Do you support Class E over Class D at Broome and Karratha?

- How do IFR and VFR receive ‘alerting’ in non-radar Class E?
- How do ATC [in a non-radar environment] confirm aircraft departing Class D [in to Class E] have the TXPDR selected ON for operation in Class E?

To briefly answer your ‘assertion/s’. Also from the O’Neill report:-
Remember, this was a ‘design’ safety case, not the volume specific safety cases that were being asked for by industry that would have highlighted the deficiencies.

And, the nub of this discussion:-
On the one hand, you support the introduction of NAS2b without ANY quantitative analysis, and on the other, you whine about AsA’s safety work to return system safety [previously utilised and demonstrated safety of Class C above D] as promptly as safely possible following the unfolding of the NAS2b Class E inadequacies? I find that to be the height of hypocrisy.
The ‘general design safety case’ prior to NAS2b
Shall we further the discussion and have a look at the merits [or otherwise] of the NAS stage 4 changes Leadsled?

Back to the ‘rollback’
It seems Professor O’Neill agrees with concerns raised, then, and most notably today!
You said:Who is saying that?
Table 2 [page 28] of the O’Neill report
Error estimates for 2 VFR scenarios in E and C airspaces under Radar 45 Conditions
A reasonable conclusion given the requirement for a ‘clearance’, and third party ‘error catch’ as part of those interactions in Class C.
Are you agreeing that the expert panel estimate of 85,000 times greater chance of VFR error in Class E was reflective of reality? Or are you questioning the expert [pilot and ATC] panellist responses?

Perhaps the data capture of that particular question was displayed in a potentially confusing way which resulted in an anomalous scoring by expert panellist?

You also say:
From the O'Neill report:
Clearly, this is reasonable, and correct. Were it [and more generally the AsA case for rollback] not, it would not have occured given the 'political' pressure cooker of the time!

That same political pressure cooker might well be on the heat today ;)

ARFOR, I am kicking it into touch.

Dick won't come back because I don't think he can.

However, despite some of the emotion, Lead remains a credible jouster.

We can, at least, have a rational debate with Lead and keep it civil.

Before I go, would one of you guys who belong to the 'dozens and dozens' please put your hand/s up and back Dick's assertion that E is cheaper than C. With your real name, of course, because without that you wouldn't have any credibility.

I am sure you will agree Dick.

Freedom7

May I take a stab in the dark without stealing too much of your thunder in relation to the hypothetical Broome scenario?

E airspace
- IFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- VFR aircraft happily chugging along enjoying the view
- Tower controller happily processing the known IFR inbound

C airspace
- The controller gives the VFR aircraft the option of tracking either via overhead Broome or remaining laterally OCTA for the purpose of separation assurance between ALL aircraft operating or proposing to operate within the controlled airspace volume. Not hard, either the VFR stays OCTA or the IFR is given a technical requirement to be through a level below the VFR by a certain distance from Broome. It`s called procedural (non-radar) separation. Happens every day, guys and gals, believe it or not.

Oh, I`m sorry, my bad, I apologise for the fact that I forgot some people want to fly where they want when they want...like, hypothetically , someone flying from Lord Howe to the Australian mainland in a single engined aircraft and then complaining about not receiving direct tracking to destination within the Sydney basin touting the possibility of an engine failure as justification. Just hypothetically...

Nope, I'd call the tower and have him separate visually,,that's why he has binos in the tower cab.
Or... I could get the VFR guy to report a position, not sure if they are allowed to use composite sep standards in OZ at the present time, and have the IFR guy lock onto a radial , play unders and overs etc etc...not really additional work for me, a bit more for the pilot but that's life. There are a multitude of sep standards that can be used, I haven't used them for a very long time and I don't have a copy of MATS in front of me...but you can look them up and get someone here to give you a rundown of them.
Or I could use what Konstantin said...remain OCTA to the bugshmasher, job done!
BTW passing traffic and then having them bleat on at each other whilst the VFR guy tries to work out where north is far more stressful and R/T time consuming, not to mention the IFR guy requesting separation from the VFR guy. I could spend that time doing something far more productive, like reading the paper or working out what 5 letter word 26 across is:E
I hate to break the news to you, but separating traffic is far easier and quicker than telling them about each other, many years of bitter experience have shown this to be true...whether or not you like to hear it.

