Airspace 2015 coming to an airport near you...
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I actually support more E instead of G. However, as others were saying, its not just a matter of flicking a switch. Most enroute controllers have not had the training to provide services in terminal areas. Doesnt sound much but the effect of terrain on control practices is significant. There are also other things which have to be done (short list):
- safety analysis: CASA requires this and its not a quick process
- data changes: modern ATC systems need a lot of data defined
- procedures: how aircraft are processed between groups takes some work to define
All up, and speaking for myself, I will work whatever the aviation community wants. If you/they want G or E or anything else then my job is to provide the service. Just dont expect change to happen overnight.
I actually support more E instead of G. However, as others were saying, its not just a matter of flicking a switch. Most enroute controllers have not had the training to provide services in terminal areas. Doesnt sound much but the effect of terrain on control practices is significant. There are also other things which have to be done (short list):
- safety analysis: CASA requires this and its not a quick process
- data changes: modern ATC systems need a lot of data defined
- procedures: how aircraft are processed between groups takes some work to define
All up, and speaking for myself, I will work whatever the aviation community wants. If you/they want G or E or anything else then my job is to provide the service. Just dont expect change to happen overnight.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly my Mooney IFR in Europe all the time....and in rented aircraft in the USA....France especially is similar to the US with Class E....it all works fine with Nice Approach.... I fly into Cannes often and am mixing it in Class D and E with all types of traffic...airlines, bizjets, helis, VFR fixed wing....same with flying in the LA basin, or Houston or Tampa...
What stunned me last time I flew in Perth was that VFR was not allowed in Perth Class C airspace (which is bigger than some European countries!)...except some tourist sightseeing routes....unbelievable....I'm sometimes embarrassed at the ridiculous restrictions to flying in Australia....although the U.S. has a great system, they also have an American can-do culture to go with it....it seems you cannot transplant US airspace into Australia without transplanting American culture...not going to happen....Aussies love regulation....look at the AIP...unbelievably all regulations start with an explanation of penalties and strict liability....only Australians would think that is OK...years ago I went to a talk in Perth by John and Martha King describing the U.S. NAS....they were equally baffled by the negative sentiment in the room... Plus ca change...
What stunned me last time I flew in Perth was that VFR was not allowed in Perth Class C airspace (which is bigger than some European countries!)...except some tourist sightseeing routes....unbelievable....I'm sometimes embarrassed at the ridiculous restrictions to flying in Australia....although the U.S. has a great system, they also have an American can-do culture to go with it....it seems you cannot transplant US airspace into Australia without transplanting American culture...not going to happen....Aussies love regulation....look at the AIP...unbelievably all regulations start with an explanation of penalties and strict liability....only Australians would think that is OK...years ago I went to a talk in Perth by John and Martha King describing the U.S. NAS....they were equally baffled by the negative sentiment in the room... Plus ca change...
awqward,
But--- the our local experts ( think Captain Bloggs) despite their nil experience in the area, will tell you E doesn't work -yadda yadda yadda --- you are certainly right about the "cultural" aspect, in Australian aviation the "Can't do" culture is not confined to Can'tberra.
As you have found out the hard way, first come, first served doesn't hack it here. We do not even have (legally) public use airports, there are plenty of examples of where particular types or sizes of aircraft are excluded from what, on the surface, appear to be public airports.
VFR is assumed to be Blundering Bug Smashers, Weekend Warriors, and generally the ill/un-trained, the blind, deaf and generally incompetent, even if the VFR PIC has 20-30,000 hours in somewhat larger aircraft. After all, if they were real pilots, they would be IFR. I just love hearing Oh! so forceful regional F/Os presuming to tell me where and how to fly my VFR aeroplane, automatically assuming, being VFR, that I am a pratt or a dunce, and probably both, and undoubtedly a threat to air safety --- and their schedules, because "they are RPT, they have priority", which they do not!
Tootle pip!!
But--- the our local experts ( think Captain Bloggs) despite their nil experience in the area, will tell you E doesn't work -yadda yadda yadda --- you are certainly right about the "cultural" aspect, in Australian aviation the "Can't do" culture is not confined to Can'tberra.
As you have found out the hard way, first come, first served doesn't hack it here. We do not even have (legally) public use airports, there are plenty of examples of where particular types or sizes of aircraft are excluded from what, on the surface, appear to be public airports.
VFR is assumed to be Blundering Bug Smashers, Weekend Warriors, and generally the ill/un-trained, the blind, deaf and generally incompetent, even if the VFR PIC has 20-30,000 hours in somewhat larger aircraft. After all, if they were real pilots, they would be IFR. I just love hearing Oh! so forceful regional F/Os presuming to tell me where and how to fly my VFR aeroplane, automatically assuming, being VFR, that I am a pratt or a dunce, and probably both, and undoubtedly a threat to air safety --- and their schedules, because "they are RPT, they have priority", which they do not!
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 1st Aug 2015 at 15:52.
awqward, Leadsled et al,
First, yes, I agree, I think we are quite over-regulated here. That's the way it's developed over many years and many Governments. To claw it all back would be a tremendous challenge.....for any Government and for any Administrators. imagine the change in thinking required for that????
