Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

CASA and Government mates, invent a new airspace classification!

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

CASA and Government mates, invent a new airspace classification!

Old 12th Jun 2022, 08:34
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 309
And the biggest problem with your logic is that although ‘controlled airspace DOES NOT stop collisions’ (and nor do traffic lights), controlled airspace (and traffic lights) are more effective than nothing in preventing collisions. It’s a simple concept: In which airspace would you prefer your loved ones to be carried in the back of a 737: G or some other classification?

I could be wrong. It may be that we’d all be safer if all airspace were G.
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2022, 10:21
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 253
43 inches, you’re right, Cambridge is very close to Hobart, probably not a good example…
No Idea Either is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2022, 10:36
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,701
Originally Posted by Clinton McKenzie View Post
And the biggest problem with your logic is that although ‘controlled airspace DOES NOT stop collisions’ (and nor do traffic lights), controlled airspace (and traffic lights) are more effective than nothing in preventing collisions. It’s a simple concept: In which airspace would you prefer your loved ones to be carried in the back of a 737: G or some other classification?

I could be wrong. It may be that we’d all be safer if all airspace were G.
There are benefits for safety in Class D, but our concept of CTA is no different to the 1950s, two way VHF with simplistic procedural based separation. There is still no more protection from errors or rogue aircraft in the non Radar class D environment than 50 years ago, so conflicts will continue to happen. Collisions in CTA have occurred at a regular rate throughout history, the major thing that has happened that has changed all that is the adoption of TCAS/ACAS. My argument is that class D will offer marginal safety benefit (eg PA-28 almost hit an ATR in Albury) for greatly increased cost and complexity. Where TCAS has proven itself over and over in successfully alerting and avoiding collisions. Mandating some form of TCAS/ACAS interpretative device be fitted to smaller craft as well as VHF radio would solve this very quickly.

By the way separation between VFR and IFR in class D is not provided by the tower, only traffic information. Positive separation is provided only between special VFR and IFR. So outside of tower visual contact, in VMC, IFR can still be passing VFR at close range even with clearances on the basis of see and avoid, which does not fix the problem at Ballina.
43Inches is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2022, 10:42
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 407
I challenge any of you to overfly any Class D tower in the US. That's how it's done. And Sunfish could overfly at very modest levels, without having to talk to them, shock, horror, indignation. Oh the humanity.
tossbag is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2022, 10:50
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,701
Originally Posted by tossbag View Post
I challenge any of you to overfly any Class D tower in the US. That's how it's done. And Sunfish could overfly at very modest levels, without having to talk to them, shock, horror, indignation. Oh the humanity.
I don't think flying overhead at 4000-5000ft would interest the locals when they are more interested in 500ft up and down the coast. And its all fine when both parties are compliant, when someone becomes non compliant, that's when having a Transponder will tell everyone where their non compliance is heading. After all conflict mostly occurs when at least one party is not where the other expects them to be. So if one aircraft (especially one invisible to radar) is not doing what they are supposed to, how is a tower going to fix that? In Albury the tower didn't do anything to prevent the collision, the TCAS did.
43Inches is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2022, 11:12
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 407
How do they manage the 'non-compliance' in the States??
tossbag is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2022, 11:26
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,701
Same as us, big sky, natural scatter theory. However because of the large amount of aircraft flying collision rate is somewhere around 10-20 per year and 200 reported near collisions.

The majority of collisions occur in or near the traffic pattern. There are 500 or so towered airports and around 20,000 non towered airports in the USA. Meaning that around 2.5% of airports have a tower service, yet 22% of collisions in the traffic pattern occurred at towered airports, meaning on that evidence you are more likely to collide at a towered airport than non towered. It would be interesting to see traffic stats as well though, obviously tower services are vital for very high density areas, but that number shows a huge amount of accidents still occur in CTA as opposed to outside.

Last edited by 43Inches; 12th Jun 2022 at 11:37.
43Inches is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2022, 20:20
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 407
I guess you can make a stat say anything you like.

How many collisions would have occurred at those towered aerodromes if they were non-towered?
tossbag is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2022, 00:11
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 2,108
Transponder mandate’s don’t do anything when farmer Joe doesn’t turn it on. How many times do you ask a light aircraft in a CTAF if they have their transponder on, and then suddenly a diamond appears?
morno is online now  
Old 13th Jun 2022, 22:10
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,416
How about a simple rule? “No entry to a ten mile circle below 5000 ft without operational transponder and radio. The radio to be tested against the afru?” That should go close to guaranteeing GA and RAA aircraft or sqwawking and on frequency.

