Airspace 2015 coming to an airport near you...
Porter. That is simply not true.
In practice procedural Class E in the USA in the terminal area in IMC is hardly any different to what pilots do in our present system in G.
Have you ever stood behind a controllor in the US who is doing procedural terminal Class E ? I would doubt it from what you say.
Captain Yes. If we are going to introduce some low level terminal class E we will need to copy the most evolved system in the world.. Otherwise it will fail,
Yes. I would be happy with procedural class E. Especially considering it brings in mandatory transponder requirements for all aircraft.
In practice procedural Class E in the USA in the terminal area in IMC is hardly any different to what pilots do in our present system in G.
Have you ever stood behind a controllor in the US who is doing procedural terminal Class E ? I would doubt it from what you say.
Captain Yes. If we are going to introduce some low level terminal class E we will need to copy the most evolved system in the world.. Otherwise it will fail,
Yes. I would be happy with procedural class E. Especially considering it brings in mandatory transponder requirements for all aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain, they said they'll work whatever airspace that's mandated, they said it's not their place to implement airspace classes and that it comes back to the proper training (procedural approach in this case).
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick
Procedural class E would be horribly restrictive to IFR aircraft, and the extra 4000ft of class E would provide no safety benefit whatsoever. Have you considered the potential restrictions placed upon IFR aircraft in poor weather? For example...
You are in the lowered CTA (say base of CTA A045), in IMC, below the grid lowest safe (say A066), and require left of track due weather. As an enroute controller I can not, and I will not clear you to deviate. What do you do?
Now, throw in another IFR aircraft, that I am separating you from (class E remember) who is inbound at A080, pushing for further descent, and wanting to deviate in the same direction that you do. And this is with horribly restrictive procedural standards remember?...Fast running out of options here.
Or it could stay class G, you can move as you wish, and receive detailed traffic advice and 'suggested' options if you ask for them.
Radar class E at Williamtown was implemented after a CASA mandate, and the net gain to safety was zero. However; Increased complications for IFR aircraft? Check. CTA below GRID LSALT and enroute ATC not having the training and authority to use the full range of tools available? Check. More restrictive to RPT? Check. Complicated ATC procedures where the rules specified in Mats are at best contradictory? Check. Increased risk to all concerned? Check.
Im all for discussion on improving in the current setup, but lowering class E is not a good answer to anything, especially below LSALT. Having some aircraft in CTA recieving an ATC service mixing it with VFR's who are doing as they wish is not safer for anyone concerned. But that's just my opinion.
Procedural class E would be horribly restrictive to IFR aircraft, and the extra 4000ft of class E would provide no safety benefit whatsoever. Have you considered the potential restrictions placed upon IFR aircraft in poor weather? For example...
You are in the lowered CTA (say base of CTA A045), in IMC, below the grid lowest safe (say A066), and require left of track due weather. As an enroute controller I can not, and I will not clear you to deviate. What do you do?
Now, throw in another IFR aircraft, that I am separating you from (class E remember) who is inbound at A080, pushing for further descent, and wanting to deviate in the same direction that you do. And this is with horribly restrictive procedural standards remember?...Fast running out of options here.
Or it could stay class G, you can move as you wish, and receive detailed traffic advice and 'suggested' options if you ask for them.
Radar class E at Williamtown was implemented after a CASA mandate, and the net gain to safety was zero. However; Increased complications for IFR aircraft? Check. CTA below GRID LSALT and enroute ATC not having the training and authority to use the full range of tools available? Check. More restrictive to RPT? Check. Complicated ATC procedures where the rules specified in Mats are at best contradictory? Check. Increased risk to all concerned? Check.
Im all for discussion on improving in the current setup, but lowering class E is not a good answer to anything, especially below LSALT. Having some aircraft in CTA recieving an ATC service mixing it with VFR's who are doing as they wish is not safer for anyone concerned. But that's just my opinion.
Last edited by tyler_durden_80; 14th Jul 2015 at 12:56. Reason: Spelling
So we are planning to change airspace.
Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2015 as signed by one Warren Truss, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development is the reference document. Signed 8th of July 2015.
https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...ement_2015.pdf
Process for Changing the Classification of a Volume of Airspace at an Aerodrome
To help determine when changes to airspace classification may be required in the airspace immediately around an aerodrome, (referred to as the control zone at a controlled aerodrome) the following criteria will be used: annual passenger transport operations (PTO) aircraft movements, the annual number of passengers and total annual aircraft movements (see Table 1).
Class B 1/ 750,000 2/250,000 3/25 million
Class C 1/400,000 2/30,000 3/1 million
Class D 1/80,000 2/15,000 3/350,000
1/Total annual aircraft movements
2/Total annual PTO aircraft movements
3/Total annual PTO passengers
Process for Applying the Criteria
18 When annual traffic levels at an aerodrome meet a threshold of any one of the criteria CASA should complete an aeronautical risk review in consultation with the public, industry and other government agencies, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
19 CASA will then make a determination to change the classification of airspace if necessary.
20 If annual traffic levels at an aerodrome fall below all three thresholds for its current classification, CASA should complete a similar risk review to determine whether a lower classification of airspace is appropriate, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
21 If CASA has completed an aeronautical risk review in the previous year then it may choose to update that existing review if an aerodrome were to meet or fall below the threshold levels in the following year.
22 While the criteria provide a good indicator of likely airspace classification, CASA will be able to consider public, industry and agency comments, forecast future traffic levels and any significant risk mitigators already in place or planned at the location, before finalising an airspace determination.
23 This process will be undertaken by CASA in close consultation with Airservices, given that agency’s responsibility for the introduction of new or changed air traffic services and facilities arising from such CASA determinations.
24 Notwithstanding the above, these criteria do not preclude CASA examining the requirement for airspace changes at other aerodrome locations should CASA consider such examination is required, for example, on risk or safety grounds.
Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace
25 CASA’s risk review process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated.
26 The process for change will commence with CASA or a proponent identifying the volumes of airspace to be reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007; and be accompanied by comprehensive supporting evidence for the proposed change.
27 The review process will then lead to the completion of a risk assessment of the particular volume of airspace under review.
28 The risk assessment should take into account the types of aircraft involved, the density of air traffic, the meteorological conditions, topography and such other factors as may be relevant.
29 On completion of the risk assessment process, CASA shall outline its proposals on the overall safety requirement for a particular airspace classification or designation.
30 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals.
31 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
32 Following a decision to change the class of a volume of airspace (a determination), that change must be formalised as a legislative instrument, endorsed by the airspace delegate, and published on FRLI. After a change has been registered on the FRLI, it can then take effect on, or after, the day on which the determination is published in the AIP or when notified by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Designations of Prohibited, Restricted and Danger Areas may be published in the AIP or notified by a NOTAM subject to the requirements of the Airspace Regulations 2007.
33 There may be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative and it may not be practicable to comply with parts of this process.
Regional Aerodromes
40 The Government is committed to ensuring that effective ATM infrastructure and systems are used to protect and enhance air safety, with ATM services being extended to more regional areas as appropriate, where there has been or is likely to be growing passenger transport services.
41 CASA should ensure that appropriate airspace arrangements are in place at all aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services which respond to changes in aviation activity over time such as changes in traffic density, the mix of aircraft types and increases in passenger transport services.
As an aside, why isn't Sydney CTA/CTR Class B?
Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2015 as signed by one Warren Truss, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development is the reference document. Signed 8th of July 2015.
https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...ement_2015.pdf
Process for Changing the Classification of a Volume of Airspace at an Aerodrome
To help determine when changes to airspace classification may be required in the airspace immediately around an aerodrome, (referred to as the control zone at a controlled aerodrome) the following criteria will be used: annual passenger transport operations (PTO) aircraft movements, the annual number of passengers and total annual aircraft movements (see Table 1).
Class B 1/ 750,000 2/250,000 3/25 million
Class C 1/400,000 2/30,000 3/1 million
Class D 1/80,000 2/15,000 3/350,000
1/Total annual aircraft movements
2/Total annual PTO aircraft movements
3/Total annual PTO passengers
Process for Applying the Criteria
18 When annual traffic levels at an aerodrome meet a threshold of any one of the criteria CASA should complete an aeronautical risk review in consultation with the public, industry and other government agencies, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
19 CASA will then make a determination to change the classification of airspace if necessary.
20 If annual traffic levels at an aerodrome fall below all three thresholds for its current classification, CASA should complete a similar risk review to determine whether a lower classification of airspace is appropriate, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
21 If CASA has completed an aeronautical risk review in the previous year then it may choose to update that existing review if an aerodrome were to meet or fall below the threshold levels in the following year.
