NAS rears its head again

[Capn Bloggs]

And the first Alwyn Award should be awarded to Leady, who claims that the NAS 2b Class E airspace was a success:

Follow that by the same organization's analysis for the NAS 2b windback. In my opinion and many others the "risk assessment" was a disgrace, (after 12 months of successful operation)

3 RAs involving RPT IFRs and no-radio VFRs = success.

Those three incidents were correctly read by AsA as ringing alarm bells about the fundamental flaws of E airspace.

the UIRs, FL250 to FL600 were only "advisory airspace" --- close to F, as India used to operate F.

Is that so? I didn't know QF still operated 707s in 1990, when ICAO created Alphabet airspace. Advisory airspace it may have been. It certainly wasn't F.

I ask yet again: what is the benefit of E airspace?

Dick,

what about C without radar- how do you get a positive ident!

What about it? Who needs a positive ident? Break free of your fundamentalist views and do some lateral thinking: aircraft control can be done without surveillance!

[Howabout]

Thanks Lead, I am not blinkered and am always willing to listen.

At least your responses are measured. I will read your response again. It needs some considered time, given the effort you've made.

I certainly envy you the B707 days. My Dad used to look after you guys as an AWA LAME in the mid-sixties. I can remember sitting up in the old Darwin terminal and watching the jets taxying in, sweeping in a right turn and parking right below his workshop - he was one floor up, so we looked down on the 'monsters.' QANTAS 707s and BOAC 707s and Comets were the highlight of a young kid's week.

OK, let's kick nostalgia in to touch. You still have not justified TCAS as a mitigator if we are going to be truly 'ICAO compliant.' Lead, this was a CASA study not a 'commissioned one.'

[konstantin]

Of course C generates extra workload and requires a higher level of responsibility than E, that is self-evident.

However (and it is an important "however") it is very much a matter of degree in terms of impact on cost. Given the amount of VFR traffic in/out of Alice for instance there would be no change required in terms of staffing the enroute airspace (above A085) for a C vs E airspace steps designation. And the tower airspace D component would still be processing the same aircraft in and out, as they currently do with C over D.

Let us consider what the case with E steps (vice C) at YBAS would be in terms of processing VFRs;

Enroute and Tower Controllers - a little less separation workload overall but potentially less notice given of the aircrafts presence to the tower ATC inbound (particularly above A085 from the Sector airspace), possibly a more "reactive" working environment than in the case of an overlying C, eg sequence planning considerations for a start?

Pilots (VFR and IFR)
- No VFR/IFR separation assurance provided to them in the CTA steps above D

Self-separating gabfest taking up A/G time, reliance on radio procedures, slightly increased pilot situational awareness workload...would I be drawing too long a bow in daring to assert a diminution of safety in absolute terms?

No impact on ATS staffing or cost either way - in this location-specific case. So the aviation industry would prefer E...because...? Other than the people who would consider it a God-given right to fly where and when they want, of course.

Yours Sincerely

Mortimer Konstantin Papadopolous

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Don't worry Mr 'Howabout'....I too read yr thoughtful posts.

But, alas, I feel now that I am tooo faar removed from the ' at the workface' situation to render suitable / sensible responses / suggestions to the 'cause'.

(Thanks Dick......)

However, rest assured Mr Bloggs, I shall NOT be the one who causes you a problem in 'E'.....I don't particularly want to GET RUNOVER by a 'Fast Mover',
so, I will simply descend early, if required, take the 'scenic route' in, and leave the collision 'risk' areas close to destination AD's to those silly enuf to believe in 'E' for all......(IMHO)

I am of the opinion, that one day maybe, after a few 'incidents', that the wheel will turn full circle.....and we will have CTA and OCTA ag'in......in some form or another...

Cheers

P.S. VERY well stated Mr Papadopolous...a candid view and sensible view.

[Howabout]

Griffo, don't ever worry about being 'redundant.'

The problem in the modern environment is that memories are too short. Opportunistic individuals will raise seemingly logical arguments about airspace. As time goes on, who's there to rebut 'upside down airspace?'

You'll notice there's been no reply to my 'upside down' question, or using TCAS as a mitigator.

The inconvenient questions are just ignored in the hope that subsequent posts bury them.

