NAS rears its head again
As to operating to the top (including the CTA LL) of Class G, I have seen the following quoted:
AIP ENR 1.4 paragraph 1.1.7
I don't have a copy with me, so someone might have to check it out.
AIP ENR 1.4 paragraph 1.1.7
I don't have a copy with me, so someone might have to check it out.
Okay, back to the AIP SUP.....
The ICAO Definition of a "Broadcast" is:
So, by definition, our VFR's broadcast goes out and a response is not required .. as it isn't directed at anyone.
Then, our VFR has to maintain 2 way comms with AV ... but no procedure for establishing 2-way comms has been published.
By mixing their terms, they are trying to get around the fact that they have established D/C ... not E.
In fact, what they have done is created an utterly unacceptable ambiguity.
What happens if the VFR doesn't get a reply from AV TWR, which, according to ICAO, he shouldn't expect anyway?
What they need to do is re-write the AIP SUP to say ... you must "Contact" the TWR.
You can't have it both ways CASA.
a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions;
A transmission of information relating to air navigation that is not addressed to a specific station or stations (ICAO)
Then, our VFR has to maintain 2 way comms with AV ... but no procedure for establishing 2-way comms has been published.
By mixing their terms, they are trying to get around the fact that they have established D/C ... not E.
In fact, what they have done is created an utterly unacceptable ambiguity.
What happens if the VFR doesn't get a reply from AV TWR, which, according to ICAO, he shouldn't expect anyway?
What they need to do is re-write the AIP SUP to say ... you must "Contact" the TWR.
You can't have it both ways CASA.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I just wanted CASA to allow the RAA to issue controlled airspace training+endorsements. Instead they've bent over backwards to rename controlled airspace class E. Now I can fly in it and legally I don't even need the extra instruction! 
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
Incoming CASA Blurb.
- NFC 172/04 - Preamble
- Annex A - Summary of Responses
- Annex B - Final Changes
- Annex C - Safety Statement
Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures
Background
On 19 February 2010, CASA released for public comment NPC 172/04 Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures.
The objective of the NPC was primarily to seek comment on proposed changes to regulations and aeronautical information relating to:
- introducing Class D procedures styled on those used in the United States of America at existing General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) aerodromes;
- aligning procedures for existing Class D aerodromes with those to be introduced at the former GAAP aerodromes;
addressing findings of the 2008 ICAO USOAP audit with respect to wake turbulence and visual separation requirements; and - correcting a number of obsolete or non-standard entries in MOS Part 172.
Purpose
The purpose of this NFC is to provide details of comments received on the NPC, to provide CASA’s response to those comments, and to list the final changes to be made to MOS Part 172 and the Australian AIP, resulting from the NPC consultation process.
Additional information
Contact Jan Goosen, MOS Part 172 Project Manger
When will you sycophant fundamentalists ever get the message:
It's been proven to be proven!! 
bla bla bla... moves Australia
even closer to the proven USA system of airspace management at controlled aerodromes.
even closer to the proven USA system of airspace management at controlled aerodromes.
After a brief reading of the NFC, a few observations pop into my mind:
Just like their standardisation policy at Avalon and BRM/KTA Class E Airspaces
That could not possibly be due to changes in GA activity or economic times?
Maybe I'm just slow, but I can see the potential for misunderstandings and ambiguities. Have I just got a clearance? Should I wait for a full one?
Why can't they bite the bullet and just say " a clearance shall be assumed to be received when a Class D Tower Controller provides you with an onwards instruction"... fullstop. They always want to have 50c each way.
Two issues ... (1) when will I know that I'm going to be re-directed back to an approach point ... when I have just navigated 10nm around to a more appropriate entry point for my operation?
(2) Fifty bucks it very quickly becomes the 'standard way'
I'm becoming too cynical, I know,
and I hope it all works as planned. Time will tell.
4.3 CASA intends to follow through with the proposal to apply common standard procedures for all Class D aerodromes; be they former GAAP or original Class D. CASA believes there will be a positive safety and operational efficiency outcome from this decision by virtue of standardisation and fewer variations in operating procedures between different locations.
Based on statistics from the time (ed: when 500ft from cloud was required), GAAP aerodromes handled as many if not more aircraft than is currently the case. This seems to imply that changed VMC criteria does not automatically imply a reduced operational throughput at former GAAP aerodromes.
Under the proposed change, ATC response could (but not always) be as simple as instructing the pilot to report at a particular location. The proposal does not eliminate the availability of the traditional method where indicated, but provides an abbreviated clearance option for use where there exists mutual pilot-ATC understanding of a proposed course of action.
