NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Frank. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect your position.
As for:
I think you will find that our side of the fence comes in for some 'tough love' from the NAS proponents as well Frank. It's not one-way traffic.
From a personal perspective, I don't have too much difficulty with enroute E. Where it exists there was formerly Class G so, IMHO, that's an improvement. This debate, however, is about terminal E and the threat it poses in the climb and descent phases of flight. What I cannot understand is why someone would want airspace that relies a good deal on chance, when an alternative providing positive separation is available. We get called 'fundamentalists;' I'd classify adherence to the terminal E option as blind zealotry. I just see it as irrational.
In regard to TCAS, yes those RPTs above 19 seats and 15,000kgs (from memory) are required to have it. However, TCAS is not a separation tool; it's a system of last resort when all other safeguards have failed. In short, it is designed as the 'get out of jail card.' And, by the way, ICAO is quite explicit with regard to TCAS not being a factor in airspace classification and, hence, the level of associated control services. In short, TCAS cannot be used as a mitigator and justifier for Class E.
As for:
What I note is a common theme of vested interests, some ATCO's and some Regional Pilots with a dead set against any "uncontrolled" or "out of the system" aircraft being in "their" airspace. I also note those with opposing opinions are treated like pariahs, sychopants or uninformed rabble despite some of these being very well informed.
From a personal perspective, I don't have too much difficulty with enroute E. Where it exists there was formerly Class G so, IMHO, that's an improvement. This debate, however, is about terminal E and the threat it poses in the climb and descent phases of flight. What I cannot understand is why someone would want airspace that relies a good deal on chance, when an alternative providing positive separation is available. We get called 'fundamentalists;' I'd classify adherence to the terminal E option as blind zealotry. I just see it as irrational.
In regard to TCAS, yes those RPTs above 19 seats and 15,000kgs (from memory) are required to have it. However, TCAS is not a separation tool; it's a system of last resort when all other safeguards have failed. In short, it is designed as the 'get out of jail card.' And, by the way, ICAO is quite explicit with regard to TCAS not being a factor in airspace classification and, hence, the level of associated control services. In short, TCAS cannot be used as a mitigator and justifier for Class E.
Dick , i have just read the last three pages to catch up. Tell me why you say that...
The C airspace must be controlled by the (usually) single tower controller in the underlying D, which risks distracting them.
BUT
The E airspace would be controlled by centre.
BOTH can operate without radar. No one seems to be commenting on this major difference.
If you are worried about a VFR entering C without a clearance and not being "seen" due to lack of radar, then logically you must be worried about the same aircraft flying though E airspace unknown by anyone and not "seen" on radar.
It is the SAME AIRCRAFT in the SAME airspace, just labelled differently, C or E, either way tell me what stops the 737 hitting it?
Your answer would be...?
No really, you say SEE and AVOID. Heaven help us.
The C airspace must be controlled by the (usually) single tower controller in the underlying D, which risks distracting them.
BUT
The E airspace would be controlled by centre.
BOTH can operate without radar. No one seems to be commenting on this major difference.
If you are worried about a VFR entering C without a clearance and not being "seen" due to lack of radar, then logically you must be worried about the same aircraft flying though E airspace unknown by anyone and not "seen" on radar.
It is the SAME AIRCRAFT in the SAME airspace, just labelled differently, C or E, either way tell me what stops the 737 hitting it?
Your answer would be...?
No really, you say SEE and AVOID. Heaven help us.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rule 3
That what a RAS is, dont seem to provide it down here. Its giving RPTs that extra level of service. And dont forget rules are significantly different in the UK. IFRs staying in G dont have to speak to an ATSC, I dont think they even need to file a FPL.
The radar coverage is also much greater, NATS had more sectors (comparable) and more controllers so that there was enough time to give this service. Under a RAS, you just gave vectors to go behind the conflicting traffic. It only take 5 or 10 degrees.
Dont seem to have RAS down here, FIS & RIS.
