NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep it coming ARFOR, you font of inconvenient truth you.
I have to correct a gross error that I made previously, otherwise I lose all cred - we must be fastidiously accurate. The entry on the last page has been amended, but in all conscience I must also post it in 'real time' and apologise to all. Mea Culpa.
In reference to NAS, the quote should have read:
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
I have to correct a gross error that I made previously, otherwise I lose all cred - we must be fastidiously accurate. The entry on the last page has been amended, but in all conscience I must also post it in 'real time' and apologise to all. Mea Culpa.
In reference to NAS, the quote should have read:
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
G'Day 'Jaba',
I feel that might be just to get you out of the way of everybody else, and so make the skies 'safer for all'......
(Hat, coat, door..........)
I feel that might be just to get you out of the way of everybody else, and so make the skies 'safer for all'......
(Hat, coat, door..........)
Ouch!
direct.no.speed
You ask
The “upside” of the plan (not my plan) is that we follow international airspace which allows the Controller to concentrate on the airspace where the accident is most likely to happen, ie. not upside down or reversed airspace.
Pretty simple – C over D is upside down. If indeed you need C in the link airspace where the risk of collision is less, you would then need B in the terminal airspace below.
The order that you people want is akin to building a large jet with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part of the wing, where it connects with the fuselage, inboard.
Of course when people pointed out this was “reversed”, you would say “oh well, it works, so why worry?”
But you will not mention the obvious. If we had C airspace provided with the proper tools and staffing, it would indeed be safer. However, we use large amounts of C airspace controlled by a single Controller in the D airspace below. This is the reason other countries have E above D. They wish to allocate their safety resources effectively, and don’t want the concentration of a Controller in D airspace close to the runway to be affected by having to provide a Class C service at the same time when the risk of collision is far less.
It’s what we call common sense, and it happens to comply with science. So why wouldn’t you act on it?
No, I know the answer. “We have done it upside down in the past, and that’s the way we’re gunna keep doing it”.
The change CASA is proposing is better because it will reduce the chance of mid air's by moving resources to where the risk is greater
You ask
what is the upside to your plan Dick
Pretty simple – C over D is upside down. If indeed you need C in the link airspace where the risk of collision is less, you would then need B in the terminal airspace below.
The order that you people want is akin to building a large jet with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part of the wing, where it connects with the fuselage, inboard.
Of course when people pointed out this was “reversed”, you would say “oh well, it works, so why worry?”
But you will not mention the obvious. If we had C airspace provided with the proper tools and staffing, it would indeed be safer. However, we use large amounts of C airspace controlled by a single Controller in the D airspace below. This is the reason other countries have E above D. They wish to allocate their safety resources effectively, and don’t want the concentration of a Controller in D airspace close to the runway to be affected by having to provide a Class C service at the same time when the risk of collision is far less.
It’s what we call common sense, and it happens to comply with science. So why wouldn’t you act on it?
No, I know the answer. “We have done it upside down in the past, and that’s the way we’re gunna keep doing it”.
The change CASA is proposing is better because it will reduce the chance of mid air's by moving resources to where the risk is greater
Last edited by Dick Smith; 19th Mar 2010 at 01:09.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dog House
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh dear........
Pretty simple – C over D is upside down. If indeed you need C in the link airspace where the risk of collision is less, you would then need B in the terminal airspace below.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you will not mention the obvious. If we had C airspace provided with the proper tools and staffing, it would indeed be safer. However, we use large amounts of C airspace controlled by a single Controller in the D airspace below. This is the reason other countries have E above D. They wish to allocate their safety resources effectively, and don’t want the concentration of a Controller in D airspace close to the runway to be affected by having to provide a Class C service at the same time when the risk of collision is far less.
Would you prefer that current Ds become C?
CrazyMTOWDog
You state
I can see why you don’t reveal your real name. Why aren’t you asking for factual evidence to substantiate that in a large jet, the thick part of the wing should be close to the fuselage and the thin part of the wing should be outboard?
The reason you are not asking this is that it is just plain common sense.
In relation to airspace, there are Airservices studies which show that the risk of collision in the terminal area is about 100 times greater than the risk of collision in the approach to that terminal area.
It stands to reason then that if you require C airspace where the risk is one 100th of what it is below, you would then need to step up to a higher category of airspace, ie. B, where the risk is higher.
You state
Please state factual evidence to support your statement
The reason you are not asking this is that it is just plain common sense.
In relation to airspace, there are Airservices studies which show that the risk of collision in the terminal area is about 100 times greater than the risk of collision in the approach to that terminal area.
