NAS rears its head again
Lead and Dick
It might be appropriate for everyone on this forum to be appraised of your views given recent events - I am asking the question in the hope that (particularly) you two can give a considered opinion at this juncture.
The one-sided spleen venting is almost getting to the "yadda, yadda" stage, a touch of "debate" might be appropriate?
Just a`sayin...and I would like to think you know I`m not "fishing"
, you would certainly be aware as to where I stand given my previous posts.
In the event of a response hopefully this leads to some (quasi-civil???) discussion? Y`all?
OAR, watch this space...
It might be appropriate for everyone on this forum to be appraised of your views given recent events - I am asking the question in the hope that (particularly) you two can give a considered opinion at this juncture.
The one-sided spleen venting is almost getting to the "yadda, yadda" stage, a touch of "debate" might be appropriate?
Just a`sayin...and I would like to think you know I`m not "fishing"
, you would certainly be aware as to where I stand given my previous posts.In the event of a response hopefully this leads to some (quasi-civil???) discussion? Y`all?
OAR, watch this space...
Pottering through Casa's airpsace design manual A C 2 5 1 (as you do on a Sunday night...) I found this little gem:
Which would indicate that OAR has Ledsled working in their drafting team.
In fact, the whole of section 15.4 (Cost Benefit) is farcical. Class D not appropriate for Melbourne. You don't say.
15.4.1 Class A airspace is not intended to provide a higher level of safety than Class D airspace per se.
In fact, the whole of section 15.4 (Cost Benefit) is farcical. Class D not appropriate for Melbourne. You don't say.
A few more from AC251, some bolding by moi (comments and elaboration probably superfluous) - I think they inadvertently left out the new "E+" airspace category???
risk, and is a first step in ensuring that the residual risks are ALARP.
15.3.6
Those portions of airspace wherein it is determined that an air traffic control service
will also be provided to VFR flights shall be designated as Classes B, C or D airspace.
will also be provided to VFR flights shall be designated as Classes B, C or D airspace.
15.3.7
Note that an ‘air traffic control service’ does not imply a separation service.
15.3.8
The particular criterion differentiating CTA classes is the provision of ATC service
to VFR flights. If it is NOT intended to provide ATC to VFR, then the options are:
to VFR flights. If it is NOT intended to provide ATC to VFR, then the options are:
•
Class A airspace (such as in high level CTA), which excludes VFR (the exclusion
of VFR could be due to the deliberate policy choice, or because the available VFR
aircraft lack the performance to access that airspace); or
of VFR could be due to the deliberate policy choice, or because the available VFR
aircraft lack the performance to access that airspace); or
•
Class E, which is usually used for lower level CTA (i.e. below F180 in Australia).
VFR flights are permitted, but only receive traffic information ‘as far as is
practical’, i.e. the unit providing ATC service need not and may not be resourced to
routinely provide traffic information.
VFR flights are permitted, but only receive traffic information ‘as far as is
practical’, i.e. the unit providing ATC service need not and may not be resourced to
routinely provide traffic information.
15.3.9
Class E must not be used for control zones, i.e. airspace extending up from the
surface, usually associated with aerodrome traffic.
surface, usually associated with aerodrome traffic.
15.3.10
If an ATC service is to be provided to VFR flights, classification options range
from Class B down to D:
from Class B down to D:
•
Class B - VFR flights are treated the same as IFR, and all flights are separated;
•
Class C - VFR flights are separated from IFR flights; and
•
Class D - only IFR flights are separated.
15.3.11
The defining element is the degree to which visual ‘see-and avoid’ is integrated into
the airspace traffic management plan. This dictates the degree to which traffic information
and collision avoidance advice is prescribed to support clearances in preventing collisions
and expediting an orderly flow of air traffic.
the airspace traffic management plan. This dictates the degree to which traffic information
and collision avoidance advice is prescribed to support clearances in preventing collisions
and expediting an orderly flow of air traffic.
15.4.2
The class of airspace chosen will be that which best reduces the level of risk to As
Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
15.4.3
The role of risk assessment in the CTA design/classification process is such that:
•
quantitative (and qualitative) analysis must support the introduction of an ATC
service on the grounds of reducing unacceptable risks to an acceptable level; and
service on the grounds of reducing unacceptable risks to an acceptable level; and
•
the nature of the hazards, and the resulting risks, in specific areas will largely
derive from the traffic mix, and will indicate which class of airspace will best
reduce the risks to an acceptable level.
derive from the traffic mix, and will indicate which class of airspace will best
reduce the risks to an acceptable level.
15.4.4
The class of airspace dictates the nature of the ATC service provided.
15.4.8
Generally, a higher classification requires more resources which results in higher
costs. Cost Benefit Analysis calculates whether the expenditure is matched by a reduction in
costs. Cost Benefit Analysis calculates whether the expenditure is matched by a reduction in
risk, and is a first step in ensuring that the residual risks are ALARP.
