NAS rears its head again
Ledsled,
"Out of step"? That'd be the Class E Plus proposed for BME and KTA would it?
Still working on your answer to my question "what is meant by Continuous Two Way Comms for VFR in E"?
Does seem a bit silly on CASA's part to put in a Mandatory Broadcast Area when VFR has to be in continuous two-way comms in E anyway, don't you reckon?
"Out of step"? That'd be the Class E Plus proposed for BME and KTA would it?
Still working on your answer to my question "what is meant by Continuous Two Way Comms for VFR in E"?
Does seem a bit silly on CASA's part to put in a Mandatory Broadcast Area when VFR has to be in continuous two-way comms in E anyway, don't you reckon?
In the US, liability of FAA or individual controllers is a non-issue, just as Rec. pilots are a non-issue in E.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
Nice try, but no Cigar
The ICAO 'Air Traffic Control Service' requirements [which is the world standard] make quite clear the 'legal' state of play. The ANSP [not Civilair, nice try though] OoLC made the 'legal requirements' quite clear for Class D controllers. The halfway YBRM and YPKA airspace does not provide either pilots or ATC a clear road to compliance or 'duty of care'
The GAAP annexes provided US style protection for ATC to facilitate high volume operations in VMC [pilot responsibility for collision avoidance in VMC]. Those cease to exist on the 3rd of June. Who is responsible for that?? Not Civilair, not the ANSP, no, the small band of fundamentalists and the D.A.S.
Try as you might, this is nothing to do with associations, industrial or out of left field legal wedges. FACT. You have NO idea of the 'legal' lay of the land for Australian controllers post incident or accident [they do based on recent examples].
Nice try, but no Cigar
The ICAO 'Air Traffic Control Service' requirements [which is the world standard] make quite clear the 'legal' state of play. The ANSP [not Civilair, nice try though] OoLC made the 'legal requirements' quite clear for Class D controllers. The halfway YBRM and YPKA airspace does not provide either pilots or ATC a clear road to compliance or 'duty of care'
The GAAP annexes provided US style protection for ATC to facilitate high volume operations in VMC [pilot responsibility for collision avoidance in VMC]. Those cease to exist on the 3rd of June. Who is responsible for that?? Not Civilair, not the ANSP, no, the small band of fundamentalists and the D.A.S.
Try as you might, this is nothing to do with associations, industrial or out of left field legal wedges. FACT. You have NO idea of the 'legal' lay of the land for Australian controllers post incident or accident [they do based on recent examples].
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well spoken Direct No Speed. It will be interesting how many of the fore's will put their hand up when it all goes wrong. The dust on the horizon will be the only clue that they had been around except for the letters to the editor saying if they had been in charge of the project, it wouldn't happen.The only benefits so far mentioned decrease safety. There is no benefit to IFR or RPT aircraft with the proposed changes.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not from me, and I'm sure it's not the 'official' reason. RAAus pilots are one group who stand to benefit by widespread adoption of E, but I think that's mainly an unintentional side-effect.
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
It wasn't so long ago that RA-Aus were not allowed to cross a road, let alone fly above 5,000ft. Now, if the aircraft is suitably equipped, and it can fly above 8,500ft, what is the problem with flying through the same airspace at 4,500ft?
If there are still problems with containing the angst about RA-Aus to fly in CTA, why doesn't the Director of Aviation Safety give way to some concessions WRT training standards to allow this so everybody has a Pvt GA CTA standard, or issue an OCTA licence/ certificate only?
I know a lot off GA pilots that are OCTA only and it is mainly of their own choice.
Owen Stanley;
What if it doesn't go wrong. 50/50 odds if you are tossing this coin. Will you be then
I can't imagine why anybody would need, or want a tragedy to prove a point.
Lets all hope it never happens.
If there are still problems with containing the angst about RA-Aus to fly in CTA, why doesn't the Director of Aviation Safety give way to some concessions WRT training standards to allow this so everybody has a Pvt GA CTA standard, or issue an OCTA licence/ certificate only?
I know a lot off GA pilots that are OCTA only and it is mainly of their own choice.
