NAS apathy
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWT ,
The logic is that if those locations worry CASA/airline[s], Class E airspace can be introduced to cover the route. It would be procedural control, but IFR coverage would be there.
However, if it's VFR; look out the window and broadcast.
Anyone for the status quo ?
G'day
The logic is that if those locations worry CASA/airline[s], Class E airspace can be introduced to cover the route. It would be procedural control, but IFR coverage would be there.
However, if it's VFR; look out the window and broadcast.
Anyone for the status quo ?
G'day
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just read this on the DOTRS site:
We are now getting Class E VFR climb for IFR aircraft by another name!!!
How comes up with these names?
I just love the way they do things
Following discussions with the Aviation Reform Group, it has been agreed that the final Stage One characteristic will be implemented Thursday 20 March 2003. This is to ensure that all parties have a clear understanding of the procedure, provide sufficient time for pilot and ATC training, and avoid the potential confusion of making a change during the Christmas/New Year period.
The Class E “IFR pick-up” procedure is summarised below:
The pilot of an IFR flight planned aircraft may enter Class E airspace in VMC, whilst awaiting an airways clearance, and continue to receive a DTI and Flight Information Service.
The Class E “IFR pick-up” procedure is summarised below:
The pilot of an IFR flight planned aircraft may enter Class E airspace in VMC, whilst awaiting an airways clearance, and continue to receive a DTI and Flight Information Service.
How comes up with these names?
I just love the way they do things
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er.. excuse me, but what is the problem with an arrangement that permits climb in VMC with traffic info in class E??
You can do it now in class G - what you call it is not the issue.
So long as everyone knows the procedure............
I just love the way the ARG do business (behind closed doors). Why dont they table their deliberations ? There is no reason to hold them in camera unless of course they have something to hide?
You can do it now in class G - what you call it is not the issue.
So long as everyone knows the procedure............
I just love the way the ARG do business (behind closed doors). Why dont they table their deliberations ? There is no reason to hold them in camera unless of course they have something to hide?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather3, This assumes that ASA has the capacity to provide the services required in Class E airspace in the areas affected. Providing procedural separation is very expensive, it requires more navaids, frequencies and controllers than providing traffic. It is not as simple as just redesignating airspace.
I feel that NAS will probably work adequately in areas of reasonable radar coverage and/or low traffic density, unfortunately there are a few significant areas of Oz where there is plenty of traffic and no radar. In these areas the choice will be NO SERVICE G airspace below F180, or Class E corridors which will work perfectly well in VMC, and become a total debacle during the Summer months when VMC is the exception not the rule.
Consider this scenario, Busy Non-Radar environment under NAS, Class E airspace down to ten thousand due to the traffic density. Frontal thunderstorms with widespread diversions, everybody for a hundred miles making for the same gap, Icing and Turbulence, everyone wants a clearance into CTA but cant go VFR. Currently aircraft would get DTI in Class G up to F200 and, if the controller was unable to provide a clearance immediately, be able to maintain any level up to F200 until clearance became available. In this scenario under NAS there is a very strong likelihood of significant delays on clearance into E airspace, (the system is generally at capacity now in the stated conditions) Aircraft would be required to remain 10000 or below, receiving no traffic on the other aircraft in the same situation(no services in G under NAS). I dont think too many pilots would look forward to operating their 737/BA146/Brasilia/F100 etc under these circumstances.
Bear in mind that in parts of Oz this weather/traffic mix is an almost daily occurence.
I feel that NAS will probably work adequately in areas of reasonable radar coverage and/or low traffic density, unfortunately there are a few significant areas of Oz where there is plenty of traffic and no radar. In these areas the choice will be NO SERVICE G airspace below F180, or Class E corridors which will work perfectly well in VMC, and become a total debacle during the Summer months when VMC is the exception not the rule.
