TLB,

Yes I have flown into Bristol twice and Inverness once, as well as spending all last summer operating into class D, E and G airspace in Greece and Italy. The system works quite well here, though we have frequent TAs and my company (though not me personaly) would seem to get about one RA a month. This is in a place that has grown up with this system, with pilots trained from the outset in these procedures, and where VFR flying is severely limited by weather and economic considerations.

My home base (Liverpool) is class D with quite an active flying training industry. They squawk, get clearences, we are positivley seperated from them (This is with one radar controller and one guy in the tower) and everyone is happy.

IFANDthen obviously there has been a problem with the design/implementation/education of NAS.

Your solution seems to be "There shouldn't be a problem, so there isn't one."

Right...

And what exactly are the correct 'procedures' for a traffic advisory? It might be 'common sence' in the cold light of day; but in a high workload environment; complying with STARs, etc. perhaps the system isn't delivering the outcomes we all expect.

As for the mjbow2 waffle about how it could have played out, it didn't. A more efficient system which requires 11 transmissions instead of 4 (at worst) is a classic example of why E will take more resources than C.

And the VFR cost of getting a clearance and traversing Class C pre 27 November would have been the same as using the class E post 27 November; nudda.

Dick, you got it wrong.

TLB,

Well, actually, MY ATS AIRSPACE Classification chart says regarding class D:-

Separation:- IFR from IFR

Services:- Air traffic control services including traffic information about VFR flights (and traffic avoidance advice on request).

That being said, I have never had to REQUEST traffic avoidance from VFR, I have simply never been cleared through the level of KNOWN (and in class D they are all KNOWN) VFR traffic.

So is that the crux of your argument? That D and E work when controllers ignore what the rules say and do what they know is right? In that case it WILL work in Aus when the likes of you and Dick simply tell the ATCers, "Look, it's really class C, but it makes us look good if it's got an "E" on it, ok guys?"

Makes a bit of a farce of it, don't you think?

TLB said,

Funny that, I have. It has a magnificient effect on the effective range of your A/A missiles!!

Do you know what the prevailing winds are in that area? How about the G/S then??

Tell me what the percentage increase in TAS would be between 12500 and 16500????

How about the impact the high rate of climb of the Lancair in this situation (both for TCAS, ATC and the Virgin crew) as opposed to traffic in level flight?

I had a look at the chart the other day, to fly at 12500 till a reasonable distance west of BN, then climb to 16500 would not be a huge impost in terms of TAS or Fuel; versus the simplification of the separation issue.

The Lancair pilot should share SOME (not all) of the blame in the cause of this incident. There was no real need to be where he was, given the increase in risk accompanied.

Whether he has the knowledge to be aware of these separation concerns is another issue (NAS training??).

If you are going to operate high performance GA aircraft capable of the FL's (a change in GA culture??) then there is personal onus on himself to educate in the areas where this operation may cause problems.


Chippie Chappie; note I didnt ask you what you would do in your 172. I asked you if you would have had enough knowledge to be concerned with 16500 as opposed to say 12500, in the area north of BN. Would you have realised there probably would be issues with 16500 in that area?? If you didnt know what they were, would you have stayed away from 16500??


(Note: This is all separate to the debate of whether it should be C or E, I am purely discussing how this person operated in the airspace we actually have)

yawn...

Tonka- I sit corrected:ouch:

Can some-one provide a link or point me to a published cost analysis of class E airspace over say class C. It would seem to me that running an equal amount of C would cost more than E. In the end the INDUSTRY would be paying for it. But, I shall reserve my judgement on that until I can read an analysis. Anyone?

ftrplt, I must disagree with you there. If the guy has no restrictions on the level he flies at, why should he share some blame for flying at that level? If I had a Lancair, I'd be blasting through at that level too, and why not? If I had the choice between mixing it in the bumps at low level with a multitude of sightseeing VFR aircraft, or punching through in the FLs with IFR traffic knowing that I was on radar coverage, then I would have done exactly the same. There will only be more aircraft doing this in the future.