Owen Stanley;
What if it doesn't go wrong. 50/50 odds if you are tossing this coin. Will you be then
wallowing in relevance deprivation land 
Lets all hope it never happens.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with superdimona. I don't think it's 'part of the plot' Bloggs, just a potential side-effect.
Someone a bit back hit the nail on the head. If standard E isn't regarded as good enough to mitigate the risk, which was presumably identified in the risk management study (not that I've seen it), then why are we going for non-compliant E+ when compliant C or D is available at no (or vanishingly small
) extra cost?
Why do we have to unnecessarily complicate things when comparatively simple solutions are available?
Someone a bit back hit the nail on the head. If standard E isn't regarded as good enough to mitigate the risk, which was presumably identified in the risk management study (not that I've seen it), then why are we going for non-compliant E+ when compliant C or D is available at no (or vanishingly small
) extra cost?Why do we have to unnecessarily complicate things when comparatively simple solutions are available?
Howabout,
I have been asking that question of the Nastronauts for some time ... alas, without response.
Perhaps it has Leadsled perplexed as well, and he's a bit embarassed by it.
I expect that Dick has been silent because he is probably busy "going through channels" trying to get the Broadcast Requirement recinded.
How Can It Be Fixed?
There's the proper way. Either:
Or the Band Aid way:
Or, they could leave it as proposed .... the "suck it and see" solution.
I have been asking that question of the Nastronauts for some time ... alas, without response.
Perhaps it has Leadsled perplexed as well, and he's a bit embarassed by it.
I expect that Dick has been silent because he is probably busy "going through channels" trying to get the Broadcast Requirement recinded.
How Can It Be Fixed?
There's the proper way. Either:
- Class D to A045 .... Class C to the bottom of current CTA; or
- Class D ... ground to bottom of CTA
Or the Band Aid way:
- Class D to A045 ... Class E to bottom of CTA .... Broadcast Area within 30nm BRM/KTA .. (why on earth would you have it covering from A025/A045 only); or
- Class D to A025 ... Class E to bottom of CTA .... Broadcast Area within 30nm BRM/KTA
Or, they could leave it as proposed .... the "suck it and see" solution.
Howabout,
I've been rummaging through my supply of analogies and metaphors and the best I can come up with is ...
The Brisbane Airport Roundabout .... God bless it ...
The Roundabout was not working... too many prangs and delays ...so they added Traffic Lights to it ...WTF .... "we'll make this sucker work, no matter what!"
It didn't .... they are now completing a flyover ...
I've been rummaging through my supply of analogies and metaphors and the best I can come up with is ...
The Brisbane Airport Roundabout .... God bless it ...
The Roundabout was not working... too many prangs and delays ...so they added Traffic Lights to it ...WTF .... "we'll make this sucker work, no matter what!"
It didn't .... they are now completing a flyover ...
Howabout
A cynic might suggest as reason for the current approach either the terms Matter of Principle or Paradigm Paralysis - I of course would do no such thing...
Peuce
Your Option 1 rings a bell from somewhere in central Australia - but it is (obviously) not working well enough to utilise it elsewhere!
A cynic might suggest as reason for the current approach either the terms Matter of Principle or Paradigm Paralysis - I of course would do no such thing...
Peuce
Your Option 1 rings a bell from somewhere in central Australia - but it is (obviously) not working well enough to utilise it elsewhere!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
peuce........thats GOLD 
......another round of beers at the Brekkey Ck 
Lets get the facts straight.....RAA a/c can fly up there, and up to any VFR level with a CASA PPL equipped pilot. RAAus still have the 5000' rule for now. And again when you can convince me and CASA that my previous comments a few posts back are totally unfair and not true (And you can't) well then I will be more than happy to see the rule changed. If there was a seriously large campaign on education, then it might work, until then......leopards and spots come to mind.
......another round of beers at the Brekkey Ck
Now, if the aircraft is suitably equipped, and it can fly above 8,500ft, what is the problem with flying through the same airspace at 4,500ft?
Some further thoughts re why this airspace model.
At BRM, ERSA says:
In short, currently all traffic within 30NM is known, because radio carriage and use is mandatary for all aircraft within 30NM.
