NAS rears its head again
The reference to CAR100 leaves the ambiguity of class E VFR procedures. where CAR99a refers to obeying a direction in a declared broadcast zone. Not doing the CASAs work for them but would we have to comply moreso with 99a than 100?
CAR99a
my italics.
CAR99a
(5) A pilot in command of an aircraft that is operating at an aerodrome or area designated under subregulation (1) must not contravene a direction that applies to that aerodrome or area.
Agree ARFOR...but the direction is to contact or broadcast to AV TWR.
After that, is there a direction to obey ATC instructions...in effect, turning E into D by stealth and applying a broadcast zone rule.
EDIT- E has NO place to be around a control zone at such low levels.
After that, is there a direction to obey ATC instructions...in effect, turning E into D by stealth and applying a broadcast zone rule.
EDIT- E has NO place to be around a control zone at such low levels.
heard a whisper at the meeting...this whole sorry mess gets changed back to C/D in November when there will be more staffing to turn the airspace back into full radar control....a rumour but a good one
Folks ... here is a copy of the post I put on the " Jandakot Class D "thread. I think it's quite pertinent to the BRM/KTA/AV situation as well:
However, is it not time that we say .... enough is enough?
Or, are you happy to clean up CASA's mess ... again?
Is it not time that CASA provide its interpretations, on paper, before implementation?
They obviously have a good reason for bringing in the change ... so they obviously would have thought this through ... so they can obviously answer ALL our questions, on paper ... before implementation.
IF NOT ... rethink the change!
However, is it not time that we say .... enough is enough?
Or, are you happy to clean up CASA's mess ... again?
Is it not time that CASA provide its interpretations, on paper, before implementation?
They obviously have a good reason for bringing in the change ... so they obviously would have thought this through ... so they can obviously answer ALL our questions, on paper ... before implementation.
IF NOT ... rethink the change!
DNS...I know...just passing it on...in true rumour format
Either way, the message came across that nobody liked what was about to happen. Please make the call and please help us make this airspace safe.
Either way, the message came across that nobody liked what was about to happen. Please make the call and please help us make this airspace safe.
700/1200 AGL
Re. the 1200 AGL, in general terms, ICAO wise, the whole of the volume of any class of controlled airspace is available for aircraft operating in that airspace.
It is aircraft in Class G that are required to maintain a buffer (in this case below) controlled airspace, and the ICAO buffer is expressed in meters, but is rounded off to 700' ( not 500' or 1000').
Thus, you will find the base of a CTA is often 1200 AGL, so that an aircraft can fly 500' AGL minimum and still be 700' clear below the CTA. This is not limited to US.
I cannot give you an answer for the origin of the 700' where there is an IF approach, when I get some time, and as a matter of curiosity, I must search it out. It's probably buried in TERPS design procedures, as a first guess.
Tootle pip!!
Led: Where two airspace types meet, the base level where they meet is classified as the lower airspace type. Which means that where a block of G meets C above, the level where they meet is classified as G. ATC keep a buffer between aircraft in controlled airspace and the lower limit of the airspace step. Aircraft OCTA can operate up to and including the base level as depicted on the map.
For example, if the chart has C LL 5500 (East of Canberra for example), ATC will only drop an aircraft to 6000ft there. An aircraft in the Class G below can operate up to 5500ft without a clearance.
Don't have the specific references with me, but all the info is in the Manual of ATS and the AIP.
Cheers.
For example, if the chart has C LL 5500 (East of Canberra for example), ATC will only drop an aircraft to 6000ft there. An aircraft in the Class G below can operate up to 5500ft without a clearance.
Don't have the specific references with me, but all the info is in the Manual of ATS and the AIP.
Cheers.
Ta for the above, guys.
So...one could be forgiven for thinking that some bright spark decided that for the purposes of being seen to be conforming to a generic ICAO concept we have ended up with the 700/1200 AGL business.
Notwithstanding the fact that, as we all know, in the sunburnt land of Oz "Base of CTA = OCTA" thus making the ICAO (US?) model effectively irrelevant here albeit "politically correct"?
Someone please tell me I`m wrong...
So...one could be forgiven for thinking that some bright spark decided that for the purposes of being seen to be conforming to a generic ICAO concept we have ended up with the 700/1200 AGL business.
Notwithstanding the fact that, as we all know, in the sunburnt land of Oz "Base of CTA = OCTA" thus making the ICAO (US?) model effectively irrelevant here albeit "politically correct"?
Someone please tell me I`m wrong...
I think the rule is the same in the UK, but they are that far off ICAO themselves it is not a good example. I will ask some of the guys at work, who come from all over the globe, what happens in other FIRs.
Arigato gozaimas,
Showa-cho.
Arigato gozaimas,
Showa-cho.
Thus, you will find the base of a CTA is often 1200 AGL, so that an aircraft can fly 500' AGL minimum and still be 700' clear below the CTA. This is not limited to US.