Someone else has blamed Class E, intoning that Class E in Europe and the US is not blessed with similar amounts of VFR weather as Australia. This argument doesn't hold water either. Class E works well across southern Europe and the US in similar weather conditions.

Separating two aircraft with radio communication and under radar coverage is not rocket science. It seems like everyone involved followed procedures, so it seems that the training can't be blamed.

So what's the problem with the procedures?

Answer:

I don't know. I don't have any figures to support either the change or the status quo. Neither have I been involved in any consultation or working group. I'm not trying to justify NAS one way or the other. Correct me if I have my facts skewed, but what I can't understand is that in this particular case, everything was favouring the desired optimum for operations in Class E. All parties were on the radio. Both aircraft were in radar coverage with transponders operating. With everyone following procedures, the aircraft flight paths should not have converged to such an extent. No airspace design is supposed to work like this, but blaming ICAO Class E, or the pilots, or ATC for working within their operational tolerances just doesn't make sense.

I support changes in procedures so that we can move forward without the liklihood of this same event occurring in the future.

does DS use these forums? Hey, just because you make claims on radio, just saying ooops, I stuffed up is not enough, any thing less than a personal phone appology is not OK. I mean that generally, not just for the DS case.

salsa

It would appear that the Dick supporters have mastered the art of coloring in, that’s an achievement!

:ok:

I was going to ask Woomera to take those bright cayons away from The Leyland Bros., but then I realised that where they are they are not allowed any pens, pencils or sharp instuments, and there is even someone always watching to make sure they don't eat the craft paste.

;)

:confused:

So is Dick saying that he will disregard or ignore a time critical warning on his cessna 560 or whatever he has assuming he has TCAS fitted?

Good to share the air with professionals..............

Hey Pharcarnell, that's the best piece of advice I've seen online in a long time! Dick Smith can't have too many friends left after this fiasco, what a moron.

It's all become clear to me now.

I want to thank 'The Leyland Brothers', Dick and all the other NAS proponents. You want the US system (including the level of service provided by US controllers), and it seems you are going to get it.

NAS really means 'turning on the seperation when it's required' ie. when the controller spots a VFR who might be a problem for an IFR, turn on the separation.

Now, what this means for oz is; controller numbers will have to increase, to accomodate the re-sectorisation of radar sectors into smaller, traffic-spotting-friendly, US size sectors. Workload will be irregular (as found out by sectors that provide low-level FS 'services' already), requiring 'inefficient staffing' (you can't staff efficiently because workload becomes wx reliant). Plenty of midday TV, there boys!

If you think I'm joking- ask a US controller how big radar sectors are over there. Then ask an aussie.

Thanks, fellas. Nothing like demand to push up the pay packet. Who's going to pay? Well, certainly not GA. Right? Right?

Once again, thanks. ;)

Yeah exactly ferris the brotherhood has won!!!

Whats the point of air traffic control if you cant make a buck out of it right? Its all about creating more jobs for our comrades.

Well done Dick Smith!

Dick, you are right, I have re-read the report and and you are correct, the Virgin pilot did make a motza of it.

As I have previously stated in a post on the original thread about this topic, the Virgin pilot was in-correct in turning the aircraft without having visual contact, as TCAS procedures rely on vertical manoeuvres only. In addition, TCAS procedures also state that manoeuvreing based on on TA only isn't advised, that the airways clearance is to be adhered to until a TA is received or until visual contact occurs and further manoeuvres are warranted.

The training I've recieved said lateral movement is what we should limit ourselves to, vertical is for TCAS to play with once I don't have a separation standard. Personally, if I had a flight in such proximity I would authorise the pilot to manouvre as required for avoidance, if it seemed neccessary. The ATSB said everybody did what was required of them, I assume this means the diversion was either:

:D Authorised by ATC, or

:} It was considered fair enuf for the crew to have turned in the situation.

I have had pilots request, then demand, then move anyway when approaching bad weather, when I've been unable to approve the request. The crew has to react when they are standing into danger. Back to your armchair MrWooby...