Airspace 2015 coming to an airport near you...

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Chock

-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.

Apart from between 5000ft-10,000ft, a combination of those are already a requirement for VFR into a CTAF or operations in G: mandatory transponders for all aircraft above 10k, mandatory carriage and use of radio for all aircraft above 5k, mandatory carriage and use of radio in a CTAF. Mandatory transponders for all aircraft in a CTAF for be a safety improvement: why though does the airspace class have to change though (with it's increase in cost, complexity and inconvenience)?

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?

What, a RIS is 1930's style? Open your eyes!!

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.

For goodness sake Dick, this is the 2015s, with great FMS nav systems and EGPWS. You don't base a complete airspace system on stopping aeroplanes running into hills! ATC's purpose is to keep aeroplanes apart. Do the traffic levels in Tas require radar-like approach services? Probably not!

[Popgun]

For goodness sake Dick, this is the 2015s, with great FMS nav systems and EGPWS. You don't base a complete airspace system on stopping aeroplanes running into hills! ATC's purpose is to keep aeroplanes apart.

Agreed. These days, even a 2 seat ultralight has pinpoint navigation accuracy and terrain awareness from cheap, tablet-based programs such as OzRunways.

Keeping aircraft from getting too close, in AND outside CTA should be the goal.

PG

[Dick Smith]

No wonder so many professional pilots kill so many, including themselves, with a controlled flight into terrain. Those aircraft terrain systems are not 100% reliable. That's why aviation safety has a backup where possible. A bit like 2 engines!

[Dick Smith]

And how does a class G RIS work when you are in IMC? Don't you have to call the other pilot and arrange separation by 1930s radio techniques ?

[LeadSled]

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?!

Bloggsie,
If you don't think the blocking of progress by the "policies" of several unions has had no effect in this area, where have you been living for the past 30-40 years.
After all, the AIPA only came about because of the then AFAP policies on refusing many technological advances. Those of us in the then AFAP Overseas Branch were not prepared to sacrifice ourselves on the altar of AFAP Luddite recalcitrance.
Civilair has hardly been in the forefront of promoting technological change.

Looking forward to your traffic-advice call for the A380 crew as you cruise through terminal E...

You think that doesn't happen every day in and out of KLAX, and shortly, back to KSFO, not to mention the various airspace classifications a QF aircraft traverses to EGLL and back -- indeed, you really should have a look at a few charts outside Australia.

Just like dropping the speed limit on the open road to 80kmph would benefit the road toll.

Bit astray on that one, there is considerable research that concludes that unrealistically low speed limits on highways cause accidents as a result, probably, of driver inattention and frustration.

Last time I looked at the subject, the changes to the NT speed limits have had no measurable effect in increasing accident rates.

Very low speed limits in suburban streets (blanket 40 and similar) are a different issue.

[tyler_durden_80]

I just don't see how class 'E' improves safety for anyone...how is safety enhanced when I can have an RPT IFR flight receiving a 'control' service in 'controlled' airspace, yet have a VFR in conflict who may or may not be listening to the Area Freq, and not subject to any sort of clearance or control service?

Sure I can pass traffic to my 'controlled' RPT IFR flight, but I don't separate between IFR and VFR in class 'E'.

So I pass traffic information to my 'controlled' RPT IFR flight on the unknown VFR aircraft. But my 'controlled' RPT IFR flight cannot make any sort of deviation from its clearance without asking because it is in 'Controlled' airspace.

And in addition to my 'Controlled' RPT IFR flight in conflict with unknown VFR traffic, I now have 'CTA' below the grid LSALT. Of course there are things such as RTCC charts, and MSA's, but as an enroute controller, I'm not allowed to use them (with a very slight exception for MSA's).

I have seen the implementation of lowered class 'E' steps at Williamtown, and I have seen no increase to service or safety...in fact quite the opposite (irrelevant now that WLM ATC work the longer hours for the last few years).

My opinion counts for nought, but lowering class E will do zero to enhance safety, it will ony compromise it further.

[Keith Myath]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

And the benefit of Class E in that situation would be what?

Let’s see:

Present situation class G

IFR:
IFR aircraft provided with traffic information on other IFR aircraft.

VFR:
No radio required if <5000’
No transponder required

If we upgrade to class E

IFR:
IFR aircraft separated from other IFR aircraft
IFR aircraft provided with traffic information service on VFR flights as far as practical

VFR:
Continuous 2 way communications required.
Transponder required.