I think it'll be time to call it a day 
Peuce, you fundamentalist. This is the way it is done eslewhere. We don't know why E has a base in AGL verses MSL, but that doesn't matter. We're experts, having spent many years on the Bla Bla Bla committees, panels as well as flying through every piece of airspace on earth. So just roll with it. 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a classic case of what we've seen before...over and over.
It's known under various guises, with which you are all familiar: The Path of Least Resistance, Oiling the Squeaky Wheels, Placating the Noisy, Compromising to Achieve Consensus...blah, blah.
We've all seen this approach in the past and it doesn't work.
The hard decisions (Class C) aren't taken and, in the long run, the pain is much worse than if a bit of courage had been demonstrated from the outset.
As was the case with the G Airspace trial, Airspace 2000, son of Airspace 2000 and NAS - all of which were tried when Airservices had regulatory responsibility - and the latest cluster, when CASA now has that responsibility, grief is the inevitable outcome of what, in my opinion, is of a lack of guts.
Trying to please everyone doesn't work. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that message hasn't got through.
The decision should have been 'Class C; live with it, I'm the Regulator and no correspondence will be entered into.' There would have been an inevitable stoush but, by now, it would be history.
Instead, what have we got? A replication of all lessons from the past that weren't learned, and a larger level of grief than was necessary. And, ongoing dispute that could have been killed off before we got to this state.
It's known under various guises, with which you are all familiar: The Path of Least Resistance, Oiling the Squeaky Wheels, Placating the Noisy, Compromising to Achieve Consensus...blah, blah.
We've all seen this approach in the past and it doesn't work.
The hard decisions (Class C) aren't taken and, in the long run, the pain is much worse than if a bit of courage had been demonstrated from the outset.
As was the case with the G Airspace trial, Airspace 2000, son of Airspace 2000 and NAS - all of which were tried when Airservices had regulatory responsibility - and the latest cluster, when CASA now has that responsibility, grief is the inevitable outcome of what, in my opinion, is of a lack of guts.
Trying to please everyone doesn't work. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that message hasn't got through.
The decision should have been 'Class C; live with it, I'm the Regulator and no correspondence will be entered into.' There would have been an inevitable stoush but, by now, it would be history.
Instead, what have we got? A replication of all lessons from the past that weren't learned, and a larger level of grief than was necessary. And, ongoing dispute that could have been killed off before we got to this state.
Ah Mr 'P'..... I thought you HAD retired.......
Well, consider the first publication of CTAFs and MBZs.....Waaay back in '91 was it?
Or was that one of the '93 'improvements' ?
I can't remember no more.....
MBZs....15nm rad., up to and inc. 5,000ft AGL......
CTAFs.... 5nm rad., up to and inc. 3,000ft AGL......
So theeeere we all were, the 'bugsmashers' amongst us that is,
looking at the ELEVATION of those various aerodromes, and adding the appropriate 'AGL' to get the 'ALT' thru which we would pass thru or over....
'Tis still a crock........
Well, consider the first publication of CTAFs and MBZs.....Waaay back in '91 was it?
Or was that one of the '93 'improvements' ?
I can't remember no more.....
MBZs....15nm rad., up to and inc. 5,000ft AGL......
CTAFs.... 5nm rad., up to and inc. 3,000ft AGL......
So theeeere we all were, the 'bugsmashers' amongst us that is,
looking at the ELEVATION of those various aerodromes, and adding the appropriate 'AGL' to get the 'ALT' thru which we would pass thru or over....
'Tis still a crock........
That was MTAFs. MBZs were later. Then they were all CTAFs but were still a zone. Then some of the CTAFs become manatory zones. A little G demo thrown in there. At the same time CTAFs became a concept, not thing. Then Dick's biscuits took over. Then Dick's biscuits were removed. Now we have what I am going to guess will be called ETAFs (the mandatory broadcast zones in E airspace).
Um, what was the question again? This is all sounding like a bad dream, a bad dream like EUORVISION which is on tonight OMG!!!!
Um, what was the question again? This is all sounding like a bad dream, a bad dream like EUORVISION which is on tonight OMG!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GRIFFO,
You are wide of the mark - way wide. Speculation, as to identity, doesn't serve any purpose.
Arguments stand, or fall, on merit. I know you appreciate that. Let's just go with the facts Buddy.
You are wide of the mark - way wide. Speculation, as to identity, doesn't serve any purpose.
Arguments stand, or fall, on merit. I know you appreciate that. Let's just go with the facts Buddy.
OCTA can operate up to and including the base level as depicted on the map.
You quote Australia, ICAO and the rest of the world is out of step --- again.
As I said, the ICAO SARP is that the whole of the volume of "controlled airspace", right to the boundary, is available to aircraft in that airspace. For vertical buffers, ICAO quote a figure in meters, that is rounded off to 700'.
Our AIP does quote navigation tolerances for aircraft in G to ensure that lateral boundaries of controlled airspace are not infringed. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of many of our airspace boundaries, VCA are a very common occurrence.
In my experience, vertical limits are always in AMSL on charts, not AGL.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Last time I looked at the London area chart, outside the zone, the first TMA base was 1200 AGL to the SE.