Why can't they bite the bullet and just say " a clearance shall be assumed to be received when a Class D Tower Controller provides you with an onwards instruction"... fullstop. They always want to have 50c each way.
....to provide pilots with greater operational flexibility by allowing aircraft to approach a Class D aerodrome from any direction rather than having to approach via a particular point which may require the pilot to deviate off the direct track. The option exists for ATC to dictate a particular arrival route; however, CASA expects that this would only occur when actual traffic conditions dictate, rather than because it is the ‘standard way’.
(2) Fifty bucks it very quickly becomes the 'standard way'
I'm becoming too cynical, I know,
and I hope it all works as planned. Time will tell.
As far as GAAP to D, I just wish I had an old VFG. The new procedures sound so much like the old pre-GAAP secondary aerodrome procedures.
Now here is where I do want a clarification. At MB, because of the two fingers of hangar line taxiways. I do not need a taxi clearance until I want to access Alpha or Golf taxiways...is that correct?
Because...the tower cannot see me?
Now here is where I do want a clarification. At MB, because of the two fingers of hangar line taxiways. I do not need a taxi clearance until I want to access Alpha or Golf taxiways...is that correct?
Because...the tower cannot see me?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, how predictable, as predicted some time back:
Annex C - Safety Statement (posted by Frank above)
1. Executive Summary
1.1 In better aligning rules and procedures at Class D aerodromes (including those
using General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP)) with those used in the USA, Australia is moving towards the proven USA National Airspace System (NAS), whilst standardising the two disparate sets of rules which exist for Class D airspace in Australia. (my underlining).
As I stated in a post way back (10 April), Blind Freddy could have seen this one coming. I think that the language that relates to the 'proven' USA blah, blah is a dead-set giveaway. My 10 April post:
The next stage, and this is just my take and my reading of the tea-leaves (but we got it right on 'standardised' Class D), will be the conversion of overlying C to overlying E in the interests of, you guessed it, 'standardisation!'
Annex C - Safety Statement (posted by Frank above)
1. Executive Summary
1.1 In better aligning rules and procedures at Class D aerodromes (including those
using General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP)) with those used in the USA, Australia is moving towards the proven USA National Airspace System (NAS), whilst standardising the two disparate sets of rules which exist for Class D airspace in Australia. (my underlining).
As I stated in a post way back (10 April), Blind Freddy could have seen this one coming. I think that the language that relates to the 'proven' USA blah, blah is a dead-set giveaway. My 10 April post:
From where I stand there's an admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning with this plan that goes like this:
"We are getting E over D at BME and KTA. The directive is already out to convert GAAP to E over US D, and AV will be the same without any additional pot-stirring or lobbying on our part. Do not rock the boat at this stage - no need.
"Once we have these changes locked down, we then go into lobby mode. We point out that we now have a 'totally confusing' system, whereby we now have two completely different sets of procedures and airspace types operating across the 'non-major' airports. At BME, KTA, AV and all the ex-GAAPs, we have, 'safe,' 'proven' US airspace. Yet at places like AY, LT, HB, TW, AS, etc, etc we have 'unique' Australian, 'Galapagos' D with overlying C. Surely this is at the very least confusing and non-standardised, and at the very worst, dangerous.
"The obvious solution Minister (sucker), is to reclassify all those other ports as E over US D for 'standardisation.' Otherwise, the confusion will generate incidents/accidents and, Minister, 'you'll have blood on your hands,' or something equally dramatic - there's a certain amount of form here going back to NAS. The pressure will also be applied via the media, who don't know any better, and the gullible couch potato that is well-informed through his reading of the Tele and seeing 'aviation experts' on A Current Affair.
Believe me boys and girls, who drive the regionals and the heavy metal going into places like Coffs, Albury, Alice, Hobart, Launy and all those others, you're in the gun-sights and are about to be comprehensively snookered unless you get it in a pile right now.
If you don't, you'll be mixing it with uncontrolled VFR traffic to all of those 'country' destinations to which you fly.
As I said, in my opinion an 'admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning,' I dips my lid. But don't wake up one morning and claim you didn't see it coming - it will be too late!
"We are getting E over D at BME and KTA. The directive is already out to convert GAAP to E over US D, and AV will be the same without any additional pot-stirring or lobbying on our part. Do not rock the boat at this stage - no need.
