NAS rears its head again
FWIW a few 2c pieces in italics - not that it will make any difference. Unfortunately I had no choice but to second-guess the intent of some of the statements - and apologies if someone has beaten me to it with a comment or two above.
Class D CTR 0 - A025 to 7 NM fm RWY THR or 8 DME radius,
Bite size extended circuit area CTR for associated D airspace procedures, all the rest E...ah, the “model”...sigh...
Class E airspace above 700 feet AGL out to 11 DME radius,
3 nm E airspace buffer surrounding D, A007 to A012. Not sure why but anyway...ah, must be standardisation for A007 step distance from the ARP – but an 11DME radius for a D CTR is obviously out of the question, once again for standardisation purposes? As was making it all D CTR airspace up to A025 or, lord help me with my heresy...A045?
Class E airspace above 1200 feet AGL between 11 and 31 DME (so as to include RNAV holds),
23 nm E airspace buffer surrounding D, A012 to A025, then straight up to A075. Yeah, pay that one on balance. I think.
Steps of Class E to FL180 to contain 2.5 then 3 degree descent profile,
Class D and E up to A045 controlled by BRM Tower (A045 as proposed by
Airservices)
Yep, A045 vertical boundary is king, the “model” eh? So the enroute non-radar controller is now effectively doing abbreviated procedural approach down to A045, outbound aircraft still may be setting course depending on the departure runway, unable to positively separate reference any known VFR above A045...wonder what the inbound frequency transfer level will actually end up being.
Presumably “entry” to Class E below A045 being the inference? Too bad a clearance cannot be delayed to a VFR for separation purposes, nor any separation action taken with a VFR outside 8DME and above A025?
Tower closed - Tower-managed CTA will revert to Class G *(see note)
Thus E airspace active above A045 to F180 outside TWR hours...um...why? Particularly when one considers there is thus no after-hours CTA Class E “protection” below A045 for approaches and holds? And once an IFR passes A045 on descent they are on their own in Class G/CTAF anyway until centre receives an arrival report.
*(note)Transitional arrangement only until ATC surveillance is established.
Class D CTR 0 - A025 to 7 NM fm RWY THR or 8 DME radius,
Bite size extended circuit area CTR for associated D airspace procedures, all the rest E...ah, the “model”...sigh...
Class E airspace above 700 feet AGL out to 11 DME radius,
3 nm E airspace buffer surrounding D, A007 to A012. Not sure why but anyway...ah, must be standardisation for A007 step distance from the ARP – but an 11DME radius for a D CTR is obviously out of the question, once again for standardisation purposes? As was making it all D CTR airspace up to A025 or, lord help me with my heresy...A045?
Class E airspace above 1200 feet AGL between 11 and 31 DME (so as to include RNAV holds),
23 nm E airspace buffer surrounding D, A012 to A025, then straight up to A075. Yeah, pay that one on balance. I think.
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 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 BRM Tower (A045 as proposed by
Airservices)
Yep, A045 vertical boundary is king, the “model” eh? So the enroute non-radar controller is now effectively doing abbreviated procedural approach down to A045, outbound aircraft still may be setting course depending on the departure runway, unable to positively separate reference any known VFR above A045...wonder what the inbound frequency transfer level will actually end up being.
- Broadcast area established within the Class E which is managed by the Tower * (seenote)
Presumably “entry” to Class E below A045 being the inference? Too bad a clearance cannot be delayed to a VFR for separation purposes, nor any separation action taken with a VFR outside 8DME and above A025?
Tower closed - Tower-managed CTA will revert to Class G *(see note)
Thus E airspace active above A045 to F180 outside TWR hours...um...why? Particularly when one considers there is thus no after-hours CTA Class E “protection” below A045 for approaches and holds? And once an IFR passes A045 on descent they are on their own in Class G/CTAF anyway until centre receives an arrival report.
*(note)Transitional arrangement only until ATC surveillance is established.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
often the result of one issue pressure groups or "regulators" with a personal barrow to push.
I did not see you on the distribution list Leadsled but I am sure they hade a preferential list for good folks like yourself that the rest of us were not on. There is not much to it you have not read on here already though.
Now onto serious things,
if it`s just VFR frequency monitoring above A045 then VFRs will be invisible to both sector and tower until they call the tower “prior to entry”
Ledsled,
In what capacity did you obtain names of the crews in these incidents? 
That's because you don't know the answer to my question, or do know but are too egotistical to say anything about it.
And the ICAO SARP would be?
