Airspace 2015 coming to an airport near you...
Thread Starter
Airspace 2015 coming to an airport near you...
Oh the joy!
E to the deck, full approach control at dozens of jet airports, VFR transponder mandates for Class E ops, ground troops telling us when there is a cloud on top of the hill you might smack in to on your IMC/IFR approach.
What a disgrace; Class E is introduced over Launceston, causes a near midair with a RPT jet, and the protagnonists are now bleating about the lack radar/WAM approaches.
E to the deck, full approach control at dozens of jet airports, VFR transponder mandates for Class E ops, ground troops telling us when there is a cloud on top of the hill you might smack in to on your IMC/IFR approach.
What a disgrace; Class E is introduced over Launceston, causes a near midair with a RPT jet, and the protagnonists are now bleating about the lack radar/WAM approaches.
Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies
The Australian, July 11, 2015 12:00AM
Ean Higgins, Reporter, Sydney
After two decades of false starts, Australia will embrace the safer US model of managing the nation*’s skies that will see greater control of airspace in regional areas and allow ground staff to provide pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and aircraft traffic information.
The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.
The moves follow a sustained campaign by The Weekend Australian and several aviation figures, including businessman Dick Smith, to address longstanding air safety concerns following fatal air crashes in Victoria and Queensland a decade ago.
The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”
The new moves offer a promise to fix an air traffic control system judged by many in the aviation industry to be not as safe as it could be outside the major cities — and by some, including Mr Smith, to be dangerous.
In 2004 six people died when the plane they were flying in from Sydney’s Bankstown Airport to Benalla in Victoria crashed into a mountain, with air traffic controllers being alerted by an alarm that radar had detected the aircraft was off course but not intervening in part because it was flying in airspace not designated as under their control.
In 2005 another accident, which killed 15 people in an aircraft which crashed into a mountain while approaching a small airport at Lockhart River in Cape York, might have been prevented if, as occurs at similar airports in the US, ground staff who were not air traffic controllers had had radio contact with approaching aircraft and warned of bad weather in that direction.
As reported in The Weekend Australian in recent weeks, there are also concerns about uncontrolled airspace at Ballina, in northern NSW, where rapid growth in commercial passenger traffic has led to congestion, and where at least one near miss has occurred.
Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approache*s in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.
Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground.
The federal government had planned to move to the North American model in the early 2000s but the policy wasn’t followed through. Instead, a patchwork of protocols applies, with some areas and some airports designated as being under controlled airspace, but others not.
At many airports, some with substantial traffic, pilots are left to their own devices once under 8500 feet to sort out separation among themselves through radio contact, even though they may still be under radar coverage to much lower levels. Mr Smith had branded this situation as ridic*ulous and unsafe.
In addition to airspace reform, Mr Boyd will encourage CASA management, on a case-by-case basis, to allow exemptions and extensi*ons for aircraft owners to fit a costly new air navigation system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-*Broadcast, or ADS-B, if they can make a compelling practical and commercial case and safety is not compromised.
CASA will adopt a more flexible approach to a compulsory and expensive program of inspections of older Cessna light aircraft known as Supplementary Inspection Documents, or SIDS. It will consider making extensions because* the size of the program has caused a bottleneck in the aircraft maintenance sector.
Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.
The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.
“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.
“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”
Mr Boyd, a practising licensed aircraft mechanical engineer, former creator and owner of Brindabella Airlines, and a light aircraft pilot, is highly regarded.
The federal government appointed him CASA chairman after the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by veteran David Forsyth, called last year for wide reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.
Late last year John McCormick, CASA’s director of air safety — essentially the authority’s chief executive — was succeeded by former senior RAAF officer Mark Skidmore, who is understood to share Mr Boyd’s view of the need for a new approach.
Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as cate*g*ory E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said.
Mr Boyd would not discuss spec*ifics, but The Weekend Australian can reveal CASA will recommend such a move for Ballina.
It is expected to recommend that the controlled airspace around Ballina be lowered from 8500 feet to 5000 feet, and that the airport install a radio operator to help pilots with local weather and air traffic inform*ation, something the airport’s management is keen to do.