You might have been out of the game for a while, but the basic arguments have not changed in 20 years. What your views were when we lost that service (and 'saved' an unsubstantiated 10 mil was it?) hold true today.

From where I sit, you are eminently qualified to provide cogent comment on the issues.

Don't hold back Mate. You've done the time and, from my perspective, you're no less entitled than the rest of us to address the dodgy arguments that keep getting repeated.

I must wind this up now and get back to the main thread. I'm sure, by now, that Dick will have a controller posting under his/her real name to confirm that E can be done cheaper than C.

As Dick says, one cannot be believed if one does not have the courage to post under a real name. I'm hugely confident that he's arranged for just that. Given that Dick places so much emphasis on real names, otherwise you're not believable, I don't doubt for an instant that Dick has got one of those 'dozens and dozens' to post under their own name.

[ARFOR]

Leadsled

A at high level does not disprove the validity of E over D etc. Nor does using C where E is all that is required by analysis

Where is the analysis? and the reference system ATM infrastructure?

produce "safer" results, because the collision risk (if E is the analysis result)

Where is the volume specific analysis result?

in E is already so low, that C does not/cannot lower the risk, because it is already close to "vanishingly small",

That is incorrect. Even if the risk exposure were assessed as 'low', an ATC service to both IFR and VFR [D, C or higher] further removes said risk, otherwise the scaled classifications of airspace have no relative significance, which we all know is not the case.

the statistical equivalent of zero (See ASNZ 4360).

Collisions and NMAC's in E [in the US and elsewhere] disprove the 'vanishingly small' argument, in terminal [climb and descent] areas.

Are you supporting Australia 'rolling the dice' with E in terminal areas where turbo-jet RPT operate in significant numbers? Why would you? Other coutries have had to reconsider/reclassify 'after' the fire tenders have hosed down the remains, why not learn from O/S mistakes?

Most reclassification of 'previously assessed' class E in other coutries has followed serious incidents and accidents. What in your mind is wrong with that approach to risk management? lots in my mind! That is why ALARP principals have been appended to risk management practices. Lessons learned from others 'mistakes'.

If the above is not accurate, and [as you and Mr Smith suggest], the risk is reduced to vanishingly small away from the circuit areas [but still within aircraft climb and descent trajectories] why then are speeds restricted to 250kts?

That goes to the crux of airspace classifications and the management of risk. The higher the speed [normally a product of profile and altitude/flight level] the larger the protection margins become with increasing closing/crossing speeds. That is why A is used in high level enroute airspace where see and avoid is impractical, and visual track keeping [tolerances for separation purposes] also becomes impractical [due altitude].

The offset consideration at lower level [below A100] is traffic mix and density. The service levels and equipment needed to address the risk to ALARP [as already discussed in this and other like type threads] vary from those in 'clean configured' climb/descent and cruise airspace away from circuit areas.

Mr Smith

but what about C without radar- how do you get a positive ident!

If the above question is indicative of your understanding of Air Traffic Control, then please do everyone a service by refraining from comment or involvement until you have had someone download you a copy of an ATC manual [pick any country], and learn a bit about how ATC operate separation standards [there are many, many non-surveillance separation standards] and procedures in ALL countries, including the USA.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Tks for that Mr 'H',.....

And although DICKmay not remember me personally, he certainly had no qualms in using FS to 'prove his point' against ATC.....

BK to CB wasn't it?? Went OCTA to avoid 'unnecessary delays'....and got FULL service ALL the way....Then wrote to the ATC Head Honcho of the time complaining about 'His' organisation's lack of service.....
But, he GOT IT from good ole' FS......

As an aside.....I believe the new tower complex at BRM will be built as a joint RFF/TWR building on the opposite side of the rwy to the present CAGRO site - can't call that a 'shudder'...'tower' - so that the controllers will be facing SOUTH across the runway, and be reasonably well away from the RPT parking bays.....
And the majority of the traffic goes/comes from the N / NE to E...
The jets from PH via NWN come in from the S, and depart to intercept the 200deg track out, so the poor controllers will be 'flat out' looking over their shoulders to spot inbound /outbound VFRs, and Jet tfc from ports to / from the north, ...MOST of the time.
For what 'they' the workers need - IMHO - is that the new TWR should be next to the present site to give them a better 'overall' picture with 'minimum fuss'....
(Yeah...I know they 'do it' procedurely....CNCE not avbl, remain OCTA...do they still say that...stay N of Willies creek...go away, I've got a JET...)
And, yes I've worked there so I have the experience and the knowledge to say so....

