NAS rears its head again
And here I was thinkin it twas Mista XXXXX who wuz trying to shaft yous guys! It wuz sombodi in tha Department! Hang on, maybe he gave the department the idea. Now there's an idea... 
Those were the days...
Those were the days...
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 7th May 2010 at 15:27. Reason: to improve the grammar and spelling
Dick is right. I transposed my E and C. Whoops.
See your quotes below..
You sidestepped my question Dick..
Why can't the C be run by centre. Why do you say it is run from the "overworked" tower controller? When you do not place that limitation on E by running it from centre?
See your quotes below..
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.
Because in a properly designed system the Class E airspace is manned by Controllers in the Centre. That’s for obvious reasons – it’s there 24hours per day, not just for the hours of the local tower.
Why can't the C be run by centre. Why do you say it is run from the "overworked" tower controller? When you do not place that limitation on E by running it from centre?
AS is C over D (the latter being up to A045) during TWR hours, centre controls above A085. Below F180 it all reverts to G when TWR is not there, with an associated CTAF-R. Seems to work well day and night. And hey, both the enroute and tower controllers get busy on a daily basis BTW.
So "we", ahem, as a generic model for the brave new future want to maybe lower the sector/tower boundary, introduce E vice C, possibly lower the top of D and retain (or should that be "extend"?) E steps at night (great, one in - one out) down to the circuit...because...?
My Bad! In relation to the last one I forgot that E steps will give CTA protection (should I have said "containment"?) for instrument approaches...hang on, I am now confused...during the day a VFR in E doesn`t need a clearance reference an opposite direction burner just departed...but then that means the jet has no actual CTA protection in the E "controlled" airspace other than reliance on correct radio procedures by VFRs and the resultant self-announce safety net. Right? Say it ain`t so...
And staffing wise there is still a controller on the sector console talking to a controller in the tower regardless of whether it`s E/D or C/D. True story.
So "we", ahem, as a generic model for the brave new future want to maybe lower the sector/tower boundary, introduce E vice C, possibly lower the top of D and retain (or should that be "extend"?) E steps at night (great, one in - one out) down to the circuit...because...?
My Bad! In relation to the last one I forgot that E steps will give CTA protection (should I have said "containment"?) for instrument approaches...hang on, I am now confused...during the day a VFR in E doesn`t need a clearance reference an opposite direction burner just departed...but then that means the jet has no actual CTA protection in the E "controlled" airspace other than reliance on correct radio procedures by VFRs and the resultant self-announce safety net. Right? Say it ain`t so...
And staffing wise there is still a controller on the sector console talking to a controller in the tower regardless of whether it`s E/D or C/D. True story.
Konstantin,
Almost. There is no requirement for VFR to use, or even have, a radio in E. They must have a TCAS (which of course has not been checked on the day to either be on or working properly).
the jet has no actual CTA protection in the E "controlled" airspace other than reliance on correct radio procedures by VFRs and the resultant self-announce safety net. Right?
Captain B
I hope we`re not talking at cross-purposes here, but it was my understanding that a VHF-equipped VFR aircraft may operate in Class E without an Air Traffic Clearance as long as they maintain listening watch and have a serviceable transponder activated with 1200 selected?
In Class G a radio is not compulsory albeit "strongly recommended"?
I hope we`re not talking at cross-purposes here, but it was my understanding that a VHF-equipped VFR aircraft may operate in Class E without an Air Traffic Clearance as long as they maintain listening watch and have a serviceable transponder activated with 1200 selected?
In Class G a radio is not compulsory albeit "strongly recommended"?
Kon,
I was too. Radio is not required in Oz E; transponders are. Radio is required in Oz G above 5k, and also at any level in reduced VMC. In Oz G (any Oz airpsace, actually), transponders are required above at or 10k.
I was too. Radio is not required in Oz E; transponders are. Radio is required in Oz G above 5k, and also at any level in reduced VMC. In Oz G (any Oz airpsace, actually), transponders are required above at or 10k.
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
Below 3000 clear of cloud or special VFR clearance in CTR perhaps? But what would I know.