22 While the criteria provide a good indicator of likely airspace classification, CASA will be able to consider public, industry and agency comments, forecast future traffic levels and any significant risk mitigators already in place or planned at the location, before finalising an airspace determination.
23 This process will be undertaken by CASA in close consultation with Airservices, given that agency’s responsibility for the introduction of new or changed air traffic services and facilities arising from such CASA determinations.
24 Notwithstanding the above, these criteria do not preclude CASA examining the requirement for airspace changes at other aerodrome locations should CASA consider such examination is required, for example, on risk or safety grounds.
Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace
25 CASA’s risk review process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated.
26 The process for change will commence with CASA or a proponent identifying the volumes of airspace to be reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007; and be accompanied by comprehensive supporting evidence for the proposed change.
27 The review process will then lead to the completion of a risk assessment of the particular volume of airspace under review.
28 The risk assessment should take into account the types of aircraft involved, the density of air traffic, the meteorological conditions, topography and such other factors as may be relevant.
29 On completion of the risk assessment process, CASA shall outline its proposals on the overall safety requirement for a particular airspace classification or designation.
30 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals.
31 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
32 Following a decision to change the class of a volume of airspace (a determination), that change must be formalised as a legislative instrument, endorsed by the airspace delegate, and published on FRLI. After a change has been registered on the FRLI, it can then take effect on, or after, the day on which the determination is published in the AIP or when notified by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Designations of Prohibited, Restricted and Danger Areas may be published in the AIP or notified by a NOTAM subject to the requirements of the Airspace Regulations 2007.
33 There may be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative and it may not be practicable to comply with parts of this process.
Regional Aerodromes
40 The Government is committed to ensuring that effective ATM infrastructure and systems are used to protect and enhance air safety, with ATM services being extended to more regional areas as appropriate, where there has been or is likely to be growing passenger transport services.
41 CASA should ensure that appropriate airspace arrangements are in place at all aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services which respond to changes in aviation activity over time such as changes in traffic density, the mix of aircraft types and increases in passenger transport services.
The process for change will commence with ... a proponent (Dick Smith) identifying the volumes of airspace to be reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007; and be accompanied by comprehensive supporting evidence for the proposed change.
Section 13 Regular reviews
Classifications of volumes of Australian‑administered airspace
(1) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of the existing classifications of volumes of Australian‑administered airspace in order to determine whether those classifications are appropriate.
Services and facilities
(2) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of the existing services and facilities provided by the providers of air navigation services in relation to particular volumes of Australian‑administered airspace in order to determine whether those services and facilities are appropriate.
General
(3) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of Australian‑administered airspace generally in order to identify risk factors and to determine whether there is safe and efficient use of that airspace and equitable access to that airspace for all users of that airspace.
Classifications of volumes of Australian‑administered airspace
(1) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of the existing classifications of volumes of Australian‑administered airspace in order to determine whether those classifications are appropriate.
Services and facilities
(2) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of the existing services and facilities provided by the providers of air navigation services in relation to particular volumes of Australian‑administered airspace in order to determine whether those services and facilities are appropriate.
General
(3) CASA has the function of conducting regular reviews of Australian‑administered airspace generally in order to identify risk factors and to determine whether there is safe and efficient use of that airspace and equitable access to that airspace for all users of that airspace.
Last edited by sunnySA; 15th Jul 2015 at 02:45. Reason: added quotes
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: In plain sight
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective
Dick. You say;
This is exactly what experts have been trying to explain to you.
It follows then, practically speaking, what are you achieving with changing G (uncontrolled) to E (half controlled IFR only) over Ballina?
The only practical change will be ATC having to Procedurally Separate IFR's where they currently safely segregate themselves.
Is there safety data that says this needs to change? If so , why only Ballina?
Quite separate from the IFR separation question, ATC monitored terrain protection (Pilot Deviation from ATC clearances) is NOT available without low altitude surveillance, which as you know does not currently exist over Ballina (and many like type airports elsewhere).