So, you now have your ATC who named himself give you an answer...will you now answer the questions given to you above, no equivocation, no "I heard from someones brothers cousin", and especially no "I believe", or "they do it that way in the states" Just answer the questions that have been put to you.


Howabout!! G'day from the Emerald Isle! I had lunch in Galway this very afternoon, actually had lunch in Doolin, just up the coast from Galway, but then spent an enjoyable arvo wandering around the streets:ok:

konstatin

There is no thunder to steel.

You have provided an incomplete scenario. I will not second guess your scenario to have others state I have orchestrated it for my benefit.

Why?

For the purpose of Separation maybe?

:confused:

Hypothetically,

E airspace

BANG

C airspace

Aircraft Separated or 'assured' for the SAME COST, no delays, less transmissions and as an added bonus no Bang.

I can understand individuals own experience but, There is a misconception out there that procedural and/or C airspace is restrictive and should be abolished for the purpose and gain of what exactly???

From a bugsmasher pilots point of view I would agree.

To add to the argument however, the scenario I described in G a few posts back would have been far better for all concerned if it was E, so is there a case for more E to lower levels in the busier regional areas? At least then we would all have been positively told where to go;).

Freedom7, hope we are not talking at cross purposes, please allow me to clarify;

- I was basing my discussion on the scenario as posed at Broome by Dick a few posts above, nothing inferred towards yourself - "stealing thunder" was merely an acknowledgement that you had yourself offered to respond to that scenario (or a more specific version thereof?)

- In my E airspace example I left out what I thought was a self evident inference of a potential "bang"

- Tracking via overhead Broome vs OCTA were just two means of how to solve that particular conflict in C

- My last para alluded to the expectation of some people to being able to proceed A DCT B (eg 20 miles abeam Broome) without accepting that this could adversely impact on the processing of other aircraft - whether complicating the situation in C or potentially generating a near miss or worse in E

I am in full agreement with your concluding statements, of course.

Cheers "k"

Mike Barry

You may be an ATC who has named yourself, but it’s quite clear you don’t have a clue.

For example, you state

Mike, they would have to be pretty amazing “binos” that you could see a small aircraft twenty miles away.

Then you go on to state,

If you’re not sure of such a basic issue, how can you say that there is no more workload in Class C – where you have to separate IFR and VFR and Class E where you do not have to?

You go on to say

In fact, I think you will find that ATCs who do have a copy of MATS in front of them are the ones telling me that Class C without radar is far more complex to control than Class E.

You state

Oh, Mike, now I understand what you are saying! Class C has no extra workload if you tell the VFR aircraft to remain OCTA!

Anyway, Mike, I admire you for using your own name. Now we simply need to get an ATC who is familiar with Australian standards in both Class E and Class C non-radar airspace to answer the question.

And by the way, telling the VFR aircraft to track from twenty miles out to overhead Broome does add to costs. So forget this claim that Class C costs the same as Class E. This may be to ATCs who tell the VFR to keep out of controlled airspace, but certainly not to all the aircraft that are given extra tracking distances.

I confirm again that I cannot get any ATCs to come on this site with their true beliefs about the workload of C compared to E because they will risk losing their jobs by doing so.

Is it safe because there was no prang?

If the ablity to be in a controlled environment is there, why not have it?

If the ATC is in the Tower providing a service, why not have it?

ps.

I'm still waiting (so is everyone else) Dick.................its great to see you ask for professional ATCs to coment and then slam their credibility:\

STEINER Binoculars 7x50 Marine | OZScopes

Personal weapon of choice, better than 20 nm

Who?




konstantin,

Thanks, after some trivial imput I now understand the AIRP#NIS incident. I don't get out much:cool:

This is all incredibly pathetically childish.

Why is it that such as important issue as the air safety of Australians is presented by people who hide their real names?

Because they think the whole issue is a joke - that's why !

If they were genuine they would not only put their real names on Pprune- they would also contact the media to get their views across.

They don't because it is all a con!

Frank

You started your post with an insult, then finished with a comment re throwing a net over me. From the latter I wondered if you had interpreted the incident as 1000ft.

Anyway lets not argue minor points. I agree the ABIT was a bit pie in the sky. The aircraft involved was a straight hang glider, not a powered trike. I was simply trying to make the point that in Class E airspace, there can be no radio no transponder traffic, particularly in NE Victoria, where they operate up to 10k. Large numbers during the Summer months in particular.

I think you mentioned earlier a guesstimate re the numbers, and said they needed to be factored into any risk assessment. I agree :ok:

And, I'll bite......

