NAS rears its head again
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
Capn Bloggs;
1) correct, up to your expectations.
2) If they have a radio and transponder why not?
3) Experience? What makes you think they are all rag and bone cowboys? Most of my contempories have thousands of hours. Some of the modern RAA mob have "plastic fantastics" that make your FAR 23 "tin" aeroplanes from America look pale. I have 45 years experience, I fly a 75HP "tin" aeroplane that can maintain 2 miles per minute and I certainly don't want my wife (yes Alice it's a 2 seater), to come to grief at my hands.
4) Re Alice. After Tower after hours if it goes to G, why can't they fly through?
Perhaps you should. It may either frighten you or give you an appreciation of what goes on around you.
Like I said. If they, and the low end GA are ignored, they may not bother to speak up again and so "you" perpetuate the problem.
1) correct, up to your expectations.
2) If they have a radio and transponder why not?
3) Experience? What makes you think they are all rag and bone cowboys? Most of my contempories have thousands of hours. Some of the modern RAA mob have "plastic fantastics" that make your FAR 23 "tin" aeroplanes from America look pale. I have 45 years experience, I fly a 75HP "tin" aeroplane that can maintain 2 miles per minute and I certainly don't want my wife (yes Alice it's a 2 seater), to come to grief at my hands.
4) Re Alice. After Tower after hours if it goes to G, why can't they fly through?
OK, I am not up with the RA Aus situation
Like I said. If they, and the low end GA are ignored, they may not bother to speak up again and so "you" perpetuate the problem.
Frank, why don't you grow up and stop attacking me? You are carrying on like I set up the CASA rules about RA Aus. Talk to Jmac if you have a problem. Until then, I'm going to ignore your rantings. Now wonder this airspace debacle never gets anywhere.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs,
In reference to your statement as follows, I take serious issue:
Please do not include me in 'we.'
I would never contend that the difference is 'close enough to be insignificant!'
My position is that the difference (if any) would be 'vanishingly small.'
In reference to your statement as follows, I take serious issue:
We contend that that should be either D or C, since the cost of providing D, C or E will be the same (or close enough to be insignificant).
I would never contend that the difference is 'close enough to be insignificant!'
My position is that the difference (if any) would be 'vanishingly small.'
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Frank
A few thoughts on questions you have raised.
1. The collission record may show we have not had a MAC in these regional places with an RPT, but you must remember the amount of RPT in and out of these places has increased quite a lot and now in bigger faster aircraft which makes the comparison a little unfair.
2. RAA in E, well the rules are in controlled airspace, and E is controlled airspace, its just that VFR do not need a clearance and they must do certain things. So on the basis of its Contrlled airspace the answer is NO. Should they? well when I see and hear the amount of stuff I see and hear, I would say no. For example, chatting to some folk on Saturday, I quizzed them about being on BN/ML CEN especially above 5000' and for that matter in and around major regional ports.....what for they say?
As for using class E near a major port 
.
3. Yes the RAA have many RPT captains and many of the folk that wind up like the Drifter pilot discussed on another thread. So your point is invalid. The highly experienced folk who have been RPT pilots still hold their CASA licence as a general rule and are legally entitled to use Controlled airspace. They are not the ones Bloggs should be concerned about.
Back to BME/KTA............
A few thoughts on questions you have raised.
1. The collission record may show we have not had a MAC in these regional places with an RPT, but you must remember the amount of RPT in and out of these places has increased quite a lot and now in bigger faster aircraft which makes the comparison a little unfair.
2. RAA in E, well the rules are in controlled airspace, and E is controlled airspace, its just that VFR do not need a clearance and they must do certain things. So on the basis of its Contrlled airspace the answer is NO. Should they? well when I see and hear the amount of stuff I see and hear, I would say no. For example, chatting to some folk on Saturday, I quizzed them about being on BN/ML CEN especially above 5000' and for that matter in and around major regional ports.....what for they say?
As for using class E near a major port .3. Yes the RAA have many RPT captains and many of the folk that wind up like the Drifter pilot discussed on another thread. So your point is invalid. The highly experienced folk who have been RPT pilots still hold their CASA licence as a general rule and are legally entitled to use Controlled airspace. They are not the ones Bloggs should be concerned about.