Consider this scenario, Busy Non-Radar environment under NAS, Class E airspace down to ten thousand due to the traffic density. Frontal thunderstorms with widespread diversions, everybody for a hundred miles making for the same gap, Icing and Turbulence, everyone wants a clearance into CTA but cant go VFR. Currently aircraft would get DTI in Class G up to F200 and, if the controller was unable to provide a clearance immediately, be able to maintain any level up to F200 until clearance became available. In this scenario under NAS there is a very strong likelihood of significant delays on clearance into E airspace, (the system is generally at capacity now in the stated conditions) Aircraft would be required to remain 10000 or below, receiving no traffic on the other aircraft in the same situation(no services in G under NAS). I dont think too many pilots would look forward to operating their 737/BA146/Brasilia/F100 etc under these circumstances.
Bear in mind that in parts of Oz this weather/traffic mix is an almost daily occurence.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Could someone shed some light on these proposed 10nm CTAF's with these new proposals. At my local airport, in the dry ( peak) season there are 2 companies with up to 20 lighties inbound within 10 mins of each other and poor Scare North Braz is trying to get a slot to T/O or sequence for landing. 10nm is way too short, poor guys in 737's etc. Would all these changes result Aust Aviation more cost efficient? Hope we don't find out
Drshmoo
Drshmoo
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drshmoo It does NOT matter what the size is, be it 5, 10, 15nm or whatever. Unless you are in a Cessna 150 or a Bell47, you should have made your calls and sorted the traffic out well before the stated boundary. If NAS is to take up the NA model, then CTAFs do not have a published size. Its up to the pilot to make the calls and sort himself out PRIOR to the circuit. Again, the CTAF is a PROCEDURE, not a block of airspace. It really should have no boundaries, but does so, (in Oz anyway) to try and keep it simple, but maybe we are too simple? As I have said before the place to make your calls is around 7 minutes out (minimum) - that should have most sorted out by the circuit. And remember you do NOT have to talk to everyone else that makes a call. A simple b'cast should do the job in all cases, leaving direct exchanges to when a conflict needs to be resolved.
from Walleyworld
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS
TRIADIC, This early call idea is great, if it is why not make it mandatory so less enlightened pilots do it?
I must also advise this is not what the USA rules state"Communication/Broadcast Procedure...10nm out. for CTAF. In Australia we increased some if not all MBZs to 30nm from 15nm as analysis showed 15nm was too tight for some a/ps.
Now we are saying 10nm is safe this is very poor management in an industry that prides itself with a safety first approach. You have no credibility if you change from 15nm to 30nm to 10 nm Joe average can see that and captains and pilots know 10nm won't work.
The MBZ system was strained at our two busiest uncontrolled a/ps Ayers and Broome we found this out independantly both of us were experiencing unacceptable rates of incidents, this shows it was a systemic failure apparent at a/ps with large mixed use traffic.
The solution was CA/GRS which works, so why pull it apart and say "10nm see and avoid" will now work when 15nm did not !!
The only aviation enviromental change is greater traffic and bigger RPT a/c as well as more hubbing, we at Broome now have 8 RPT bays and are planning for 2 more plus 2 large heliports as the Oil companies advise there will be 2 rigs offshore.
The USA have LAAs for this with nearly all a/p approaches controlled and with radar. Why why why are we doing this I honestly don't understand, in Broome the cost of CA/GRS amounts to 50c per Pax so its not money it makes no sense, God help us if this gets up
I must also advise this is not what the USA rules state"Communication/Broadcast Procedure...10nm out. for CTAF. In Australia we increased some if not all MBZs to 30nm from 15nm as analysis showed 15nm was too tight for some a/ps.
Now we are saying 10nm is safe this is very poor management in an industry that prides itself with a safety first approach. You have no credibility if you change from 15nm to 30nm to 10 nm Joe average can see that and captains and pilots know 10nm won't work.
The MBZ system was strained at our two busiest uncontrolled a/ps Ayers and Broome we found this out independantly both of us were experiencing unacceptable rates of incidents, this shows it was a systemic failure apparent at a/ps with large mixed use traffic.
The solution was CA/GRS which works, so why pull it apart and say "10nm see and avoid" will now work when 15nm did not !!
The only aviation enviromental change is greater traffic and bigger RPT a/c as well as more hubbing, we at Broome now have 8 RPT bays and are planning for 2 more plus 2 large heliports as the Oil companies advise there will be 2 rigs offshore.