As for your (and Dick's) efforts in the CAAPs re telling RPT to be nice, I find it a rather odd way of educating "us". An abuse of process IMO, having a good old lovey-dovey ramble in a CAAP. Put it in a mailout, by all means, but not in a publication that was designed to help the aviation industry comply with regs. The next thing you'll do is have put into CAR 166 that bullying of GA by Eastern (oops did I say that, Jarse?) is an offence of strict liability.
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,
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.
C over D is a good example, it has never been justified, as a difference to ICAO.
As for your (and Dick's) efforts in the CAAPs re telling RPT to be nice, I find it a rather odd way of educating "us". An abuse of process IMO, having a good old lovey-dovey ramble in a CAAP. Put it in a mailout, by all means, but not in a publication that was designed to help the aviation industry comply with regs. The next thing you'll do is have put into CAR 166 that bullying of GA by Eastern (oops did I say that, Jarse?) is an offence of strict liability.
konstantin
A007 is the circling height for the MDA on all the approaches into BRM. This is Smith's little experiment to show everyone how the yanks do it. Until there is surveillance, it is a crap shoot. In IMC the lad will say that VFR will be excluded and the TWR can practice one in, one out with a clearance...just hope there aren't any scud runners out there.
Just to add....with E down to the MDA...Centre/Tower must guarantee separation and terrain warnings if the aircraft strays outside the profile. How the hell they do that without a means of monitoring it is beyond me....The general idea Smith gleaned from the BLA incident.
A007 to A012. Not sure why but anyway...ah, must be standardisation for A007 step distance from the ARP – but an 11DME radius for a D CTR is obviously out of the question, once again for standardisation purposes?
Just to add....with E down to the MDA...Centre/Tower must guarantee separation and terrain warnings if the aircraft strays outside the profile. How the hell they do that without a means of monitoring it is beyond me....The general idea Smith gleaned from the BLA incident.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being classified a stirrer, wouldn't C over D be more practical?
In one fell swoop, it appears that CASA has managed to confuse everyone. That takes talent. So much for solving the 'Galapagos airspace' issue.
Just my call, but it probably went like this:
In one fell swoop, it appears that CASA has managed to confuse everyone. That takes talent. So much for solving the 'Galapagos airspace' issue.
Just my call, but it probably went like this:
- We have to do something at BME and KTA.
- OK, whadawe do?
- E over D because we have to placate the feral elements.
- But that won't mitigate risk to the extent that R/T requirements do now in CTAF/Class G at BME. We are getting significant industry push-back on E over D, and they have a point on radio at BME.
- Bugger, didn't think of that. OK, recovery strategy - we make it E over D, but make R/T obligatory. Brilliant, problem solved -jeez I'm good.
- But what about VFR above A045?
- Bugger, didn't think about that one.
- Whadawe do?
- Ahh...Erm; glossy brochures - do you think that would work?
Konstantin,
Just a point ...
The way I read it, VFRs only have to maintain 2 way comms within "Tower Controlled" airspace ... not all Class E.
P.S. Dick, I would welcome your thoughts on these new proposals ... even if it's only to gloat
Just a point ...
The way I read it, VFRs only have to maintain 2 way comms within "Tower Controlled" airspace ... not all Class E.
P.S. Dick, I would welcome your thoughts on these new proposals ... even if it's only to gloat
GRIFFO,
Yes, you may be correct in that there aren't too many VFR overflyers ... but I'd still like to see the figures.
Another situation in which VFRs may infringe the "link vacuum" might be climb and descent. Is it fair to assume that some VFRs may climb through A045 within the Broome or Karratha desent profile of a jet?
Could a VFR be on desent from, say, A095, into Broome ... and conflict with a Jet above A045, also on desent or climb?
These may be scenarios that will never happen ... BUT, I'd like to see the "science"... to quote a too often used term.
P.S. I'm getting worried that I may not be able to visit North Cable Beach again ... until they sort this out
Yes, you may be correct in that there aren't too many VFR overflyers ... but I'd still like to see the figures.
Another situation in which VFRs may infringe the "link vacuum" might be climb and descent. Is it fair to assume that some VFRs may climb through A045 within the Broome or Karratha desent profile of a jet?
Could a VFR be on desent from, say, A095, into Broome ... and conflict with a Jet above A045, also on desent or climb?
These may be scenarios that will never happen ... BUT, I'd like to see the "science"... to quote a too often used term.
P.S. I'm getting worried that I may not be able to visit North Cable Beach again ... until they sort this out
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C over D is a good example, it has never been justified, as a difference to ICAO.