Secondly, I think you continue to miss the point on this Class E airspace discussion. As most Controllers (and aerodrome operators) on here keep saying...they'll service what ever airspace is decreed....given the appropriate preparation time, the appropriate rules, the appropriate training, the appropriate surveillance and the appropriate resources.
The question is....can that happen in Australia?
We have finite money (unless the airlines have a bottomless pit) and we have finite suitable ATC applicants...but a bloody great big airspace to manage.
Yes, wouldn't it be nice to be like Europe and the USA? However, the reality is...we just can't afford it, in so many ways. Therefore we have to compromise...and make do with a system that we can, just, afford. It's not the most efficient and it's probably not the safest...but it's the best we can do with our money and resources.
Unless Dick has a magical way of paying for the extra Controllers, extra equipment and the extra Unicoms...we are stuck with what we have...unless we hit the flying public in the pocket. That would be a very tight balancing act indeed....
First, yes, I agree, I think we are quite over-regulated here. That's the way it's developed over many years and many Governments. To claw it all back would be a tremendous challenge.....for any Government and for any Administrators. imagine the change in thinking required for that????
Secondly, I think you continue to miss the point on this Class E airspace discussion. As most Controllers (and aerodrome operators) on here keep saying...they'll service what ever airspace is decreed....given the appropriate preparation time, the appropriate rules, the appropriate training, the appropriate surveillance and the appropriate resources.
The question is....can that happen in Australia?
We have finite money (unless the airlines have a bottomless pit) and we have finite suitable ATC applicants...but a bloody great big airspace to manage.
Yes, wouldn't it be nice to be like Europe and the USA? However, the reality is...we just can't afford it, in so many ways. Therefore we have to compromise...and make do with a system that we can, just, afford. It's not the most efficient and it's probably not the safest...but it's the best we can do with our money and resources.
Unless Dick has a magical way of paying for the extra Controllers, extra equipment and the extra Unicoms...we are stuck with what we have...unless we hit the flying public in the pocket. That would be a very tight balancing act indeed....
Thread Starter
So Capt Bloggs Sen in his A380 now has to contend with "get out of my way" Aqwod and Lidslid as they wander around in their VFR-exempt Class E...
Yep, give me self-managed Class F anytime. "Can't Do" indeed.
Do pray tell, what are they?
Originally Posted by Lidslid
in Australian aviation the "Can't do" culture is not confined to Can'tberra.
Originally Posted by Lidslid
there are plenty of examples of where particular types or sizes of aircraft are excluded from what, on the surface, appear to be public airports.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick....no one is debating the shocking situation that exists in australian airspace. The question is, if you are so concerned about the latent risks of RPT IFR traffic leaving CAS at 8500ft, why are you NOT concerned about the equally high risks of the same traffic flying around Class E with uncontrolled VFR traffic?
Class D towers...into Class C extended steps..into Class A air routes/TMA. Problem solved.
Goodnight.
Class D towers...into Class C extended steps..into Class A air routes/TMA. Problem solved.
Goodnight.
Do pray tell, what are they?
In some cases the exclusion is explicit, no non-VH, no private category, or effective exclusion by making minimum charges the equivalent of, say, a B-717.
In one case, it is RPT only.
And, before you jump in, I am not talking about Class C/D airspace airfields where certain pilot categories would be excluded by regulation.
Tootle pip!!
on the surface, appear to be public airports
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Ledsled
ERSA is a good place to start.
While you're at it, show us the costs of terminal Class E in the regions. You want it; how much is it going to cost?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
affordable safety?
Who was it, or atleast has been attributed to without a refute I can find, that pushed the concept of 'affordable safety' in Australian airspace a few years ago?
Class D towers...into Class C extended steps..into Class A air routes/TMA. Problem solved.
Oh!, they did --- the good old Australian trick of having the CNS/ATM services available that are inversely proportional to the risk ---- or if that is too difficult a concept for you, as the risk diminishes, you increase the restrictions.
Ever heard of risk management, or do you prefer absolute safety??
Ask nafai, he probably prefers unaffordable safety, instead of affordable safety ---- we already have enough CASA unaffordable safety to go around, isn't aviation so obviously thriving on CASA unaffordable safety. Clearly, the more unaffordable aviation safety becomes, the more aviation will boom ??? If some of your are to be believed.
Tootle pip!!
topdrop,
Go back and read what I actually wrote, I did not refer to airfields that were not nominally public use.
Last edited by LeadSled; 3rd Aug 2015 at 06:39.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled...
Being a controller, I am interested in absolute saftey. It may suprise you to know that it's my main job description. Shocking I know! Or is that too difficult a concept for you too? I'm pretty sure most of the flying public feel the same way.
Toodle pip 'ol boy.
Being a controller, I am interested in absolute saftey. It may suprise you to know that it's my main job description. Shocking I know! Or is that too difficult a concept for you too? I'm pretty sure most of the flying public feel the same way.
Toodle pip 'ol boy.
So who do you reckon is the more delusional?
Members of the public who think there is such a thing as absolute safety in aviation, or an ATC who thinks they can deliver it.