"Once we have these changes locked down, we then go into lobby mode. We point out that we now have a 'totally confusing' system, whereby we now have two completely different sets of procedures and airspace types operating across the 'non-major' airports. At BME, KTA, AV and all the ex-GAAPs, we have, 'safe,' 'proven' US airspace. Yet at places like AY, LT, HB, TW, AS, etc, etc we have 'unique' Australian, 'Galapagos' D with overlying C. Surely this is at the very least confusing and non-standardised, and at the very worst, dangerous.
"The obvious solution Minister (sucker), is to reclassify all those other ports as E over US D for 'standardisation.' Otherwise, the confusion will generate incidents/accidents and, Minister, 'you'll have blood on your hands,' or something equally dramatic - there's a certain amount of form here going back to NAS. The pressure will also be applied via the media, who don't know any better, and the gullible couch potato that is well-informed through his reading of the Tele and seeing 'aviation experts' on A Current Affair.
Believe me boys and girls, who drive the regionals and the heavy metal going into places like Coffs, Albury, Alice, Hobart, Launy and all those others, you're in the gun-sights and are about to be comprehensively snookered unless you get it in a pile right now.
If you don't, you'll be mixing it with uncontrolled VFR traffic to all of those 'country' destinations to which you fly.
As I said, in my opinion an 'admirable degree of ratsh*t cunning,' I dips my lid. But don't wake up one morning and claim you didn't see it coming - it will be too late!
Last edited by Howabout; 1st Jun 2010 at 10:00.
ARFOR,
From memory, the "700' below" is in Annex 10, Vol.2 as a recommendation, not a standard, and thus, what I have said is not inconsistent with what you have quoted.
Tootle pip!!
From memory, the "700' below" is in Annex 10, Vol.2 as a recommendation, not a standard, and thus, what I have said is not inconsistent with what you have quoted.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My simple view, with 30+ years of RPT experience, is that the airspace system is wrong. The current Avalon mess will be the final straw, where innocent people are going to be hurt. E outside of radar is an attempt to standardise E airspace. The ridiculous size of the D control zones for jet operations to mix with VFR light aircraft show's a lack of operational experience in the design phase.
The time has come for a Royal Commision into the whole sorry affair, especially to account for the wastage of public money and the lack of safety for the travelling public.
The time has come for a Royal Commision into the whole sorry affair, especially to account for the wastage of public money and the lack of safety for the travelling public.
Last edited by Dog One; 2nd Jun 2010 at 11:44.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS study
Just my take, but it seems the original report has been re-written subsequent to 'industry feedback' - I still have the original.
What is intriguing is a reference in the (apparently revised) report that lists the following feedback from 'industry' - for the life of me, I cannot imagine which section of 'industry' made the comment referenced below. It then goes on to record possible, future CASA options with respect to E over D. As follows:
(My underlining and bolding)
And the CASA response (this is in the Executive Summary) is as follows. Keep reading, it gets interesting:
Well, well, and to quote Gomer Pyle, SURPRISE! SURPRISE! (Sergeant Carter).
Now, bear in mind that this AS report was released in January this year and, it seems to me, amended to take account of 'industry feedback' some time later. I have absolutely no beef with that process - that goes to consultation and transparency.
However, the report was released in January and justifies the 'possible' reclassification of C over D, to E over a reduced D, based on the Airspace Policy Statement from 2007.
That statement was superseded by the statement effective from 1 January 2010, and released on 16 December 2009, which stated the following:
Nothing, nada, which says NAS must be the end-state. Only that NAS must must be considered as part of the mix - French, German, NZ, Upper Volta, Ethiopia, etc, etc. It is merely an example in the 2010 document as to where we should look for 'best practice.'
My question is as follows:
Why does a CASA report, released in January 2010, and (it seems to me) subsequently amended, refer to the 2007 Airspace Policy Statement as the authority when the Minister released a revised statement on 16 December 2009 that was effective from 1 January 2010?
The CASA release date on their study is 21 January 2010, a good 5 weeks after the revised statement was released, yet the only reference to direction is the 2007 statement. There is not a mention of the 2010 statement.
I'll give you all another prediction. The first cab off the rank, in the interests of 'standardisation,' wont be AS; it will be YMAY. Why? Because it's regional, out of the way, and will be judged to cause the least grief to prove the 'concept.'