I wonder if any ATC will go to Broome now? Who would volunteer to 'administer that rubbish'; the liabilities are endless and the blame game that is ASA in the event of a 'fark-up' will be endless.
Good luck to anyone doing that game...
The way I read it, VFRs only have to maintain 2 way comms within "Tower Controlled" airspace ... not all Class E.
I believe you are correct, as a result of what I assume will be in the broadcast area declaration Instrument i.e. aircraft must establish comms with the TWR prior to entering the broadcast area Class E and notify intentions, maintain two-way comms and follow any directives given in the broadcast area Class E.
Outside the broadcast area I assume normal Class E procedures apply i.e. no need for contact with ATC [AIP ENR 1.1-33 17.3.2 "....VFR flights entering and operating in Class E airspace should (not "shall") .... monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict" etc.], and no radio requirement for some aircraft types who are covered by exemptions.
It is odd to say the least that someone has an obvious concern re the shortcomings of Class E to the extent that they feel declaration of a broadcast area is justified for that portion below 4500, but no such concerns above that level.
So we have:
- normal Class E down to 4500
- Class E+ below
- some E handled by the TWR
- the rest by Centre on another frequency
G'Day Peuce,
You are 'correcto' on the VFR's infringing the RPT profiles....especially on descent.
T'was not uncommon for the 'paper plane gaggle' of 6 or so acft to be inbound on the 200 Radial, BRM inbound from NWN- so to speak , (we all know there's no VOR at BRM, YET, but, you all know how this works...), at around A100, with a Jet on the drop at around 30nm on the 200R, also at or approaching A100....or thereabouts....And this happened quite regularly on Saturdays when the gaggle went down to NWN to get the papers, and all, including the Jet, arrived back at the same time...with the jet usually overtaking the 210's etc on the drop.
Whoever spoke first got the traffic first.
Some jet captains would call approaching FL150 on the drop - Req TFC.
LUVLY. No dramas. Most jet capts learned to call early - whether this became a SOP or not, I can't say.
Jets on the way 'out' were generally no problem.
They rotated, climbed out over the 'ogen' or the bay, and disappeared into the ether....waaay above the GA tfc.
Not many movements PD-DBY or vice versa, direct, when I was there.
RFDS was the major one, and we were all 'friends' in that they spoke to Broome Radio early, and it all worked fine....and as they are IFR, no problemo.
The 200R inbound passes right over Barn Hill, at 30DME, which is where the outbound direct Derby to PD flights exit the 30nm arc as well.
Still, when on descent between A100 & A045, I'd be standing up on the seat to 'improve the view'.....
Last time I was at N. Cable....there was not much 'buoyancy' in the 'local produce'....you might say, the standard of things seems to have dropped - to a more 'mature' level..??
You are 'correcto' on the VFR's infringing the RPT profiles....especially on descent.
T'was not uncommon for the 'paper plane gaggle' of 6 or so acft to be inbound on the 200 Radial, BRM inbound from NWN- so to speak , (we all know there's no VOR at BRM, YET, but, you all know how this works...), at around A100, with a Jet on the drop at around 30nm on the 200R, also at or approaching A100....or thereabouts....And this happened quite regularly on Saturdays when the gaggle went down to NWN to get the papers, and all, including the Jet, arrived back at the same time...with the jet usually overtaking the 210's etc on the drop.
Whoever spoke first got the traffic first.
Some jet captains would call approaching FL150 on the drop - Req TFC.
LUVLY. No dramas. Most jet capts learned to call early - whether this became a SOP or not, I can't say.
Jets on the way 'out' were generally no problem.
They rotated, climbed out over the 'ogen' or the bay, and disappeared into the ether....waaay above the GA tfc.
Not many movements PD-DBY or vice versa, direct, when I was there.
RFDS was the major one, and we were all 'friends' in that they spoke to Broome Radio early, and it all worked fine....and as they are IFR, no problemo.
The 200R inbound passes right over Barn Hill, at 30DME, which is where the outbound direct Derby to PD flights exit the 30nm arc as well.
Still, when on descent between A100 & A045, I'd be standing up on the seat to 'improve the view'.....
Last time I was at N. Cable....there was not much 'buoyancy' in the 'local produce'....you might say, the standard of things seems to have dropped - to a more 'mature' level..??
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia is really setting the standard to avoid:-
- ICAO G that is actually ICAO F
- ICAO D that is being sold to the unsuspecting as FAA D [ICAO service rules with a few token FAA ism's, W Turb, Runway Sep, VMC, and Parallel Runway displacement triggers]. Who knows where the SVFR pearl came from.