Affordable safety is not a "concept". It's reality.
That's why the response to the Germanwings tragedy was not a requirement for a third pilot to be available on every flight, in case one of the other 2 has to leave the cockpit to use the toilet.
Members of the public who think there is such a thing as absolute safety in aviation, or an ATC who thinks they can deliver it.
Affordable safety is not a "concept". It's reality.
That's why the response to the Germanwings tragedy was not a requirement for a third pilot to be available on every flight, in case one of the other 2 has to leave the cockpit to use the toilet.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have this absolutely revolutionary concept for airspace design...
Wait for it...
Controlled airspace, and uncontrolled airspace.
Yep. That's it. If you want to come into controlled airspace, no problems, but you need to file a flight plan, and you are subject to a clearance, and separation. No avcharges for VFR, but if controller workload is too high, clearance not available.
No more of this dodgy class 'E' where my RPT DH8-400, with 70 odd people on board, cruising along at 240kts IAS (but grounding 350kts-ish), supposedly subject to a clearance and separation, but also subject to 'see and avoid' with unknown VFR traffic. None of those dodgy class 'E' procedures (IFR pickup etc). Or at least class D as a compromise, where VFR traffic mixing it with aircraft subject to a separation service is known VFR traffic...
Standing by for incoming....
Wait for it...
Controlled airspace, and uncontrolled airspace.
Yep. That's it. If you want to come into controlled airspace, no problems, but you need to file a flight plan, and you are subject to a clearance, and separation. No avcharges for VFR, but if controller workload is too high, clearance not available.
No more of this dodgy class 'E' where my RPT DH8-400, with 70 odd people on board, cruising along at 240kts IAS (but grounding 350kts-ish), supposedly subject to a clearance and separation, but also subject to 'see and avoid' with unknown VFR traffic. None of those dodgy class 'E' procedures (IFR pickup etc). Or at least class D as a compromise, where VFR traffic mixing it with aircraft subject to a separation service is known VFR traffic...
Standing by for incoming....
Shocking I know! Or is that too difficult a concept for you too? I'm pretty sure most of the flying public feel the same way.
I understand "absolute safety" all too well, as a completely unobtainable target, and a totally useless concept in any operational planning, and has no place in rational management.
But, of course, CNS/ATM in Australia has never been rational, nor has the general AsA approach -- or what are just deliberate misconceptions of the possible pumped out to the public by aviation bureaucracies, as to what is achievable.
I recall a so called study, some years ago, conducted by AsA, that found the controller error rate was less than one in 10 to the minus 7, but for professional pilots executing an ATC instruction, the error rate was between 1:1 and 1:2, that is, between 100% and 50% of the time a pilot got a clearance wrong or "procedure" wrong.
It was the AsA people (now retired, I just noticed) who put the study together that were 100% wrong. But, obviously, they believed they had proved that Australia had the worlds most perfect (beyond competent) controllers, and the world's most incompetent pilots --- and it didn't raise a flag??
This was the same mob that put together a US collision risk study that completely neglected the fact that most of the US mid-west is around 5000' or so ft. AMSL ---- all the collisions cited were in circuits, not en-route.
There are parts of the AsA SMS policy that are just daft, not merely conceptual nonsense.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tyler, by "file a flight plan" do you mean a NAIPS electronic FP done before the flight? What is the problem with requesting a VFR clearance a few miles outside? Seems very unpopular in Australia....but is the norm in more advanced aviation countries...in fact even if you had filed a VFR flight plan it is unlikely the controller would even have seen it....
Unlike many places overseas we don't have paper strips any more so have to manually create an electronic flight data record if we don't have access to a filed flight plan. While it's not difficult it takes more time than grabbing a strip and quickly scribbling some brief details on it - there are quite a few compulsory fields to fill before the system will accept it.
If you happen to strike us when we're busy with something else more important you'll likely get told to remain OCTA until we can spare a minute to create the plan. If you do file one we won't get a copy unless you plan to enter CTA in the first place.
Stop being a plonka with the "more advanced" crap - different systems have different requirements. Get over it. It's very easy to be flexible with a "dirt track" 1930s pen and paper system as you can write what you want where you want. Not so easy with an electronic one that requires things done just so.
If you happen to strike us when we're busy with something else more important you'll likely get told to remain OCTA until we can spare a minute to create the plan. If you do file one we won't get a copy unless you plan to enter CTA in the first place.
Stop being a plonka with the "more advanced" crap - different systems have different requirements. Get over it. It's very easy to be flexible with a "dirt track" 1930s pen and paper system as you can write what you want where you want. Not so easy with an electronic one that requires things done just so.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland & Abu Dhabi
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say "more advanced systems" ... I said "more advanced aviation countries"... For example Aberdeen has a lot more movements than Perth...and they use electronic strips...but don't refuse VFR flights...not to mention the Class B airspace over Houston or LA... They seem to just deal with it.... Just calling it as I see it from the cockpit...IFR and VFR...
Correction: EGPD has ca.125,000 movements vs YPPH at 145,000...
Correction: EGPD has ca.125,000 movements vs YPPH at 145,000...