It stands to reason then that if you require C airspace where the risk is one 100th of what it is below, you would then need to step up to a higher category of airspace, ie. B, where the risk is higher.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dog House
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why aren’t you asking for factual evidence to substantiate that in a large jet, the thick part of the wing should be close to the fuselage and the thin part of the wing should be outboard?
Why is the sky blue?
Answer the question please
Dick,
When are you going to get it into your head that ATCs say there is no extra workload running C as opposed to E?
So let's run with your theory for a minute. We have E airspace running happily (with IFR jet pilots peering out the window looking for those un-alerted VFRs). Then we change the airspace to C:
1. Now the controller is overloaded and the system grinds to a halt. What does that tell me? There is so much VFR traffic (posing a threat to fare-paying passengers) that we needed that separation service in the first place!
or
2. The system still runs nicely and the controller is not overloaded. That tells me that there is not that much VFR activity. SO WHY NOT JUST USE C? It doesn't cost any more and it provides better safety! You have to talk to an ATC for a clearance, but surely that is better that endangering the lives of fare-paying pax or are you so selfish that you don't want to do that?
If there are controller workload issues in the terminal area, then that has very little to do with C verses E and more to do with the size of the volume being managed.
As for your persistent mentioning of C and B, do you really understand the difference between the two? Effectively there is NONE. Your continued harping on ICAO airspace only serves to highlight that basically, all the ICAO controlled airspaces are just that - controlled airspace; with the exception of Class E, where you are quite happy to allow BIG jets to "mix it" with no-radio VFRs, and at places like BME and KTA, with no radar or ADS-B! You must be off your rocker or extremely selfish.
The brutal fact is that, just like we had in Australia 30 years ago, effectively there are only two types of airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. Except for the lemon, Class E.
"Not my plan"? Oh come on, pull the other one!
Yes, Freedom7, that would be logical. But then Dick wouldn't be able to get his fabled "implied clearance" into the zone.
And yes, Howa, I wonder when Dick will give us A above 180 like the yanks. Then I could operate in a block from 230-250 as is my want occasionally.
However, we use large amounts of C airspace controlled by a single Controller in the D airspace below. This is the reason other countries have E above D. They wish to allocate their safety resources effectively, and don’t want the concentration of a Controller in D airspace close to the runway to be affected by having to provide a Class C service at the same time when the risk of collision is far less.
So let's run with your theory for a minute. We have E airspace running happily (with IFR jet pilots peering out the window looking for those un-alerted VFRs). Then we change the airspace to C:
1. Now the controller is overloaded and the system grinds to a halt. What does that tell me? There is so much VFR traffic (posing a threat to fare-paying passengers) that we needed that separation service in the first place!
or
2. The system still runs nicely and the controller is not overloaded. That tells me that there is not that much VFR activity. SO WHY NOT JUST USE C? It doesn't cost any more and it provides better safety! You have to talk to an ATC for a clearance, but surely that is better that endangering the lives of fare-paying pax or are you so selfish that you don't want to do that?
If there are controller workload issues in the terminal area, then that has very little to do with C verses E and more to do with the size of the volume being managed.
As for your persistent mentioning of C and B, do you really understand the difference between the two? Effectively there is NONE. Your continued harping on ICAO airspace only serves to highlight that basically, all the ICAO controlled airspaces are just that - controlled airspace; with the exception of Class E, where you are quite happy to allow BIG jets to "mix it" with no-radio VFRs, and at places like BME and KTA, with no radar or ADS-B! You must be off your rocker or extremely selfish.
The brutal fact is that, just like we had in Australia 30 years ago, effectively there are only two types of airspace: controlled and uncontrolled. Except for the lemon, Class E.
The “upside” of the plan (not my plan)
Would you prefer that current Ds become C?
And yes, Howa, I wonder when Dick will give us A above 180 like the yanks. Then I could operate in a block from 230-250 as is my want occasionally.
The farce that is E airspace...
This, from Wikipedia, sums it up nicely:
So VFR needs to stay in VMC so they can spot and avoid me as I come barrelling out of a cloud on descent at 250KIAS. Please. Talk about wings being thicker on the ends...
This, from Wikipedia, sums it up nicely:
For example, consider Class E airspace. An aircraft operating under VFR may not be in communication with ATC, so it is imperative that its pilot be able to see and avoid other aircraft (and vice versa). That includes IFR flights emerging from a cloud, so the VFR flight must keep a designated distance from the edges of clouds above, below, and laterally, and must maintain at least a designated visibility, to give the two aircraft time to observe and avoid each other. The low-level speed limit of 250 knots does not apply above 10,000 feet (3,000 m), so the visibility requirements are higher.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick, I refer you to my previous post. Based on your argument, deductive logic states the following, if we extend your hypothesis.
Make sense to you Bloggs?