I ask again therefore, do you want the installation of Radar, Multilat, or an ADS-B mandate for IFR (and VFR for traffic information purposes) over Ballina (and like type Airports)?
In VMC (visual) with VFR aircraft floating about in Class E, it follows (as you said) that it is 'Hardly any different to wat pilots do in our present system in G'
Given surveillance does not exist below 5,000ft at Ballina, and VFR (transponders ON or not) are invisible to ATC (and IFR Pilots if the VFR is not transponder equipped or simply forgot to turn it on which is common). What benefit is derived from changing from G to E in an IFR verses VFR conflict context?
IF all you are trying to change is IFR Self-segregation in G to ATC provided Procedural E separation, is the cost of establishing remote ATC Procedural Separation services at Ballina (a One in - One out - effectively a 10 mins apart service) a measurable cost increase that addresses an identified safety problem that requires change?
Perhaps you are arriving at the same conclusion as others have been trying to explain to you.
Regards
Q
n practice procedural Class E in the USA in the terminal area in IMC is hardly any different to wat pilots do in our present system in G.
It follows then, practically speaking, what are you achieving with changing G (uncontrolled) to E (half controlled IFR only) over Ballina?
The only practical change will be ATC having to Procedurally Separate IFR's where they currently safely segregate themselves.
Is there safety data that says this needs to change? If so , why only Ballina?
Quite separate from the IFR separation question, ATC monitored terrain protection (Pilot Deviation from ATC clearances) is NOT available without low altitude surveillance, which as you know does not currently exist over Ballina (and many like type airports elsewhere).
I ask again therefore, do you want the installation of Radar, Multilat, or an ADS-B mandate for IFR (and VFR for traffic information purposes) over Ballina (and like type Airports)?
In VMC (visual) with VFR aircraft floating about in Class E, it follows (as you said) that it is 'Hardly any different to wat pilots do in our present system in G'
Given surveillance does not exist below 5,000ft at Ballina, and VFR (transponders ON or not) are invisible to ATC (and IFR Pilots if the VFR is not transponder equipped or simply forgot to turn it on which is common). What benefit is derived from changing from G to E in an IFR verses VFR conflict context?
IF all you are trying to change is IFR Self-segregation in G to ATC provided Procedural E separation, is the cost of establishing remote ATC Procedural Separation services at Ballina (a One in - One out - effectively a 10 mins apart service) a measurable cost increase that addresses an identified safety problem that requires change?
Perhaps you are arriving at the same conclusion as others have been trying to explain to you.
Regards
Q
Most recent Ballina study
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...allina2013.pdf
From the report
Just under the 350,000 for the establishment of a Class D Tower. Given that some 30 months has elapsed since the last review then it is probable that the trigger has been well and truly reached.
Based on the numbers, control tower for Ballina?
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...allina2013.pdf
From the report
The Ballina Byron Gateway Airport operator recorded an annual total of 343,581 passenger movements for the 12 month period ending 24 November 2012.
Airservices Australia (Airservices) data indicates that in the twelve months to December 2012, there were a total of 15,037 aircraft movements.
Airservices Australia (Airservices) data indicates that in the twelve months to December 2012, there were a total of 15,037 aircraft movements.
Based on the numbers, control tower for Ballina?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick
The recent accident between an F16 and a Cessna 150 in the U.S highlights why the class E concept is flawed, and at the very basic level, unsafe. It appears that the F16 was operating with a clearance in class E, and the C150 VFR in class E (from my understanding anyway).
Pages 2 and 3 of this discussion make for very interesting reading, particularly about U.S airspace concepts, and it's shortcomings, by those who fly in, and control it.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...olina-usa.html
I sit at the console every day and shake my head at some of the things I see in class E, and I hear the frustration in RPT pilots voices when I advise them of unidentifed VFR aircraft in close proximity, intentions unknown...
You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both.
The recent accident between an F16 and a Cessna 150 in the U.S highlights why the class E concept is flawed, and at the very basic level, unsafe. It appears that the F16 was operating with a clearance in class E, and the C150 VFR in class E (from my understanding anyway).