So putting in a Class D tower and "standard" Class E overhead would actually be a degradation from what is the case now. All traffic within 30NM would no longer be known, and in particular "standard" Class E would mean no communication required with ATC for VFR - only at best monitoring - and as previously outlined even no-radio types could be in the E.
Either CASA OAR recognised this degradation in service or it was pointed out to them, and to get around the problem they'll revise the broadcast area Instrument to make the E 2500-4500 Class E+.
However this upper limit of the broadcast area being 4500 is interesting, given ERSA item 1b above
At BRM, ERSA says:
FLIGHT PROCEDURES
1. During published HRS CAGRS is provided to aircraft operating within the following designated broadcast area:
a. Horizontal limits: 30NM radius centred on YBRM/DME
b. Vertical Limits: ground level to any height above the AD at which an aircraft may conflict with another aircraft that is arriving, departing or carrying out local operations at the AD.
2. Pilots of arriving aircraft shall broadcast on the CTAF at 30NM
3. Pilots of outbound aircraft shall monitor the CTAF until 30NM
4. Refer to CASA Instrument 490/05 for broadcast requirements at AD when a CAGRS is in operation.
1. During published HRS CAGRS is provided to aircraft operating within the following designated broadcast area:
a. Horizontal limits: 30NM radius centred on YBRM/DME
b. Vertical Limits: ground level to any height above the AD at which an aircraft may conflict with another aircraft that is arriving, departing or carrying out local operations at the AD.
2. Pilots of arriving aircraft shall broadcast on the CTAF at 30NM
3. Pilots of outbound aircraft shall monitor the CTAF until 30NM
4. Refer to CASA Instrument 490/05 for broadcast requirements at AD when a CAGRS is in operation.
So putting in a Class D tower and "standard" Class E overhead would actually be a degradation from what is the case now. All traffic within 30NM would no longer be known, and in particular "standard" Class E would mean no communication required with ATC for VFR - only at best monitoring - and as previously outlined even no-radio types could be in the E.
Either CASA OAR recognised this degradation in service or it was pointed out to them, and to get around the problem they'll revise the broadcast area Instrument to make the E 2500-4500 Class E+.
However this upper limit of the broadcast area being 4500 is interesting, given ERSA item 1b above
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with RAS aircraft suitably equipped being in E, as long as they have a clearance and we have traffic on them. But you will all say, the marvellous design of E doesn't require them to have a clearance, they are free to fly as they please. It is a bit like moths attracted to a light and their death, isn't it. RAA aircraft are hard to see at the best of times due to their size.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, "Not so long ago, we were inbound to a CTAF(R), we had broadcast on the CTAF frequency at around 35DME, and again at 25 DME. We were then tracking for one of the IAF's to conduct a GNSS (RNAV) approach to the duty runway. There were no responses to our inbound calls and no other calls were heard. As we approached the IAF, we got a TCAS return of a target descending and crossing over the IAF at approx the same altitude we would have crossed it as. Becoming visual we turned and tracked visually to overhead the aerodrome, whilst trying to establish comms with the target. We had preset the next Center frequency for our departure, and we heard this aircraft giving an inbound call. Because he was low, Center where not copying his calls. We suggested the correct frequency to him, but could not visually see the aircraft until he was in the circuit and we were on the ground. The only thing that saved there lives and probably a heap of innocent people was the servicable Transponder, Without that he could have been match wood, or if we had missed him our wake turbelence would have put him on his back and into the ground.
Hence my very strong opposition to the airspace proposals at Broome and Karratha. The present proposal will end in tears, the safety of innoncent people is at risk. If the general public were fully aware of the risk factor they would be facing, I am sure the hue and cry would rattle the Government's cage!
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum, "Not so long ago, we were inbound to a CTAF(R), we had broadcast on the CTAF frequency at around 35DME, and again at 25 DME. We were then tracking for one of the IAF's to conduct a GNSS (RNAV) approach to the duty runway. There were no responses to our inbound calls and no other calls were heard. As we approached the IAF, we got a TCAS return of a target descending and crossing over the IAF at approx the same altitude we would have crossed it as. Becoming visual we turned and tracked visually to overhead the aerodrome, whilst trying to establish comms with the target. We had preset the next Center frequency for our departure, and we heard this aircraft giving an inbound call. Because he was low, Center where not copying his calls. We suggested the correct frequency to him, but could not visually see the aircraft until he was in the circuit and we were on the ground. The only thing that saved there lives and probably a heap of innocent people was the servicable Transponder, Without that he could have been match wood, or if we had missed him our wake turbelence would have put him on his back and into the ground.