Personally, I’ve noticed that some circuit traffic makes a full stop and waits when RPT announces their imminent arrival. Unless I’m close to fuel emergency level (which,is never, so far) I always defer to RPT. Maybe a rule giving RPT a ten minute window might work. No GA operations within the window?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2022, 02:30
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 407
That should go close to guaranteeing GA and RAA aircraft or sqwawking and on frequency.

Personally, I’ve noticed that some circuit traffic makes a full stop and waits when RPT announces their imminent arrival. Unless I’m close to fuel emergency level (which,is never, so far) I always defer to RPT. Maybe a rule giving RPT a ten minute window might work. No GA operations within the window?
Yet MORE rules?? Come on mate...........If there's anything that an Australian likes more than more rules, I'm yet to find it.

How about using your effing brains?
tossbag is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2022, 12:35
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Oz
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Clinton McKenzie View Post
You couldn’t make this stuff up.

A cabal of people in one part of CASA (with the support or acquiescence of ATSB and Airservices) will go to almost any lengths to make sure that RPT passenger jets continue sharing uncontrolled airspace and uncontrolled aerodromes with aircraft that are not required to be fitted with transponders nor certified as airworthy by CASA (nor any other NAA) and being flown by pilots who aren’t licensed by CASA nor certified as medically fit by CASA (nor any other NAA). Meanwhile, in a different part of CASA a different cabal of people (supported by the medical industry) is running a sham process in an attempt to produce ‘evidence’ to justify an expansion in the scope of CASA Avmed’s empire (even potentially capturing drone pilots).


CASA’s invented ‘Schrödinger's Pilot’ - A pilot of a light aircraft, sharing uncontrolled airspace and aerodromes wth RPT passenger jets, who is simultaneously ‘acceptable’ and ‘not unsafe’ without a licence and medical certificate issued by CASA at the same time as being ‘unacceptable’ and ‘unsafe’ without a licence and medical certificate issued by CASA. You don’t know which until you open the box to find out what symbols are painted on the light aircraft and find out to what organisations the pilot belongs.

It all makes perfect sense. On the planet Coosebane.

With their current collective wisdom and expertise I reckon they’d make a more cost-effective contribution to the safety of air navigation if one cabal concentrated on just digging holes and the other on just filling them in.
I have to say, your ‘dig’ at RAA is simply flawed. RAA pilots are allowed to undertake certain activities. These are, operating up to 600kgs, day VFR not upside down, 2 pob, no multi engine, With a PPL for example, one may fly just about anything with unlimited pax, IFR, upside down, night, (with ratings, yes). The training for a PPL is different to RAA for this reason. The inference that RAA pilots are incapable to self separate is rubbish. It maybe an inconvenient truth that the limitations applied to those with an RAA pilot certificate are sufficient to permit actually flying an aeroplane safely within a busy airspace (controlled or uncontrolled) with a self declared medical and the rules have been ‘scaled’ appropriately. RAA pilots are not trained to the level of a CPL because it’s simply not needed for the activities they undertake. However, you’ll find that many RAA pilots are actually dual qualified including active ATPL’s that choose to fly in their past time in a non-complex operation for fun.

And whilst the pilot license is not recognised by other NAA’s, go and try to convert your internationally compatible Part 61 licence by simply filling out a form…. Additionally, Australia isn’t the only place that has bespoke licensing for certain activities such as sport aviation, so what’s the problem? Most RAA pilots will never even want to use their licence overseas anyway and if I’m right, I don’t think you’ve previously been complementary towards Australia’s obsession with ICAO compliance, particularly within the aviation medical space.
Flying_higher is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2022, 02:28
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 407
And whilst the pilot license is not recognised by other NAA’s, go and try to convert your internationally compatible Part 61 licence by simply filling out a form
I converted my Part 61 licence to an FAA Foreign Based licence by..........filling out a form. Went to the fisdo, had my logbook checked and was flying the next day.
tossbag is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2022, 03:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,827
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
In Albury the tower didn't do anything to prevent the collision, the TCAS did.
That's because TCAS was more or less invented to prevent collisions in controlled airspace.

No entry to a ten mile circle below 5000 ft without operational transponder and radio
The Jabiru had both. Transponder just wasn't transmitting altitude.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2022, 08:59
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Oz
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by tossbag View Post
I converted my Part 61 licence to an FAA Foreign Based licence by..........filling out a form. Went to the fisdo, had my logbook checked and was flying the next day.
I stand corrected!

