NAS rears its head again
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lawyers go where the cash is. If a private lightie, for whatever reason e.g. lack of understanding, lack of due diligence, etc, causes an accident there is no big payday for the lawyers. They need to attribute a % of the blame to the entity with the most money/insurance. Then make the total figure payable large enough to make that % of the blame big enough to fund the exercise.
Furthermore, if a controller believes that the procedures they are required to implement are inherently dangerous through which Court would they challenge this. If the controller refuses to work as instructed this would most likely end up in Industrial Court. Who would have exactly what expertise in Aviation? This would most likely have to be funded by Civilair.
The politics in this are astounding.
Furthermore, if a controller believes that the procedures they are required to implement are inherently dangerous through which Court would they challenge this. If the controller refuses to work as instructed this would most likely end up in Industrial Court. Who would have exactly what expertise in Aviation? This would most likely have to be funded by Civilair.
The politics in this are astounding.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World's best practices have turned to brown gravy, and when the fan is switched on, there will be a lot of ducking.
It is interesting to note both CASA and OAR's position in relation to E outside of radar, despite a lot of persuasion and politicking from the Nasuxers, who are pushing there own barrow, rather than the ultimate safety of hundred's of innoncent paying passengers.
Having been necessary to amend the rules to make E airspace a non standard broadcast area shows that instead of simplifying the airspace, it now has become more complicated, a complication that many weekend warriors will forget about and fly right through with out broadcasting.
Now that CASA and OAR have said that E outside of radar is dangerous because of the unknown element, it is time to rescind all E airspace outside of radar. Either make it C or G.
The D zone size is another rather bad joke. What is good for a Cessna 150, isn't for a jet for a number of reasons, including the safety of VFR traffic. With a flight time of less that 1 minute from boundary to the field, at the busiest part of the flight, the crew will have to respond to traffic information, visually scanning the flight path, radio calls and actually flying the aircraft.
One time we had controlled airspace and non controlled airspace. It all worked very well.
It is interesting to note both CASA and OAR's position in relation to E outside of radar, despite a lot of persuasion and politicking from the Nasuxers, who are pushing there own barrow, rather than the ultimate safety of hundred's of innoncent paying passengers.
Having been necessary to amend the rules to make E airspace a non standard broadcast area shows that instead of simplifying the airspace, it now has become more complicated, a complication that many weekend warriors will forget about and fly right through with out broadcasting.
Now that CASA and OAR have said that E outside of radar is dangerous because of the unknown element, it is time to rescind all E airspace outside of radar. Either make it C or G.
The D zone size is another rather bad joke. What is good for a Cessna 150, isn't for a jet for a number of reasons, including the safety of VFR traffic. With a flight time of less that 1 minute from boundary to the field, at the busiest part of the flight, the crew will have to respond to traffic information, visually scanning the flight path, radio calls and actually flying the aircraft.
One time we had controlled airspace and non controlled airspace. It all worked very well.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One time we had controlled airspace and non controlled airspace. It all worked very well.
Maybe I'm thick, but still I cannot reconcile E+ with CAR 100. Does anyone have a logical explanation that lets the two sit together without conflict?
Mr. H, I cannot resist the temptation;
HOWABOUT - Class E+, what is it?
CASA - It is a volume of airspace technically designated as CTA in which compliance with clearances is thus required by inference as per CAR100 - except that VFRs due to alphabet airspace procedures definition do not actually require a clearance to enter said airspace, nor are they required to be separated from IFR aircraft...but that`s not important right now.
HOWABOUT - Class E+, what is it?
CASA - It is a volume of airspace technically designated as CTA in which compliance with clearances is thus required by inference as per CAR100 - except that VFRs due to alphabet airspace procedures definition do not actually require a clearance to enter said airspace, nor are they required to be separated from IFR aircraft...but that`s not important right now.
mikk13, as we speak I can assure you that at least the physical staff transfers to BME are most definitely going ahead. People will be arriving from July for CAGRO famil/orientation and settling in etc.
How things evolve from there during the following months may ultimately be another matter, find a good crystal ball. If the "staff availability" you were referring to was in relation to enroute controller staffing in centres then, if it gets really critical, I am guessing BME will be a sideshow for them in the overall scheme of things.
