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

Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?

Old 24th Apr 2010, 04:59
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
ARFOR

It is evident that your knowledge of US NAS is limited by Internet Explorer.

It is a great shame that you cannot speak with any authority as one that has flown in or provided ATS services under US NAS.

Your cut and paste exercise only proves that IFR pickup is available as we have been saying.

You really will cut and paste anything that appears to cast doubt on anything that a NAStronaut states. (thanks for coining that phrase... I am indeed a NAStronaut)

You really should read what you post more carefully. Your ATS manual excerpt of section 4-3-9 assumes that a pilot requests a VFR departure.

What your Internet Explorer did not tell you is that there is absolutely no requirement for a pilot to request a VFR departure. They can just do it!

Of all the VFR departures I have conducted in the United States, not once have I asked to do it and not once has a controller had to 'authorise' it.

Why don't you go and ask one of your American colleagues how its done in the United States ARFOR, I hear them on the radio here every day. I'm sure they will explain it to you, they seem quite friendly.
mjbow2 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 05:06
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
"NAStronaut". I'll wear the "T" shirt if someone prints them up.

I can see the reverse side..." I flew class E and survived".
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 05:13
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 39
Posts: 154
mjbow
I wish there was a smilie that showed just how much of an idiot you are
From your other posts you clearly did not understand how we could do this from a place like Ballina
I didnt bring Ballina up.

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 ****!!!!!!!!! I spent 7 years working in London TMA - Heathrow Radar, Thames radar, Heathrow SVFR. Cant get much busier than London TMA airspace. Maybe you should find out the facts before you go accusing people of being young & inexperienced!!!!

I have Approach training, Enroute training (Radar & Procedural) & Tower training. The full set.

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
YES, but the rules havent changed yet, so still encouraging people to go against the regs.
rotorblades is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 06:09
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
rotorblades

You are absolutely right.

I should not have assumed your age was accurate on your profile. It was a mistake to make such an assumption and I retract the statement and apologise for any offense caused. I was wrong to do it as it detracts from the importance of the issue at hand.

Regretfully.

MJBOW2
mjbow2 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 06:26
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
These nastronauts are just plain nasty ...

I don't know if I really want to play any more
peuce is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 06:30
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 39
Posts: 154
mjbow

Apology accepted, my age is correct though - Ive been in ATC for 11 years!. And though I dont claim to know everything, never will, I have a fair bit of experience behind me.
Thanks for being man enough to admit your error. I also was a bit hot-headed in my response, for which I apologise.

My posts from the FAR & USAIP, was not a contradiciton to what you have said, it was just me posting what I could find about the subject from US regulations - trying to find the answers for myself rather than relying on second.third hand information - from whoever it is. I could not/can not find anything about if an IFR departs without being able to gain a clearance its by definition VFR.

My main issue with class E is, why E?. Why not D?
Having seen E at Willy today it was a right buggers muddle, IFR (an RPT) turning for finals without a clearance, a VFR going through right in front of an IFR (the VFR was doing the right thing and listening out, so I managed to pass TI and they sorted themselves out) but a lot of VFRs dont, and not all of them have transponders (some of them do but they dont work or have incorrcet mode C). At least if they were identified and verified we'd know.
In what we are talking about on this thread is Willy. Why not have D down to sfc, with 'recommended' VFR transit lanes set up to transit through the overhead (when RAAF active then its the coastal/inland route), rather than have a lot go coastal straight thru' 12 climb out/30 short finals.
With D we will know about all traffic, can plan accordingly. Departures will get a clearance on the ground, with clearance expiry times if required. VFR will still have to miss the IFRs but a full & comprehensive traffic service can be provided to both.
There is always more than one solution.

And why we are at it, why dont we have proper segregated departure & arrival routes, so we can give the clearance without having to double guess where they *might* pass. It will be much easier to give clearance.

It is not always a good idea just to copy what someone else does verbatim.
Assess whats best for the traffic situations in Australia/or the particular airport & adapt to best suit your needs. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

I think what a lot of people worry, is that not enough forethought has been given to all the implications. Its just a case of that looks good and works for them so must work for us.
rotorblades is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 06:45
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,496
mjbow2, I am interested in your dialogue with ATC with regard to your VFR departure and your IFR flightplan. Yes, you can launch any time you like under the VFR out of a CTAF, a couple of minor steps to follow VFR in a D Tower, even a FAA one...but the dialogue for your IFR flightplan...do you leave that to some form of clairvoyance?

It is OK to say you can do something under one set of rules...however,...when you have to comply with another set of rules, and then you just barge off under another set and then EXPECT service...bit rude...I am very sure you are not an ignorant busdriver...so...you must deal with ATC wrt your filed IFR...so if ATC says you cannot have a clearance into E...there must be a very good reason.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 06:58
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,496
mjbow2, wrt your quip about the internet...I can tell you right now, if the internet was available back in the eighties, a certain well traveled person would not have been able to do his Marco Polo impersonation with the lesser mortals of GA.

Information is power, as our intrepid traveler well knew. Everything posted on this page in rebutal of your gang's argument is either from direct experience or very learned study that can be attributed.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 07:04
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
mjbow now now, blood pressure
What your Internet Explorer did not tell you is that there is absolutely no requirement for a pilot to request a VFR departure.
They can just do it!
What the JO tells US is that IFR wanting to depart an uncontrolled airport in to Class E must comply as quoted above. Or are you suggesting the JO is wrong?

If the IFR flight pilot departs VFR they either do so with or without ATS approval. If there is no ATS approval, there is NO guarantee that an IFR clearance will be available when needed i.e. climbing in to cloud in CTA

Read the regs mjbow. These are the 'practical' points contributors here are making.
ARFOR is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 07:09
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
It seems to me that if a departing IFR aircraft elects to proceed VFR because clearance is not available due to other IFR traffic, then a certain train of circumstances come into play.