Hence my very strong opposition to the airspace proposals at Broome and Karratha. The present proposal will end in tears, the safety of innoncent people is at risk. If the general public were fully aware of the risk factor they would be facing, I am sure the hue and cry would rattle the Government's cage!
Another quote from you Dick, a few pages ago, before you spat the dummy...
How does that fit with...
...in relation to Broome?
How is it an upgrade?
We have gone from NO unknown traffic to an unknown amount. How is that an improvement?
Yes, I know G without a transponder requirement is OK at places like Broome and Ballina - but upgrade the airspace to E and add a mandatory transponder requirement and it suddenly becomes unsafe.
Get Real!
Get Real!
In short, currently all traffic within 30NM is known, because radio carriage and use is mandatary for all aircraft within 30NM.
How is it an upgrade?
We have gone from NO unknown traffic to an unknown amount. How is that an improvement?
From the Alice Airspace Study by OAR earlier this year;
1.4 Recommendations
1.4.1
1.4 Recommendations
1.4.1
CASA to reinforce awareness of the Aeronautical Information Regulation
and Control (AIRAC) cycle, to allow for improved planning when requesting
updates to aeronautical publications.
and Control (AIRAC) cycle, to allow for improved planning when requesting
updates to aeronautical publications.
1.4.2
Based upon stakeholder feedback and supported by risk assessment and
modelling, the OAR has concluded that the current airspace design and level of
air traffic services provided are adequate in addressing the level of risk that exists.
Therefore the OAR does not propose to make any change to the current airspace
architecture or level of ATS provided.
modelling, the OAR has concluded that the current airspace design and level of
air traffic services provided are adequate in addressing the level of risk that exists.
Therefore the OAR does not propose to make any change to the current airspace
architecture or level of ATS provided.
1.4.3
In order to address the requirements of the AAPS 2007, CASA to review
its implementation strategy in considering the proven international best practice
airspace systems, including the outstanding NAS characteristics. This strategy
must take into account changes being proposed to airspace at General Aviation
Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) aerodromes and where possible standardisation
of airspace at all aerodromes with Class D Control Zones (CTRs). The
its implementation strategy in considering the proven international best practice
airspace systems, including the outstanding NAS characteristics. This strategy
must take into account changes being proposed to airspace at General Aviation
Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) aerodromes and where possible standardisation
of airspace at all aerodromes with Class D Control Zones (CTRs). The
implementation strategy will be finalised by CASA’s OAR in 2010.
Just FYI...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What typical CASA rubbish. Shows a lot of intelligence doesn't it, lets standardise on CLass D zones. Lets see, one size fits all, from Cessna 150 to Boeing 737. Then we add a bit here, and a bit there to accomodate those blasted jets that won't conform to the Cessna 150 circuit size. Its a bit rude really, because, on my flightsim, I can fly a B747 tighter than a 150. Whats wrong with two or three frequency changes, or flying a holding pattern with unknown traffice.
I just hope that Airservices have got some spare portable radars ready to install a la Launceston.
I just hope that Airservices have got some spare portable radars ready to install a la Launceston.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dog One
In my opinion EVERY aircraft should have a minimum Mode C transponder, and if its a PA display type two year checks and the old blind type 12 months check.
As for Launie that radar is about to be removed......Ohhh but before you all break out in tears the WAMLAT is working well
The Retard Vehicle was clocked at 180 knots with it
. (Will not say who was driving at the time though)
J
In my opinion EVERY aircraft should have a minimum Mode C transponder, and if its a PA display type two year checks and the old blind type 12 months check.
As for Launie that radar is about to be removed......Ohhh but before you all break out in tears the WAMLAT is working well
The Retard Vehicle was clocked at 180 knots with it. (Will not say who was driving at the time though)J