NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Konstantin
There is no link and I am not sure if I am at liberty to publish its contents, I do know who else it was sent to as we were all copied in rather than Blind copied. To say the least I do not understand why I was included in the distribution list...but there ya go even the bottom of the food chain gets a look in at times.
What I can tell you is that it seems a crazy set up indeed. A mismatch of airspace and if anything when the charts come out it will be apparent that while the locals and regulars will learn to work with it, any once a year to BME/KTA folk who fly their 172 from their farm in outback NSW on a little WA holiday could well be .....Boeing fodder!
The thing most folk on here forget and the folk in Canberra, is that while we understand changes and its discussed a lot and while we understand how something should work in the ideal world, there is plenty of folk who never hear about this stuff despite the CASA mailouts and so on. They are lucky if they do a BFR in some cases.
Now Leadslead is going to shoot me down here with statements of ...You can't say that you are talking about anecdotal evidence...where are your facts boy! Well I am sorry Mr Leadslead...you have just been guilty of spraying anecdotal stories as fact so its about time you believe some of others.
You guys who do not see it can not say it does not exist. Others see it. Just like a few centuries ago everyone believed Swan's where white....after all the only Swans they had ever seen in Europe were white....so all Swans are white. Then some fine Englishmen came to the land down under and bugger me they found Black Swans
.
So folks.......when I say I believe there will be plenty of good well meaning folk blundering into this "Scrambled Egg Airspace", you can believe me they exist. Its just a matter of when.........Ohh yeah they are meant to call the tower, and thats marked on the chart they don't even know exists!
J
Blogs.......its all yours!
There is no link and I am not sure if I am at liberty to publish its contents, I do know who else it was sent to as we were all copied in rather than Blind copied. To say the least I do not understand why I was included in the distribution list...but there ya go even the bottom of the food chain gets a look in at times.
What I can tell you is that it seems a crazy set up indeed. A mismatch of airspace and if anything when the charts come out it will be apparent that while the locals and regulars will learn to work with it, any once a year to BME/KTA folk who fly their 172 from their farm in outback NSW on a little WA holiday could well be .....Boeing fodder!
The thing most folk on here forget and the folk in Canberra, is that while we understand changes and its discussed a lot and while we understand how something should work in the ideal world, there is plenty of folk who never hear about this stuff despite the CASA mailouts and so on. They are lucky if they do a BFR in some cases.
Now Leadslead is going to shoot me down here with statements of ...You can't say that you are talking about anecdotal evidence...where are your facts boy! Well I am sorry Mr Leadslead...you have just been guilty of spraying anecdotal stories as fact so its about time you believe some of others.
You guys who do not see it can not say it does not exist. Others see it. Just like a few centuries ago everyone believed Swan's where white....after all the only Swans they had ever seen in Europe were white....so all Swans are white. Then some fine Englishmen came to the land down under and bugger me they found Black Swans
.So folks.......when I say I believe there will be plenty of good well meaning folk blundering into this "Scrambled Egg Airspace", you can believe me they exist. Its just a matter of when.........Ohh yeah they are meant to call the tower, and thats marked on the chart they don't even know exists!
J
Blogs.......its all yours!
Just got a copy
Is OAR serious?
Even they cannot see a way for procedural E to work...why even attempt it?
So many "work rounds" If it was a program it would be back to the developer to remove the bugs before release. BRMv2.01a is a dud!
Is OAR serious?
Even they cannot see a way for procedural E to work...why even attempt it?
So many "work rounds" If it was a program it would be back to the developer to remove the bugs before release. BRMv2.01a is a dud!
Without having seen this new news ... from the vibe I'm getting, it appears to be a case of ideology over rationality for sure.
When you have to bodgey up something so much to make it work ... you give the impression that you want that thing in ... no matter what.
However, I'll hold off on a formal appraisal until I see it.
When you have to bodgey up something so much to make it work ... you give the impression that you want that thing in ... no matter what.
However, I'll hold off on a formal appraisal until I see it.
Jabawocky, ta anyway - constraints understood. Am awaiting with bated breath a cut-and-paste from someone else...who may have seen it fall off the back of a truck somewhere...?
Interesting post on another forum, from an Overseas Pilot:
Well, get ready for some more challenges ...
..Having returned recently from overseas I would have to say that Australia is a very challenging environment to fly in. Australia in my opinion rates behind many third world countries in ATC and approach aids, mix that with some very odd rules and regulations that at times are totally opposite to practices everywhere else and I am suprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.../... many of the practices in Oz do nothing but line-up the first couple of layers of swiss cheese.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well clearly it will eventually fall off the mail rack....but I am not the one to do it....yes a chicken!