- Class C over Class D is 'upside down airspace,' and counter to sound airspace management and scientific principles.
- If the 'threat level' in overlying terminal airspace is less, it should be a lower classification than that in the vicinity of the runway (correct so far??).
- Hence Class A airspace over Class E, which is across the continent, is also 'upside down' and must also be counter to sound airspace management and scientific principles.
- Clearly, if the risk is less in the 'outer terminal area,' then the risk must be so much more reduced in an enroute cruise environment.
- So, your argument, taken to it's most obvious conclusion, is that enroute Class E, which extends up to F245 so someone can fly a jet VFR up there where RPTs operate, should have an overlying airspace construct of a lower category - otherwise it's 'upside down.'
- Ergo, airspace above F245 should be either F or G, otherwise it's 'upside down'.
Make sense to you Bloggs?
Last edited by Howabout; 19th Mar 2010 at 04:40. Reason: cupla typos
Capn Bloggs you state
Okay Capn Bloggs, I issue you a challenge. Get ONE practising ATC to state this point under his or her own name.
I have spoken to literally dozens and dozens of ATCs and they have said that there is absolutely no doubt that C requires extra workload and extra responsibility when compared to E. They have said only fools would say otherwise.
By the way, if you think typical ATCs are so frightened of talking about safety issues that they can’t sign their real name, why don’t you get Civil Air to issue a statement stating that Civil Air believes that there is “no extra workload running C as opposed to E”.
I will tell you what – you will never get Civil Air to say such a thing because it’s not truthful.
And, Capn Bloggs, the US “implied clearance” (as you call it) is exactly the same in D or C. So there would be no change.
When are you going to get it into your head that ATCs say there is no extra workload running C as opposed to E?
I have spoken to literally dozens and dozens of ATCs and they have said that there is absolutely no doubt that C requires extra workload and extra responsibility when compared to E. They have said only fools would say otherwise.
By the way, if you think typical ATCs are so frightened of talking about safety issues that they can’t sign their real name, why don’t you get Civil Air to issue a statement stating that Civil Air believes that there is “no extra workload running C as opposed to E”.
I will tell you what – you will never get Civil Air to say such a thing because it’s not truthful.
And, Capn Bloggs, the US “implied clearance” (as you call it) is exactly the same in D or C. So there would be no change.
Howa,
Absolutely! 
But I must pick you up on a point of technicality:
CAR (1988) 173 prohibits VFR above FL200 without CASA approval. At last count, I heard that 2 (TWO) aircraft on the Australian register had this approval. E airspace above FL200 is therefore a nonsense and obviously only put in place to placate Dick. Objective science at work...
Make sense to you Bloggs?
But I must pick you up on a point of technicality:
enroute Class E, which extends up to F245 so someone can fly a jet VFR up there where RPTs operate,
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Bloggs, I hope you are recovering from that wet lettuce flogging.
Dick, since you say it isn't so, howabout getting one of these myriad of ATCs that you are so friendly with to use their own name on here and tell us that E is 'cheaper' than C.
After all, if this is their true conviction then surely they would be willing to post under their real names.
I mean, if they really, really believe in what they are telling you, 'dozens and dozens' of them, then one of them must be willing to post under his/her real name.
I'm sure you will agree.
By the way; can you please answer the question in my two previous posts. I feel a sense of rejection when you ignore me.
Dick, since you say it isn't so, howabout getting one of these myriad of ATCs that you are so friendly with to use their own name on here and tell us that E is 'cheaper' than C.
After all, if this is their true conviction then surely they would be willing to post under their real names.
I mean, if they really, really believe in what they are telling you, 'dozens and dozens' of them, then one of them must be willing to post under his/her real name.
I'm sure you will agree.
By the way; can you please answer the question in my two previous posts. I feel a sense of rejection when you ignore me.
Last edited by Howabout; 19th Mar 2010 at 05:30.
Dick,
That is my point! The (VFR) aircraft are there, it's just that you "hide" them in E. They will still hit me with the same result if they are not talking to the ATC or me. It's just that nobody will be able to blame the system; it will be silly old (dead) me for not keeping a good lookout IAW CAR 166. 
So you are not introducing "internationally proven" airspace at all, are you? From the same outfit that allows citizens to walk around with guns, not wear seatbelts for years after we had mandated them, and who drive on the wrong side of the road, you're introducing implied clearances into C CTRs. Hardly international or commonsense.
I have spoken to literally dozens and dozens of ATCs and they have said that there is absolutely no doubt that C requires extra workload and extra responsibility when compared to E.
the US “implied clearance” (as you call it) is exactly the same in D or C. So there would be no change.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel shunned. You get so much attention Bloggs, and what do I get? Ignored. Ignored. Do you know how that feels??