Why is it that almost 20 years 'down the track' from your first 'cuts', that we are still in an unfinished limbo in which NO service is now 'the norm' in many areas where a FIS was once provided?

(e.g. Try rather LARGE portions of WA... as well as other states)

"Your Safety Will Be Unhanced And It Will Cost You Less".......

What a Mantra.....and wot a load of.......

You took away something that we had - and have given us nothing in return!
And none of it is overall cheaper......


Your last words....about a 'con' seem to really ring true....now.

Rant over.......:ugh:

Mr Smith can you really be as stupid as your last post indicates?

I think not which leaves me wondering at your agenda when you repeatedly bash this same drum. Ppruners have been sacked and suffered significant financial hardship as a result of posting their opinion on Pprune - and on FAR LESS controversial subjects than this.

Last warning - Leave the subject of peoples real identities alone - or I will bin you AGAIN:mad:

Let's ensure readers understand that 'the scenario' Mr Smith put forward for Broome [per below] is not difficult for procedural D/C controller/s, rather 'explaining' in written terms the way these separation/workload issues are managed is the difficult part.
It’s a fair question!

Let’s see if we can work through the scenario’s:-

Assumptions [worst case]

1. The crossing VFR [let’s call it VH-V.F.R]
- No flight plan lodged with ATC
- No navaid’s receivers on-board
- No PCAS, ACAS or ADS-B OUT or IN
2. The arriving IFR [let’s call it VH-M.S.U]
- VOR, LOC, DME, GPS
- No PCAS, ACAS or ADS-B OUT or IN

Broome

Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)

is equipped with:-
- 25NM MSA A022
- 10NM MSA A015

Lets assume Tower operate D/C up to A085, Centre C above

Conditions

- Information ‘Delta’ current, Runway 28 in use [worse case profile for the Beech, straight in approach], CAVOK
- + Two Cessna’s in the circuit
- + Two helicopters [one outbound, one inbound] to/from the NW

Difficult to display without terminal area maps [which both pilots and ATC will have in towered airspace], but let try to build the picture.

Google map will do for this purpose: -

Google Maps - may have to zoom out/in and centre so you are able to see Broome and the Great Northern Highway to the East :E

Broome International Airport is on the peninsula to the west of centre, scale 40 ish’ miles

Hypothetical transcript

0400z
CEN – TWR “estimate MSU, Broome 0430, inbound on the 090 bearing, assigned A090”
TWR – CEN “MSU, A090”

0410z
E.L.C “Broome tower, Helicopter E.L.C is Willies Creek A015, inbound received ‘Delta’”
TWR “Helicopter E.L.C, Broome tower, track direct Broome, maintain A015, report at Cable Beach”
E.L.C [reads back]

0412z
A.B.B “A.B.B Base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B, clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]

0414
E.L.L “Broome tower, Helicopter E.L.L is ready at the Helipad, for a NW departure”
TWR “Helicopter E.L.L Broome tower, traffic upwind, a Cessna remaining in the left circuit, climb to A055, depart on track, clear for take-off”
E.L.L [reads back]

0415z
V.F.R “Broome tower gidday, Cessna 206, V.F.R is 35NM to the south east, tracking northbound, maintaining A065, received delta, request clearance”
TWR “V.F.R Broome tower afternoon, cross control area tracking northbound remaining at least 1NM east of the Great Northern Highway at all times, maintain A065”
V.F.R [reads back]
A.B.B “A.B.B base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]

0417z
A.B.C “Broome tower, A.B.C Ready runway 28 for circuits”
TWR “A.B.C Broome tower, follow the company Cessna early left downwind, clear for take-off make left turn”
A.B.C [reads back clearance]
E.L.C “E.L.C approaching Cable beach”
TWR “E.L.C, clear visual approach, join circuit close right base for the helipad”
E.L.C [reads Back]

0418z
A.B.B “A.B.B, base touch and go”
TWR “A.B.B, follow the company Cessna on crosswind, clear touch and go”
A.B.B [reads back]

0420z
E.L.C “E.L.C Right base”
TWR “ E.L.C, at the Helipad, clear to land”
E.L.C [reads back]
A.B.C “A.B.C Base, touch and go”
TWR “A.B.C, helicopter traffic on opposite base is for the helipad, runway 28 clear touch and go”
A.B.C [reads back]