Hypothetical - if in the worst case scenario the centre controllers can`t receive appropriate add-on training re the new E airspace steps for whatever reason then on an interim (heard that word before?) basis there could be G from F180 down to A045-ish??? Zey haff vays and means...
How things evolve from there during the following months may ultimately be another matter, find a good crystal ball. If the "staff availability" you were referring to was in relation to enroute controller staffing in centres then, if it gets really critical, I am guessing BME will be a sideshow for them in the overall scheme of things.
Hypothetical - if in the worst case scenario the centre controllers can`t receive appropriate add-on training re the new E airspace steps for whatever reason then on an interim (heard that word before?) basis there could be G from F180 down to A045-ish??? Zey haff vays and means...
G'Day Mr 'K',
A question for ya,
Will the new twr boys /gals at BME have dct co-ord links to BN centre to receive incoming tfc, and dep tfc advice etc?
I guess BN Cenwill be the administrator of the 'E' or whatever it turns out to be above the 'D' of the BME Twr airspace?
Cheers
A question for ya,
Will the new twr boys /gals at BME have dct co-ord links to BN centre to receive incoming tfc, and dep tfc advice etc?
I guess BN Cenwill be the administrator of the 'E' or whatever it turns out to be above the 'D' of the BME Twr airspace?
Cheers
Griffo
In this day and age one would surely presume so!
Don`t know which particular sector (not familiar with that enroute part of the world) but that is the general principle - eg the ML sector overlying AS is responsible down to the tops of AS Twr airspace.
Sorry, I can only offer generics on these.
Cheers K
Will the new twr boys /gals at BME have dct co-ord links to BN centre to receive incoming tfc, and dep tfc advice etc?
I guess BN Cen will be the administrator of the 'E' or whatever it turns out to be above the 'D' of the BME Twr airspace?
Sorry, I can only offer generics on these.
Cheers K
You did, Gaunty:
I suspect you overran the "that's where you go/techspurts" line... 
Children children,
Dear dear, Daddy goes away for a bit and the idiotology starts all over again.
In the big kids playground where we have to deal with Uncle Dicks fantasies the big kids work their way around it.
Our good friends at.
"Qantas will be conducting straight in approaches from 5 miles at non-towered airports - not 3 miles as permitted in recent amendments to CAR 166."
but hey what would Qantas know Dick.
In the mean time us big kids will continue to behave like, well, big kids.
Dear dear, Daddy goes away for a bit and the idiotology starts all over again.
In the big kids playground where we have to deal with Uncle Dicks fantasies the big kids work their way around it.
Our good friends at.
"Qantas will be conducting straight in approaches from 5 miles at non-towered airports - not 3 miles as permitted in recent amendments to CAR 166."
but hey what would Qantas know Dick.
In the mean time us big kids will continue to behave like, well, big kids.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that there are changes a-foot in the current proposed model; but no further amendments possible because of charting "date" issues... Now there is a familiar theme...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
True
And the broadcast zone is dropped
. But its still on at YMAV, so there is a common approach to airspace 
And its all temporary until they push through their original plan later on.
Not sure about consultation yielding any results, maybe Bloggs can confirm or deny this from the recent meeting. But I smell a bit of "half baked' deal here. Happy to be shown otherwise.
J
And the broadcast zone is dropped
. But its still on at YMAV, so there is a common approach to airspace And its all temporary until they push through their original plan later on.
Not sure about consultation yielding any results, maybe Bloggs can confirm or deny this from the recent meeting. But I smell a bit of "half baked' deal here. Happy to be shown otherwise.
J
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Flatter profile for the slipperies
- Tower Class D to A055 [As a start, an improvement over the earlier 'ideas']
- G below A055 outside Twr hours [As a start]
- Interim until surveillance - cost benefit???????
Just the start of this from my reading. There is still the little matters of lack of process, compliance and standards application
This process has only just begun
Keep on TRACON'n on
- Tower Class D to A055
[As a start, an improvement over the earlier 'ideas']- G below A055 outside Twr hours
[As a start]- Interim until surveillance
- cost benefit???????Just the start of this from my reading. There is still the little matters of lack of process, compliance and standards application
This process has only just begun
Keep on TRACON'n on
Agree ARFOR..the REAL airspace development starts now. The "surveillance" line is a good start...cost issues?...infrastructure, training, implimentation and revue...at least it will go along the line of resonable change with proper procedures in place rather than change and then write the ammendments to fill in the cracks.