That what a RAS is, dont seem to provide it down here. Its giving RPTs that extra level of service. And dont forget rules are significantly different in the UK. IFRs staying in G dont have to speak to an ATSC, I dont think they even need to file a FPL.
The radar coverage is also much greater, NATS had more sectors (comparable) and more controllers so that there was enough time to give this service. Under a RAS, you just gave vectors to go behind the conflicting traffic. It only take 5 or 10 degrees.
Dont seem to have RAS down here, FIS & RIS.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manual of Air Traffic Services - UK
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf
Is this what you are suggesting instead of climb and descent [terminal area] Class E rotorblades?
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf
Chapter 4 Integration of VFR Flights with IFR Traffic in Class D CTR/CTA/TMA
1 Introduction
1.1 This Chapter provides advice and guidance to controllers on the safe integration of VFR flights with the IFR traffic flow within Class D CTA/CTR/TMA.
2 Flight Rules
2.1 The pilot is responsible for determining the flight rules (VFR or IFR) under which he wishes to conduct his flight, taking into account the prevailing flight meteorological conditions, airspace classification, and the limitations of his licence/qualifications. For aircraft taking off from or approaching to land at aerodromes in Class D airspace, flight visibility is deemed to be the visibility communicated by ATC. Controllers, therefore, must not declare control zones to be 'IFR' or 'IMC'.
3 Control of VFR Flights
3.1 The minimum services provided to VFR flights in Class D airspace are specified at Section 1, Chapter 2, paragraph 2. Separation standards are not prescribed for application by ATC between VFR flights or between VFR and IFR flights in Class D airspace. However, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to 'see and avoid' each other as specified at Section 3, Chapter 1, paragraph 2.
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions, level restrictions, and information on collision hazards, in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 Routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. VRPs may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks. Where controllers require VFR aircraft to hold at a specific point pending further clearance, this is to be explicitly stated to the pilot.
3.4 When issuing instructions to VFR flights, controllers should be aware of the over-riding requirements for the pilot to remain in VMC, to avoid obstacles and to remain within the privileges of his licence. This may result in the pilot requesting an alternative clearance, particularly in marginal weather conditions.
3.5 Approach radar controllers in particular should exercise extreme caution in vectoring VFR flights – a geographical routeing instruction is preferable. Prior to vectoring, the controller must establish with the pilot the need to report if headings issued are not acceptable due to the requirements to remain in VMC, avoid obstacles, and comply with the low flying rules. Controllers should be aware that pilots of some VFR flights may not be sufficiently experienced to comply accurately with vectors, or to recover to visual navigation after vectoring.
1 Introduction
1.1 This Chapter provides advice and guidance to controllers on the safe integration of VFR flights with the IFR traffic flow within Class D CTA/CTR/TMA.
2 Flight Rules
2.1 The pilot is responsible for determining the flight rules (VFR or IFR) under which he wishes to conduct his flight, taking into account the prevailing flight meteorological conditions, airspace classification, and the limitations of his licence/qualifications. For aircraft taking off from or approaching to land at aerodromes in Class D airspace, flight visibility is deemed to be the visibility communicated by ATC. Controllers, therefore, must not declare control zones to be 'IFR' or 'IMC'.
3 Control of VFR Flights
3.1 The minimum services provided to VFR flights in Class D airspace are specified at Section 1, Chapter 2, paragraph 2. Separation standards are not prescribed for application by ATC between VFR flights or between VFR and IFR flights in Class D airspace. However, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to 'see and avoid' each other as specified at Section 3, Chapter 1, paragraph 2.
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions, level restrictions, and information on collision hazards, in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 Routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. VRPs may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks. Where controllers require VFR aircraft to hold at a specific point pending further clearance, this is to be explicitly stated to the pilot.
3.4 When issuing instructions to VFR flights, controllers should be aware of the over-riding requirements for the pilot to remain in VMC, to avoid obstacles and to remain within the privileges of his licence. This may result in the pilot requesting an alternative clearance, particularly in marginal weather conditions.
