Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to be converging on NAS from this thread, which i believe was about WLM originally.
It can be solved so easily - segregated inbound/outbound routes.
RWY12
Inbounds from the North
MSO - TRINA/NAMBA - WLM
outbounds to the north
WLM - NELSN -PLO/BANDA
inbounds/outbounds from/to South
Via an appropriate point SW for ins, SE for outs.
RWY30
Inbounds from North
MSO - NELSN - WLM
outbounds to North
WLM - TRINA - PLO/BANDA
ins/outs from South
opposite to rwy12
Clearances can then be issued to aircraft on the ground much easier, with just overflights to worry about - which can be sorted out much easier due to them normally in the cruise than nose to nose inbounds/outbounds.
And nothing prevents track shortening subject to the traffic.
Simples
It can be solved so easily - segregated inbound/outbound routes.
RWY12
Inbounds from the North
MSO - TRINA/NAMBA - WLM
outbounds to the north
WLM - NELSN -PLO/BANDA
inbounds/outbounds from/to South
Via an appropriate point SW for ins, SE for outs.
RWY30
Inbounds from North
MSO - NELSN - WLM
outbounds to North
WLM - TRINA - PLO/BANDA
ins/outs from South
opposite to rwy12
Clearances can then be issued to aircraft on the ground much easier, with just overflights to worry about - which can be sorted out much easier due to them normally in the cruise than nose to nose inbounds/outbounds.
And nothing prevents track shortening subject to the traffic.
Simples
Ledsled,
You keep lambasting me for being insular, no real "world" experience and stuck inside the 12nm limit, so I have question for you: the number of times you have taken an RPT jet out of a CTAF into low-level E would be?
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.
Ledsled,
Re your snide comment:
That wasn't actually the case at all. Here is what BASI had to say about your "Evans Head Scenic":
I wonder how many other "facts" that you have come up with aren't actually facts at all? 
Re your snide comment:
This reminds me of what was going on, in and out of Ballina, during the "Class G" trial --- the original trials of E. How many of you still remember ----- overflying Ballina, letting down in the firing range at Evans Head, and coming back down the coast at low level in G ---- all to avoid the dreaded E.
A major domestic operator, which only serviced one location in the demonstration area, had elected to divert around the demonstration airspace in order to enter the mandatory broadcast zone associated with that location from controlled airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge.
How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies.
Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge.
How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies.
Bushy,
I understand how it can appear that we're trying to shaft VFRs .. at the expense of IFRs ... because that's all we've been talking about. We have had to push some pretty serious points and the reasonoing we use can appear pretty extreme ...
However,my point of view is that the first priority has to be the protection of IFR RPTs with dozens of paying souls on board. Passengers can't fly themselves, so they put their trust in dumb ole pilots. The least the piloting community can do is try and ensure that fare paying passengers have a pretty good chance of safely getting to their destination. To do that, we have to be sure we have a robust safety regime, that will stand public scrutiny. To date, many of us don't believe that our Government has provided us with that.
Once that is squared away, one way or the other, I am also certain that "sensible arrangements" for VFR participation will be the next priority.
Hopefully, that might be achieved at the same time and your suggestions on how that might be achieved would be welcomed in this Forum.
And to answer your first question last ... none of us have all the answers .. and most of us are indeed, fallible ...that's probably why we are here ... to gain more knowledge.
I understand how it can appear that we're trying to shaft VFRs .. at the expense of IFRs ... because that's all we've been talking about. We have had to push some pretty serious points and the reasonoing we use can appear pretty extreme ...
However,my point of view is that the first priority has to be the protection of IFR RPTs with dozens of paying souls on board. Passengers can't fly themselves, so they put their trust in dumb ole pilots. The least the piloting community can do is try and ensure that fare paying passengers have a pretty good chance of safely getting to their destination. To do that, we have to be sure we have a robust safety regime, that will stand public scrutiny. To date, many of us don't believe that our Government has provided us with that.
Once that is squared away, one way or the other, I am also certain that "sensible arrangements" for VFR participation will be the next priority.