Mr Boyd said he would sponsor a board directive to management to see if it could free up what the industry describes as absurdly tight rules, restricting what ground staff who are not serving or former air traffic controllers can provide pilots over the Unicom radio in the way of weather and traffic information. “If it’s used as supplementary flight safety information, we have no argument against it,” he said.
Some of the moves, such as liberating ground staff to man the Unicom, have been strongly resisted by the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, and the union is also disinclined to expand controlled airspace unless more controllers are employed.
The chairman of Airservices Australia, Angus Houston, has rejected calls from Mr Smith and others for the firefighters his organ*isation employs at airports without control towers to perform the radio operator function as they do at many regional US airports.
As revealed by The Australian this week, Airservices, the government-owned body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, insisted two years ago that CASA not grant exemptions or extensions for ADS*B, pulling out of an understanding with CASA, which as safety authority makes and enforces air regulations.
But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.
“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.
The Australian, July 11, 2015 12:00AM
Ean Higgins, Reporter, Sydney
After two decades of false starts, Australia will embrace the safer US model of managing the nation*’s skies that will see greater control of airspace in regional areas and allow ground staff to provide pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and aircraft traffic information.
The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.
The moves follow a sustained campaign by The Weekend Australian and several aviation figures, including businessman Dick Smith, to address longstanding air safety concerns following fatal air crashes in Victoria and Queensland a decade ago.
The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”
The new moves offer a promise to fix an air traffic control system judged by many in the aviation industry to be not as safe as it could be outside the major cities — and by some, including Mr Smith, to be dangerous.
In 2004 six people died when the plane they were flying in from Sydney’s Bankstown Airport to Benalla in Victoria crashed into a mountain, with air traffic controllers being alerted by an alarm that radar had detected the aircraft was off course but not intervening in part because it was flying in airspace not designated as under their control.
In 2005 another accident, which killed 15 people in an aircraft which crashed into a mountain while approaching a small airport at Lockhart River in Cape York, might have been prevented if, as occurs at similar airports in the US, ground staff who were not air traffic controllers had had radio contact with approaching aircraft and warned of bad weather in that direction.
As reported in The Weekend Australian in recent weeks, there are also concerns about uncontrolled airspace at Ballina, in northern NSW, where rapid growth in commercial passenger traffic has led to congestion, and where at least one near miss has occurred.
Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approache*s in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.
Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground.
The federal government had planned to move to the North American model in the early 2000s but the policy wasn’t followed through. Instead, a patchwork of protocols applies, with some areas and some airports designated as being under controlled airspace, but others not.
At many airports, some with substantial traffic, pilots are left to their own devices once under 8500 feet to sort out separation among themselves through radio contact, even though they may still be under radar coverage to much lower levels. Mr Smith had branded this situation as ridic*ulous and unsafe.
In addition to airspace reform, Mr Boyd will encourage CASA management, on a case-by-case basis, to allow exemptions and extensi*ons for aircraft owners to fit a costly new air navigation system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-*Broadcast, or ADS-B, if they can make a compelling practical and commercial case and safety is not compromised.
CASA will adopt a more flexible approach to a compulsory and expensive program of inspections of older Cessna light aircraft known as Supplementary Inspection Documents, or SIDS. It will consider making extensions because* the size of the program has caused a bottleneck in the aircraft maintenance sector.
Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.
The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.
“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.
“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”
Mr Boyd, a practising licensed aircraft mechanical engineer, former creator and owner of Brindabella Airlines, and a light aircraft pilot, is highly regarded.
The federal government appointed him CASA chairman after the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by veteran David Forsyth, called last year for wide reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.
Late last year John McCormick, CASA’s director of air safety — essentially the authority’s chief executive — was succeeded by former senior RAAF officer Mark Skidmore, who is understood to share Mr Boyd’s view of the need for a new approach.
Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as cate*g*ory E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said.
Mr Boyd would not discuss spec*ifics, but The Weekend Australian can reveal CASA will recommend such a move for Ballina.