The USA have LAAs for this with nearly all a/p approaches controlled and with radar. Why why why are we doing this I honestly don't understand, in Broome the cost of CA/GRS amounts to 50c per Pax so its not money it makes no sense, God help us if this gets up
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Cheers Triadic . Good points. Generally speaking 7 mins for me is mbz boundary, so thats when i make my call. 7 mins is enough time to sort out potential conflicts.
. Good points. Generally speaking 7 mins for me is mbz boundary, so thats when i make my call. 7 mins is enough time to sort out potential conflicts.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Walley
Calling outside the nominated boundary is something many operators/pilots have done for some time. You may remember that when there were AFIZs the size was 15nm but the recommended call was at 30nm.
Making an early call is just good airmanship and like many other things in that category it should not have to be written down. Please don't give CASA an excuse for more rules, we have enough and I think we have a real problem when people ask for every item to be written down. It doesn't have to be and whats more it shouldn't.
Part of the problem is that the legal people in CASA (the ones that really run the outfit) have no idea what airmanship is let alone the ability to define it within the regs. So as a result they have to write pages and pages of rules which few people read, have no relation to common sense (can't define that either) and we wonder why we have the problems we do!
Sadly, many good airmanship practices these days are not passed on (they are not taught) and there are many pilots about, especially those trained in the past 10 years that really don't seem to know what it means and don't have the CDF to apply it!
As for the current US rules, I don't have a copy and based my comment on past experience over there.
It is good to hear that you believe that the CAGRO is working, but I think it will take time for the practice to evolve to many other locations, even tho' some are quite busy at times and there may be a need.
NAS will not work in this country unless there is a volume of education to the level we have never seen before. Feather#3 is correct in that many will NEVER be taught the changes. The other thing that has to occur before the change process is successful is to convince us all that it is needed. 'IF' they can do that, then maybe, just maybe we might see the wheels turn.
And as the holdiday season is now over, I think it is about time the NAS team and the Smith's came out of their bunker.
Calling outside the nominated boundary is something many operators/pilots have done for some time. You may remember that when there were AFIZs the size was 15nm but the recommended call was at 30nm.
Making an early call is just good airmanship and like many other things in that category it should not have to be written down. Please don't give CASA an excuse for more rules, we have enough and I think we have a real problem when people ask for every item to be written down. It doesn't have to be and whats more it shouldn't.
Part of the problem is that the legal people in CASA (the ones that really run the outfit) have no idea what airmanship is let alone the ability to define it within the regs. So as a result they have to write pages and pages of rules which few people read, have no relation to common sense (can't define that either) and we wonder why we have the problems we do!
Sadly, many good airmanship practices these days are not passed on (they are not taught) and there are many pilots about, especially those trained in the past 10 years that really don't seem to know what it means and don't have the CDF to apply it!
As for the current US rules, I don't have a copy and based my comment on past experience over there.
It is good to hear that you believe that the CAGRO is working, but I think it will take time for the practice to evolve to many other locations, even tho' some are quite busy at times and there may be a need.
NAS will not work in this country unless there is a volume of education to the level we have never seen before. Feather#3 is correct in that many will NEVER be taught the changes. The other thing that has to occur before the change process is successful is to convince us all that it is needed. 'IF' they can do that, then maybe, just maybe we might see the wheels turn.
And as the holdiday season is now over, I think it is about time the NAS team and the Smith's came out of their bunker.
Triadic, two points, you continually mention that a CTAF/MBZ is a procedure not a parcel of airspace, surely it is a procedure adopted in a parcel of airspace? By definition, "CTAF area" as per ERSA Intro 15.
If it isn't written down how are new pilots to know, common sense is not so common, do they pick it up from other pilots at the bar? AS a CFI/CP it was much easier when the radio calls were more prescriptive in the AIP (and old VFG).
You bemoan the lack of what is taught...
...surely having each call written down to have the format learnt is preferable to the present system? I happen to agree that standards have fallen, but they have fallen in line with CASA requirements.
and I think we have a real problem when people ask for every item to be written down. It doesn't have to be and whats more it shouldn't.