15.4.2
The class of airspace chosen will be that which best reduces the level of risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
The class of airspace chosen will be that which best reduces the level of risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
How do you define "best"?
I bet we all have our own definition of that.... easiest? cheapest?
I think they inadvertently left out the new "E+" airspace category???
They always give themselves an out ...
6.2 Airspace design not derived from these principles may be approved by CASA, if it is demonstrated that an acceptable level of risk can be maintained and the variation will benefit airspace users
15.1.1
The designation and classification of controlled airspace must comply with the
Airspace Management Principles, which derive from the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Airspace Act 2007, and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS). They are detailed in the OAR Operating Manual, and include:
Safety: Regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
The designation and classification of controlled airspace must comply with the
Airspace Management Principles, which derive from the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Airspace Act 2007, and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS). They are detailed in the OAR Operating Manual, and include:
Safety: Regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
26. The Government expects that CASA will continue the reform of Australia‟s airspace and move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice.
......
39 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.
40 ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) also provide an important basis for airspace administration. The airspace strategy requires any deviations from ICAO SARPs to be well justified, documented, and formally notified to ICAO as a difference.
......
39 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.
40 ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs) also provide an important basis for airspace administration. The airspace strategy requires any deviations from ICAO SARPs to be well justified, documented, and formally notified to ICAO as a difference.
You're getting 'warmer' Cap'n.......
It's all about the $$'s.......
It's always been about the $$'s.
The 'Core Business' is the 'servicing' of en route air nav chargeable CTA - Because that's where the biggest $$'s are....and to do that function as 'automated' as is possible is the 'manager's dream'....
Re quote; "If it is NOT intended to provide ATC to VFR, then the options are:
(15.3.8 Konstantin)
"the unit providing ATC service need not and may not be resourced to
routinely provide traffic information."
Self explanatory IMHO. VFR do not generate income.
Except in very small areas where the en route charges may be imposed -
e.g. - 'E +' - where the VFR is required to broadcast or contact the tower administering that airspace. (?)
But not serviced from the Centre.
Only serviced from the local attached tower where 'location specific' charges may be levied.....
Let's see how that pans out......
It's all about the $$'s.......
It's always been about the $$'s.
The 'Core Business' is the 'servicing' of en route air nav chargeable CTA - Because that's where the biggest $$'s are....and to do that function as 'automated' as is possible is the 'manager's dream'....
Re quote; "If it is NOT intended to provide ATC to VFR, then the options are:
(15.3.8 Konstantin)
"the unit providing ATC service need not and may not be resourced to
routinely provide traffic information."
Self explanatory IMHO. VFR do not generate income.
Except in very small areas where the en route charges may be imposed -
e.g. - 'E +' - where the VFR is required to broadcast or contact the tower administering that airspace. (?)
But not serviced from the Centre.
Only serviced from the local attached tower where 'location specific' charges may be levied.....
Let's see how that pans out......
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 14th Jun 2010 at 07:00.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice day for a punch-up on cable beach tomorrow 
My money is on Bloggs et al
eeeewww ... I know .... lets not fire up the mincy indians and all that
FIGHT FIGHT
My money is on Bloggs et al
eeeewww ... I know .... lets not fire up the mincy indians and all that
FIGHT FIGHT
Last edited by The Chaser; 15th Jun 2010 at 02:44.
Fait accompli - the standard CASA response to the majority of comments submitted in relation to the OAR Airspace Change Proposal for Broome and Karratha;
CASA Response
Airspace changes are required to be made in compliance with the principles contained within the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010. Whilst safety remains paramount the airspace access and efficiency need to be taken into account. The risk assessment at these locations indicate that the airspace model proposed provides adequate safety for the operations involved together with improved access to VFR aircraft whilst allowing ATC to operate efficiently. The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence.
The airspace model conforms to all the requirements to contain the operation of Category D aircraft within the control zone. The surrounding airspace is also designed to capture RPT jet aircraft operations, including holding patterns
Airservices’ argument that their model of Tower services to 4,500 ft AMSL delivers the required efficiencies is supported in principle by CASA in this instance. The airspace classification should not change this situation.
Please refer Advisory CircularAC 2-5-1(0) and the AAPS 2010
And this is the template response with respect to the last few comments submitted;
CASA has accepted in principle Airservices’ airspace management model for the airspace, namely, that their model of Tower services to 4,500 ft AMSL delivers the required efficiencies.
Airservices’ will apply their SMS to the implementation process to identify and mitigate identified risks.
It`s all there in terms of ideological principle.
Sorry, no link.
CASA Response
Airspace changes are required to be made in compliance with the principles contained within the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010. Whilst safety remains paramount the airspace access and efficiency need to be taken into account. The risk assessment at these locations indicate that the airspace model proposed provides adequate safety for the operations involved together with improved access to VFR aircraft whilst allowing ATC to operate efficiently. The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence.