Peuce.....
Outstanding review.......without even seeing the document! 
Peuce.....
When you have to bodgey up something so much to make it work ... you give the impression that you want that thing in ... no matter what.
I guess the rest of us 'mere mortals' who haven't been 'flicked' the almighty 'missive', will just have to wait until said document becomes 'official'...??
Unless.........
(A 'PM' would be gratefully received.....)
Unless.........
(A 'PM' would be gratefully received.....)
Prof. Airport Engineer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broome and Karratha Airspace Model
Here it is, in case you have been left out. And don't worry if you weren't on the list and maybe they haven't listened to you, because they haven't listened to anyone that was on the list either.
And don't expect the safety study to be posted, because there isn't one.
Broome and Karratha Airspace Model
• Class D CTR 0 - A025 to 7 nm from runway THR or 8 nm DME radius,
• Class E airspace above 700 feet AGL out to 11 nm DME radius,
• Class E airspace above 1200 feet AGL between 11 and 31 nm DME (so as to include RNAV holds),
• Steps of Class E to FL180 to contain 2.5 then 3 degree descent profile,
• LL7500 31-45 DME, LL FL115 45-57 DME, LL FL115 57-70DME,
• Laterally limited beyond 31 nm DME to only contain published routes and diversions plus nav tolerances - i.e. Class G out to sea.
• Class D and E up to A045 controlled by Broome Tower (A045 as proposed by Airservices)
• Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower * (see note)
- VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry
- Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)
• Tower closed - Tower-managed CTA will revert to Class G *(see note)
*(note) Transitional arrangement only until ATC surveillance is established.
And don't expect the safety study to be posted, because there isn't one.
Broome and Karratha Airspace Model
• Class D CTR 0 - A025 to 7 nm from runway THR or 8 nm DME radius,
• Class E airspace above 700 feet AGL out to 11 nm DME radius,
• Class E airspace above 1200 feet AGL between 11 and 31 nm DME (so as to include RNAV holds),
• Steps of Class E to FL180 to contain 2.5 then 3 degree descent profile,
• LL7500 31-45 DME, LL FL115 45-57 DME, LL FL115 57-70DME,
• Laterally limited beyond 31 nm DME to only contain published routes and diversions plus nav tolerances - i.e. Class G out to sea.
• Class D and E up to A045 controlled by Broome Tower (A045 as proposed by Airservices)
• Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower * (see note)
- VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry
- Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)
• Tower closed - Tower-managed CTA will revert to Class G *(see note)
*(note) Transitional arrangement only until ATC surveillance is established.
LL7500 31-45 DME, LL FL115 45-57 DME, LL FL115 57-70DME
Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower
Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower * (see note)
- VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry
- Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)
- VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry
- Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And once above A045 VFR no need for contact at all.....regardless of any surveillance installed?
Its OK Bloggs.....up to A045 you will be fine.......... Coz they will all be seen and heard
Its OK Bloggs.....up to A045 you will be fine..........
Coz they will all be seen and heard
Well Done Mr 'Over'......
'Old age is something we should ALL aspire to,
The alternative is 'cold and dark'....some say..!!'
That sketch sort of reminds me of one of those 'Doctor' movies of the 50's or whenever.....
The Filing Cabinet in the office said
DIE-HERE......It too, was a comedy......
'Old age is something we should ALL aspire to,
The alternative is 'cold and dark'....some say..!!'
That sketch sort of reminds me of one of those 'Doctor' movies of the 50's or whenever.....
The Filing Cabinet in the office said
DIE-HERE......It too, was a comedy......
And once above A045 VFR no need for contact at all.....regardless of any surveillance installed?
Its OK Bloggs.....up to A045 you will be fine.......... Coz they will all be seen and heard
Its OK Bloggs.....up to A045 you will be fine.......... Coz they will all be seen and heard
Initial observations:
1. Aircraft will need Radar Altimeters to ascertain CTA boundaries ( unless that is just a preliminary description and the final layout won't be designated in "AGL")
2. VFRs will have to broadcast within 31 dme of Broome, when above 1200 agl and under A045 ( not much change from now) .. however, I assume they will have to provide updated position information to the Controller. What will the Controller do with that info if the VFR is above A025? Give traffic to the inbound IFR(as per E requirements), or just seperate (easier)?