- ICAO E that is actually FAA D [lite]
And to top it all off:-
- Procedural [non-surveillance equipped] Towers with Class E
[pilot gab fest self separating VFR/VFR and IFR/VFR on the same frequency as ATC are attempting to separate IFR/IFR and provide a class D service A025 and below]
- Huge Enroute Sectors providing procedural E approach combined.
This is obviously believed to be [by the Minister, the APG and AIG, the Department, the CASA and OAR] worlds best practice [who else does this], and ICAO compliant? Yes? no!, righto then, because no one is buying that wool, nor using it as an over the eyes sun shade
Cost and Safety
Less safe, costs more, and apparently requires surveillance.
Mr Smith is on record demanding the Surveillance C directive [Anderson] must be followed. It must therefore be the case [according to Smith law] that:-
Surveillance is necessary, therefore it must require allocation of Class C airspace
Presumaby Mr Smith will rabidly follow up the erronious allocation of Class D and E airspace with the political machine men and demand Class C [just like they use in the US].
Good for you Messer's Smith and LeadSled. The SCC and other records will come in handy in the aftermath
- ICAO G that is actually ICAO F
- ICAO D that is being sold to the unsuspecting as FAA D [ICAO service rules with a few token FAA ism's, W Turb, Runway Sep, VMC, and Parallel Runway displacement triggers]. Who knows where the SVFR pearl came from.
- ICAO E that is actually FAA D [lite]
And to top it all off:-
- Procedural [non-surveillance equipped] Towers with Class E
[pilot gab fest self separating VFR/VFR and IFR/VFR on the same frequency as ATC are attempting to separate IFR/IFR and provide a class D service A025 and below]
- Huge Enroute Sectors providing procedural E approach combined.
This is obviously believed to be [by the Minister, the APG and AIG, the Department, the CASA and OAR] worlds best practice [who else does this], and ICAO compliant? Yes? no!, righto then, because no one is buying that wool, nor using it as an over the eyes sun shade
Cost and Safety
Less safe, costs more, and apparently requires surveillance.
Mr Smith is on record demanding the Surveillance C directive [Anderson] must be followed. It must therefore be the case [according to Smith law] that:-
Surveillance is necessary, therefore it must require allocation of Class C airspace
Presumaby Mr Smith will rabidly follow up the erronious allocation of Class D and E airspace with the political machine men and demand Class C [just like they use in the US].
Good for you Messer's Smith and LeadSled. The SCC and other records will come in handy in the aftermath
Last edited by ARFOR; 13th May 2010 at 13:44.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone is going to launch an injunction, until the airspace follows the governments stated policy? 
How will this be mitigated? Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 1995 - A95H0008 Looks like a remarkably similar set up.
How will this be mitigated? Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 1995 - A95H0008 Looks like a remarkably similar set up.
Griffo,
Fortunately, we now have segregated in and out tracks to both BME and KTA, which means virtually no nose-to-nose for IFRs at the mid - to low levels. The downside is that it is now even more difficult for VFRs to work out where we are, as we track via doglegs, not straight in or out.
The NAStronauts can, of course, just say "avoid the IFR routes" but I suspect that your average jo-blow lighty pilot, unless he sets up his secondary plan on his moving map, will have a difficult time doing said avoiding.
Also, I don't see any suggestions/requirements in AIP that IFR start making broadcasts for the benefit of VFR in E...yet. That should help clog up the now controlled-airwaves...
ARFOR,
You really will have to stop this recalitrant fundamentalism!
The 200R inbound passes right over Barn Hill, at 30DME, which is where the outbound direct Derby to PD flights exit the 30nm arc as well.
Still, when on descent between A100 & A045, I'd be standing up on the seat to 'improve the view'.....
Still, when on descent between A100 & A045, I'd be standing up on the seat to 'improve the view'.....
The NAStronauts can, of course, just say "avoid the IFR routes" but I suspect that your average jo-blow lighty pilot, unless he sets up his secondary plan on his moving map, will have a difficult time doing said avoiding.
Also, I don't see any suggestions/requirements in AIP that IFR start making broadcasts for the benefit of VFR in E...yet. That should help clog up the now controlled-airwaves...
ARFOR,
You really will have to stop this recalitrant fundamentalism!
Tks Cap'n,
Ref BRM,
Yeah, I did see the inbound is now in from the S, that's just a little closer to the DBY-PD Direct, where you would cross it at around 19DME S of BRM.