It is expected to recommend that the controlled airspace around Ballina be lowered from 8500 feet to 5000 feet, and that the airport install a radio operator to help pilots with local weather and air traffic inform*ation, something the airport’s management is keen to do.
Mr Boyd said he would sponsor a board directive to management to see if it could free up what the industry describes as absurdly tight rules, restricting what ground staff who are not serving or former air traffic controllers can provide pilots over the Unicom radio in the way of weather and traffic information. “If it’s used as supplementary flight safety information, we have no argument against it,” he said.
Some of the moves, such as liberating ground staff to man the Unicom, have been strongly resisted by the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, and the union is also disinclined to expand controlled airspace unless more controllers are employed.
The chairman of Airservices Australia, Angus Houston, has rejected calls from Mr Smith and others for the firefighters his organ*isation employs at airports without control towers to perform the radio operator function as they do at many regional US airports.
As revealed by The Australian this week, Airservices, the government-owned body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, insisted two years ago that CASA not grant exemptions or extensions for ADS*B, pulling out of an understanding with CASA, which as safety authority makes and enforces air regulations.
But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.
“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 11th Jul 2015 at 06:23.
Meh i just want some cta steps that work for one of the primary users/funders
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not again! Seems like Groundhog Day.
Minister: 'I am sick and tired of getting continually pestered; just give him what he wants to shut him up.'
Department: 'Yes Minister, but what about cost/benefit?'
Minister: 'I don't care about cost/benefit, just get him off my back!'
Department: 'Yes Minister.'
Been there, done that - it's a recurring nightmare that's lasted almost 20 years. Thank God I'm retired and out of it.
Minister: 'I am sick and tired of getting continually pestered; just give him what he wants to shut him up.'
Department: 'Yes Minister, but what about cost/benefit?'
Minister: 'I don't care about cost/benefit, just get him off my back!'
Department: 'Yes Minister.'
Been there, done that - it's a recurring nightmare that's lasted almost 20 years. Thank God I'm retired and out of it.
“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.
I'm sorry, but how is this not an improvement over current setups?
'coz well known CNS/ATM expert Bloggsie says so, isn't that enough for you??
Class E is introduced over Launceston, causes a near midair with a RPT jet,
If that is not enough for you, E airspace is widely used in many other countries, US and Canada, of course, that conclusively proves it is "not safe".
Tootle pip!!
PS: Funny that Bloggsie always brings up the Tasmanian incident, but never the one north of Brisbane at about the same time. Light aircraft pilots are not to be believed (Weejend Warriors, Blundering Bug Smashers etc.) unless, of course, the lighty pilot happens to be a member of a particular union, then he is a fine upstanding pillar of the community, a paragon of rectitude and responsibility, whose aviation professionalism and skill is beyond question.
Thread Starter
Oh this is going to be fun with the usual suspects poking their heads up (union-bashing and all)! Looking forward to equipping the VFR fleet with transponders Leddie?! 
Brisbane, and Melbourne, if I recall. All within a couple of months of the intro of Class E. Remind me who benefits from Class E again? Certainly not the fare-paying public... Looking forward to your traffic-advice call for the A380 crew as you cruise through terminal E...
Brisbane, and Melbourne, if I recall. All within a couple of months of the intro of Class E. Remind me who benefits from Class E again? Certainly not the fare-paying public... Looking forward to your traffic-advice call for the A380 crew as you cruise through terminal E...
Sorry again, but exactly how does the fare paying public not benefit from the added safety of class e to the deck? Sure it's not class d or C, which I would prefer but it's a step int he right direction.
Thread Starter
Of course it benefits, Chookchocker. Just like dropping the speed limit on the open road to 80kmph would benefit the road toll.
Dick is basing inflicting millions of extra dollars cost on ALL IFR operations on one prang, over a decade ago, where a dodgy GPS in a non-RPT aircraft took the crew off track. How about banning the GPS system that was used (as also happened in a Dash 8)? No, let's use that incident as justification for imposing his nirvana, Class E, everywhere.