You bemoan the lack of what is taught...
Sadly, many good airmanship practices these days are not passed on (they are not taught) and there are many pilots about, especially those trained in the past 10 years that really don't seem to know what it means and don't have the CDF to apply it!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: America/Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Whatwasthat 26/12/2002
I am a Yank Airline pilot who has flown a little bit in Oz and have been reading with interest this NAS proposal and all the resistance to it. I have read some of the info on the NAS websight and I think you are wrong about traffic info supplied to aircraft operating in the terminal area of a non-tower airport. I believe DTI will be provided in the NAS to aircraft approaching or departing a non-tower airport as is current practise.
Also, you discuss concerns about regions in Oz which have significant traffic and no radar. It would help me if you defined significant traffic. After flying in the U.S. for a long time and flying in Oz for several years, I find we may have differences about what significant is.
Also, you discuss concerns about regions in Oz which have significant traffic and no radar. It would help me if you defined significant traffic. After flying in the U.S. for a long time and flying in Oz for several years, I find we may have differences about what significant is.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duke,
As to traffic levels, I rather think you may have hit the nail on the head!
However, your reality and mine are one thing; the perception of the affected parties in this country is that they're being "dudded". Thus, until the relativities are explained, we're no better off!
G'day
As to traffic levels, I rather think you may have hit the nail on the head!
However, your reality and mine are one thing; the perception of the affected parties in this country is that they're being "dudded".
Thus, until the relativities are explained, we're no better off! G'day
Sticky?
Coral
It is happening because the NAS driver - RHS - wants it. Whether the procedure is of use or otherwise appears to be irrelevant.
Implementation is a milestone to be met, and failure is not an option.
It is happening because the NAS driver - RHS - wants it. Whether the procedure is of use or otherwise appears to be irrelevant.
Implementation is a milestone to be met, and failure is not an option.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any news?
Followers of the various NAS threads may remember that on 13 May 2002, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services announced:
Has anyone heard from the Bureau on this issue? It would seem prudent to test RHS's claims of fifty-million dollar savings before implementing changes, would it not? Particularly as the Minister specified that the cost benefit study was to be an input to the Implementation Group's work.
Perhaps Dick Smith could enlighten us all.
Perhaps Mr Smith could also offer his opinions on the way that stage 1 (sorry 1A....sorry stage 1, to be followed by 1A) have been implemented. Of particular interest would be the discrepancies between:[list=a][*]The various provisions of the AIC SUPP[*]The training package for pilots[*]The training package for ATC[/list=a]
which all contradict each other to various degrees.
Personal Note to Dick Smith
You have previously accused me of attempting to prove that you were 'dishonest'. I both denied that charge and offered a 'provisional' apology in case I was wrong. I STILL await your reply and proof of this scurrilous accusation. (Nothing but honour is at stake, however.)
The ARG recommended:
(i) the National Airspace System (NAS) be selected as the preferred model for future airspace reform in Australia, subject to the development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) endorsement of a comprehensive implementation safety case, specifying an appropriate timeframe for all necessary industry communication and education programmes;
(ii) the ARG establish an Implementation Group to assist it in developing the NAS implementation process;
(iii) as an input to the Implementation Group's work, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics undertake a more comprehensive cost benefit study of the NAS plan to identify more clearly the net benefits to be gained from its implementation; and
(iv) work be immediately set in train for the establishment of an Airspace Directorate, separate from CASA or a corporatised Airservices Australia, to progress future airspace reform.
(i) the National Airspace System (NAS) be selected as the preferred model for future airspace reform in Australia, subject to the development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) endorsement of a comprehensive implementation safety case, specifying an appropriate timeframe for all necessary industry communication and education programmes;
(ii) the ARG establish an Implementation Group to assist it in developing the NAS implementation process;
(iii) as an input to the Implementation Group's work, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics undertake a more comprehensive cost benefit study of the NAS plan to identify more clearly the net benefits to be gained from its implementation; and
(iv) work be immediately set in train for the establishment of an Airspace Directorate, separate from CASA or a corporatised Airservices Australia, to progress future airspace reform.
