NAS rears its head again

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Yes...but....ask for a "snapshot" and what is the last words that ATC say...Services terminated!

[ARFOR]

Interested readers might like some US examples to ponder whilst considering the like for like of the US NAS and Australia's Broome and Karratha

Class C airspace [one of the quieter ones]

SPI - Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport | SkyVector

RADAR Tower, RADAR Approach

Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2008-12-31

Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 133
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 29
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 6
Helicopters Based on Field: 2
Military Aircraft Based on Field: none
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations: 46
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 8012
Annual Military Operations: 3280
Annual GA Local Operations: 9141
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 16419

Full RADAR Class C services, why is CASA not following the reference system [US NAS] and applying the model as used at Abe Lincoln Capital?

OK, lets find some Class D and E examples:-

Class D and E Airspace [one of the busiest with Commercial operations]

MSO - Missoula International Airport | SkyVector

RADAR Tower, RADAR Approach

Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2009-12-31

Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 92
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 20
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 11
Helicopters Based on Field: 14
Military Aircraft Based on Field: none
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations: 4551
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 9208
Annual Military Operations: 577
Annual GA Local Operations: 14216
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 10665

Sounds promising? No, look at the AD elevation, and surrounding terrain LSALT’s

No, OK lets keep looking:-

Class D and E airspace [another example of busiest with Commercial operations]

SWF - Stewart International Airport | SkyVector

RADAR Tower, Radar Approach

Statistics collected for 12 month period ending 2009-12-31

Single Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 8
Multi-Engine Aircraft Based on Field: 7
Jet Aircraft Based on Field: 26
Helicopters Based on Field: 8
Military Aircraft Based on Field: 31
Gliders Based on Field: none
Ultralights Based on Field: none
Annual Commercial Operations: 2366
Annual Commuter Operations: none
Annual Air Taxi Operations: 8485
Annual Military Operations: 3017
Annual GA Local Operations: 8203
Annual GA Itinerant Operations: 16149

That last one looks promising? Oh dear, well not really - RADAR Tower and RADAR Approach:-

Comparing all of the above to Broome and Karratha, the US examples [above] have:-

- Substantially less Air Transport operations
- Full RADAR Tower and Approach services

Compared to the two Australian airports in question

YBRM - 12 months to 30 June 2009

- Movements - 36,800
- Air Transport – 13,300

YPKA – 12 months to 30 June 2009

- Movements – 29.901
- Air Transport – 10,928

- NO RADAR
- NO separate surveillance based Approach Services
- D tower with no surveillance
- D tower with unsurveilled Class E
- High level En-route Sectors providing unsurveilled Class E services to A045

The CASA model for YBRM and YPKA is US NAS compliant how exactly?

Even if surveillance was available [now or in future], the services at YBRM and YPKA [no dedicated approach services] and the airport traffic levels are not compatible to US style Class D and E. The most common application in the US [to these sorts of airports] is Class C

Mr Smith, perhaps you could provide us with a US example of:-

- A 'small zone unsurveilled Class D [with or without unsurveilled tower Class E]
- With unsurveilled Class E above [centre, not dedicated approach]
- That is even close to the conditions apparent at YBRM or YPKA i.e. similar figures and infrastructure as listed above.

[Capn Bloggs]

ARFOR, you must be effing joking? Are you saying we've been sold a pup all this time about the US NAS?

Dick Smith categorically stated in this post that 50% of the 350 US Class D towers have non-radar E!

Who are we supposed to believe?

[ARFOR]

I'd like the proponents to tell us why this proposal is not a pup with parvo

Who to believe? Thats easy:- FACTS, DATA, and EVIDENCE, they speak for themselves

The 'I believe' squad don't like F.D.E

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ARFOR...

Dick et al...all ears...just hit us with your best shot Just one single aerodrome, any one...there must be hundreds from the 350 you purport to misrepresent.

FDE...hmmm works in GPS too...fault detection and exclusion...how apt!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well Done and well presented Mr 'A'.....

In reality, (the 'Real World'), your presentation would be / should be examined and appreciated.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just think what it would have been like if we had the internet back in 1991.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ARFOR, just a back up..