As for the fellow from the USA, guess what? Other people around the world can do things differently. Remember seat belts? Remember Alt/Distance tables on approach charts?
Dick is basing inflicting millions of extra dollars cost on ALL IFR operations on one prang, over a decade ago, where a dodgy GPS in a non-RPT aircraft took the crew off track. How about banning the GPS system that was used (as also happened in a Dash 8)? No, let's use that incident as justification for imposing his nirvana, Class E, everywhere.
As for the fellow from the USA, guess what? Other people around the world can do things differently. Remember seat belts? Remember Alt/Distance tables on approach charts?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 11th Jul 2015 at 11:27.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selective, Leady, Old Fruit:
And, because a well known airspace Messiah says so, that's enough for you! And another few mill getting flushed down the tubes.
Leady, I saw buckets of dollars wasted on one bloke's ego that knew it all. Ministers that didn't have a bloody clue but got pecked to death by a 'name.'
Your inconsistency as regards Bloggs is just zealot stuff.
'coz well known CNS/ATM expert Bloggsie says so, isn't that enough for you??
Leady, I saw buckets of dollars wasted on one bloke's ego that knew it all. Ministers that didn't have a bloody clue but got pecked to death by a 'name.'
Your inconsistency as regards Bloggs is just zealot stuff.
Please stop with the hyperbole.
From my perspective (high capacity jet rpt) the status quo is grossly inadequate, and an accident waiting to happen.
Pucker factor increases tenfold whe im OCTA, and that's gin clear CAVOK days. To the point that we often prefer bad weather so as there won't be so many lighties around.
From my perspective (high capacity jet rpt) the status quo is grossly inadequate, and an accident waiting to happen.
Pucker factor increases tenfold whe im OCTA, and that's gin clear CAVOK days. To the point that we often prefer bad weather so as there won't be so many lighties around.
The Australian
Won't happen ahead of OneSky. There are not enough resources to do airspace reform and OneSky.
Lowering airspace will result in more sectors (existing sectors will need to be split, i.e. two sectors become three sectors or three sectors become four sectors). Any potential sectorisations would need to be simulated for workload and procedures. Additional frequencies would be required, additional surveillance may be required, additional consoles would be required, additional simulator time and resources.
Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies
Lowering airspace will result in more sectors (existing sectors will need to be split, i.e. two sectors become three sectors or three sectors become four sectors). Any potential sectorisations would need to be simulated for workload and procedures. Additional frequencies would be required, additional surveillance may be required, additional consoles would be required, additional simulator time and resources.
OneSKY Australia program
From 2018, Australia will be providing air traffic control services using the most advanced and integrated air traffic control system in the world.
Through collaborating with the Department of Defence, it will unify Australian skies under a new, harmonised air traffic management system as we work towards creating ‘one sky’ for Australia.
This will enable a new level of operational and cost efficiency and safety, while also reducing delays for the travelling public and providing opportunities to improve environmental outcomes.
It will place Airservices and the Department of Defence in a position to manage forecast growth of air traffic movement in Australia of as much as 60 per cent by 2030.
Benefits
The benefits of a combined civil military air traffic management system, delivered under the OneSKY Australia program, will include safety and efficiency improvements as well as cost savings and reliability.
Improved safety and efficiency – shared situational awareness for civilian and military controllers through use of common data, additional new system safety nets and alerts, greater information security. The future system will also allow us to maximise the use of these systems within Australia’s skies, helping to minimise noise for communities and delays for the travelling public.
One flight information region – this means that any controller, at any one of the 200 consoles around the country, will be able to access the same flight information at any time, removing the potential for sharing incorrect information. It will also allow for greater use of flexible airspace and user preferred routes.
Modular and adaptable – the future system will be able to easily absorb and integrate future technology enhancements. This will reduce the costs of upgrading to the latest available technology in the future through updates to sections rather than whole, and allow us to quickly respond to changes in our operating environment.