Hopefully, that might be achieved at the same time and your suggestions on how that might be achieved would be welcomed in this Forum.
And to answer your first question last ... none of us have all the answers .. and most of us are indeed, fallible ...that's probably why we are here ... to gain more knowledge.
Which would be what class of operation?
Dear me, you really know sod all, ( except how to cut and paste) don't you??
My post already tells you, in black and white, what class of operation!!
Bloggs,
What I said about Ballina, and what the ATSB said, are entirely consistent, trust you to not be able to understand airspace divisions. Said operator preferred flying in the deactivated and therefor G airspace of the range, and in G under the E, rather than "penetrate" the dreaded E.
I know from personal experience, I passed one, opposite direction, flying down the beach at about 2000'. Obviously much safer than them being in E.
Bushy,
You'r a stirrer!! Carry on.
Tootle pip!!.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled 
I know a shed load more [real life design and application] about ATM than you think you know
The original link was provided by mjbow, which as per standard operating proved to be less than half the story.
Which raises another interesting point. You and Mr Smith bang on about how simple the US system is. I would observe that not only is the mapping [for VFR] a mismash of complexity [granted most is unavoidable due infrustructure proximity, and airspace complexity] and opportunity for error, which cuts to the very heart of the 'mitigations' put in place i.e. wall to wall ATC to catch aircraft [VFR outside the system], and protect IFR without bringing the whole system to a stand still [lets not even consider talking about the size and real cost of the IFR flow management establishment]. This is principally why the US utilise Class E with PRIM and SSR surveillance.
Add to that the number of legislative parts dotted here and there. It would take quite some convincing for anyone operating ATM systems to believe the US suite were a simpler system.
And, before you go off on another unrelated sermon of how good you were 'in the day', I am commenting only on the 'airspace and related' systems and rules. Not aircraft maintenance and the like.
I know a shed load more [real life design and application] about ATM than you think you know
The original link was provided by mjbow, which as per standard operating proved to be less than half the story.
Which raises another interesting point. You and Mr Smith bang on about how simple the US system is. I would observe that not only is the mapping [for VFR] a mismash of complexity [granted most is unavoidable due infrustructure proximity, and airspace complexity] and opportunity for error, which cuts to the very heart of the 'mitigations' put in place i.e. wall to wall ATC to catch aircraft [VFR outside the system], and protect IFR without bringing the whole system to a stand still [lets not even consider talking about the size and real cost of the IFR flow management establishment]. This is principally why the US utilise Class E with PRIM and SSR surveillance.
Add to that the number of legislative parts dotted here and there. It would take quite some convincing for anyone operating ATM systems to believe the US suite were a simpler system.
And, before you go off on another unrelated sermon of how good you were 'in the day', I am commenting only on the 'airspace and related' systems and rules. Not aircraft maintenance and the like.
the number of times you have taken an RPT jet out of a CTAF into low-level E would be?
I missed the above pearler before:
The answer is many in the US, over a 40 year period ----- and not all with the one airline, as you are probably imagining is the case. Remember, many C and D towers in the US are not H24.
In AU, without the E part, just the CTAF into G, a few times on diversions, mostly in WA.
Other small jet/turboprop (not RPT) in US, add quite a few more.
Elsewhere from a supposed D tower ( or ? when nobody is in the tower) to overlaying control of some kind, without a clearance, because no clearance was available on the ground, many times.
Tell me, Bloggs, how many time have you taken a Heavy ( as in the callsign, not AU Hi-Cap) into a strip with nothing but kero edgelights?? Which is as about as relevant a question as yours above is to the main thrust of this thread.
Being a pilot operating in the current system is not a qualification in the system design including any future system.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled THESE ARE YOUR VERY OWN WORDS (lifted from the NAS thread)
Now, the it seems to me you really need to listen to your own words. 'E' link airspace was tried before, and look at the results (LT, Tobago)! Here you are trying it again!! Trying to put un-surveilled E link airspace in, despite the valid protests of the small group of professionals who do the job day in, day out. Aren't airmisses good enough- people WILL actually have to die before you admit "the conventional wisdom was wrong"???
There are none so blind....
Your very own words!
