Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?

Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:32
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
Dick,
You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of real-world aviation.

Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work?

In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation?
I (nor has anybody I have flown with in the last 35 years) do not get alerted to another aircraft and then continue flying toward them hoping that I am looking in the right direction to "See and Avoid". I ensure, through my own actions or in concert with the other aircraft, that if we do not sight each other, we will still not collide. Call it radio-arranged separation if you like. This morning was a classic example. A no-radio VFR was coming at us pretty quickly (until all aircraft have mandated ADS-B I couldn't tell exactly what our approach angle was, but it was closing pretty fast). Having been alerted to the TCAS (thank goodness) my effo and I did not simply keep looking where the TCAS said he was and keep descending; we levelled off
until
we saw him, then we continued our descent.

Alerted See and Avoid is a misnomer; it is safer and more economical for pilots to talk to each other to ensure segregation in case the See and Avoid bit doesn't happen (and more often than not it doesn't).

Back to the Tobago and your rather odd question
Bloggs, are you suggesting radio alerted see and avoid does not work?

In that case do you want all VFR in G to go back to full position reporting and "radio arranged separation?
He never announced he was there; Alerted See and Avoid aka segregation never had a chance. This is what you had introduced with NAS 2b, fortunately AsA canned it, but you never learn and now you are trying this crazy stunt again. You had two warnings last time, with no lives lost. Do not let it happen, because the next time may be far more serious.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:34
  #62 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Jet , climbing into E in VMC would not be a problem in Canada and the USA.

This is because even if you have submitted an IFR plan you are not considered IFR until you have been given an IFR clearance.

The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:42
  #63 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Bloggs, you are mixed up.

Your first description was clearly alerted see and avoid.

If you use radio arranged separation with VFR aircraft no wonder you complain about frequencies being jammed.

Can't be much traffic where you fly!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:52
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
Your first description was clearly alerted see and avoid.
Let me be more blunt. Unless I am avoiding them before I see them, I will probably not avoid them; I'll probably hit them, as it will probably be too late to avoid them.

And your response to the lack of Alerted "See and Avoid" with the Tobago at Launy? Or are you just going to let that one slide?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 12:56
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier.
Speak for yourself Mr. Smith.

It's generally easier to separate now because then the problem is fixed. If you let everything just run you're left with reacting instead of controlling. something that is less than ideal, particularly off radar.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 13:02
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 95
...US system...
In other countries...
In the USA...
This is not allowed in the USA.
...would not be a problem in Canada and the USA.
Dick, you're starting to sound like a broken record.
Steve888 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 14:05
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
The ATC's want you to climb to a high level receiving a traffic information service(just as our Airline pilots now receive in G) so their separation job is easier.
Works in the US , 10 000+ controllers!
max1 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 14:35
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 39
Posts: 154
Dick
climbing into E in VMC would not be a problem in Canada and the USA
We are not in the USA or Canada, FFS, thus dont try and convince pilots to do something in Australia which isnt within the Australian rules.

I'm struggling to find in the US/FAA AIP where it states IFR can climb into E without a clearance whilst VMC.
I have found this of interest:
'This does not preclude the pilot from cancelling the IFR
clearance with ATC and departing under VFR; but an
IFR clearance may not be available after departure'

Under the FAA code of federal regs:
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
rotorblades is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2010, 16:26
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: meh
Posts: 660
ahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
Plazbot is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2010, 13:07
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
rotorblades


Under the FAA code of federal regs:
Quote:
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
This isolated and selective statement highlights exactly why you Class E deniers do not understand the system on offer. You refuse to consider all the information in concert.

IFR in the United States do not fly in class E without a clearance.

All airline served airports have a minimum of Class E starting at 700ft AGL rotorblades and if no IFR clearance has been given, then by definition the flight is VFR while climbing out. Do you understand this?

If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E!

Read my post here.

We should copy the United States here and issue an airways clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND prior to departure. Class E should go to the ground when the tower closes. Problem solved.


If you understood the NAS proposal you would know we are going to have Class E down to 700ft AGL for terminal areas, 1200ft for corridors (Airways) and down to ground level for approaches and to the ground when Class D towers closed.

From your other posts you clearly did not understand how we could do this from a place like Ballina. There is a solution rotorblades, we should copy a country that already does it with amazing success. They sometimes issue clearance 'void times' if not airborne in a non radar environment by a certain time. Its simple and it works.


You're still young rotorblades, I'm sure in time you may get to work in other countries and you will have the opportunity to learn better ways of doing things.

You say

dont try and convince pilots to do something in Australia which isnt within the Australian rules.
Remarkable statement to make. We can and do change our rules all the time. Yourself and ARFOR seem to think not.

The airline I work for does not allow us to fly VFR, as doesn't Jet A knight's. But we can make exemptions and copy the US by allowing RPT to depart VFR in some circumstances as long as they 'pick up IFR' by 50nm from the departure airport. See FAA Ops Spec C 077.