My early exuberance is now mettered by a wary eye on future developments. At least TWR has had a HUGE burden lifted from their perview
My early exuberance is now mettered by a wary eye on future developments. At least TWR has had a HUGE burden lifted from their perview
- D still laterally embedded within E - so the elimination of the "broadcast area" achieves exactly what in practical terms with respect to assuring IFR/VFR separation?
- Tower now has airspace to A055 (vs A045) - standing ovation material, that one...
This seems nothing more than someone demonstrating they have "listened" to stakeholder input.
And they are quite specific about it being an interim measure.
And wait for the PIR, given no "Launy"-style woopsies what`s the bet there will be a rollback to the original proposal before surveillance is implemented?
Tactical "fiddling with the margins" here folks, that`s all.
- Tower now has airspace to A055 (vs A045) - standing ovation material, that one...
This seems nothing more than someone demonstrating they have "listened" to stakeholder input.
And they are quite specific about it being an interim measure.
And wait for the PIR, given no "Launy"-style woopsies what`s the bet there will be a rollback to the original proposal before surveillance is implemented?
Tactical "fiddling with the margins" here folks, that`s all.
Last edited by konstantin; 23rd Jun 2010 at 13:30. Reason: Removal of ambiguity
Apologies for the "torrent", but speaking of Launy check out this bit from the recent Launceston Airspace Review. Note that mainland regional centres are "different" - I just wonder whether that includes Broome which is without radar coverage above A045...as opposed to Launceston...
4.3.1 Class E over Class D for Launceston
Launceston airspace is classified Class D with Class C above 4,500 ft AMSL within 30
DME to the north and south of Launceston. The question as to whether Class E over
Class D airspace would provide a safer and more efficient outcome is simple. Given that
Class E presents a higher risk profile than Class C, without a marked changed in
efficiency, it is reasonable to maintain the status quo at Launceston.
Launceston airspace is classified Class D with Class C above 4,500 ft AMSL within 30
DME to the north and south of Launceston. The question as to whether Class E over
Class D airspace would provide a safer and more efficient outcome is simple. Given that
Class E presents a higher risk profile than Class C, without a marked changed in
efficiency, it is reasonable to maintain the status quo at Launceston.
Moving from Class C to Class E classification removes a significant safeguard against a
MAC. It also moves away from the premise of risk being maintained to ALARP principals.
MAC. It also moves away from the premise of risk being maintained to ALARP principals.
Different from regional centres on mainland Australia, Launceston has significant high
capacity jet traffic and an “unknown aircraft” (i.e. an aircraft not fitted with a functioning
transponder). This presents a risk profile for a MAC of extremely rare probability but a
catastrophic consequence.
capacity jet traffic and an “unknown aircraft” (i.e. an aircraft not fitted with a functioning
transponder). This presents a risk profile for a MAC of extremely rare probability but a
catastrophic consequence.
With the scenario of high capacity jet PT operations in mind,
the reviewers could not endorse the use of Class E over Class D airspace as enhancing
efficiency or safety.
the reviewers could not endorse the use of Class E over Class D airspace as enhancing
Konstantin..the first act was to releave the pressure on the tower guys...that issue has been ticked off. Tower guys will have positive control of ALL aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
Next on the list is a revisit to class E...and now that OAR has delivered E+ as a safer E and created a unique Australian airspace..like the rules of precedent..If E is not safe below 5500ft without surveillance, it is not safe ABOVE 5500ft without surveillance. Time for some serious training material designed by pilots for pilots!
Next on the list is a revisit to class E...and now that OAR has delivered E+ as a safer E and created a unique Australian airspace..like the rules of precedent..If E is not safe below 5500ft without surveillance, it is not safe ABOVE 5500ft without surveillance. Time for some serious training material designed by pilots for pilots!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The land down-under
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that serious training material doesn't come close to it. It's been seat of the pants airspace design, without effective consultation, amended in an ad hoc manner up to and beyond implementation (particularly in GAAP to D).
Someone's @rse needs kicking.
DNC
Someone's @rse needs kicking.
DNC