3.5 Approach radar controllers in particular should exercise extreme caution in vectoring VFR flights – a geographical routeing instruction is preferable. Prior to vectoring, the controller must establish with the pilot the need to report if headings issued are not acceptable due to the requirements to remain in VMC, avoid obstacles, and comply with the low flying rules. Controllers should be aware that pilots of some VFR flights may not be sufficiently experienced to comply accurately with vectors, or to recover to visual navigation after vectoring.
Francis, you said-
.
And there lies the rub....There is nothing REALLY wrong with E when there IS radar surveillance. The flavour talked about for Broome does not have radar...so no calls from centre to IFR warning of a 1200 paint in their area.
No surveillance makes E the same as G wrt separation between IFR and VFR.
whenever I have flown E airspace as a responsible transponder equipped pilot would, I have always had good situational awareness of other traffic via Centre discussions with whatever aircraft are "in the system". Indeed on many occasions Centre have advised RPT of a 1200 VFR "paint" (me) at their o'clock and whatever altitude
And there lies the rub....There is nothing REALLY wrong with E when there IS radar surveillance. The flavour talked about for Broome does not have radar...so no calls from centre to IFR warning of a 1200 paint in their area.
No surveillance makes E the same as G wrt separation between IFR and VFR.
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
G'day to you Owen
I accept your definition of expert in "working" the airspace, but isn't Dick just supporting an existing and proven overseas system that looks likely to come to a town near you shortly. And if it does, your expertise will be needed to work "that" system.
Captain Sled has thousands of hours in command on International Transport and has sat on more Legislative and Regulatory committees than you could imagine. Doesn't this then make him expert enough to pass comment and have an opinion on how the various systems work from the pilot's perspective and how the Bureaucrats may act.
Self funded retiree mate, so I doubt anybody has any better qualifications to tell me how to drink beer or wine in a gentlemanly manner. But I am ex petrochemical and mining industry, Draughtsman before CAD, (remember the 2H pencil?), manufacturer and designer of pressure vessels, propane industry consultant, professional roo shooter, timber cutter, truck driver, one time security to a Sydney high roller, farmer, services rendered to the Military, chairman of several boards of directors, participant on others, and general dogsbody.
But I would always listen to constructive criticism (sometimes)
EDIT TO ADD FOR OZBUSDRIVER;
I'm a spectator so I can evaluate all sides on this aspect. As so I haven't made up my mind whether G over D would be better than E over D at Broome.
Feel free to educate me from a VFR perspective so both of us are on even terms. I know what the RPT blokes want.
I accept your definition of expert in "working" the airspace, but isn't Dick just supporting an existing and proven overseas system that looks likely to come to a town near you shortly. And if it does, your expertise will be needed to work "that" system.
Captain Sled has thousands of hours in command on International Transport and has sat on more Legislative and Regulatory committees than you could imagine. Doesn't this then make him expert enough to pass comment and have an opinion on how the various systems work from the pilot's perspective and how the Bureaucrats may act.
What do you do for quid Frank?
But I would always listen to constructive criticism (sometimes)
EDIT TO ADD FOR OZBUSDRIVER;
I'm a spectator so I can evaluate all sides on this aspect. As so I haven't made up my mind whether G over D would be better than E over D at Broome.
Feel free to educate me from a VFR perspective so both of us are on even terms. I know what the RPT blokes want.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 25th Apr 2010 at 05:52.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onya, Frank: I disagree with your position, but remain impressed with your CV!
As regards Lead, yes, he does have those hours and experience and he is not without respect. Far from it.
He is eminently qualified to sit on those committees and I've always admired his willingness to give up his own time to make a contribution.
But that does not make him infallible. And, in this particular case - terminal E over D - he's supporting a system that is designed to fail, rather than a system that is fail-safe.
Regardless Frank, the 'roo-shooting' and 'timber-cutting' part of the CV is the bit I liked. I've known many and they were all salt-of-the-earth.
Take care.
As regards Lead, yes, he does have those hours and experience and he is not without respect. Far from it.