What is intriguing is a reference in the (apparently revised) report that lists the following feedback from 'industry' - for the life of me, I cannot imagine which section of 'industry' made the comment referenced below. It then goes on to record possible, future CASA options with respect to E over D. As follows:
That the study did not address the Governments policy to pursue reform of the airspace as detailed within the AAPS 2007. It was considered by the
respondent that the existing airspace design surrounding the aerodrome,
without adequate means of surveillance, was ineffective in addressing the
level of risk and that the study required further review to incorporate
comparison of the level of safety that Class E airspace might offer over
existing Class C airspace.
respondent that the existing airspace design surrounding the aerodrome,
without adequate means of surveillance, was ineffective in addressing the
level of risk and that the study required further review to incorporate
comparison of the level of safety that Class E airspace might offer over
existing Class C airspace.
And the CASA response (this is in the Executive Summary) is as follows. Keep reading, it gets interesting:
The opportunity to review the Alice Springs airspace architecture in
accordance with the AAPS 2007 remains. As detailed in the AAPS 2007
the Government requires CASA to assess the remaining United States
National Airspace System (NAS) Characteristics for application in
Australian airspace and determine an implementation plan. For Alice
Springs this broadly requires review of the safety benefit of existing Class
C airspace steps overhead Alice Springs versus possible reclassification
of those steps to Class E airspace. Below any proposed Class E airspace
the Class D control zone (CTR) would also be subject to review to a lower
level than currently exists......
accordance with the AAPS 2007 remains. As detailed in the AAPS 2007
the Government requires CASA to assess the remaining United States
National Airspace System (NAS) Characteristics for application in
Australian airspace and determine an implementation plan. For Alice
Springs this broadly requires review of the safety benefit of existing Class
C airspace steps overhead Alice Springs versus possible reclassification
of those steps to Class E airspace. Below any proposed Class E airspace
the Class D control zone (CTR) would also be subject to review to a lower
level than currently exists......
Now, bear in mind that this AS report was released in January this year and, it seems to me, amended to take account of 'industry feedback' some time later. I have absolutely no beef with that process - that goes to consultation and transparency.
However, the report was released in January and justifies the 'possible' reclassification of C over D, to E over a reduced D, based on the Airspace Policy Statement from 2007.
That statement was superseded by the statement effective from 1 January 2010, and released on 16 December 2009, which stated the following:
The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government's airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
My question is as follows:
Why does a CASA report, released in January 2010, and (it seems to me) subsequently amended, refer to the 2007 Airspace Policy Statement as the authority when the Minister released a revised statement on 16 December 2009 that was effective from 1 January 2010?
The CASA release date on their study is 21 January 2010, a good 5 weeks after the revised statement was released, yet the only reference to direction is the 2007 statement. There is not a mention of the 2010 statement.
I'll give you all another prediction. The first cab off the rank, in the interests of 'standardisation,' wont be AS; it will be YMAY. Why? Because it's regional, out of the way, and will be judged to cause the least grief to prove the 'concept.'
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Coral,
You're dead right.
I post again what I said 5 days ago:
You're dead right.
I post again what I said 5 days ago:
I just hope it isn't reminiscent of that inspired initiative that was dear to all of our hearts - the Class G 'airspace trial.' No sooner had it started than we were hit by a plethora (Paco, what is a plethora? Oh , Guapo, etc) of NOTAMs to correct omissions that weren't previously thought of. IMHO that was a giant cluster and this is shaping up the same.
Below any proposed Class E airspace the Class D control zone (CTR) would also be subject to review to a lower level than currently exists......
If so, ... what would they downgrade it to? Class G?
Is it that quiet there?
Don't the NASTRONAUTS say that the airspace above can't be a higher category than the terminal one ... as that is where the greatest risk is?
Last edited by peuce; 2nd Jun 2010 at 12:23. Reason: So I can understand what I'm trying to say
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce you seem so caught up in hysterics that you cannot see the blatantly obvious.
You class E deniers have become so myopic. Just because an airport is not Class D it does not mean it has to be Class G. How about class E?
You class E deniers have become so myopic. Just because an airport is not Class D it does not mean it has to be Class G. How about class E?
How about class E?
Why on earth would anybody want E over an airfield if there wasn't enough traffic to justify D?
You NAStronauts have nothing credible to base your arguments on except "that's the way they do it in the US".
At least the boys at CASA have seen through you lot and are inventing their own airspace structure to keep the "show on the road".
Peuce you seem so caught up in hysterics that you cannot see the blatantly obvious.
But, in hindsight, that may have been an error
Just because an airport is not Class D it does not mean it has to be Class G. How about class E?
For obvious reasons .......
That nips that one in the bud.
Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 3rd Jun 2010 at 07:33.