Flying_higher is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2022, 10:42
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,701
That's because TCAS was more or less invented to prevent collisions in controlled airspace.
TCAS has no idea what airspace it's in, it sees and tells you to avoid with regard to anything and even multiple targets, as long as they have working transponders.
43Inches is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2022, 12:17
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 407
That's because TCAS was more or less invented to prevent collisions in controlled airspace.
Dude, you're a pretty smart fella, but really?
tossbag is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2022, 00:17
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Flying_higher View Post
I have to say, your ‘dig’ at RAA is simply flawed. RAA pilots are allowed to undertake certain activities. These are, operating up to 600kgs, day VFR not upside down, 2 pob, no multi engine, With a PPL for example, one may fly just about anything with unlimited pax, IFR, upside down, night, (with ratings, yes). The training for a PPL is different to RAA for this reason. The inference that RAA pilots are incapable to self separate is rubbish. It maybe an inconvenient truth that the limitations applied to those with an RAA pilot certificate are sufficient to permit actually flying an aeroplane safely within a busy airspace (controlled or uncontrolled) with a self declared medical and the rules have been ‘scaled’ appropriately. RAA pilots are not trained to the level of a CPL because it’s simply not needed for the activities they undertake. However, you’ll find that many RAA pilots are actually dual qualified including active ATPL’s that choose to fly in their past time in a non-complex operation for fun.

And whilst the pilot license is not recognised by other NAA’s, go and try to convert your internationally compatible Part 61 licence by simply filling out a form…. Additionally, Australia isn’t the only place that has bespoke licensing for certain activities such as sport aviation, so what’s the problem? Most RAA pilots will never even want to use their licence overseas anyway and if I’m right, I don’t think you’ve previously been complementary towards Australia’s obsession with ICAO compliance, particularly within the aviation medical space.
I did not intend to have a ‘dig’ at RAA. My apologies if my thoughts were expressed such that they could be interpreted that way. My ‘dig’ is intended to be at the absurdly contradictory attitudes of different cabals inside the ‘safety’ regulator.

I don’t think an RAA pilot would be any less competent at arranging separation if s/he had 2 passengers on board rather than 1.

I don’t think an RAA pilot would be a greater risk to the passengers on RPT jets in the vicinity if the RAA pilot had 2 passengers on board rather than 1.

I don’t think an RAA pilot would be a greater risk to themselves or anyone else if s/he flew aircraft fitted with a transponder.

Do you know who decided that RAA pilots become ‘unacceptable’ and ‘unsafe’ if they have 2 passengers on board rather than 1, and on the basis of what data? I don’t know who made that decision, but I do know it’s not on the basis of any coherent analysis of data and risk.

I am guessing you are allowed to drive a car in the rain, at night, with more than one passenger on board?

And there are ‘self-certified’ pilots who go ‘upside down’.

But if I, as the holder of a pilot licence issued by CASA, fly to Ballina with 2 passengers on board a light aircraft that has an airworthiness certificate issued by CASA, a maintenance release issued by a LAME and fitted with a serviceable TSO transponder and two VHFs, I’m a dangerous criminal if I don’t have a medical certificate issued by CASA, despite the fact that it’s fine for me to drive there with 6 pax in my Mazda CX-9.

If that makes sense to you, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

(BTW: You should put in a response to CASA’s ‘review’ of medical policy, if you haven’t already. The medical bureaucracy and industry is just itching to add RAA folk to the list of guinea pigs in the medical certification system.)
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2022, 00:29
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,701
In theory if you held a heavy rigid licence you could drive a coach with 80 private passengers on it to Ballina completely self certified. Oh sry theres an eye test when you do the licence that you can tell the difference in colour of traffic lights and see beyond the windscreen.
43Inches is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2022, 05:31
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by tossbag View Post
Dude, you're a pretty smart fella, but really?
If you believe Google, the commonly accepted drivers for TCAS were:
1. On September 25th, 1978, a Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) flight 182 collided with a Cessna 172 near San Diego Airport. Total fatalities: 144. TCAS development was initiated by the FAA
2. 1986 when an Aeroméxico DC-9 collided with a Piper Archer over Cerritos, California causing 82 fatalities (15 on ground). Soon after, the FAA mandated that airliners in U.S. airspace be equipped with TCAS.
Geoff Fairless is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.