He is eminently qualified to sit on those committees and I've always admired his willingness to give up his own time to make a contribution.
But that does not make him infallible. And, in this particular case - terminal E over D - he's supporting a system that is designed to fail, rather than a system that is fail-safe.
Regardless Frank, the 'roo-shooting' and 'timber-cutting' part of the CV is the bit I liked. I've known many and they were all salt-of-the-earth.
Take care.
He is eminently qualified to sit on those committees and I've always admired his willingness to give up his own time to make a contribution.
But that does not make him infallible. And, in this particular case - terminal E over D - he's supporting a system that is designed to fail, rather than a system that is fail-safe.
But that does not make him infallible. And, in this particular case - terminal E over D - he's supporting a system that is designed to fail, rather than a system that is fail-safe.
1/refuses to divulge any Cost-Benefit Analysis that supports E over D instead of C over D and
2/refuses to acknowledge that the 2 NMACs we had in E airspace in 2003-4 shoots holes in his assertion that NMACs in E are "vanishingly small" and
3/will not comment on the suggestion from MJBOW2 that, if ATC refuses to give an IFR a clearance into E after takeoff in a surveilled environment eg at Williamtown, that the aircraft just switch to VFR and blast off anyway without even considering what may be causing the controller to refuse the clearance.
He may have a position on E airspace (including calling some of us small-minded and never been out of the 12nm zone - the last time he was in a regional jet in Aus was ?), but his refusal to address the above concerns demonstrates to me that his reasons for demanding E over D has little to do with safety and more to do with a fundamentalist belief, also held by Dick Smith, that VFR have a right to go where they like, talking to no-one, even though that very same airspace is occupied by RPT jets who have no idea where the VFR is/are.
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
Owen;
I thought Dick and he were PNG at Airservices Centre. If you can arrange for the three of us to visit, sit, plug in, and listen, I'm 99.9% sure I can arrange the meeting at a mutually convenient time. Tea and bikkies your responsibility of course.
Over?
Do you reckon Lead has ever gone into a centre and sat down and plugged in and listened and watched what has gone on?
Over?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Francis
But we(ATC) may not *always* see you. For many reasons including busy with something else in the airspace, (in the case of WLM E) whenever the military have decided they are going to turn off the radar feed from their radar to us (way too frequently). Its not a default safe airspace.
I have also known a lot of VFRs who dont listen out on the area frequency whilst trudging through E, let alone the CTAF/CTAF(r). So they arent even looking for an great aluminium tube doing 250k's straight at them, or from an oblique angle.
many occasions Centre have advised RPT of a 1200 VFR "paint"
I have also known a lot of VFRs who dont listen out on the area frequency whilst trudging through E, let alone the CTAF/CTAF(r). So they arent even looking for an great aluminium tube doing 250k's straight at them, or from an oblique angle.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A look at a Class D tower with Class C steps might be a good idea!
Mr Smith says terminal area Class C should have radar [ICAO disagrees, but let's ignore than for a moment]!
He therefore must be comfortable with [have no argument against] Class C continuing above Class D towers where radar/or radar equivalent surveillance coverage exists?
Mr Smith says terminal area Class C should have radar [ICAO disagrees, but let's ignore than for a moment]!
He therefore must be comfortable with [have no argument against] Class C continuing above Class D towers where radar/or radar equivalent surveillance coverage exists?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By definition any ATC is an expert (for want of a better word) on airspace, you'd be a little worried if they weren't. I haven't ever walked into any Dick Smiths electronic superstore and told them they sell sh!t flux capacitors and then sat down at the till and designed them another one and insist on them throwing the old one out and selling my design.
These days staff would be lucky to know what a capacitor is, let alone know where to find them in the store (assuming they have not been removed to make way for more mobile phones).
Last edited by superdimona; 25th Apr 2010 at 08:47. Reason: hit submit early by mistake
ARFOR,
That's not playing by the rules. You're trying to set the poor bloke up! 