3. VFRs will be able to go over the top at 4500 without talking to anyone
4. Tower will do a mixture of D & E ( in all likliehood, they will just revert to D(easier)
There still seems to be a big gap between A045 and A100 ... where unknown, unseen and unheard VFRs can roam.
So, the important question is ... is it an internationally compliant improvement at a cost benefit?
1. Aircraft will need Radar Altimeters to ascertain CTA boundaries ( unless that is just a preliminary description and the final layout won't be designated in "AGL")
2. VFRs will have to broadcast within 31 dme of Broome, when above 1200 agl and under A045 ( not much change from now) .. however, I assume they will have to provide updated position information to the Controller. What will the Controller do with that info if the VFR is above A025? Give traffic to the inbound IFR(as per E requirements), or just seperate (easier)?
3. VFRs will be able to go over the top at 4500 without talking to anyone
4. Tower will do a mixture of D & E ( in all likliehood, they will just revert to D(easier)
There still seems to be a big gap between A045 and A100 ... where unknown, unseen and unheard VFRs can roam.
So, the important question is ... is it an internationally compliant improvement at a cost benefit?
Re;
"I've worked it out. 320 at 4,000 (should get there by about 15nm) then vertical climb with fingers in the ears, eyes closed and seat down behind the panel until reaching the safety of C at 245".......
Meanwhile, the cabin crew, some of whom face to the rear in their seats....
struggle to breathe as the seat belt almost cuts then in two, with arms and legs flailing....
And the 'lil fat bloke' in seat 3C wants his coffee, and he wants it..NOW!!
And the poor old pax in the rear who was hit by a flying mintie released from the startled pax in 3C, is expected to recover from his concussion before the flight lands at PH.....
"I've worked it out. 320 at 4,000 (should get there by about 15nm) then vertical climb with fingers in the ears, eyes closed and seat down behind the panel until reaching the safety of C at 245".......
Meanwhile, the cabin crew, some of whom face to the rear in their seats....
struggle to breathe as the seat belt almost cuts then in two, with arms and legs flailing....
And the 'lil fat bloke' in seat 3C wants his coffee, and he wants it..NOW!!
And the poor old pax in the rear who was hit by a flying mintie released from the startled pax in 3C, is expected to recover from his concussion before the flight lands at PH.....
Last time I looked RPT had priority over General?
Legislative reference please, for operations in G, please. Have a look at the CAAP for June changes.
Gee, was that all on one day? Or over a period of time? I spose this is all supported by fact and stats. Or is it just anecdotal?
All in my files, and many drawn from incident reports. Or referred to me by one of the persons involved. NONE are anecdotal, I can put names and flight numbers/registrations to each, but I am certainly not going to put them on pprune. If you are half smart, some can be found on the ATSB web site or Flight Safety.
Read the CAAPs for the June changes, and read between the lines --- as I have already suggested.
wait for it, a very, very, senior CASA executive
Just to help you out a bit, for "very senior public servant" take it as a CASA Branch Manager/General Manager, for other Departments, a member of the SES, Branch Director/General Manager/ Assistant Secretary , or any rank on the tier below Secretary and Deputy Secretary, so apply that to the above very very. As for a pilot's boss, take that as a Chief Pilot by whatever name in a particular airline.
I thought that's what you wanted big boy, eh, eh?
Strange as it may seem to you, I have always worked for airlines that required (by SOPs and company policy) to slow up to minimum speeds in a visual circuit, with absolute maximums, depending on the type, with strict adherence to the Rules Of The Air.
Any pilot who exhibited tendencies to do otherwise would be jumped on from a great height by the Standards group.
Any pilot who behaved as some of the Regionals crews do on the radio would have found themselves in serious trouble --- from their peers, let alone company operations managements.
Applied Common Sense (aka Airmanship) was the over-riding requirement in any operational decisions, any suggestion of compromising safety for commercial gain was about the biggest crime you could commit against company policy (and, this was more than one airline).
Again, re-read the CAAP for the June changes.
But they can comprehend AIP
Bloggs,
I note your continues bleating, please continue, I find it amusing, but I am not going to engage in a line by line contest with you.
As much as I would like to see as much compliance with ICAO as makes sense (would we want to wipe out non-Annex 8 aircraft for non-compliance --- of course not) progress in ICAO can be slow ( Annex 1 changes for the MPL being a remarkable exception --- and an example of how individuals, even in CASA (two) can make a difference), GA doesn't get much of a look in with ICAO, despite Official Observer status for IAOPA.