Perhaps Dick Smith could enlighten us all.
Perhaps Mr Smith could also offer his opinions on the way that stage 1 (sorry 1A....sorry stage 1, to be followed by 1A) have been implemented. Of particular interest would be the discrepancies between:[list=a][*]The various provisions of the AIC SUPP[*]The training package for pilots[*]The training package for ATC[/list=a]
which all contradict each other to various degrees.
Personal Note to Dick Smith
You have previously accused me of attempting to prove that you were 'dishonest'. I both denied that charge and offered a 'provisional' apology in case I was wrong. I STILL await your reply and proof of this scurrilous accusation. (Nothing but honour is at stake, however.)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 78
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
the nas is doomed,
the air that we fly around in today is the same air they flew around in at the beginning of the century, at the beginning of flight.
the future system currently under " test or evaluation" in queensland australia has gone from one end of the spectrum of flight to the other and will negate the reqirement for third party, searation at every level, (bye bye airservices), and every aircraft will have the ability to know the whereabouts of all the aircraft that may be in conflict with it, including the terrain. (bye bye tcas).
this new system, if it goes as sure as progress does, will soon be the norm for the world.
cheaper by far than radar, $400,000 per ground unit, with minimal service, versus radar at $6,000,000 per unit with a high service cost, follow up with a natural progression from gps and this new system will provide every aircraft all the information that it needs to safely navigate the skies. each aircraft mainaining it's own separation.
freedom of the skies. at last?
duke 16,
believe me that australia does not know what significant traffic is.
we actually don't have any traffic at all if you use any place in the world as a sample.
the air that we fly around in today is the same air they flew around in at the beginning of the century, at the beginning of flight.
the future system currently under " test or evaluation" in queensland australia has gone from one end of the spectrum of flight to the other and will negate the reqirement for third party, searation at every level, (bye bye airservices), and every aircraft will have the ability to know the whereabouts of all the aircraft that may be in conflict with it, including the terrain. (bye bye tcas).
this new system, if it goes as sure as progress does, will soon be the norm for the world.
cheaper by far than radar, $400,000 per ground unit, with minimal service, versus radar at $6,000,000 per unit with a high service cost, follow up with a natural progression from gps and this new system will provide every aircraft all the information that it needs to safely navigate the skies. each aircraft mainaining it's own separation.
freedom of the skies. at last?
duke 16,
believe me that australia does not know what significant traffic is.
we actually don't have any traffic at all if you use any place in the world as a sample.
Last edited by imabell; 28th Jan 2003 at 11:27.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid-air collision in the USA (Denver)
A thread already exists on the private flying forum for this accident. This accident highlights the possibility of mid-air collisions, even in the best of systems. We need to be constantly vigilant that any new systems adopted in Australia bring with them inherent risks as well as advantages.
Interestingly, on the US statistics of 16 mid-air collisions per year and corrected for Australia's population (i.e. not using aviation stats as I don't have the comparative data) , we should expect approximately 1 of these per year. (The statisticians out the can probably shoot holes in this analysis)
Denver Channel article on mid-air
NTSB investigation update
Note for those of impetuous nature: I am NOT suggesting that NAS will or will not cause mid-air collisions of this nature. It may be argued that the service being provided to these two aircraft was in excess of that which may be provided to VFR aircraft in Australia today. I raise the issue merely because we are adopting the US/'North American"/hybrid system, which may include aspects similar to those which prevailed here, and which may raise safety concerns.
As there is official reluctance to actually carry out any safety studies or assessment of the new system, this may be the only way we can evaluate the safety of NAS.
I fully expect not a hint of any comment or answers from RHS, or any of the NAS hangers-on. Such is the state of aviation reform in Australia today.
