NAS rears its head again

[peuce]

"The Broadcast Area, a temporary measure pending improved surveillance capability, removes the unknown aircraft factor from the equation

Do we really see surveillance ( radar or ADSB) going in at Broome any time soon?
Even if it was possible .... where is the Cost/Benefit for that? ... as opposed to TW,AS,RK,AY,CH....?

...and the Class E transponder requirement provides an additional defence."

Note that, contrary to ICAO policy, CASA is still using TCAS as a risk mitigator... when it suits them.

And from "The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2007" ( before Dick starts cranking up):

While collision avoidance is not part of separation provision, and collision avoidance systems such as TCAS are not included in determining the calculated level of safety required for separation provision, they are considered to be part of ATM safety management and must activate when separation mode has been compromised.

Bugger me ...

[peuce]

From CASA's Airspace Design Manual:

Australian regulations do not require instrument approach procedures, standard instrument departures (SIDs) or standard terminal arrival routes (STARs) to be protected with CTA steps or Class E airspace.”

From CASA's "Broome Airspace Precis":

... Class E airspace above 1200 feet AGL between 11 and 31 DME (so as to include RNAV holds),

More inconsistencies .... no wonder we are confused ..

[Jabawocky]

I am sure I have said this before about BME/KTA being the thin edge of the wedge......

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Casa is also in the process of standardising Class D procedures across Australia. The airspace surrounding Class D will be progressively reviewed and classified appropriately.[/FONT]

So watch out for E over D and an aerodrome near you!

J

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

So Guys and Gals in Broome......

How did the big 'meet' go??

Anything any clearer??
E over D?
RADAR or 'other' surveillance in the near future?
Didja getcha tea & bikkies??

Cheers

[Capn Bloggs]

Well, there was plenty of argy bargy, BIFFO! POW! WHACK! But goggles still intact, Chaser!

The industry reps were united in their strident opposition to Class E with Fries.

Everybody went away "acknowledging" the other side's position.

Everybody left on a handshake so it was pretty well-mannered, considering the "heat" of the topic.

Pity Ledsled and RHS weren't there. Then it would have got real interesting.

[Jabawocky]

So would it not just be easier for all concerned to adopt C over D as per all the others.

[peuce]

Capn,

Everybody went away "acknowledging" the other side's position

What is their position?

• Do they see surveillance coming in ... anytime soon?
• What was their reasoning for bringing in the Broadcast requirement ... when they, presumabaly, decided standard E wouldn't work?
• Why didn't they just go to D or C?

I've already heard the Nastronauts' opinon, but I'm genuinely interested in the Regulator's thought processes.

[Capn Bloggs]

Do they see surveillance coming in ... anytime soon?

Nobody had any idea about when surveillance would appear. The floor suggested many years, CASA said it might only be a couple, "you never know".

What was their reasoning for bringing in the Broadcast requirement ... when they, presumably, decided standard E wouldn't work?

That's it. D was not acceptable because it unduly restricted VFR entry to area. The floor told CASA that there was hardly any overflyers at Broome, and so D would not realistically inconvenience anyone and be a darn lot simpler. It wasn't stated, but it was obvious that CASA believes standard non-surveilled E is not safe enough and that VFR traffic had to be "known" to the system via radio to raise the safety level enough. It was also mentioned that E had the transponder requirement: I got the distinct impression that CASA is relying on this as a mitigator. They also imply as much in OAR's written response to submissions made to the original March proposal. The floor then suggested that transponders be required in D to achieve the same aim.

Why didn't they just go to D or C?

VFR Access.

Very disappointing.

[Jabawocky]

Is VFR Access the only issue.....They have to be kidding.

If VFR have to pipe up on the radio anyway what more is there to it?

All this waste for what?

[peuce]

The cynic in me thinks they are attempting to please everyone:

• Dear Nastronauts ... Look, it's Class E ... yeah!
• Dear Fundamentalists .... Look, all traffic is known ... yeah!