If we have a good enough reason for a difference, let us, by all means, file a difference. But, unfortunately, with some notable exceptions (GAAP for one) most of the "differences" we have seen over the years in Australia are unjustified restrictions, often the result of one issue pressure groups or "regulators" with a personal barrow to push.
C over D is a good example, it has never been justified, as a difference to ICAO.
Before you jump in on my GAAP comments, I support the move to D, but strongly believe the VFR weather criteria should have remained as per GAAP.(dare I say it: reduced VFR)
I will be interested to find out just what OAR have come up with, it will be in my IN box.
Tootle pip!!
However,...
I wonder just why the horizontal boundaries were selected as 7nm from rwy threshold or 8nm DME...and not simply 10nm or 15nm from ARP..??
I realise that in practice it doesn't matter that much, but if I wanted to be 'a pain' I could simply say I am maintaining 7.1nm from the rwy threshold - whichever rwy was 'in use' at the time - and therefore remain in E...
And when 'they' change the rwy in use at around mid-day or so, when the sea breeze gains momentum.....and the 'datum' is now from a different threshold, is I 'in', or is I 'out', whilst orbiting at the same location....
The broadcast at 31nm is same as now - virtually, except that the call now is a directed call to 'Broome Radio', and as such, gets an acknowledgement...
[B]Peuce, [B] You are correct in that an overflying acft above A045 will not have to talk to anyone....I guess the 'saving grace' here is that MOST acft would be landing at Broome, whilst the 'overflying' for PD - Derbs e.g., would be, usually, around 16nm to the SE from memory....
Just about over 'Thangoo' - 'Barn Hill'...
But, close enough to be 'in the way'...
And, I can see the twr staff wanting to revert to just D, just as we continued to pass tfc info for quite a while after acft had reported 'changing to MBZ or CTAF' at the time...until we were TOLD to quit, as we could be seen to be 'overstepping' the legal boundaries of the time, and THAT was considered 'dangerous' to management...
But then I heard BN Centre passing tfc to acft operating at BRM whilst both acft concerned were in the MBZ and on the MBZ freq....
(Yep. We used to monitor BN centre so we would have a 'heads-up' on 'who' was coming 'when'...)
So, I guess the temptation is still there....to ensure 'safety'...and enable us to sleep at night...
But, your last question is the all important one...
What is the COST BENEFIT / Safety Case??
Why not simply a FIXED Dimension D, with C above..??
I can see VFR's still being told to hold at Willy Creek or wherever.....whilst the ATC looks over his shoulder to the Northern direction to see if he can sight 'the incoming', coming down the beach...ONE at a time...
Cheers
I wonder just why the horizontal boundaries were selected as 7nm from rwy threshold or 8nm DME...and not simply 10nm or 15nm from ARP..??
I realise that in practice it doesn't matter that much, but if I wanted to be 'a pain' I could simply say I am maintaining 7.1nm from the rwy threshold - whichever rwy was 'in use' at the time - and therefore remain in E...
And when 'they' change the rwy in use at around mid-day or so, when the sea breeze gains momentum.....and the 'datum' is now from a different threshold, is I 'in', or is I 'out', whilst orbiting at the same location....
The broadcast at 31nm is same as now - virtually, except that the call now is a directed call to 'Broome Radio', and as such, gets an acknowledgement...
[B]Peuce, [B] You are correct in that an overflying acft above A045 will not have to talk to anyone....I guess the 'saving grace' here is that MOST acft would be landing at Broome, whilst the 'overflying' for PD - Derbs e.g., would be, usually, around 16nm to the SE from memory....
Just about over 'Thangoo' - 'Barn Hill'...
But, close enough to be 'in the way'...
And, I can see the twr staff wanting to revert to just D, just as we continued to pass tfc info for quite a while after acft had reported 'changing to MBZ or CTAF' at the time...until we were TOLD to quit, as we could be seen to be 'overstepping' the legal boundaries of the time, and THAT was considered 'dangerous' to management...
But then I heard BN Centre passing tfc to acft operating at BRM whilst both acft concerned were in the MBZ and on the MBZ freq....
(Yep. We used to monitor BN centre so we would have a 'heads-up' on 'who' was coming 'when'...)
So, I guess the temptation is still there....to ensure 'safety'...and enable us to sleep at night...
But, your last question is the all important one...
What is the COST BENEFIT / Safety Case??
Why not simply a FIXED Dimension D, with C above..??
I can see VFR's still being told to hold at Willy Creek or wherever.....whilst the ATC looks over his shoulder to the Northern direction to see if he can sight 'the incoming', coming down the beach...ONE at a time...
Cheers