He therefore must be comfortable with [have no argument against] Class C continuing above Class D towers where radar/or radar equivalent surveillance coverage exists?
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
rotorblades;
I'm not ignoring you, but need time to factor in a quantity for;
Whilst this seems to any NAStronaut an alarmist statement, I am thinking of it.
Perhaps you can quantify it for me, particularly with regard how many don't have transponders or radio in class E viz quantified penetrations into controlled airspace by the same idiots?
I'm not ignoring you, but need time to factor in a quantity for;
I have also known a lot of VFRs who dont listen out on the area frequency whilst trudging through E, let alone the CTAF/CTAF(r). So they arent even looking for an great aluminium tube doing 250k's straight at them, or from an oblique angle
Perhaps you can quantify it for me, particularly with regard how many don't have transponders or radio in class E viz quantified penetrations into controlled airspace by the same idiots?
I'm sure I have no idea what you are suggesting Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAStronaut an alarmist statement
quantified
I dont see the non-transponder aircraft most of the time (due to poor radar coverage etc). As to how many will infringe if say it was D.
It is a different mindset for pilots who know they can fly through the airspace without a clearance, than if they know they are gonna need the clearance & call ATC.
I concur with what Owen says.
At WLM for example the area frequency split runs around the northern edge of the E airspace - the VFRs, can be switching between the two, or on the CTAF(r), if they are from the south could still be on the Sy Rdr freq (happens a lot of times & vice versa with them on our frequency when in Sy Radar area). Too many unknowns.
But then, you can say that with any class of airspace.
Saying you dont want the higher level of airspace coverage, & safety, just incase of penetrations is , as we say in the UK, arse-about-face. In that case why have C around Sydney, and not just E? VFRs can still penetrate without clearance.
And its not just about the VFRs, the IFRs cant always get it right. Like in the past couple of shifts Ive had an:
1/ IFR climb into E without clearance
2/ IFR-RPT turn direct to finals without clearance
That's the 5th or is it the 6th time you have tried to edit my posts.
For your information, I have never attempted to edit one of your posts, it must be somebody else, if, in fact, it is happening at all, and not just a figment of your imagination.
I was merely suggesting an edit by you, to more accurately reflect a position taken by you.
1/refuses to divulge any Cost-Benefit Analysis that supports E over D instead of C over D and
2/refuses to acknowledge that the 2 NMACs we had in E airspace in 2003-4 shoots holes in his assertion that NMACs in E are "vanishingly small" and
3/will not comment on the suggestion from MJBOW2 that, if ATC refuses to give an IFR a clearance into E after takeoff in a surveilled environment eg at Williamtown, that the aircraft just switch to VFR and blast off anyway without even considering what may be causing the controller to refuse the clearance.
Indeed, ARFOR has thoughtfully posted the FAA Ops. Spec. rules for incorporating such a process for Part 121 and 129 operators, rather than the Australian "one size fits all" "rule". I well remember the days when we couldn't descend out of the jetstreams over Australia in winter, because we would have been "outside controlled airspace", as soon as we were outside the Australian FIR, commonsense prevailed, the Captain was no longer constrained in operating the aircraft properly. Another example of mindless regulatory straighjackets.
his reasons for demanding E over D has little to do with safety
On one post, somebody referred to CASA/OAR impositions on ASA, despite the ASA Safety Management System indicating otherwise.
The short and sharp reason for this is that the ASA system is fundamentally flawed, in part because it seeks to distinguish between two "vanishingly small" results, a statistical nonsense. Then there is the little matter of the fact that ASA is no longer the airspace regulator, CASA/OAR is, and for a string of very good reasons.
Re. sitting in a centre and listening from the other end of the ATC system. I have sat in, in Sydney, in its various guises, quite a few times over the years. Since TAAAAAATS, Brisbane, (never in Melbourne), Singapore, Honolulu, the old New York "IFR Common Room" and before it moved, the old center in London. I might point out, none of these were "visitor tours" --- but generally in association with conferences on ATC services.
Tootle pip!!