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

Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?

Old 21st Apr 2010, 00:32
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?

I have heard a number of rumours (after all, this is a rumour network) that some airline aircraft are entering the E at 4,500 feet without a clearance when VMC exists, and at other times they are actually levelling off at 4,500 feet when VMC exists, increasing the risk to their passengers.

Anyone who knows the US system would know that an airline aircraft would never level off if climbing in Class E in VMC.

Such an action would just simply add to risk and probably end up with the aircraft hitting a mountain top.

The main point about Class E is that if it is used correctly, it has the advantages of Class G when VMC exists and the advantages of Class A when IMC exists.

Of course, a small number of people in CASA and the industry have refused to allow Class E to work correctly, ie. if you are on an IFR flight plan and you havenít got a clearance, keep climbing when in VMC. Thatís the only safe and sensible thing to do.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 00:40
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hiding..... in one hemisphere or another
Posts: 1,059
Thanks for the advice Dick. Much appreciated.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 00:47
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
Anyone who knows the US system would know that an airline aircraft would never level off if climbing in Class E in VMC.
And here's silly me, thinking that Williamtown was in Australia
peuce is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 01:37
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Qld
Posts: 50
Dick, just maybe it's because those airline crews are concerned about the possibility of unknown VFR traffic in the class E airspace.

I don't believe there's an airline in Australia that would use an IFR pickup or VFR climb procedure to enable climb into class E. The airline I work for expressly prohibits us from using these procedures.

Can you please go back to the previous NAS thread and supply some answers. Your silence is deafening.
Mr Whippy is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 02:49
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
I don't believe there's an airline in Australia that would use an IFR pickup or VFR climb procedure to enable climb into class E. The airline I work for expressly prohibits us from using these procedures.
The airline I work for also bans VFR.

There are also people who use charter aircraft who demand IFR only, making such a procedure useless.

I think the penetration of Class E in this instance at Williamtown probably has more to do with poor depiction on the charts of the class E airspace than anything else.
ga_trojan is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 03:12
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,496
Good grief! First off, you bitch that IFR is busting E on climb and then you say the same IFR is putting their passengers at risk by leveling off before entering E without a clearance...hit a mountain in VMC? then you say those same IFR RPT should cancel IFR and climb VFR with no traffic info except mk1 eyeball...and IFR pickup in the climb.....Class E is as good as G in VMC and as good as A in IMC...and the biggy...a small number of people in CASA and the industry have refused to allow Class E to work correctly...what's this? You getting in early for when class E goes clusterfluck, you've got a scapegoat?

Class E is dirt road airspace** for airlines if they have to go VFR to keep climbing.

** Mr Smith, refer to your rant about dirt road airspace for AV.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 04:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: there
Posts: 711
Look guys, you just have to accept that the thread starter, having never worked for an airline or any profesional aviation organisation, will never grasp the nuts and bolts of what it takes to facilitate a safe operation.

Last edited by slice; 21st Apr 2010 at 12:39.
slice is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 07:33
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 39
Posts: 154
As a controller who works the E airspace over Williamtown, I feel my six-pence is worth.
Although Ive never seen an airline bust into E above 4500 without a clearance. There is a much greater danger if they just do it, regardless of whether they are VMC or not, with hitting an IFR going the other way, or already in there.

If they declare IFR pick-up or VFR climb descent. Thats upto them, but they cant just bust into E and not say anything. and at the subsequent board of enquiry say, oh we were VMC - It wont fly.

IFR in E need a clearance. Reading AIP ENR about class E the only remarks I can see about the term 'VMC', Is the transfer of terrain clearance from ATC to the Pilot.

And, Dick stop going on & on about the USA. if its so bloody wonderful over there. Move. This is Australia, airspace & procedures need to be applicable to the traffic situation & requirements for australian aviation.

Not always is it what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
rotorblades is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 07:36
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
----just maybe it's because those airline crews are concerned about the possibility of unknown VFR traffic in the class E airspace.
What wonderful logic, you stay at low level in G in case there is un-notified VFR (which will have a transponder) in E --- with no idea what is in G, with or without a transponder.

I also love the proposition that "IFR" is automatically "safer" than VFR, regardless of where you are ----- as if G through A is an ascending hierarchy of progressively "safer" airspace, once again only proving that most of you naysayers simply do not understand ICAO based CNS/ATM ---- and have a manic determination to not understand it.