As I have said, many times, aviation safety is not a democracy. As we have seen time and again (all to often after a fatal accident) the "conventional wisdom" was wrong, but people had to die for the majority to be proven wrong. Sadly, in all to many examples, the minority had pointed out why the conventional wisdom was wrong, only for the inevitable to prove the minority correct.
There are none so blind....
Your very own words!
Given the passion with which you guys/gals have been arguing your points of view, I am amazed that there have not been 2514 mid-air collisions in the last 3 years, because you all have rock-solid opinions regardless. Must be that the current system works reasonably OK ? Or rather, that you flight crews out there are pretty competent ?
Am I being too simplistic in saying that what is required is a (hopefully) fool-proof system of departures/approaches for non-towered aerodromes ? Surely this is a basic requirement ? Can't be too hard !!!!
Seriously, you have descended into a pointless slanging match: rather than try to work towards a sensible solution, you are just trading insults.
You are highly trained professionals - please remember that, and do as you know you should.
BP - not a professional pilot, but try to be professional nevertheless...
Am I being too simplistic in saying that what is required is a (hopefully) fool-proof system of departures/approaches for non-towered aerodromes ? Surely this is a basic requirement ? Can't be too hard !!!!
Seriously, you have descended into a pointless slanging match: rather than try to work towards a sensible solution, you are just trading insults.
You are highly trained professionals - please remember that, and do as you know you should.
BP - not a professional pilot, but try to be professional nevertheless...
Last edited by Back Pressure; 27th Apr 2010 at 11:34. Reason: grammar - what else ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the sand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might be moving slightly away from the topic of the thread, however...
I've recently started working in a multi nationality environment, and spent the last two months trying to understand both the US and UK systems, having worked solely in OZ. What I've found is that the US is vastly different in the very principle of how they operate, compared to how we do. My observation is that oz is high regulated (for good reason), which is not to say that the US isn't, but in a different way. I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it) some of which has come about from the US way of doing things (yes, this is a bit of a generalisation, please take it in context), ie. tower can release aircraft into approach airspace by which ever means they choose, no coordination required. To move to an airspace design system similar to the US, would also require a significant cultural shift on behalf of the oz avaition community in order to be successful and this issue does not seem to have been addressed in any of the changes.
A comment was made previously about VFR. Whether we agree or disagree, the mandate of the ATSB is to priortise fare paying passengers and matters of public interest, which in turn means that change is likely to come about for the IFR community and the manner they fly before it does the VFR community as a result of the investigations carried out. Incidents not investigated are recorded in the incident reporting system, which is managed by CASA - and so relies largely on trend spotting and data analysis to identify areas for change.
I've recently started working in a multi nationality environment, and spent the last two months trying to understand both the US and UK systems, having worked solely in OZ. What I've found is that the US is vastly different in the very principle of how they operate, compared to how we do. My observation is that oz is high regulated (for good reason), which is not to say that the US isn't, but in a different way. I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it) some of which has come about from the US way of doing things (yes, this is a bit of a generalisation, please take it in context), ie. tower can release aircraft into approach airspace by which ever means they choose, no coordination required. To move to an airspace design system similar to the US, would also require a significant cultural shift on behalf of the oz avaition community in order to be successful and this issue does not seem to have been addressed in any of the changes.
A comment was made previously about VFR. Whether we agree or disagree, the mandate of the ATSB is to priortise fare paying passengers and matters of public interest, which in turn means that change is likely to come about for the IFR community and the manner they fly before it does the VFR community as a result of the investigations carried out. Incidents not investigated are recorded in the incident reporting system, which is managed by CASA - and so relies largely on trend spotting and data analysis to identify areas for change.
Thread Starter
Chatz
Great post. By the way, you state
Chatz – can you explain this in a little more detail? What are the "greater freedoms" and what aspect(s) don’t you like about them?
I’d love to get your views on this.
Great post. By the way, you state
I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it)
I’d love to get your views on this.
Ferris,
As I have said elsewhere, these two RAs did not invalidate the system, although many of you devoutly believe they did.