The departing pilot must make an assessment that VMC exists. He must be aware of the cloud base and the amount of cloud that will ensure he can maintain VMC. Having, in another life, seen countless incorrect VMC assessments by pilots, I cannot see an improvement in pilots abilities to do this, especially if there is some pressure to go.

If conditions are marginal VMC, then the departing aircraft may have to divert around cloud and may not be on course within five miles. This introduces possible LSALT problems, traffic assessment problems, and subsequent clearance problems. (Not on designated route for lateral separation, perhaps)

The ability to see and avoid becomes problematic, and if the vis. is not so good, but still VMC, then people start to get a bit edgy. Particularly the other IFR pilot who would be wishing the other chap had stayed on the ground. Straight away, up goes the frequency congestion, and the workload.

This probably happens now in G, but at least the controller is not part of the separation link, and pilots may consider TCAS enough for their segregation.

I'd be happy to stand corrected if things have changed in more recent times.
Chief galah is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 07:24
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,078
Cute. Didn't the NAS changes catagorise the airspace?
G'day Frank

No ......... the ICAO classifications were introduced in the late 90's.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 07:52
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 39
Posts: 154
ICAO have actually been planning to consolidate the numbers/classes of airspace. into new & wonderful letters. I think its down to three U, K & R. or something like that. didnt read too much as it was dated 2004! so they probably didnt get any further.
rotorblades is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 07:56
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
ARFOR,
Have you actually ever read an FAA Part 121 or Part 129 Operations Specification, I really doubt it, much less had any experience operating under one.

Do you actually understand what a Part 121 or Part 129 Operations Specification covers, and the legal validity/application of an Ops. Spec.

As we already know, you are a really accomplished "cut and paster", but do you actually read and understand what you have cut and pasted --- including related documents to give the whole picture.. What you have so thoughtfully done in this last massive cut and paste is laid out ( in part) the rules for departing VFR and getting an IFR clearance on climb --- for aircraft subject to Operations Control.

There can be many reasons for a clearance release time and a void time, seldom has it to do (in my experience) with the Center not being able to provide separation.

With reference to "the other thread", and here, selective posting (I musts admit, posting all the relevant documents is an impossibility) intended to support your argument contains some most interesting selections, and what amuses me is how often it only supports your case ---- if you a committed believer. Several new identities have popped up (and I have no idea who they are) who don't quite read things your way, do they??

Given the posts of your cheer squad, they haven't read and understood them either.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 08:02
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
"NAStronaut". I'll wear the "T" shirt if someone prints them up.
I can see the reverse side..." I flew class E and survived".


I'll have two, where do I order??

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 08:29
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
There's another complication to this ...

Two Italian Controllers have just been jailed for permitting an IFR aircraft to change to VFR, with a resulting CFIT.

This was even after the Controller asked the PIC to confirm he could provide his own obstacle clearance.

I daresay such requests/advice may be met with a less than enthusiastic response from ATC in the future.

I know, another country, another rule book ... but it does seem topical to link Australia with International practices.
peuce is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 09:05
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837
If an IFR clearance is not immediately available, then there is a conflicting IFR aircraft.
Not necessarily, ARFOR. An american colleague (whom I am fact-checking with) advises that flow control and sector capacity management are important reasons for requiring departure approval. Capacity management extends to the entire route-of-flight, and not just arrival (slot) control. They have more people just managing sector capacity than oz has en-route controllers.
It's a different world (the US world of aviation). A different set of circumstances. Thinking that you can just transplant it into the oz environment is, well, naive.
ferris is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 09:11
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
ferris

True, had not looked that far in to that aspect.

LeadSled
for aircraft subject to Operations Control.
Which would be what class of operation? I know its been 10 years but really
There can be many reasons for a clearance release time and a void time, seldom has it to do (in my experience) with the Center not being able to provide separation.
Well what pray tell might it be for then?
With reference to "the other thread", and here, selective posting (I musts admit, posting all the relevant documents is an impossibility) intended to support your argument contains some most interesting selections, and what amuses me is how often it only supports your case ---- if you a committed believer.
You and the 2.5 side kicks never provide documentary support, only waffle and war stories. Selective quoting? I think not, all reference documents are available [ICAO with Industry Access] and quoted in full. If you feel anything I have quote only tells part of the story, please enlighten us with any missing bits. As your friend would say I dare you
Several new identities have popped up (and I have no idea who they are) who don't quite read things your way, do they??
Really? apart from you and the 2.5 side kicks, who else is reading things differently?
ARFOR is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 09:12
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
Ledsled,

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.
Oh, very sorry, I am such an idiot for not thinking about that.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 09:47
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837
but it is beyond your imagination that, just perhaps, the most common problem is that the centre frequency is not available on the ground
That is NOT the problem. An IFR clearance in the states will MOST USUALLY be delivered by the tower at the field. It is HIGHLY UNCOMMON for an IFR flight (and NEVER for an RPT jet-type service such as in some oz circumstances) to not be in contact with ATS on departure (not necessarily the TRACON). In very rare circumstances, pilots may obtain clearance via phone (hence the existence of time-expiry type conditionals).
Do you really understand the differences between oz and the US, Leasled? It certainly appears that you hope a lot of the stuff you post will just "slide by".
ferris is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2010, 10:26
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,496
Keep it coming, Peuce. Input! Internet rules!

It must hurt your pride, Leadsled. Your reputation for being an encyclopaedic mind for details is getting roundly kicked into touch at every play. Maybe, you need to reacquaint yourself with your archive.....don't forget to update

Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 24th Apr 2010 at 10:47.
OZBUSDRIVER 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.