any reduction in safety.

The volume is not that important, it is the traffic in it. Australia controls a huge amount of the worlds airspace. Maybe you should listen to the controllers above. What they are telling you is that it is safer to deal with the knowns than the unknowns. If you remember, we have also debated on the Benalla thread. You were asking why controllers could not be responsible for monitoring outside CTA an aircrafts LSALT and instrument approach. You need to understand we are in Australia a country the size of the Continental USA with comparitively bugger all people in it.

Forewarned is forearmed. Dick, go back to your experts and ask them what ATC is about and then LISTEN to what they have to say. It is not just about reacting to what gets thrown at you, it is about incorporating that event into a safe , orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic. You keep yourself in front of the game.

[Blockla]

Why thinking controllers would want C without radar and adequate staffing is beyond me.

For the same reasons they are able to provide Class A without radar.

Class C without radar is a sham as a VFR aircraft can transit the airspace without detection by ATC.

The responsibilities to the individual ATC are clear in this case, the unknown, undetected aircraft is systemically at fault (for entering CTA without a clearance, same as D/B and A categories) in the event of the worst or a near worst event; change the category to Class E and suddenly everything is different. The PIC of the IFR in non radar will share a good deal of the blame, in a surveillance environment the ATC particularly if there is a hint of a 'paint' will be blamed for letting it happen and yet the result is exactly the same.

AFAIK controllers in the USA vector and restrict descents and climbs of IFRs to avoid the VFRs they see, this is a work around to avoid liabilities inherent with Class E airspace. Sure they don't need a 'standard' but they do need miles or visual contact to let the IFR 'loose'. How this approach works without surveillance is baffling.

The whole mantra of NAS is 'ICAO compliant', yet in reality it is USA NAS compliance that is sought; nowhere in ICAO docs is Class C described as terminal airspace (with radar surveillance required) and nowhere in ICAO does it link and level of surveillance with Airspace Category.

The Cabinet approved Ministers directive is political missive at best (by the previous government and ignored by this one at best) and undoubtably has no enforceability in law; otherwise, surely you must agree, the Minister his office or department should have sought that enforceability; after all this time.

In the event of some significant event happening in the current non (radar) surveillance/approach function Class C airspace the subsequent royal commission will demand many many buckets of popcorn.

The manner in which Class E has attempted to be implemented from the ATC perspective was and is a disgrace. All the additional duties were added to existing ATC sectors, not one new centre position was added under the pre roll-back structure; this is where it is/was fundamentally flawed. To provide the services attention and monitoring that Class E particularly in surveillance environment required is at times critical, but there is little justification for long term ATC positions given the density of VFR traffic. This is why Class E costs more from an ATC view point, but only if you do it properly; which Oz didn't do because of cost and lack of staff.

[Howabout]

Hi, Dick, has anything related to authoritative guidance turned up overnight in relation to C and compulsory radar?

Didn't think so.

[Dick Smith]

I can't do much better than a decision made by the Minister for Transport and Federal Cabinet. This decision was then acted upon and also supported by the rellevant management in AsA and CASA.

Also the travelling public would expect that if an airspace required Class C that they not be short changed because of profit a making drive by the provider and Radar be left out.

I find it strange that you support C without radar when blind freddy would know that Radar would improve safety.

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith

I find it strange that you support C without radar when blind freddy would know that Radar would improve safety

I find it strange that you 'insist on' E with or without radar when blind freddy would know that Class C [or D] in any form would improve safety [and efficiency].

[le Pingouin]

Snort, it's strange you think E without is better than C without.

C worked well at Launy without radar for a long time before the E abortion.

E failed miserably at Launy without radar - just ask the 737 crew.

Two questions: What do you think an RA means? What do you think AIRPROX means?

E is defective by design.

[peuce]

I was just re-reading CASA's 2009 Broome Aeronautical Study... as one does.

I got a bit confused ( or CASA is a bit confused) about what FIS is. Reading their table of "Australian Airspace Structure" (excerpt below) it appears that FIS to IFRs includes Traffic Information ... to VFRs ... it doesn't.

In my book, you either get FIS or you don't.

Perhaps if they substituted "Traffic Advisory Service" for FIS .. for IFRs in Class G, it would make sense.

Oh, no ...that would then make it identical to the definition of Class F. Ooopps.

Whatever they do, they need to clarify the situation. These are the guys deciding our fate

Class E

• Controlled airspace not covered in classifications above (above 8,500ft or
  FL180)
• IFR separated from IFR by ATC, traffic information on known VFR. Speed limited to 250KTs IAS below 10,000 FT AMSL*,
• continuous two-way radio required.
• Clearance to enter airspace from ATC required.
• VFR provided with Flight Information Service (FIS), search and rescue, weather update service, on request, within radar coverage and workload permitting.
• Speed limited to 250KTs IAS below 10,000 FT AMSL*, continuous two-way radio required.
• Clearance to enter airspace from ATC not required.
• Transponder required for VFR aircraft with continuous electrical power

Class F

• None in Australia. ( ha, ha, ha, ha) ... my laugh.

Class G

• Non-controlled
• IFR receives FIS on IFR and known VFR traffic
• Speed limited to 250KTs IAS below 10,000 FT AMSL*
• Continuous two-way radio required
• Clearance to enter airspace from ATC not required
• VFR provided with FIS, search and rescue, weather update service and Radar Information Service (RIS) subject to availability.Speed limited to 250KTs IAS below 10,000 FT AMSL*
• Clearance to enter airspace from ATC not required. VHF radio
  required above 5000 FT AMSL at aerodromes where carriage and use of radio is required and required for operations in reduced VMC.

[Howabout]

Dick, in reply to your comment at post #625, as follows:

I find it strange that you support C without radar when blind freddy would know that Radar would improve safety.

I refer you to my previous comments at Post #603, which contained the following extract:

The last point I'd make is that, in a 'first-world' country, maybe we should spend the money and introduce radar services at some of these locations. However, that is not tied to what I regard as a duplicitous strategy to con an amiable dolt.

There is no connection between Class C and the need for radar services. If there is, please refer me to the appropriate reference in ICAO SARPS.

I think my position is pretty clear. Radar is an 'enabler' that, in general, improves efficiency. And, as I said, maybe we should be looking at radar at some of those regional locations if we are, indeed, a 'first world country.'

However, radar is not a mandatory requirement for Class C, which is your argument - an argument that you have consistently failed to substantiate. That Cabinet 'signed off' is an irrelevance - are you seriously telling me that Cabinet had a clue in relation to the technical requirements of airspace architecture?

My question was straightforward and simple - what is the authoritative reference that mandates radar in Class C?

I'd also add my agreement to a previous poster's comments? Are you really keeping a straight face when you maintain that non-radar Class C (where all traffic is known to the system) is unsafe, but non-radar Class E (where all traffic is not known to the system) is perfectly safe and acceptable?

That sounds to me to be a bit of an 'upside-down' argument.

And, Lead, before you jump in and decry my use of the concept of 'safety' and give me another dissertation on 'risk,' I'd point out that Dick used the naughty word in reply to a previous post of mine.

As regards the statement:

I can't do much better than a decision made by the Minister for Transport and Federal Cabinet. This decision was then acted upon and also supported by the rellevant management in AsA and CASA.

In my view, a more accurate statement would be one to the effect that the decision was acted upon, supported and reversed when they realised they'd been sold a pup and could be held accountable in the event of an aluminium rain shower.