Can you point me to the AIP reference. I may be breaking the law through ignorance. I wouldn't want to be in sacred RPT airspace uninvited.
and also at any level in reduced VMC
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I'm missing something :/
Scenario 1:
Aircraft departs D TWR and enters overlying procedural E steps. Finds conflicting VFR traffic:
Aircraft: "request deviations right of route"
ATC is separating using radials with other IFR aircraft: "not available due traffic"
Scenario 2:
Aircraft into D TWR descending through procedural E steps. Finds conflicting VFR traffic:
Aircraft: "request deviations right of route"
ATC is running distance standard and this aircraft is the lead aircraft: "not available due traffic"
So now what? Unless I'm missing something, the aircraft in question either remains on track to remain separated from the IFR and ploughs into the VFR or it violates its clearance to self-separate from the VFR and in doing so causes a breakdown of separation with the other IFR.
Scenario 1:
Aircraft departs D TWR and enters overlying procedural E steps. Finds conflicting VFR traffic:
Aircraft: "request deviations right of route"
ATC is separating using radials with other IFR aircraft: "not available due traffic"
Scenario 2:
Aircraft into D TWR descending through procedural E steps. Finds conflicting VFR traffic:
Aircraft: "request deviations right of route"
ATC is running distance standard and this aircraft is the lead aircraft: "not available due traffic"
So now what? Unless I'm missing something, the aircraft in question either remains on track to remain separated from the IFR and ploughs into the VFR or it violates its clearance to self-separate from the VFR and in doing so causes a breakdown of separation with the other IFR.
Okay, here we go, I`d really like to know if I`m missing something myself. I will make a statement and, if any part of it is in error could I please have a specific document reference which shows me to be incorrect. Whereupon I will humbly stand admonished...
"When operating in Australian Class E airspace, a VFR aircraft must be VHF-equipped and must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate frequency, however there is no requirement to communicate with ATC".
No opinions, no hearsay, no end-state policy preferred positions - doc reference(s) thanks.
"When operating in Australian Class E airspace, a VFR aircraft must be VHF-equipped and must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate frequency, however there is no requirement to communicate with ATC".
No opinions, no hearsay, no end-state policy preferred positions - doc reference(s) thanks.
Radio is not required in Oz E
My dear chap, how did you come to that conclusion?
Just quoting the current AIP (and this will not change after 3 June) ENR 1.4, the table following 4.2.8 states "continuous two way" in the Radio COM RQMNTS column. Recall that such a notification in the AIP has regulatory support, it is not "advisory".
On that basis, konstantin is correct, and in my view, he is correct.
And now to something called "reduced VMC".
There is no definition, (that I can find) in any Australian aviation regulatory document, that defines something called "reduced VMC".
For Class G airspace, there are certainly two ( of equal legal standing) VMC criteria for VFR flight, the less restrictive only applying below 3000' AMSL or 1000' AGL, whichever is higher. If you take advantage of the less restrictive, radio is, indeed, mandatory.
The only time something called "reduced VMC" appears, that I am aware of ( do you know elsewhere??) is also in the table mentioned above,(last entry in the Radio COM RQMNTS column) but nowhere that I am aware of defines, in a regulatory sense, "reduced VMC".
There are some changes for 3 July on.
Tootle pip!!
Ledsled,
So you have been reading pages and pages of this thread where we have asserted that radio in E is not required and you have not said a word. You didn't even know the statement in the airspace table existed, did you? 
FWIW, I think that table is wrong. Elsewhere in the AIP it says that VFR "should" monitor the ATC frequency. I'll leave you to find it.
If, however, Australia not only has a mandatory requirement for transponders and radio carriage and use, I am pleasantly surprised.
Recall that such a notification in the AIP has regulatory support, it is not "advisory".
FWIW, I think that table is wrong. Elsewhere in the AIP it says that VFR "should" monitor the ATC frequency. I'll leave you to find it.
If, however, Australia not only has a mandatory requirement for transponders and radio carriage and use, I am pleasantly surprised.
Bloggs,
If anything is wrong, it is to use an undefined description "reduced VMC", when there is, legally, no such thing as "reduced VMC". But that is far from the only ill-defined stuff around.
As I previously stated, there is no legal difference in standing of the alternative VMC criteria ------ and you and I both know that table (with minor amendments) has been around for years.
As for radio in E, so much for the AFAP blather about "no radio" in E.
Tootle pip!!
If anything is wrong, it is to use an undefined description "reduced VMC", when there is, legally, no such thing as "reduced VMC". But that is far from the only ill-defined stuff around.
As I previously stated, there is no legal difference in standing of the alternative VMC criteria ------ and you and I both know that table (with minor amendments) has been around for years.
As for radio in E, so much for the AFAP blather about "no radio" in E.
Tootle pip!!