Listen Leady, disregard the frivolity above, but because you're one of the few rational contenders around these parts, that come from the counter-side of the argument , don't do a Dick on me.
I asked you a question on ICAO compliance and use of TCAS as a mitigator. It was a genuine question and talked about having it both ways. I won't bore everybody, but here's an extract that I posted 3 days ago, to which you have not responded:
Oh, by the way Dick, I notice that you're still on.
Are any of those controllers willing to put their real names on here regarding the overwhelming opinion that E is 'cheaper' than C. Surely there must be, if those beliefs are so strongly held. Why wouldn't someone be willing to put their real name on here?? It's the 'Australian' thing to do, isn't it?
Listen Leady, disregard the frivolity above, but because you're one of the few rational contenders around these parts, that come from the counter-side of the argument , don't do a Dick on me.
I asked you a question on ICAO compliance and use of TCAS as a mitigator. It was a genuine question and talked about having it both ways. I won't bore everybody, but here's an extract that I posted 3 days ago, to which you have not responded:
So, from my perspective, my two fundamental questions remain unanswered - where's the study that justified Class C being reclassified as Class E based on traffic volumes, and what is the rationale for using TCAS as a mitigator at YMAV when such a course is clearly at variance with ICAO principles.
You see Leady, on the one hand you state that we should not have anything unique, and that we should be 'ICAO compliant' in regard to airspace allocation. However, you do not seem to be equally concerned that TCAS is being used as partial justification for changing C to E at Avalon. With all due respect (and I do respect your firmly held beliefs), you can't have it both ways.
You see Leady, on the one hand you state that we should not have anything unique, and that we should be 'ICAO compliant' in regard to airspace allocation. However, you do not seem to be equally concerned that TCAS is being used as partial justification for changing C to E at Avalon. With all due respect (and I do respect your firmly held beliefs), you can't have it both ways.
Are any of those controllers willing to put their real names on here regarding the overwhelming opinion that E is 'cheaper' than C. Surely there must be, if those beliefs are so strongly held. Why wouldn't someone be willing to put their real name on here?? It's the 'Australian' thing to do, isn't it?
Ergo, airspace above F245 should be either F or G, otherwise it's 'upside down'.
Herein lies a problem of giving classes of airspace "letter" names.
As a matter of fact, when I started serious flying in Europe, Qantas used to flog around in 707's at FL250 or below, in all the worst of the weather, turbulence, icing etc, because the "FIRs" were "controlled", the UIRs, FL250 to FL600 were only "advisory airspace" --- close to F, as India used to operate F.
And they were largely NDB to NDB below FL250, only the "upper airways" were VOR to VOR. QF 707s at M0.81, mixing it with the Viscounts, Electras, Vanguards etc. made for some interesting ATC problems, not to mention the huge waste of fuel. However, BOAC, which came from a country that wasn't so totally anal about "controlled airspace", tootled along in the clear at somewhere between FL350 and FL410.
Then, as jet traffic increased, ICAO/FAA decided that VFR was not a good idea above FL XXX (sometimes FL200, usually FL250) and that was adopted widely, with military aircraft exempt.
As the years rolled on, and we got to "Alphabet Soup" airspace, high level airspace became A, NOT because risk levels required A, but because it was the only class that prohibited VFR.
Dick is right about inverted airspace, I have already referred to this at some length previously, and I am not going to repeat it. Suffice to say that the principle has been re-confirmed, again and again, by every consultant ever hired by AsA and CASA.
What some/all of you should dig up is the extensive C v. E analysis done by Airservices for the mid levels. Very interesting, and accurate. Then the results were ignored.
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) including assumptions that ALL pilots will make a mistake with ATC instructions between 1 in 2 and 1in 1 times ----- how many of you actually routinely even make a mistake in any interaction with ATC 50% of the time, let alone 100% of the time (OK!, I'll make an exception for several on this thread, who probably could get it wrong 50% of the time, but they are insignificant, statistically speaking, of course) --- but that nonsense is what was fed into the model.
But never mind, compared to the pilot error rate, we are saved by the world's most perfect human beings, ASA ATC staff, with an error rate of 1E6, only one error per million actions, compared to dopey pilots (assumed) 50% to 100%.
In my opinion, such figures used made the risk analysis for the 2b windback a travesty of proper risk analysis. and published external analysis, including that paid for by CASA, agrees with me.
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, produce "safer" results, because the collision risk (if E is the analysis result) in E is already so low, that C does not/cannot lower the risk, because it is already close to "vanishingly small", the statistical equivalent of zero (See ASNZ 4360).
Maybe is is time to re-institute the "Alwyn Awards", last awarded in the late 1990s.
Tootle pip!!