As also said elsewhere, I am amazed at the attitude that the number ( considerably more than 2) of RAs in C, in the same calender period as NAS 2b operated, are not regarded as significant, but 2 RAs in E prove a failed system. As somebody famous said:" Please explain".
Re. you comments on US operations, suggest you read the rules, and also have a look at a lot of FAA tower hours.
Backpressure,
The only opinion I have on the subject is that ICAO based risk management allocation of finite CNS/ATM resources is the proper way to design airspace classifications.
Tootle pip!!
'E' link airspace was tried before, and look at the results (LT, Tobago)!
As also said elsewhere, I am amazed at the attitude that the number ( considerably more than 2) of RAs in C, in the same calender period as NAS 2b operated, are not regarded as significant, but 2 RAs in E prove a failed system. As somebody famous said:" Please explain".
Re. you comments on US operations, suggest you read the rules, and also have a look at a lot of FAA tower hours.
Backpressure,
The only opinion I have on the subject is that ICAO based risk management allocation of finite CNS/ATM resources is the proper way to design airspace classifications.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd go even further, peuce.
1. An RA in C can happen due to high rates of change- even if there are correctly assigned separation standards. They still get actioned and reported, even though there was no danger of an airprox. If you were honest, Leadsled, you would concede there are more 'false' RAs than legit arse-savers.
2. Due to the structured nature of controlled airspace, you will get many more aircraft running over the top of each other. Statistically obvious why you will get more RAs in C than lower classes of airspace.
3. There are many, many more aircraft with TCAS operating in C than the lower classes. Once again, statistically obvious. If you haven't got the equipment, you can't have RAs.
But the real biggie is, indeed, that for an RA (an actual arse-saver) to occur in C, someone stuffed up. In E- nothing need go wrong except a failure of un-alerted see and avoid. How many warnings about THAT do you need? To design the system to rely on it? Talk about 'dirt road airspace'!
Is the explanation clear? Your misuse of a stat like this is just pure obfuscation, Leadsled. Learning at the foot of the master? Although, regular readers will be well and truly awake up to the tactics in use in trying to polish this turd.
1. An RA in C can happen due to high rates of change- even if there are correctly assigned separation standards. They still get actioned and reported, even though there was no danger of an airprox. If you were honest, Leadsled, you would concede there are more 'false' RAs than legit arse-savers.
2. Due to the structured nature of controlled airspace, you will get many more aircraft running over the top of each other. Statistically obvious why you will get more RAs in C than lower classes of airspace.
3. There are many, many more aircraft with TCAS operating in C than the lower classes. Once again, statistically obvious. If you haven't got the equipment, you can't have RAs.
But the real biggie is, indeed, that for an RA (an actual arse-saver) to occur in C, someone stuffed up. In E- nothing need go wrong except a failure of un-alerted see and avoid. How many warnings about THAT do you need? To design the system to rely on it? Talk about 'dirt road airspace'!
Is the explanation clear? Your misuse of a stat like this is just pure obfuscation, Leadsled. Learning at the foot of the master? Although, regular readers will be well and truly awake up to the tactics in use in trying to polish this turd.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's an RA in C ... someone has made a mistake
Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services
4-10-250 Nuisance Advisories
Nuisance Advisories can occur even though standard separation exists. Do not immediately assume that separation has been lost, or that you are at fault, when a pilot reports manoeuvring in response to an RA.
4-10-260 Controller accountability
Note: A Controller is not subject to disciplinary action in the event of an accident or incident arising from an aircraft deviating from an ATC clearance or instruction as a result of an RA, provided that the occurrence was not the result of an incorrect clearance or instruction from the Controller.
Nuisance Advisories can occur even though standard separation exists. Do not immediately assume that separation has been lost, or that you are at fault, when a pilot reports manoeuvring in response to an RA.
4-10-260 Controller accountability
Note: A Controller is not subject to disciplinary action in the event of an accident or incident arising from an aircraft deviating from an ATC clearance or instruction as a result of an RA, provided that the occurrence was not the result of an incorrect clearance or instruction from the Controller.
I remember reading somewhere [can't put my finger on it just now] that 1,500ft was being suggested [for CTA/R] where high closure rates might result in ACAS getting excited and deciding independently to give everyone involved a heart stop/start.