Methinks they have managed to displease everyone, whilst, at the same time, proving their ineffectiveness.

They should have made a judgement, made a decision ( based on standard Airspace classifications) and then stuck with it. No matter which way that went, I think it would have ellicited more respect than their wishy washy proposal.

[Capn Bloggs]

That's it in a nutshell. Nobody has the balls to stand up to the NAStronauts and say a 2500ft D CTR in unsurveilled airspace doesn't work, given that there is now a CAR - effective only 2 weeks ago - that mandates radio carriage and use at every "proper" airport in Australia. Hardly a consistent position to then allow a no-radio VFR to swan over the top of an RPT CTR at 2500ft not talking to anyone.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I think many would 'jump' at the chance of working in Sunny Broome 'all expenses paid'.....

The 'Vicarious Liability' clauses will protect the workers - providing they do the job exactly as per the book.......

Whatever 'the book' may say......

[ARFOR]

Nice location, sure, the rules and liabilities?

How do pilots and air traffic controllers do their jobs by the book, when the book is not part of the international series, and the pages within are a misprint from Biggles Flies Unhinged?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

To protect the workers, the 'book' need not conform to anything elsewhere.

All that is required is that - whatever 'it' is - it's 'in the book' as written by the employer for the employee to carry out as instructed.

Then, as long as the employee carries out the written instructions of the employer, as far as I understand it, they are protected.
Vicarious Liability - a Legal delegation of Responsibility.

A 'Legal Eagle' may be able to elaborate if required.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Any different news / clarification from the guys and gals at Karratha?

[ARFOR]

No contest re VL, but:-

The book/s needs to explain what pilots (VFR and IFR) and ATC are required/expected to do/provide in Class E (V+), and how CAR100 applies [in practice] to VFR and ATC in Class E (V+). Is my point

No book/s [including the actual application and/or operation of CAR100] says that does it!

[Capn Bloggs]

Re CAR 100, to my comment that 99% of pilots would ordinarily think that it would not apply unless you were actually under air traffic control, PC said he had legal advice that any instruction/directive to an aircraft by an ATC would come under CAR 100 regardless of the airspace category. I pointed out that CAR 100 probably pre-dated Alphabet soup airspace by many years (probably decades, actually).

There is a major major disconnect here between commonsense/logic and what OAR is using as it's prime feature to replace simple old Class D. I wouldn't mind betting that any legal action by CASA using CAR 100 would fail pretty quickly.

[Jabawocky]

No wonder Albanese is stinging us all for more Avgas tax - it is probably a fighting fund for the inevitable court costs and damages.

Coral

You are assuming they are smart enough to think they have a problem and to plan accordingly.

Not likely!

[Nautilus Blue]

... as long as the employee carries out the written instructions of the employer, as far as I understand it, they are protected.
Vicarious Liability - a Legal delegation of Responsibility.

Trouble is, page one in the book is still something like "Nothing in these instructions shall prevent an operator using their own judgement and doing more than required" (words to that effect). It's basically an all care no responsibility disclaimer from the rule writers. The way it was explained to me was if the rules were stupid or inadequate you has a duty of care to realize that and do more.

I've even has an email from my then manager saying a clear cut well defined procedure was in his opinion not ideal, and maybe we should think carefully before using it. Spineless so and so wouldn't actually commit himself one way or the other though!

[Lodown]

Vicarious liability???? More and more when something goes awry, lawyers are suing everyone and everything that had a finger in the pie, right down to the individual and then letting the court sort it out. The 'book' may direct an individual to do something unethical. The company would seem to be at fault, but I would think vicarios liability doesn't necessarily let off the individual for knowingly doing something that a reasonable person would determine to be injurous or unethical. Either way, if named in a lawsuit, the cost to the individual while the court sorts out blame wouldn't be cheap.
"My boss told me to jump in the fire."