Oh, and the 'original' sum to be saved was $80M! Mike Smith lectures refer...
This was subsequently shot down to ....not much at all.

And even less when one considers wot we 'ave now....

Ah well!!.......

Tks for the indulgence...normal program resumes....

[Icarus2001]

A rational discussion between people with opposing views, what is PPRUNE coming to.

Keep it up people.

[Freedom7]

Okay Capn Bloggs, I issue you a challenge. Get ONE practising ATC to state this point under his or her own name.

I'll give you mine.

On one condition.

[LeadSled]

ARFOR,

As to the various analysis, to which I have referred, all in Airservices and (hopefully) CASA records.

"Low" and "vanishingly small" are far from the same thing.

Further on, as far as I am concerned, you have made a number of assertions about E safety elsewhere, but that is all they are, assertions.

Several Airservices "analysis" of US MAC/NMAC in E have been "interesting", one neglected the fact that much of the mid west is 6/7000 ft, and claims a number of en-route problems. When the geographical position and height was examined, it was clear that ALL to alleged en-route MAC/NMAC were, in fact, in circuit areas or the boundaries of circuit areas, they might have been 7/8000' AMSL, but they were only 1000/1500' AGL.

If you believe the Airservices "risk analysis" for the windback of 2B was kosher, you obviously haven't read the three analysis by eminent risk management experts, including one paid for by CASA. Or maybe you really believe the error rate for pilots dealing with ATC instructions really is 50 to 100%, but for ATC person, only one in a million.

As to NAS 2b, and three RAs, do YOU know how many RAs there were, during that period in C. Dig out the records and have a look. Do you understand that you can have an RA ---- without separation being infringed.

As you fundamentally do not accept the basis of ICAO airspace classification, there is really little point debating with you.

Howabout,
re. TCAS as a mitigator, we both know ICAO does not permit its use, but I know how well TCAS II works, there are plenty of places where I believe TCAS (long before any warnings) rather than ATC. I must re-read the Avalon study, I didn't realise (missed/forgotten) that ACAS/TCAS had been raised as a mitigator, but I have no objection to it ---- as long as a difference is filed with ICAO.

Don't forget, both Ansett and TAA fitted TCAS long before it was mandated in Australia, because of the number of ATC errors ---- and that is all a matter of record.

As for the poster who thinks I was claiming the existence of Class F in the 1960's, wake up and smell the roses --- and re-read what I said about the development of airspace classifications with an open mind ---- as long as it is not open at both ends.

Tootle pip!!

PS: How well I remember the AWA "radio man" at each station in Australia, and at Bankstown. Indeed, the last AWA sign only disappeared from YSBK in the last year. A good mate of mine, and near neighbor, now nearly 90, spent most of his career with AWA, starting with flying boats at Rose Bay.

[Capn Bloggs]

Leadsled,

As to NAS 2b, and three RAs, do YOU know how many RAs there were, during that period in C. Dig out the records and have a look. Do you understand that you can have an RA ---- without separation being infringed.

That is no reason to imply "oh well, we get more RAs in C so who cares if we get them in E". If that is the standard of your comparative analysis, then you don't have much credibility in my eyes. Where were they? What aircraft types and what operations were involved? Were both aircraft safe anyway?
And quite frankly, I don't care how many RAs occurred in C, because I assume that the system would look at them and attempt to improve to stop them. All the RAs in E were caused by only one thing: the VFR was either unknown or not under the control of ATC. Launy was very very close to one hundred-odd killed. You are very lucky it didn't happen, because you and all your scientific studies would have been thrown out the door.

It is becoming painfully obvious that you and Dick really couldn't give two hoots about the RAs we had in E in 12 short months and don't propose that we do anything about preventing them in the future. That is unacceptable, when the cost of upgrading the airspace is "vanishingly small" whilst protecting RPT. The only issue is unhindered access to the airspace, isn't it?

[89 steps to heaven]

All this measured discussion is terrific, but don't forget to make submissions to CASA, they will not base any decisions on PPrune discussions. From memory, comments on Broome close end of the month.