Back to BME/KTA............
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Bloggs, the fundamentalists and zealots will continue to peddle the clap-trap that, ultimately, comes down to reliance on the BST. Amazing, isn't it, that people who are otherwise intelligent and articulate prosecute their argument on an underlying assumption that chance will save your ass?
Frank, I might be out of step here, but I am not anti-RAA - far from it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why an RAA aircraft cannot access airspace that others can. The only proviso is that they are visible to the system and operate with the necessary degree of professionalism (and I don't say they don't).
As I understand it, this is a CASA ruling that RAA cannot operate in controlled airspace - particularly control zones. Beats the hell out of my why. In short, RAA exclusion is not RPT driven; it's regulator driven.
Frank, I might be out of step here, but I am not anti-RAA - far from it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why an RAA aircraft cannot access airspace that others can. The only proviso is that they are visible to the system and operate with the necessary degree of professionalism (and I don't say they don't).
As I understand it, this is a CASA ruling that RAA cannot operate in controlled airspace - particularly control zones. Beats the hell out of my why. In short, RAA exclusion is not RPT driven; it's regulator driven.
Dick, we have not heard from you for a while. I guess you are still here. How about an answer to my question and a second one now that we have more detail?
1. Why do you maintain that C over D must be operated by the overworked controller in the tower but E over D can be run by centre?
2. If E is so "safe" then why are we being given a broadcast zone
at Broome between 2500 and 4500?
Awaiting your reply.
1. Why do you maintain that C over D must be operated by the overworked controller in the tower but E over D can be run by centre?
2. If E is so "safe" then why are we being given a broadcast zone
at Broome between 2500 and 4500?Awaiting your reply.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OZ, it's just a personal opinion. As I stated in a post ages back, I have seen some very professional operators. I am not advocating RAA operating in high density zones. But I do question why they can't operate, with segregation, in some of our regional airspace.
Launy is a classic - check out the segregation available south of the highway, which would not impede RPT one iota. Instead, RAA have to fly around the zone.
Once again, it's personal opinion and I'm not out for a fight. I just question the logic when there are avenues, from my perspective, that may assist everyone and not diminish safety.
Launy is a classic - check out the segregation available south of the highway, which would not impede RPT one iota. Instead, RAA have to fly around the zone.
Once again, it's personal opinion and I'm not out for a fight. I just question the logic when there are avenues, from my perspective, that may assist everyone and not diminish safety.
Okay, I'm networking for my next job as graphic artist with CASA...
It's very stylised (doh!) but I'm trying to show 2 aircraft with the same ETA Broome .. coming from the south.
I'd like to know how the VFR will be handled.
By the E with Fries book, this is what should happen:
Does that seem workable or safe to you guys?
What might really happen is that , as soon as the TWR hears from the VFR, they will seperate/segregate him from the IFR (Class D) and all will be good.
The next thing we will hear from CASA is that everything is working fine at Broome ... what were you worried about?
Can anyone suggest another method by which this might work?
It's very stylised (doh!) but I'm trying to show 2 aircraft with the same ETA Broome .. coming from the south.
I'd like to know how the VFR will be handled.
By the E with Fries book, this is what should happen:
- The IFR will be seperated from any other IFRs
- The VFR will be unknown to ML CENTRE
- As the VFR approaches/desends through A045 (TWR's airspace) he will broadcast and will be given to the IFR as traffic
- As the VFR passes A025 on descent, the IFR will then be seperated/segregated from him
Does that seem workable or safe to you guys?
What might really happen is that , as soon as the TWR hears from the VFR, they will seperate/segregate him from the IFR (Class D) and all will be good.
The next thing we will hear from CASA is that everything is working fine at Broome ... what were you worried about?
Can anyone suggest another method by which this might work?
Last edited by peuce; 17th May 2010 at 08:35. Reason: To fix error
Pretty picture, peuce!