The airspace model conforms to all the requirements to contain the operation of Category D aircraft within the control zone. The surrounding airspace is also designed to capture RPT jet aircraft operations, including holding patterns
Airservices’ argument that their model of Tower services to 4,500 ft AMSL delivers the required efficiencies is supported in principle by CASA in this instance. The airspace classification should not change this situation.
Please refer Advisory CircularAC 2-5-1(0) and the AAPS 2010
And this is the template response with respect to the last few comments submitted;
CASA has accepted in principle Airservices’ airspace management model for the airspace, namely, that their model of Tower services to 4,500 ft AMSL delivers the required efficiencies.
Airservices’ will apply their SMS to the implementation process to identify and mitigate identified risks.
It`s all there in terms of ideological principle.
Sorry, no link.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, the regulator [CASA], whilst re-writing the rules to suit the political agenda, have sucked in the fools in suits at the ANSP to wear the fall out.
So they think
The GM ATC [like the GM Safety.. ] is not that silly .... we hope
So they think
The GM ATC [like the GM Safety.. ] is not that silly .... we hope
Last edited by The Chaser; 14th Jun 2010 at 22:46. Reason: typo
Well done Mr 'K',
Re "The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence."
A 'tempo' measure pending improved surveillance = Tower RADAR later??
And in God we Trust.....that all of the 'locals' are fitted with serviceable transponders....
Re "The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence."
A 'tempo' measure pending improved surveillance = Tower RADAR later??
And in God we Trust.....that all of the 'locals' are fitted with serviceable transponders....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, NAS is the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Despite claims that Class E is copying the USA airspace classification, to my mind there are some fundamental issues with flying in the USA that aren’t replicated in Australia. First, I can’t think of one airport in the USA with Class B or Class C airspace where VFR flights are not available within that airspace. Phoenix has VFR passageways over the top at low level. LAX is the same. Request access to any particular region within Class B and C airspace in the USA and the controllers seem to go out of their way to meet your request.
Yet, here in Australia, capital city controlled airspace is so inflexible at low level that it is a VFR no-fly zone. I’ll go one step further and say that unless you’re landing or departing from the central airport within that control zone, then getting clearance through the airspace in the immediate vicinity of that airport for any aircraft VFR or IFR is almost impossible. The effect of this is devastating to the GA industry centred around capital city primary airports, which seems to account for much of the GA industry in Australia. NAS will do nothing at all for the plight of GA operators. The political expediency of noise abatement tracks is killing GA by saturating blocks of airspace with airline traffic. Australian ATC around capital cities can’t accommodate GA operations and NAS will do nothing to change this and possibly even exacerbate it.
The proponents for NAS make a big deal about US ATC smirking at Australian traffic levels and airspace procedures. Let’s put a block of Australian noise abatement tracks and procedural requirements to “share the noise” over similar US airports and see what the outcome would be with VFR accommodations. Noise abatement procedures are in place at many US airports, but at nowhere near the extent or complexity as similar airports in Australia. Compare apples to apples.
The ability to fly VFR, no clearance required at altitude over Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, etc? Big deal! There are very few pilots who will be in a position to take advantage of this. It doesn’t help out the operators under the airspace in any fashion at all.
As for Class E in rural areas: ask yourselves who benefits from this. Airspace that was Class G, uncontrolled airspace, is now going to Class E, controlled airspace. And this benefits General Aviation how? Oh! Class E is uncontrolled for VFR. Yeah right! Don’t kid yourselves. The only beneficiaries of this change are the airlines, despite the rhetoric.
Yet, here in Australia, capital city controlled airspace is so inflexible at low level that it is a VFR no-fly zone. I’ll go one step further and say that unless you’re landing or departing from the central airport within that control zone, then getting clearance through the airspace in the immediate vicinity of that airport for any aircraft VFR or IFR is almost impossible. The effect of this is devastating to the GA industry centred around capital city primary airports, which seems to account for much of the GA industry in Australia. NAS will do nothing at all for the plight of GA operators. The political expediency of noise abatement tracks is killing GA by saturating blocks of airspace with airline traffic. Australian ATC around capital cities can’t accommodate GA operations and NAS will do nothing to change this and possibly even exacerbate it.
The proponents for NAS make a big deal about US ATC smirking at Australian traffic levels and airspace procedures. Let’s put a block of Australian noise abatement tracks and procedural requirements to “share the noise” over similar US airports and see what the outcome would be with VFR accommodations. Noise abatement procedures are in place at many US airports, but at nowhere near the extent or complexity as similar airports in Australia. Compare apples to apples.
The ability to fly VFR, no clearance required at altitude over Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, etc? Big deal! There are very few pilots who will be in a position to take advantage of this. It doesn’t help out the operators under the airspace in any fashion at all.
As for Class E in rural areas: ask yourselves who benefits from this. Airspace that was Class G, uncontrolled airspace, is now going to Class E, controlled airspace. And this benefits General Aviation how? Oh! Class E is uncontrolled for VFR. Yeah right! Don’t kid yourselves. The only beneficiaries of this change are the airlines, despite the rhetoric.