Tootle pip!!

PS: 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.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 07:37
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
This will probably bring the house down, but can anyone confirm or deny that airline traffic in and out of Heathrow and points therabouts that are subject to a volcanic eruption in Finland, are flying day VFR in whatever airspace?

Day VFR single engine private non owner pilots need not respond.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 07:51
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
as if G through A is an ascending hierarchy of progressively "safer" airspace, once again only proving that most of you naysayers simply do not understand ICAO based CNS/ATM ---- and have a manic determination to not understand it.
I'm beginning to seriously doubt that Led knows which way he is flying.

Given a certain amount of traffic eg at WLM, of course the higher you go up the airspace ladder the safer it will get! G/No CTAF R is not as safe a CTAF R is not as safe as D is not as safe as C (I won't mention B or A because for all intents and purposes C/B/A are the same; only the gizzmiesters/NAStronauts like to think otherwise).
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 07:52
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Frank,
I can certainly confirm day VFR only operations in NZ during a major eruption. Although the aircraft were nominally IFR category, they operated to VFR rules, because the track of the aircraft between NZCH and NZAA was unknown, and no conventional ATC IFR clearance could be given.

I am referring to large VH- registered RPT, operating non-standard schedules because of the eruptions. My memory says the offending volcano was Mt.Ruapehu.

Tootle pip!!

Bloggs,
Once again, you demonstrate comprehensible by succinctly, that you do not even have a glimmer of understanding of the principles of ICAO CNS/ATM airspace classification.

Have you ever though of taking your blinker off, and having a look at the big wide word that is out there??
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 08:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
That the NAStronauts believe that the system is safe enough to simply change to VFR and blast on up looking out the window when ATC can't give you a clearance in surveilled airspace beggars belief.

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 21st Apr 2010 at 09:22. Reason: Removed reference to Frank eating Dick; wrong thread!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 08:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,016
Ledsled,
Given you said:

Once again, you demonstrate comprehensible by succinctly, that you do not even have a glimmer of understanding of the principles of ICAO CNS/ATM airspace classification.
Please categorically state that this statement of mine in relation to WLM:
G/No CTAF R is not as safe a CTAF R is not as safe as D is not as safe as C
is wrong. Thank you.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 08:48
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,876
Day VFR single engine private non owner pilots need not respond.
Seems we have to qualify to answer your question...Day&night IFR even in IMC to Wallys horror!, Single engine, pvt and owner.......sorry Leadie no ATPL for me....

So what does that have to do with the topic Frank?
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 09:28
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 136
There have been a few non revenue, non pax carrying flights depart FRA from last night below F200 before the DFS opened more of the airspace to IFR flight.

One LCC refused to operate VFR below F200 due to the lack of ATC service provided in the reclassified airspace, I believe it went to E during the restrictions. And this was only for repositioning flights Cologne to Berlin etc.
ozineurope is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 10:14
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Jabawocky;

The question
This will probably bring the house down, but can anyone confirm or deny that airline traffic in and out of Heathrow and points therabouts that are subject to a volcanic eruption in Finland, are flying day VFR in whatever airspace?
Is not directed at you.

Butt out mate, the other bloke probably has an opinion despite his lack of qualification to answer the question.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 10:23
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
An airport that caters for as many high capacity RPT operations should not have airspace classification such as Willy, particularly given it is such a busy area for coastal traffic.
Bazzamundi is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 11:06
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: brisbane
Posts: 393
Oh Dick, you really have lost me this time.
How about we bust CTA airspace because we have not prepared/briefed our departure. At what point do we rely on our professional qualifications and run the operation as safe as possible without "running into a mountain top".
Oh you Wally!
Fact is Dick, there are a good many professionals operating who can accommodate the vagaries of Australian CTA/OCTA. It's not the best, but I'll do the best I can.
A Poor tradesman and all that(blames his tools).
greenslopes is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2010, 11:55
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
To help Dick to grasp (grasp might be the right word....) the harsh realities of airline flying I think someone should volunteer to take him on a "Four Floors" tour of Singapore.....followed by a full DEbrief at the Paramount.......
illusion 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.