Not everything is in the FAR AIMS!
mjbow2 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2010, 13:34
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
Bowie,
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E!
Did it ever occur to think WHY you couldn't get a clearance? If so, did you do anything about it or just blast off into the ether hoping you didn't run into anybody?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2010, 16:33
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Did it ever occur to think WHY you couldn't get a clearance?
Bloggs,

You are completely blinkered, aren't you, have you ever flown in the US?? You should try it some time, you would be amazed at how straight forward it is, compared to all the bush lawyering that surrounds aviation in Australia.

All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.

Re. all the safety cases, go talk to your union (if you are a member of the AFAP), don't blame me or any of the CASA/Airservices/NAS/Military/Industry people if you were not kept informed, or misinformed, by your representatives at the time.

As for your comment about G being safer than E because everybody has to use radio---- what have you been smoking?? It must be strong stuff.

As I said somewhere else, go after all the info under FOI, I have absolutely no intention of digging out all my old files, all in an archive at YSBK, let alone "releasing" them. The total count of our storage boxes, just for the NAS consultation documents and all the hazard analysis and mitigation determinations records, was in excess of 20.

Do you really believe that you personally have to be informed in detail, of every proposed change, and be given the chance to agree or veto every detail for a reform process for it to be valid.

The expression" "Get real" comes to mind.

For those of you rabbiting on about Europe, why don't you get a few charts out, and see how small the whole place is. All of UK bar the Shetlands, a large chunk of Ireland, the Channel and a chunk of France and Belgium all fit on just two half million charts. One ONC (1:5,000,000) just about covers the whole EEC and large bits of the CIS. Having done that, go look for the E, you will find it around the place.

Most of western Europe, and a fair bit of the (old) eastern block, fit into NSW and Victoria.(or the NE corner of the US)

Australia is not comparable with EEC, aviation area wise, but it is with the US, except that we have sod all traffic compared with the US. There are, on average, around about 5000+/- IFR flights airborne, and about 50,000 active IFR flight plans at any one time ----- What is the maximum no. of IFR flights over continental Australia ever reached at one time ---- 200? 300? 400?. Come on you blokes from Airservices, tell us.

That Australia's "IFR Rules" and the way they are interpreted, are dopy, is not a valid criticism of the fundamentals of the NAS. In fact, at various NAS consultations, it was pathetic to hear representatives of one group of pilots ( taking only the position of their airline members) demanding that nobody should be allowed to depart VFR and get a clearance IFR on climb, because if they, the "airlines", one of them flying a Chieftain, for goodness sake, couldn't, so it was only "fair" that operators not constrained by dopy rules should not be allowed to take advantage of the new rules.

And all this because what had been G suddenly became E ------ and therefor "not safe".

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2010, 17:02
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The world at large
Age: 59
Posts: 9
mjbow2

You're still young rotorblades, I'm sure in time you may get to work in other countries and you will have the opportunity to learn better ways of doing things.
Sorry, couldn't let that one slide....
I seem to remember Rotorblades having worked London TMA stuff as well as Australian airspace...I could be wrong though.
Your quote is simply arrogant and just laughable...so the fact that he says he is 29 precludes him from "having a clue" like your good self does it? just what is the cutoff for enlightenment then, hmmmmm?????

Just as an aside to your comment about working in other countries...I have and do, and I will tell you that most of them happily work without E airspace.
In one of those countries, all flights must obtain permission to operate, it is and was a damned sight busier that anything I ever saw in Australia too. Those operators seem to realise that the sky isn't just there for their benefit, they fit in or stay on the ground.
Simple!
BTW mjbow2, if you are actually in the sandpit, you would have spoken to me on the radio there, and here is a hint....the country was in the Middle East.
The fact that they do things in the sandpit differently to Australia so therefore it is better, has exactly the same worth as the cry about US NAS being better.

Ledsled...what exactly was your point about the size of Europe compared to Australia? Didn't any of your girlfriends ever tell you size doesn't matter?
Mike Barry is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2010, 18:46
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837
Australia is not comparable with EEC, aviation area wise, but it is with the US, except that we have sod all traffic compared with the US.
Leadsled, that right there is one of the fundamental problems with importing the US NAS. But you don't seem to get it. You are told over and over why, then conspicuously ignore the reasons/questions.

I would've thought that after ARFOR just absolutely trounced you on the other thread you might've had the sense to go away and lick your wounds. Seems you are more of the "martyr" type of fundamentalist.

Keep polishing that turd.
ferris is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2010, 20:48
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Qld
Posts: 50
All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.
VHF comms with ATC are available on the ground at Willy. That's what this thread was about. Anyway in the case that VHF isn't available we use HF.