Just a little addendum to your thoughts - re the Broome procedures doc statement;
"Maintain communication with ATC (All traffic is known)"
Is there anyone out there with more info (and the liberty to share said gumph) in relation to which airspace that statement actually refers to, and what procedures are to be followed (ie it certainly ain`t smelling like the generic E "monitor and self-announce") -
Tower only up to A045?
Sectors up to, say, transition altitude or maybe F180 (ie base of existing E)?
The statement is a tad "open", would be nice for everyone to be on the same page - any more-informed oracles out there than we the great unwashed?
Just a little addendum to your thoughts - re the Broome procedures doc statement;
"Maintain communication with ATC (All traffic is known)"
Is there anyone out there with more info (and the liberty to share said gumph) in relation to which airspace that statement actually refers to, and what procedures are to be followed (ie it certainly ain`t smelling like the generic E "monitor and self-announce") -
Tower only up to A045?
Sectors up to, say, transition altitude or maybe F180 (ie base of existing E)?
The statement is a tad "open", would be nice for everyone to be on the same page - any more-informed oracles out there than we the great unwashed?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get real Peuce,
The bit in the middle is entirely misleading. As everyone with half a brain knows, the chances of a collision are way, way overstated.
Bloggs will look out his window, pick up that speck while turning into a setting sun and execute see-and-avoid. And, if he doesn't, the chances of a prang are vanishingly small.
Get it through your head Peuce that 'vanishingly small' is an acceptable justification for doing less than you're capable of doing for the same cost.
The bit in the middle is entirely misleading. As everyone with half a brain knows, the chances of a collision are way, way overstated.
Bloggs will look out his window, pick up that speck while turning into a setting sun and execute see-and-avoid. And, if he doesn't, the chances of a prang are vanishingly small.
Get it through your head Peuce that 'vanishingly small' is an acceptable justification for doing less than you're capable of doing for the same cost.
Konstantin,
You're right ... I buggered up the Class E link. Fixed now.
And yes, I still think the requirement is to broadcast ONLY when approaching TWR Owned Class E.
Hopefully, someone will clarify in due course.
You're right ... I buggered up the Class E link. Fixed now.
And yes, I still think the requirement is to broadcast ONLY when approaching TWR Owned Class E.
Hopefully, someone will clarify in due course.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Peuce........according to the doc's seen so far that is correct. 
And for all the folk wondering. RAAus are welcome in any CTA providing the pilot has a PPL or higher with NIL airspace restrictions, and the RAAus registered aircraft is equipped accordingly. things such as approved engines, radio's, transponder etc. This covers the majority of Jabiru's Tecnams and other fancy machines in the RAA fleet.
It does not cover a Warp Borer MkII with a VW conversion engine, even if it has a VHF radio. And even if you have a current ATPL.
If you have a Tecnam or Jab with VHF and Mode C Transponder, great, but not if you have an RAA licence only.
Does that clear that up a little in plain engish.
J
And for all the folk wondering. RAAus are welcome in any CTA providing the pilot has a PPL or higher with NIL airspace restrictions, and the RAAus registered aircraft is equipped accordingly. things such as approved engines, radio's, transponder etc. This covers the majority of Jabiru's Tecnams and other fancy machines in the RAA fleet.
It does not cover a Warp Borer MkII with a VW conversion engine, even if it has a VHF radio. And even if you have a current ATPL.
If you have a Tecnam or Jab with VHF and Mode C Transponder, great, but not if you have an RAA licence only.
Does that clear that up a little in plain engish.
J
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs:
RAA are allowed in E. We are not allowed in C or D, even though it is 'easier', because CASA will not allow RAA to give suitable training. A CTA endorsement was virtually done (after years of lobbying) until Glorious Leader knocked it on the head.
OzBusDriver:
If the RAAus was allowed to safely operate in C/D (just like recreational pilots are allowed to do in NZ, the US, the UK, France etc) then perhaps less people would support E everywhere - because E opens up massive amounts of airspace that is unfairly locked to ~10,000 RAAus members at present.
CASA allowed GLIDERS, including motorgliders, in C and D. Why not Jabirus, Tecnams and Cessna Skycatchers?
Whatever they don't have (experience?) that stops them operating in D or C would, I expect, also preclude them from E, given that it is more demanding on the VFR operationally. In D or C, they (us as well) just get told what to do. Easy.