Edit: Sorry ferris, had not seen yours before I hit submit
Last edited by ARFOR; 28th Apr 2010 at 10:03.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy,
I am disappointed in the extreme. Your spray, as follows, is irrational, emotive and out of character in my opinion:
Do you seriously stand by that, given the way you have been serviced for countless years by an incredibly efficient ATC service in the non-radar, terminal D under C environment in which you operate?
I'll put it down to those dreaded green cans! Made the mistake myself on more than one occasion up that way.
I am disappointed in the extreme. Your spray, as follows, is irrational, emotive and out of character in my opinion:
Leadsled
Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge.
How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies.
Don't you know that airlines, the military and Air Traffic Controllers own the sky. They are infallible. and the source of all knowledge.
How dare you suggest that anyone else has any significant aviation knowledege, or that snesible arrangements should be made to allow the other 10,000 aeroplanes to fly in their skies.
I'll put it down to those dreaded green cans! Made the mistake myself on more than one occasion up that way.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy,
Why blame ATC? we are only applying the rules we are required to operate under. There are serious consequences if we deviate from them.
I may be quoting Chatz out of context here and apologies if I am. I think when he talks of
that he probably has more leeway to 'bend' the rules to keep the traffic moving and the regulations are not as slavishly adhered to.
e.g. Direct tracking IS NOT allowed in Oz unless for separation. i.e. even if we can see that there is no reason not to shorten an aircraft up we would have to justify a separation problem, if asked, to do this.
This may be what Chatz is alluding to. That the greater freedoms come from allowing the controllers to assess better ways of moving the traffic, but in some cases leaves the controller with no 'cover' if something goes pear shaped.
Why blame ATC? we are only applying the rules we are required to operate under. There are serious consequences if we deviate from them.
I may be quoting Chatz out of context here and apologies if I am. I think when he talks of
I find that I'm now working in conditions with greater freedom (which I have to say I don't particularly like overall, but like other aspects of it)
e.g. Direct tracking IS NOT allowed in Oz unless for separation. i.e. even if we can see that there is no reason not to shorten an aircraft up we would have to justify a separation problem, if asked, to do this.
This may be what Chatz is alluding to. That the greater freedoms come from allowing the controllers to assess better ways of moving the traffic, but in some cases leaves the controller with no 'cover' if something goes pear shaped.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In an Airplane
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chatz:
Not quite correct in regards to the USA/FAA system.
Many times aircraft are launched based on previous letters of agreement between overlapping airspace. Such as D into C or B.
Other than standard pre agreed launches....tower coordinates with overlapping ATC.
I've thought about replying to this thread since it started.
But its pretty much sorted itself out.
I would point out:
You can launch (in the USA) VFR into E legally.....but that doesn't make it always a good idea.
I've done it (in a jet) often in some places....and I'd never even consider it in others. Some places are time of day, weather, traffic, dependent.
There was a Beechjet 400 that crashed in Rome Georgia USA on 12/11/91 that is the poster child for CFIT. 9 dead after departing in marginal VFR expecting an IFR clearance.
NTSB report: DCA92MA011
DCA92MA011
Oh well....I get paid to be safe and exercise judgement.
ie. tower can release aircraft into approach airspace by which ever means they choose, no coordination required.
Many times aircraft are launched based on previous letters of agreement between overlapping airspace. Such as D into C or B.
Other than standard pre agreed launches....tower coordinates with overlapping ATC.
I've thought about replying to this thread since it started.
But its pretty much sorted itself out.
I would point out:
You can launch (in the USA) VFR into E legally.....but that doesn't make it always a good idea.
I've done it (in a jet) often in some places....and I'd never even consider it in others. Some places are time of day, weather, traffic, dependent.
There was a Beechjet 400 that crashed in Rome Georgia USA on 12/11/91 that is the poster child for CFIT. 9 dead after departing in marginal VFR expecting an IFR clearance.
NTSB report: DCA92MA011
DCA92MA011
Oh well....I get paid to be safe and exercise judgement.