Greater use of four dimensional trajectories – our air traffic controllers will know, with greater certainty and accuracy, the precise flight path an aircraft will take before an aircrafts takes off. This will allow them to map out the projected trajectories of all flights in our airspace. This will give us a clear picture of how our airspace works in four dimensions and help reduce delays for passengers. The current system works in three dimensions.
Key facts
▪Replaces the current civilian system known as The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) that was built in the 1990s and commissioned in 2000.
▪TAAATS has had more than 200 incremental system changes since it was first commissioned.
▪The Request for Tender identified 172 specific operational needs for the future system.
▪Fifty-one of these are new capabilities, with a further 87 that are only partially delivered through our current system.
▪An additional four safety functionalities will be introduced including alerts for medium-term conflict detection, long-term conflict detection, cleared flight level, violation of controlled airspace and conflict probe.
▪Integrated surveillance processing and alerting for all technologies, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
▪Increase of radar feeds from 32 to 45 with expanded offshore surveillance area supporting future extensions of ADS-B coverage.
▪Enhanced information security protocols, dual redundant architecture and a nominal 24-hour, 95 per cent technical disaster recovery of a partition at alternate locations.
From 2018, Australia will be providing air traffic control services using the most advanced and integrated air traffic control system in the world.
Through collaborating with the Department of Defence, it will unify Australian skies under a new, harmonised air traffic management system as we work towards creating ‘one sky’ for Australia.
This will enable a new level of operational and cost efficiency and safety, while also reducing delays for the travelling public and providing opportunities to improve environmental outcomes.
It will place Airservices and the Department of Defence in a position to manage forecast growth of air traffic movement in Australia of as much as 60 per cent by 2030.
Benefits
The benefits of a combined civil military air traffic management system, delivered under the OneSKY Australia program, will include safety and efficiency improvements as well as cost savings and reliability.
Improved safety and efficiency – shared situational awareness for civilian and military controllers through use of common data, additional new system safety nets and alerts, greater information security. The future system will also allow us to maximise the use of these systems within Australia’s skies, helping to minimise noise for communities and delays for the travelling public.
One flight information region – this means that any controller, at any one of the 200 consoles around the country, will be able to access the same flight information at any time, removing the potential for sharing incorrect information. It will also allow for greater use of flexible airspace and user preferred routes.
Modular and adaptable – the future system will be able to easily absorb and integrate future technology enhancements. This will reduce the costs of upgrading to the latest available technology in the future through updates to sections rather than whole, and allow us to quickly respond to changes in our operating environment.
Greater use of four dimensional trajectories – our air traffic controllers will know, with greater certainty and accuracy, the precise flight path an aircraft will take before an aircrafts takes off. This will allow them to map out the projected trajectories of all flights in our airspace. This will give us a clear picture of how our airspace works in four dimensions and help reduce delays for passengers. The current system works in three dimensions.
Key facts
▪Replaces the current civilian system known as The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) that was built in the 1990s and commissioned in 2000.
▪TAAATS has had more than 200 incremental system changes since it was first commissioned.
▪The Request for Tender identified 172 specific operational needs for the future system.
▪Fifty-one of these are new capabilities, with a further 87 that are only partially delivered through our current system.
▪An additional four safety functionalities will be introduced including alerts for medium-term conflict detection, long-term conflict detection, cleared flight level, violation of controlled airspace and conflict probe.
▪Integrated surveillance processing and alerting for all technologies, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
▪Increase of radar feeds from 32 to 45 with expanded offshore surveillance area supporting future extensions of ADS-B coverage.
▪Enhanced information security protocols, dual redundant architecture and a nominal 24-hour, 95 per cent technical disaster recovery of a partition at alternate locations.
Last edited by sunnySA; 11th Jul 2015 at 13:50. Reason: OneSky
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KeepItRolling,
'All unimportant dear boy. The Minister has decreed, therefore it is our responsibility to act, Bernard.'
'But, Sir Humphrey, everyone knows this is madness.'
'Precisely, Bernard, but it is not our job to tell the Minister that he is mad. Maybe you would like to tell him yourself.'