OzBusDriver:
RAAus, why not argue for land rights for gay whales...as much relevance!
CASA allowed GLIDERS, including motorgliders, in C and D. Why not Jabirus, Tecnams and Cessna Skycatchers?
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
Just let me get this right.
To date class E airspace is that part above 8500 ft that is designated so. A deal worked out by AOPA.
So below 8500 at Gladstone QLD and most of the "G" curve is class G???
Class E airspace at Broome and Karratha is different to this? Because? (no radar perhaps)?
Class E airspace is "controlled airspace"??? but ATC don't talk to everybody flying there even if they can see them like in class G???
RA-Aus are not allowed into any "controlled airspace"???
In class G airspace it is OK for IFR traffic to be worked with radar backup?
Is class G airspace "controlled then by definition?
If so, by deduction the problem must be ornithopters, gliders, GA Charter, flying training, balloons, kites and UAV's. Oh, and whale watching gay people who's motives become a concern for our backseat vocal busdriver in the big scheme off things and.... land rights in class E and G airspace which should all be "controlled".
To date class E airspace is that part above 8500 ft that is designated so. A deal worked out by AOPA.
So below 8500 at Gladstone QLD and most of the "G" curve is class G???
Class E airspace at Broome and Karratha is different to this? Because? (no radar perhaps)?
Class E airspace is "controlled airspace"??? but ATC don't talk to everybody flying there even if they can see them like in class G???
RA-Aus are not allowed into any "controlled airspace"???
In class G airspace it is OK for IFR traffic to be worked with radar backup?
Is class G airspace "controlled then by definition?
If so, by deduction the problem must be ornithopters, gliders, GA Charter, flying training, balloons, kites and UAV's. Oh, and whale watching gay people who's motives become a concern for our backseat vocal busdriver in the big scheme off things and.... land rights in class E and G airspace which should all be "controlled".
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what happens when the tower is closed? Is it really going to be A down to F245, E down to F180, G down to 4500, E again down to 700 AGL, then G again down to surface?
'Leave then enter and leave control area on descent'
or if there is a IFR flying an approach in the lower CTA: 'Leave control area on descent then remain outside control area'
And if Karratha is going to be the same, the controller controlling something like 1/5th of the world's airspace will also be responsible for procedural approach airspace down to the MDA. What was that about overworked tower controllers being distracted?
'Leave then enter and leave control area on descent'
or if there is a IFR flying an approach in the lower CTA: 'Leave control area on descent then remain outside control area'
And if Karratha is going to be the same, the controller controlling something like 1/5th of the world's airspace will also be responsible for procedural approach airspace down to the MDA. What was that about overworked tower controllers being distracted?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness me 
Mr Arouet
Yes, best you get this right
No. As has been pointed out, the CASA have determined [how exactly is anyone’s guess] that the class E below A045 [as per peuce's diagram] will include a mandatory VFR broadcast area [prior to entry, and during]
Issues here:-
1. It makes the tower E not E, and not D, but a no-mans land
2. It gives ATC a duty of care [known VFR traffic] without the tools [Class D] to fix it re: IFR and other VFR.
3. If ATC cannot fix it, your [Alice in WL] C182 in MB airspace [it is ML centre BTW] scenario comes in to play sort of. The difference:-
a) At YBRM or YPKA, the IFR C182 is subject to a clearance [not a FIS as in Oz G - ICAO F]
b) The VFR is not on radar [or ADB-B], but is talking [known]
c) ATC cannot provide 'separation' [or safe segregation] because the VFR can do what they like [as far as track and altitude is concerned]
d) The end result is IFR and VFR talking to each other [on the Class D tower frequency] at the same time the ATC is trying to operate a service [where is Mr Smith on this frequency/chatter loading the tower ATC issue???? sold the farm for anything labelled E is my bet
]
e) The conflicting IFR [in this case the C182, although it could be Bloggs in his kero-burning aluminium missile] is going to level off until he can be sure he has missed the VFR, in the meantime, trying to talk with the VFR to make sure he/she is not going to do anything unexpected, and at the same time fecking up ATC sep with other IFR that were 'going to be' separated before Bloggs rightly levelled off [and missed his vertical separation requirement] until he knew the miss with the VFR was guaranteed.