SPI service is three CRJ and 2 ER4s a day to and from Chicago.
MSO is 3 DH4 to Seattle, 3 CRJs to Salt Lake City and 2 CRJs to Denver.
SWF has 3 CRJs and 2 DH8s to Philli,1 CRJ to Atlanta and 2 CRJs to Detroit.

[ARFOR]

Which brings us squarely back to the need for:-

1. A Cost Benefit Analysis - [Classification, Surveillance, local tower based approach combined verses remote radar approach services]

and;

2. A Design Aeronautical Study process which is based on much more than 'ego' and 'ignorance'

Anything less is negligence!

[Howabout]

Nice stats ARF. The silence from the fundamentalists has been deafening. Ditto your comments on the CBA and DAS.

It's now been 3 days. There seems to be a tendency, on the part of some, to run away and hide when confronted by facts and not fiction.

Does a lot for rational debate when the fundamentalists take their balls home.

[Jabawocky]

Give as good as I get Lead

Do you a deal mate, you discontinue your superior attitude, your condescending put downs of professional pilots and ATC's and provide the FACTS, DATA & EVIDENCE of your argument?

And I'll................listen

Seems Owen, for all his comical but well assessed remarks has hit the nail on the head.

This debate is not far from that of the Global Warming thread. Those who keep asking for fact based and data backed up logic Vs those who prefer character smearing and dodging the real questions.

Sound familiar anyone?

J

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Idealogy. . . . . . . .

[CaptainMidnight]

The AIP SUP re Avalon is out. Note the "broadcast area" aspect. Presumably the same will apply to BRM & KA. I understand a NOTAM on AVV will be issued detailing the broadcast area requirements.

http://www.airservices.gov.au/public...up/s10-h30.pdf

[Jabawocky]

So when the cloud base is around 3500' and and one of Owen Stanleys mates wants to fly back to Werribee via Little River International from Barwon Heads (between A025 and A035), and Jetjerks A320 is flying the ILS.........

I guess they get to go around and do it again........

J

PS....He does need a clearance to descend to LRV, but if overflying and onto Werribee, he will not.

[CaptainMidnight]

Not sure if he would require a clearance to descend, if he had notified a descent point as part of the initial call/broadcast?

And my interpretation (particularly with respect to CAR 100) is that ATC can issue an instruction to the aircraft e.g. to hold or divert.

[Jabawocky]

CaptainMidnight

He would definately need a clearance to descend through the Class D.

The silly thing is the interim looks like Class D or C almost....you know, C- or D- or maybe E++.

After the interim radio regs, there is RIS....and then my story is seriously real.

This is not FAA or ICAO.

What are they thinking. Despite the studies at other D towers with and without radar, i.e Rocky and Alice.

The lunatics are in charge......

[mikk_13]

Rumour has it that broome won't be getting a tower. they now can not train the staff in the sector above due to recent departures. Apparently they have/will loose upto 50% of the atcs.

[Capn Bloggs]

So here we have an aircraft operating in airspace that specifically DOES NOT require an ATC clearance (Class E), but which is being made to comply with a CAR that obviously applies only to an aircraft in Controlled Airspace under ATC control, all on the premise of what is in an AIP SUPP. If there is a nearmiss/midair under this arrangement, OAR is going to go for a row.

This is ridiculous. Guys, have the guts to stand up to the Lunatic Fringe and make it Class D!

[Ted D Bear]

Why don't we all just pretend the E is really D? Seems that's what CASA wants to do by trotting out CAR100 ...

[ARFOR]

Mr Bear

As a pilot [of any variety] or an ATC licence holder, who sits where WRT:-

Do, I or don't I [in any given traffic conflict], given the conflicting requirements this airspace classification [that isn't] provides.

- VFR not subject to a clearance, yet ATC could/should/might/will/won't give 'instructions'
- VFR could/should/might/will/won't receive 'instructions', yet not subject to a clearance
- IFR subject to a clearance, could/should/might/will/won't receive 'instructions' due VFR

What about NVFR? What about SVFR?

The insurance companies and lawyers will have a field day.