Not many VFR's there either.......Unless...(Do Ya Feel Lucky.....
Cheers
Ref BRM,
Yeah, I did see the inbound is now in from the S, that's just a little closer to the DBY-PD Direct, where you would cross it at around 19DME S of BRM.
Not many VFR's there either.......Unless...(Do Ya Feel Lucky.....
Cheers
Peuce, I understand what you are saying but can I just clarify my assertions/interpretations in the light of the following;
Not necessarily arguing with your premise purely based on your reading (as opposed to my reading) of this gem of a document, just suggesting that there is a lot of ambiguity with the precis of the procedures at this stage. They could have been a lot more specific even at this juncture - otherwise we would not have made the last post each, eh?
Anyone else get the impression they are making this up as they go along - like the weekly procedure changes in the lead-up to the eventual 11th hour cancellation of the "Remembrance Day"1993 supposed-demise-of -FS debacle?
- VFR flights to establish comms with ATC Tower prior to entry
-
- Maintain communication with ATC (all traffic is known)
Not necessarily arguing with your premise purely based on your reading (as opposed to my reading) of this gem of a document, just suggesting that there is a lot of ambiguity with the precis of the procedures at this stage. They could have been a lot more specific even at this juncture - otherwise we would not have made the last post each, eh?
Anyone else get the impression they are making this up as they go along - like the weekly procedure changes in the lead-up to the eventual 11th hour cancellation of the "Remembrance Day"1993 supposed-demise-of -FS debacle?
Konstantin,
I hope you are right and I'm wrong ... at least your scenario would be the better of two evils .
However, my interpretation was based on the format of the original document. All the VFR contact and broadcast stuff is located in the "Broome Tower Controlled Airspace" paragraph ... which might not be as obvious in the cut and paste version.
Yes, it's a badly put together document, but I'm going to cut them some slack at the moment ... as it was just a heads up to Industry partners. I will assume the official "decree" will be more clearer.
Am I assuming too much?
I hope you are right and I'm wrong ... at least your scenario would be the better of two evils .
However, my interpretation was based on the format of the original document. All the VFR contact and broadcast stuff is located in the "Broome Tower Controlled Airspace" paragraph ... which might not be as obvious in the cut and paste version.
Yes, it's a badly put together document, but I'm going to cut them some slack at the moment ... as it was just a heads up to Industry partners. I will assume the official "decree" will be more clearer.
Am I assuming too much?
How will this mess work?
Okay, all you Tower Controllers out there ... riddle me this:
Are you really going to change your procedures for a VFR flight as he climbs through A025 on departure?
Will you really change your procedures as he descends through A025?
Scenario
An IFR and a VFR are inbound from around the same direction ... both on descent from 10ish thousand. Will you try to calculate where the confliction will occur and, if calculated as at, say, A030 .... provide the IFR with traffic... and then as they pass A025 seperate them?
My feeling is that you'll seperate them all the way down ... from A045 of course.
What we will probably end up with, by default, is a Class D Tower up to A045.
Why on earth didn't they just promulgate that?
Ideology perhaps?
Are you really going to change your procedures for a VFR flight as he climbs through A025 on departure?
Will you really change your procedures as he descends through A025?
Scenario
An IFR and a VFR are inbound from around the same direction ... both on descent from 10ish thousand. Will you try to calculate where the confliction will occur and, if calculated as at, say, A030 .... provide the IFR with traffic... and then as they pass A025 seperate them?
My feeling is that you'll seperate them all the way down ... from A045 of course.
What we will probably end up with, by default, is a Class D Tower up to A045.
Why on earth didn't they just promulgate that?
Ideology perhaps?
Peuce, roger your last - I`m just working off the info that`s been posted here on p.45, not in receipt of anything else being an ANSP "ex-parrot" as Cleese would say...and fingers crossed on your early-days sentiments.
EDITED - and our posts crossed. Naah, you couldn`t be possibly right about ideology
I`ll see your D to A045 by the way, and raise you C above with a sector/tower boundary at A085, the C steps being closed down at night...now where have I seen that work well before?
Then again, ideology and "future directions"...
EDITED - and our posts crossed. Naah, you couldn`t be possibly right about ideology
I`ll see your D to A045 by the way, and raise you C above with a sector/tower boundary at A085, the C steps being closed down at night...now where have I seen that work well before?
Then again, ideology and "future directions"...
Last edited by konstantin; 14th May 2010 at 00:37. Reason: More info