And, before you crap on about IFR Air Carrier being 'nancy boys and girls', what do you suppose they have to do [insurance/duty-of-care etc] with known traffic threats? Bloggs has the ability to do something [play verts], ATC does not! Do you get the basic concept?
No, there are no ‘clearances’ in G [very difference liabilities for ATC]
Which includes E! or does it?
Worked, Radar Back-up, Frank you have NO idea of the ramifications [legal quagmire] that sits with ATC in different classes of airspace [with different sovereign legislation in each country]. Do not insult Australian ATC’s and Pilots by presuming you know better, your diatribes here prove you do not!
See previous
A stellar example of your professional, intelligent, and worldly 
view of the subject matter you regularly display.
Might I politely [in the nicest possible way] recommend you stick to Bundy Rum and Flight Sim designed for the ‘Colts’ of old regret?!
Mr Arouet
Just let me get this right.
Class E airspace at Broome and Karratha is different to this? Because? (no radar perhaps)?
Issues here:-
1. It makes the tower E not E, and not D, but a no-mans land
2. It gives ATC a duty of care [known VFR traffic] without the tools [Class D] to fix it re: IFR and other VFR.
3. If ATC cannot fix it, your [Alice in WL] C182 in MB airspace [it is ML centre BTW] scenario comes in to play sort of. The difference:-
a) At YBRM or YPKA, the IFR C182 is subject to a clearance [not a FIS as in Oz G - ICAO F]
b) The VFR is not on radar [or ADB-B], but is talking [known]
c) ATC cannot provide 'separation' [or safe segregation] because the VFR can do what they like [as far as track and altitude is concerned]
d) The end result is IFR and VFR talking to each other [on the Class D tower frequency] at the same time the ATC is trying to operate a service [where is Mr Smith on this frequency/chatter loading the tower ATC issue???? sold the farm for anything labelled E is my bet
]e) The conflicting IFR [in this case the C182, although it could be Bloggs in his kero-burning aluminium missile] is going to level off until he can be sure he has missed the VFR, in the meantime, trying to talk with the VFR to make sure he/she is not going to do anything unexpected, and at the same time fecking up ATC sep with other IFR that were 'going to be' separated before Bloggs rightly levelled off [and missed his vertical separation requirement] until he knew the miss with the VFR was guaranteed.
And, before you crap on about IFR Air Carrier being 'nancy boys and girls', what do you suppose they have to do [insurance/duty-of-care etc] with known traffic threats? Bloggs has the ability to do something [play verts], ATC does not! Do you get the basic concept?
Class E airspace is "controlled airspace"??? but ATC don't talk to everybody flying there even if they can see them like in class G???
RA-Aus are not allowed into any "controlled airspace"???
In class G airspace it is OK for IFR traffic to be worked with radar backup?
Is class G airspace "controlled then by definition?
If so, by deduction the problem must be ornithopters, gliders, GA Charter, flying training, balloons, kites and UAV's. Oh, and whale watching gay people who's motives become a concern for our backseat vocal busdriver in the big scheme off things and.... land rights in class E and G airspace which should all be "controlled".
view of the subject matter you regularly display.Might I politely [in the nicest possible way] recommend you stick to Bundy Rum and Flight Sim designed for the ‘Colts’ of old regret?!
d.n.s - try Quasi-D
"Meester Fawlty, ees not rat...eet ees hamster!"
Or to put it another way - when a preferred airspace model meets practical realities there are certain adjustments required in order to facilitate "going forward".
Let me get my crystal ball out here - within 12 months of Broome/Karratha Towers being commissioned Alice will also go "modified-E-over-D".
"Meester Fawlty, ees not rat...eet ees hamster!"
Or to put it another way - when a preferred airspace model meets practical realities there are certain adjustments required in order to facilitate "going forward".
Let me get my crystal ball out here - within 12 months of Broome/Karratha Towers being commissioned Alice will also go "modified-E-over-D".