Leadsled are you telling us you'd willingly blast off into class E VFR if denied a clearance, knowing that there is conflicting traffic *somewhere*
Mr Whippy is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2010, 23:52
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
Nastronauts,

In Australia, RPTs don't climb into E (VFR) looking for a clearance, and it seems to work without too many problems and delays.

If you want it changed ... go for it ... wish you luck. Even if you do get it changed, I doubt most Airlines will use it.

Once again, what are you trying to fix?
peuce is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 00:03
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 44
Posts: 447
All you can think of is that the IFR clearance is not available because of conflicting traffic (having told us that you can't have E without radar) ---- but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground.
If this is one of the places that has E almost to the ground, what happens here when the conditions are less than VMC and the aircraft cannot get a clearance? They just wait until the weather clears up?

Cheers,

NFR.
No Further Requirements is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 01:53
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
mjbow
All airline served airports have a minimum of Class E starting at 700ft AGL rotorblades and if no IFR clearance has been given, then by definition the flight is VFR while climbing out. Do you understand this?
FAA JO 7110-65S - US ATS Rules Manual

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...r/7110.65S.pdf
4-3-9. VFR RELEASE OF IFR DEPARTURE

When an aircraft which has filed an IFR flight plan requests a VFR departure through a terminal facility, FSS, or air/ground communications station:
a. After obtaining, if necessary, approval from the facility/sector responsible for issuing the IFR clearance, you may authorize an IFR flight planned aircraft to depart VFR. Inform the pilot of the proper frequency and, if appropriate, where or when to contact the facility responsible for issuing the clearance.

PHRASEOLOGY VFR DEPARTURE AUTHORIZED. CONTACT (facility) ON (frequency) AT (location or time if required) FOR CLEARANCE.

b. If the facility/sector responsible for issuing the clearance is unable to issue a clearance, inform the pilot, and suggest that the delay be taken on the ground. If the pilot insists upon taking off VFR and obtaining an IFR clearance in the air, inform the facility/sector holding the flight plan of the pilot's intentions and, if possible, the VFR departure time.
Do you understand the actual system in the US?
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, an aircraft can depart VFR and climb up to the base of Class A, before picking up their IFR clearance. All in Class E!
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, then there is a conflicting IFR aircraft. That is why ATS WILL suggest a delay on the ground. If the pilot decides to go VFR, then they are reliant on ‘see and avoid’ to avoid collision. Which is exactly as the professionals on these threads are suggesting, and why the following limitations are within the FSIMS:-

Flight Standards Information Management System

12_002_005
OpSpec C077 Subparagraph c(3). This subparagraph contains a requirement to obtain an IFR clearance no farther than 50 nautical miles from the departure airport. However, it is recognized that this procedure may not be practical in all situations. If a greater distance is necessary, the foreign air carrier may apply for a nonstandard paragraph. If OpSpec B051 is issued for VFR en route operations, then for propeller driven aircraft, except for certain en route VFR provisions in part 93, SFAR 50–2, or SFAR 71, the flightcrew may depart VFR under the provision of OpSpec C077 subparagraph c, and the requirement to obtain an IFR clearance en route does not apply.

F. Terminal Departure IFR Requirements in Subparagraph d. If ATC clears the flight, it is acceptable to execute a VMC takeoff and climb to a specified point in the clearance as part of an IFR clearance. However, the foreign air carrier must ensure that the obstacle performance requirements are met. Further, the flight must not depart on a VFR flight plan if the capability to go on an IFR flight plan is evident.
Bare in mind also that in G, pilots can select an alternate track that de-conflicts with the other aircraft. If the Class E base is low [belowA100], then ATC will often not have any MSAW/LSALT options if off track, when an IFR clearance in E becomes ‘necessary’ in to CTA.
G. Subparagraph e. Subparagraph e provides special limitations and provisions for all VFR operations. This subparagraph is applicable to all the provisions and limitations of OpSpec C077.

1) Subparagraph e(1). In order for the foreign air carrier to conduct VFR operations under OpSpec C077, they must have in place either a procedure or program that can identify obstacles and the airport obstacle data. Further, they must ensure that the flightcrew use that information. The POI shall request documentation from the foreign air carrier that this program is in place and that the air carrier’s CAA has approved VFR terminal operations.

2) OpSpec C077, Subparagraph e(2). Although each subparagraph has specific details and minimums regarding VFR, the requirement for sufficient seeing conditions to identify and avoid obstacles is required for all VFR operations.
Your previous post continues the fine tradition of NAStronaut misinformation.
ARFOR is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 04:06
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,078
Dick Smith:
For those interested, transponders were not required for VFR in non radar class C before the NAS changes.
Transponders have always been required for all aircraft in Class C airspace since it was introduced. Radar coverage is not a factor. One-off approvals have been granted for specific flights, but that is all.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 04:58
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Transponders have always been required for all aircraft in Class C airspace since it was introduced
Cute. Didn't the NAS changes catagorise the airspace?

What was Rockhampton before that?
Frank Arouet is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.