In summary, upgrading from class G to E means you are now separated from other IFR, given a traffic information service on VFR, and VFR are required to carry a radio and transponder.

Why wouldn’t you support upgrading class G to E (note – not downgrading class C/D to E)? Areas like Ballina could certainly do with an upgrade to at least E with the current traffic levels.

[missy]

Civilair has hardly been in the forefront of promoting technological change.

Really, a review of IFATCA would tell a different story.
Currently Civil Air is represented by members holding the following positions
Deputy President
Executive Vice President Technical
Chair of Technical and Operational Committee

And, in 2014, a life member of Civil Air was honoured with the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for his contribution to civil aviation.
From the OAM announcement:
For service to the civil aviation industry, particularly air traffic management.
Inaugural International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers Associations (IFATCA)
Representative, International Civil Aviation Organisation, 2008-2011; also served as Member,
Air Traffic Management Requirements and Performance Panel.
Executive Vice-President Technical, IFATCA, 1999-2002 and 2009-2011; also served as Secretary, IFATCA Annual Conference, 2011.
Author, IFATCA Statement on Future Air Traffic Management.
Vice-President Technical, Civil Air, Civil Air Operations Officers Association of Australia,
Scroll of Honour, International Civil Aviation Organisation,
Australia Day Achievement Award, Airservices Australia

[Horatio Leafblower]

No wonder so many professional pilots kill so many, including themselves, with a controlled flight into terrain.

Here we go again - Dick is presented with a differing view and attacks professional pilots as a group.

How many private pilots flew VFR into IMC with fatal results in the last 10 years Dick? What's the biggest killer of PPLs in Australia Dick?

When was the last time a professional pilot operating inside the rules had a CFIT, Dick?

BENALLA. What sort of GPS was that Dick? Hardly cutting edge, was it?

Before that?

[Dick Smith]

Tyler. With E in the terminal area if you are in IMC you are separated by ATC from all other aircraft in E.

If you are in VMC you cancel IFR and change to the CTAF and use the same procedures you now use in G. But with the added safety of mandatory transponder .

This plus a U.S. style Unicom must improve safety.

[JetRacer]

This plus a U.S. style Unicom must improve safety.

More people chatting on the radio when you want to try and organise separation...


I agree with tyler_durden_80's comment.

[Dick Smith]

Tyler and JetRacer And that's probably the reason we have never installed any class E terminal airspace to low levels - both of you and others are convinced the 1930s system of traffic information in G is better!

I don't agree. As a pilot of a high performance jet I would prefer to be following ATC instructions when in IMC - not be forced to become my own air traffic controller and arrange separation with no prescibed standard from up to 3 or 4 other aircraft .

I am not suggesting we put every IFR approach in a minimum of class E. Why not try it at a few locations? We would soon find out if lots more staff are needed and also see what delays occur.

From my experience of studying airspace systems throughout the world the FAA system is the best. Over 50% of their instrument approaches have the IAF below radar coverage yet delays are no different than in Aus from my experience.

[Dick Smith]

Missy. Why wouldn't Civil air support a system where skilled and trained controllors keep aircraft in IMC apart?

They provide a separation service en route where risks are clearly lower and then hand over to the air crew in the terminal area where the risks are higher.

A rediculous system that only exists because we have never moved properly ahead from the old Flight Service days.

And that's why I am so vitally interested- I can't believe resistance to change has resulted in a half baked system for the last 20 years.

[buckshot1777]

If you are in VMC you cancel IFR

Do any airlines currently permit flights to cancel IFR?

If we upgrade to class E
VFR:
Continuous 2 way communications required.
Transponder required.

Many sport aviation types as well as gliders have exemptions from both to operate in Class E. They have done for many years, and regularly operate in Class E.

Presumably ATC would have no awareness of such aircraft, if they can't see them and/or can't talk to them.

If these exemptions are going to be pulled, the SAAA/RAA etc. might have something to say.

[LeadSled]

If these exemptions are going to be pulled, the SAAA/RAA etc. might have something to say.

Buckshot,
Not quite certain what SAAA "exemptions" you are talking about, as far as equipment and pilot qualifications are concerned, (SAAA is not a self administrative body) and a power source, normal GA rules apply to VH- Experimental and the like.