'But, Sir Humphrey, what about the cost - there seems to be no tangible benefit when one compares the cost to the benefit.'
'Bernard, Bernard, Bernard, the cost is not an issue; after all, this is the public purse, and it is bottomless - the cost will be buried in the margins somewhere. Something like, oh let me see, "essential airspace reform for the public good," or something similar, should do it nicely. Don't forget, Bernard, that we have spent millions on airspace for no gain whatsoever, so what's a few million more to keep the Minister happy?'
'All unimportant dear boy. The Minister has decreed, therefore it is our responsibility to act, Bernard.'
'But, Sir Humphrey, everyone knows this is madness.'
'Precisely, Bernard, but it is not our job to tell the Minister that he is mad. Maybe you would like to tell him yourself.'
'But, Sir Humphrey, what about the cost - there seems to be no tangible benefit when one compares the cost to the benefit.'
'Bernard, Bernard, Bernard, the cost is not an issue; after all, this is the public purse, and it is bottomless - the cost will be buried in the margins somewhere. Something like, oh let me see, "essential airspace reform for the public good," or something similar, should do it nicely. Don't forget, Bernard, that we have spent millions on airspace for no gain whatsoever, so what's a few million more to keep the Minister happy?'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Chook
To the point that we often prefer bad weather so as there won't be so many lighties around.
Apart from:
-requirement to operate at standard cruise levels
-requirements to have a radio
-requirement to use the said radio
-requirement to have a working transponder
-requirement to use the said transponder.
Not much.
Again, not as good as class d or c but certainly a step up from g
-requirement to operate at standard cruise levels
-requirements to have a radio
-requirement to use the said radio
-requirement to have a working transponder
-requirement to use the said transponder.
Not much.
Again, not as good as class d or c but certainly a step up from g
What would be the use of introducing mandatory ADSB for all IFR aircraft if non pressurized aircraft spend 90% of their time in uncontrolled airspace and still only get a 1930s style traffic information service?
Why purchase a new radar/ ADSB / Multilateration system if we keep most aircraft in un controlled airspace?
One Sky should immediately put on hold until the controlled airspace is extended as per NAS. At the present time at airports like Ballina the pilots have to become air traffic controllors when in IMC below 8500'. This is rediculous. If FAA controllors have the skills to separate all IFR in IMC why can't Aussie controllors be as skilled?
And what about Tasmania.? Why doesn't the AFAP say something.? AsA Annual reports state that the $6 m multilateration system was purchased to provide terminal survailance down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston . Now we read in The Australian that CASA will not approve its operation below 7000'.
Yes. It's a dud and probably covered up so Airservices management could be paid massive performance bonuses .
If procedural approaches in Tasmania - with its lousy weather and big hills -are as safe as survailance covered approaches it means you don't need survailance anywhere . And that's clearly not so.
A cover up is happening here. Let's get the system working properly as it was ordered. Do I have support for this? Also won't One Sky be another $1.4 billion Super Seasprite like disaster if they can't even get a small multilateration system working as ordered?
Why purchase a new radar/ ADSB / Multilateration system if we keep most aircraft in un controlled airspace?
One Sky should immediately put on hold until the controlled airspace is extended as per NAS. At the present time at airports like Ballina the pilots have to become air traffic controllors when in IMC below 8500'. This is rediculous. If FAA controllors have the skills to separate all IFR in IMC why can't Aussie controllors be as skilled?
And what about Tasmania.? Why doesn't the AFAP say something.? AsA Annual reports state that the $6 m multilateration system was purchased to provide terminal survailance down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston . Now we read in The Australian that CASA will not approve its operation below 7000'.
Yes. It's a dud and probably covered up so Airservices management could be paid massive performance bonuses .
If procedural approaches in Tasmania - with its lousy weather and big hills -are as safe as survailance covered approaches it means you don't need survailance anywhere . And that's clearly not so.
A cover up is happening here. Let's get the system working properly as it was ordered. Do I have support for this? Also won't One Sky be another $1.4 billion Super Seasprite like disaster if they can't even get a small multilateration system working as ordered?