Interestingly, on the US statistics of 16 mid-air collisions per year and corrected for Australia's population (i.e. not using aviation stats as I don't have the comparative data) , we should expect approximately 1 of these per year. (The statisticians out the can probably shoot holes in this analysis)
Denver Channel article on mid-air
NTSB investigation update
Note for those of impetuous nature: I am NOT suggesting that NAS will or will not cause mid-air collisions of this nature. It may be argued that the service being provided to these two aircraft was in excess of that which may be provided to VFR aircraft in Australia today. I raise the issue merely because we are adopting the US/'North American"/hybrid system, which may include aspects similar to those which prevailed here, and which may raise safety concerns.
As there is official reluctance to actually carry out any safety studies or assessment of the new system, this may be the only way we can evaluate the safety of NAS.
I fully expect not a hint of any comment or answers from RHS, or any of the NAS hangers-on. Such is the state of aviation reform in Australia today.
Grandpa Aerotart
AU-708 23 nov 01
3 Operations in Class E Airspace
3.3.2
VFR flights entering and operating in Class E airspace should:
a. Avoid published IFR routes, where possible;
b. Unless recieving RIS, monitor the Class G area frequency; and
c. take appropriate action to avoid potential conflict.
OR
AU-801 6 dec 02
2 Air Traffic Clearances and Instructions
2.1.4
Within VHF radio coverage, pilots must maintain continous communications with ATC when operating in Classes A, C and D airspace, as must pilots of IFR flights in Class E airspace. Further, when in Class E airspace, pilots of VFR flights should monitor the ATS frequency appropriate to the area of operation.
So which is it? Should we monitor Class G Area VHF or ATS VHF?
Or are we next going to have dual VHF as mandatory for VFR operations in Class E airspace?
Why can VFR flights operate in Class E without clearance but IFR need clearance?
It would seem to me you are mixing aircraft on full reporting(and/or RIS) with aircraft that are not. Gotta be a recipe for pain sooner or later.
Why not have IFR/VFR nil clearance required in Class E BUT all aircraft must be fitted with operational Mode C and have it turned on? Seems that would be simple and in combination with the IFR & VFR cruising levels and RIS to IFR and on request to VFR, would keep everyone apart.
Seems it would also solve the IFR Climb in VMC in Class E quandry, in fact they could climb anytime they liked, VMC or no, having requested traffic info from ATS.
Or am I being silly?
Chuck.
3 Operations in Class E Airspace
3.3.2
VFR flights entering and operating in Class E airspace should:
a. Avoid published IFR routes, where possible;
b. Unless recieving RIS, monitor the Class G area frequency; and
c. take appropriate action to avoid potential conflict.
OR
AU-801 6 dec 02
2 Air Traffic Clearances and Instructions
2.1.4
Within VHF radio coverage, pilots must maintain continous communications with ATC when operating in Classes A, C and D airspace, as must pilots of IFR flights in Class E airspace. Further, when in Class E airspace, pilots of VFR flights should monitor the ATS frequency appropriate to the area of operation.
So which is it? Should we monitor Class G Area VHF or ATS VHF?
Or are we next going to have dual VHF as mandatory for VFR operations in Class E airspace?
Why can VFR flights operate in Class E without clearance but IFR need clearance?
It would seem to me you are mixing aircraft on full reporting(and/or RIS) with aircraft that are not. Gotta be a recipe for pain sooner or later.
Why not have IFR/VFR nil clearance required in Class E BUT all aircraft must be fitted with operational Mode C and have it turned on? Seems that would be simple and in combination with the IFR & VFR cruising levels and RIS to IFR and on request to VFR, would keep everyone apart.
Seems it would also solve the IFR Climb in VMC in Class E quandry, in fact they could climb anytime they liked, VMC or no, having requested traffic info from ATS.
Or am I being silly?
Chuck.
Grandpa Aerotart
And as far as average traffic densities being light in Oz...very true until you get real near YSBK,YBAF etc. And yes even BK on a busy day probably doesn't compare to any number of US airfields...but we still had a midair at BK last year.
The link below makes interesting reading and, except for the place names you'd swear it was Australia...you'd think we already have the North American System!!
Michael Maya Charles on the Denver midair collision
Chuck
The link below makes interesting reading and, except for the place names you'd swear it was Australia...you'd think we already have the North American System!!
Michael Maya Charles on the Denver midair collision
Chuck