As for RAOz, if the aircraft has the equipment and the pilot has a current PPL, normal GA rules apply. The number of powered aircraft that do not have a power source is tiny.

I am not certain where the program is at, but for years RAOz has been negotiating with CASA for a "Controlled Airspace" training module for Pilot Certificate holders, so, with that in place, there will be no need for "general" exemptions for RAOz.

There are one of more localities, where special procedures have been put in place for RAOz aircraft, Cambridge comes to mind, but that is a different issue, and the problem will go away with CTL Airspace rights attached to an RAOz Pilot Certificate.

The glider "exemption" is a different issue, as they do not have the power supply to run a conventional transponder, carrying enough batteries for a long flight would be weight prohibitive. In any event, multiple separation assurance studies, over many years, shows that the likelihood of a collision between a glider and a powered aircraft is vanishingly small. Hangliders likewise do not have a power source for a transponder.

The immediately above comment actually applies to all aircraft, once you get away from the circuit area of an airfield, the place (obviously --- but not obvious to some) where a collision is most likely.

The Australian requirement for a Mode C transponder in E below 10,000 never had anything to do with collision risk probability, and risk reduction.

It was a sop to those vehemently opposing the introduction of Class E airspace. At the time, it was believed that the majority of aircraft likely to operate in E above 8500 would already have a Mode C transponder, so the compliance cost of making such mandatory in E was minimal.

The one obsession for which there has so far been no cure is the Australian obsession for "fly-by mouth", once your lips stop flapping, the aeroplane quits flying.

Keep your eyes out the window, folks.

Tootle pip!!

[Keith Myath]

Many sport aviation types as well as gliders have exemptions from both to operate in Class E. They have done for many years, and regularly operate in Class E.

Presumably ATC would have no awareness of such aircraft, if they can't see them and/or can't talk to them.

If the airspace is upgraded to E because of increasing pax movements / traffic density, then why should ultralight aircraft have exemptions from complying with the requirements of class E airspace (in particular radio / transponder fitment). There is plenty of class G airspace in Australia, and LSA / Gliders can go no radio, no transponder, no SAR till their hearts content. But there is NO place for LSA no radio / no transponder aircraft at aerodromes like Ballina with multiple Jet movements.

If these exemptions are going to be pulled, the SAAA/RAA etc. might have something to say.

They can say all they like, perhaps they could start with why they think it is ok to operate in the same airspace as multiple high capacity jets (as is the case in the Ballina area) with no radio and no transponder.

[tyler_durden_80]

Hi Dick,

In my experience, lowering the base of class 'E' 4000ft will provide zero benefit to IFR aircraft, it will in fact restrict the options available to you...if you are IFR in IMC, you will get no extra benefit if class E is below the grid LSALT. sure you will be in 'controlled' airspace lower, and separated from other IFR 4000ft sooner, but If you are not visual I will not (prohibited in Mats) clear you off a published ATS route. That means no deviations off the published route until OCTA or above the LSALT. Think about the potential complications involved with that. Expecting Amended route clearances prior to departure, a useless MSA, and no movement to position until below A045.

For multiple IFR arrivals, 4000ft will not increase your safety, it will unnecessarily complicate it.

[missy]

Missy. Why wouldn't Civil air support a system where skilled and trained controllors keep aircraft in IMC apart?

I'm guessing that Civil Air would support such a system with more than a few caveats.

[triadic]

This talk of Class E down to 5000 ft is not in accordance with present policy. The base of all Class E in Oz is VFR level, so it is more likely to be A045 or lower.

[The name is Porter]

Missy. Why wouldn't Civil air support a system where skilled and trained controllors keep aircraft in IMC apart?

Dick, got a couple of controller mates. They couldn't give a rats arse if they're controlling aircraft to the ground. What they care about:

They receive the proper training to conduct an approach service.
They have the correct staffing to provide this service.
They have the correct sized sectors to provide this service.

What they are keen for you to understand is, if there's not a tower at the aerodromes they're controlling to the ground, it's one in, one out. Or one in while the next in line holds whilst a possible missed approach is protected.

What my mates would be interested to hear is how this would affect the REX, QLink, Wagga Air, REX Training College & itinerant aircraft at Wagga Wagga. They say it is pretty busy there & they'd like to hear from the pilots involved.