Pages 2 and 3 of this discussion make for very interesting reading, particularly about U.S airspace concepts, and it's shortcomings, by those who fly in, and control it.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...olina-usa.html
I sit at the console every day and shake my head at some of the things I see in class E, and I hear the frustration in RPT pilots voices when I advise them of unidentifed VFR aircraft in close proximity, intentions unknown...
You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to that updated policy statement "Table 1. Airspace Criteria Thresholds" it looks like the criteria for a TWR now covers PTO pax numbers, not simply aircraft movements. Maybe I've missed something in recent years.
That'll please the locals. Things won't be quite so free and flexible, with ATC in attendance and obliged to provide separation.
If other places are any indication, it will cost quite a few million $ to put a TWR in ($M10?) and a few million per year to run, and the costs passed onto the users and pax.
Fortunately Clause 22 of the policy statement gives CASA an out.
Based on the numbers, control tower for Ballina?
If other places are any indication, it will cost quite a few million $ to put a TWR in ($M10?) and a few million per year to run, and the costs passed onto the users and pax.
Fortunately Clause 22 of the policy statement gives CASA an out.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
tyler durdan and Quoll - I like your line of reasoning. This pretty much sums it up:
[QUOTE][/You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both. QUOTE]
Class E has always been a half-baked solution which frustrates a lot of IFR pilots while pretty much allowing VFR to do as they please in areas where they probably shouldn't be doing as they please...
[QUOTE][/You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both. QUOTE]
Class E has always been a half-baked solution which frustrates a lot of IFR pilots while pretty much allowing VFR to do as they please in areas where they probably shouldn't be doing as they please...
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern? Airspace Classes?
This entire discussion is amazing. It points out the folly (and unnecessary extreme complexity) of our current CNS/ATM system globally. All to just get from A to B, or from A back to A, while keeping Vehicle 1 from hitting Vehicle 2, or from any vehicles trying to occupying the same space on a runway at the same time, whether in IMC, or VMC, or unknown MC (e.g., at night or between cloud).
If Wilbur and Orville (or Pearce, Whitehead, or Clement Ader) had to deal with all this, ...things like ICAO and various state versions of Class A, B,C,D, E, (F), and G airspace, and an inch thick set of airspace rules, they likely might have decided to never invent the airplane in the first place!
The bottom line is that this entire discussion points out the serious need for all of us, globally, to re-rethink what we're doing, and how, and why, with separating air vehicles, and with coping with all-weather operations at a more fundamental level. Just with Class E alone, there are pages and pages of pros and cons that will never be definitively resolved.
So while there may be some very useful ideas, in what Australia has contributed (e.g., FANS and a simple version of ADS-B), and some useful ideas from the US (e.g., TCAS, RNP, GLS, and early data links), and useful ideas from Scandinavia (remotely operated facilities), ...it is time to fundamentally re-baseline all this ATS evolution globally, recognizing that no one country or system, especially not the US ATS system, has a corner on the market of good ideas, or for that matter, on weaknesses. Both NextGen, as well as PresentGen, need massive attention, review, and evolution, as does SESAR, before any of these should be considered as any model for any other state.
If Wilbur and Orville (or Pearce, Whitehead, or Clement Ader) had to deal with all this, ...things like ICAO and various state versions of Class A, B,C,D, E, (F), and G airspace, and an inch thick set of airspace rules, they likely might have decided to never invent the airplane in the first place!
The bottom line is that this entire discussion points out the serious need for all of us, globally, to re-rethink what we're doing, and how, and why, with separating air vehicles, and with coping with all-weather operations at a more fundamental level. Just with Class E alone, there are pages and pages of pros and cons that will never be definitively resolved.
So while there may be some very useful ideas, in what Australia has contributed (e.g., FANS and a simple version of ADS-B), and some useful ideas from the US (e.g., TCAS, RNP, GLS, and early data links), and useful ideas from Scandinavia (remotely operated facilities), ...it is time to fundamentally re-baseline all this ATS evolution globally, recognizing that no one country or system, especially not the US ATS system, has a corner on the market of good ideas, or for that matter, on weaknesses. Both NextGen, as well as PresentGen, need massive attention, review, and evolution, as does SESAR, before any of these should be considered as any model for any other state.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't hold your breath for any global changes
On average it takes SEVEN years to process a change thru ICAO, with only one change in recent times going thru in about 3 or so.