[CaptainMidnight]

Does the U.S. allow no radio no transponder light sport types access to Class E airspace as we do?

Class C requires all aircraft to be in contact with ATC and have a clearance.

Class E does not.

Therefore to me, Class C provides a higher level of safety than E.

A number of aeronautical studies by CASA have stated that a Class C service can be provided v.s. Class R for no additional cost. Neither Airservices or Civilair have come out and disputed it, and I suspect the reason is the opinion came from ATCs and ASA in the first place.

[Dick Smith]

No , just not game to be open about basic safety fundamentals because they will be undermined if it looks as if they have a different view or agree with DS.

What other reason could there be for not having all ATC"s posting under their real names for genuine safety issues?

And why are these anonymous ATC,s ( if they are ATC,s) so dopey to say that they will take on the responsibilities of C for the same cost as E.

In all other countries I know of ATC,s are not expected to operate C without radar and extra manning.

[Frank Arouet]

CaptainMidnight;

Does the U.S. allow no radio no transponder light sport types access to Class E airspace as we do?

When did this arrangement come into being?

I'm not even sure if RAA aircraft are allowed above 5000ft yet.

[ftrplt]

Workload

There is a lot of talk about workload changes for the controller between C and E; how about the SUM of the workload of the controller AND the cockpit crew between the two categories?

[Jabawocky]

Captain Midnight

Does the U.S. allow no radio no transponder light sport types access to Class E airspace as we do?

That does not seem to be the idea of AIP GEN 1.5(1) and (6.1.2)

[LeadSled]

Dear Captain Midnight,

Perhaps it is a problem with your night vision, but a Mode C transponder is mandatory in Class E airspace in Australia --- for all aircraft with a suitable power supply, which means about ~98% of all powered aircraft.

In US, below 10,000ft, there is NO transponder requirement generally in E, beyond the 30nm transponder veil from the centre of Class B airspace, and from memory, not even a requirement for VFR to have VHF comms, but don't quote me on the latter.

Given the prevalence of Class E airspace in the US, operations of any category of civil aircraft, avoiding E or higher airspace, are not practical, and therefor, yes, LSA operate in E to the same rules as other VFR.

As for the Australian "5000'" rule, that is a hangover from the days of mandatory position reporting for all aircraft above 5000, and another example of Australian "inverted risk management", as the risk decrease, the CNS/ATM resources increase ---- quite illogical. And, of course, incomplete reforms.

And, largely, the reason for the conditional 5000' cap on "ultralight" aircraft ---- but not hang-gliders.

Finally, I love the logic that says that RAs area serious safety problem in E, but can effectively be disregarded as a safety problem in C. The mind boggles at such logic being used to support Australia's "inverted risk management".

Tootle pip!!

PS There are serious and legitimate divisions of opinion about the seriousness of the NAS 2b events in both Tasmania and Brisbane. I suggest you all reacquaint yourselves with the facts in each case --- and I do mean facts, as in the ATSB analysis in each case.

While you are at it, perhaps you should look at the disposition of every incident report filed by RPT crews during the "2B year", particularly Regionals, and see what the ATSB thought of the quality of each "complaint".

As to the one north of Melbourne, I would suggest a very close reading by everybody ---- the situation (with all concerned having comms with ATC) should never have developed the way it did, and shares some critical characteristics with the Brisbane event.

In both the latter, high time professional pilots were in command of the GA aircraft. The actions of the RPT Captains, in both cases, is worthy of close study and consideration ----- but, rather what we see here is the virtually automatic assumption the the GA aircraft is in the wrong, flown by somebody who doesn't know what they are on about.

[CaptainMidnight]

When did this arrangement come into being?

I'm not even sure if RAA aircraft are allowed above 5000ft yet.

I posted a detailed answer to this question some time ago:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ml#post5164366

As to how many such sports aviation aircraft there are around the country, I wouldn't have a clue.

So is the situation different here from the U.S., where they have mandatory transponder requirement for ALL aircraft within 30NM from the centre of Class B airspace - which we don't have??

[le Pingouin]

Dick, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked PPRune isn't a recognised way of notifying anyone of anything.

Better a dopey controller than a dopey pilot because I won't die when it goes horribly wrong. Just like it so nearly did at LT