The mass of the ATC system in North America and Europe would make even discussion on major change very difficult, especially if they don't see a problem.
A risk assessment on a major change might probably conclude that the risks involved in the change alone are not worth the change? As a result any changes would have to be piecemeal and as a result would take a lifetime.
Like it or not the menu of airspace classes is what we have and from an Oz point of view that is the choice, with only perhaps minor procedural changes etc.
The mass of the ATC system in North America and Europe would make even discussion on major change very difficult, especially if they don't see a problem.
A risk assessment on a major change might probably conclude that the risks involved in the change alone are not worth the change? As a result any changes would have to be piecemeal and as a result would take a lifetime.
Like it or not the menu of airspace classes is what we have and from an Oz point of view that is the choice, with only perhaps minor procedural changes etc.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Triadic
Like it or not the menu of airspace classes is what we have and from an Oz point of view that is the choice
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not providing surveillance approach is unsafe...
Procedural practices are unsafe...
Non surveillance Class E is fine...
Procedural Class E terminal areas are efficient and safe...
We need more surveillance...
I'm not fitting my aircraft with ADS-B but I want to operate in perfectly safe (or was it unsafe?) non surveillance airspace...
Controllers are blocking change...
Pilots don't know what's good for them...
And all fought through the media. Right so we're doing this again, are we? =/
Procedural practices are unsafe...
Non surveillance Class E is fine...
Procedural Class E terminal areas are efficient and safe...
We need more surveillance...
I'm not fitting my aircraft with ADS-B but I want to operate in perfectly safe (or was it unsafe?) non surveillance airspace...
Controllers are blocking change...
Pilots don't know what's good for them...
And all fought through the media. Right so we're doing this again, are we? =/
Controllers are blocking change...
Last edited by sunnySA; 28th Jul 2015 at 13:59. Reason: grammar
Re tread. Class E terminal airspace does not require radar. Many hundreds of non tower airports in the USA have E to 700 agl and no survailance below the IAF.
It works superbly so why not at Ballina.
Just have to train the en route controllers to do approach work like they do all across the USA
It works superbly so why not at Ballina.
Just have to train the en route controllers to do approach work like they do all across the USA
That's quite a big "just" Dick. There are quite a few more "justs" along the way......
Our sectors and controller numbers are arranged to provide "just" the service we do. We'll "just" have to simulate the extra workload and "just" have to simulate new sector boundaries before we "just " train controllers and "just" recruit and "just" train the extras required.
We "just" need the resources to do it. We don't have any extra space to "just" open however many new sectors it will require.
Anyone who tells you that separating traffic is easier than "just" giving traffic is blowing smoke, has never worked procedural airspace or you're "just" hearing what you want to. Most of the time giving traffic is far easier when there's no surveillance coverage - you give the traffic and that's it because you can't see anything else.
Our sectors and controller numbers are arranged to provide "just" the service we do. We'll "just" have to simulate the extra workload and "just" have to simulate new sector boundaries before we "just " train controllers and "just" recruit and "just" train the extras required.
We "just" need the resources to do it. We don't have any extra space to "just" open however many new sectors it will require.
Anyone who tells you that separating traffic is easier than "just" giving traffic is blowing smoke, has never worked procedural airspace or you're "just" hearing what you want to. Most of the time giving traffic is far easier when there's no surveillance coverage - you give the traffic and that's it because you can't see anything else.
Ok ok. You win.
There is simply no way of even trialling class E terminal airspace using en route controllers as they do in other leading aviation countries.
Just give traffic info and let us pilots do the air traffic " control " function as we fly around in IMC in the terminal area.
Dumb me. I thought controllors were trained to " control " aircraft and seeing that the risk is higher in the terminal area I thought that's where the service would be provided.
There is simply no way of even trialling class E terminal airspace using en route controllers as they do in other leading aviation countries.
Just give traffic info and let us pilots do the air traffic " control " function as we fly around in IMC in the terminal area.
Dumb me. I thought controllors were trained to " control " aircraft and seeing that the risk is higher in the terminal area I thought that's where the service would be provided.