0421z
M.S.U “Broome tower afternoon, MSU, 31DME inbound 090, approaching A090 visual, received delta [ATIS]”
TWR “MSU Broome tower, afternoon, descend 075, report established west of the Great Northern Highway for further descent”
M.S.U “MSU, A075, wilco”

0421z til 0424z [more circuit calls]

0425z
M.S.U “M.S.U is west of the Great Northern Highway, maintaining A075”
TWR “M.S.U descent A025 visual, report approaching”
M.S.U “M.S.U A025”
TWR “V.F.R, established clear of Broome controlled airspace, frequency change approved”
V.F.R “V.F.R Frequency changed approved once OCTA, seeya”
TWR “ Cheers”, break A.B.B clear touch and go”

Etc Etc

In the illustration above, the two aircraft that conflict at 20nm East are resolved using only those transmissions above in red. Easy ;) and SAFE :ok:

Worthy of note, controllers have published separation diagrams at the ready that provide them quick reference to VFR geographical verses IFR route and distance separation options.

Add to that the fact that the local controllers develop in-depth knowledge of the topography, and the ‘solutions to most tracking and separation problems.
Far better to have a local controller know what they are doing is right, apply the solution with a minimum of frequency use, rather than a non-local [but competent] pilot’s trying to work it out on the fly at short notice, broadcasting over the top of ATC trying to work out how to miss each other.

If I have got this little scenario wrong, ATC contributors will correct my mistakes. ;)

C has been established to be safer than E, so why are you wanting it so desperately?

Why do you resort to using inflammatory language? Is it because you have nothing further to say? Is it your way of saying I won't answer your questions because I don't actually have any evidence?

"Incredibly pathetically childish". What a fabulous contribution to the discussion.

You're perfectly willing to accept this from controllers who you claim support you, yet taunt those of us who post here using pseudonyms for the very same reason. Feel free to call them "cowards", I know you want to.

Hell, pretty radical Dick!

You see, old mate, posts like that do you no favours. The people that post here are concerned with aviation safety; otherwise they wouldn't make the effort.

As for the comment that 'the whole issue is a joke,' it seems to me that you are demeaning yourself unnecessarily by making such a gratuitous observation

Nobody, me included, wants to see an Australian icon embarrassing himself with what appears to be a dummy-spit. What I regard as the emotive stuff should be beneath you. I am consistently disappointed that emotion seems to overtake practicality, given your substantial achievements.

Regretfully, I suppose we just keep arguing the toss.

Food for thought.......

PSA Flight 182 vs a C-172 in California........

PSA Flight 182 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At around 9am local time on a clear day.....

Could this happen in 'E'..?
Would this happen in 'C'..?

Which is 'safer', and, from what we are told, costs the same to administer???

Why would anyone 'bother' with 'E'..???

CaptainMidnight;

We seem to be minor players in this thread so I won't labour the point. The fact is that many gliders can and do operate up to FL350, (as in 35,000ft), winter soaring in class E airspace. Most I imagine are radio equipped but having no means of generating electricity are limited to activities which are generally mentioned in NOTAMS.

You mention,

The thing is it is not a guesstimate but actual figures quoted from the latest RAA magazine.

They like gliders (under the self adminsitration of GFA, HGF, etc), need to be factored into this debate because they are a fact of life. They are additional to RAA figures.

I am an ardent supporter of "alerted see and avoid" so have misgivings about people flying where radio or a TXP are mandatory and would be sensible for safe flight.

Again, at great risk of showing my age, I was of the belief that radio was mandatory for flight above A050 (5,000ft). But I owned an Auster with no electrics then, so perhaps I am a dinoursaur. But do people have to make me extinct before I'm even dead.

If I were a frog I would be a protected species.

Sorry if I offended.

Direct .thanks for reminding me.

It explains this thread - but not good in a democracy where professionals cannot state their true beliefs openly to the media.

Imagine if an accident takes place because of the current CASA decision re Broome and ATC's come out of the woodwork saying they could not state their true beliefs on safety openly to the media and traveling public because they did not have an independent income.

I don't believe the public would accept such a claim.

Australians risked their lives in war so, among other things,we could speak up and say the truth when it was important to do so.

Public safety is surely a time when there should be no fear in openly stating the truth.

Much Ado , surely this is an important issue to canvas in public and on Pprune -the fact that professionals can't , without fear or favour, speak out about aviation safety.

Sorry Lead, and you know I respect your objective approach; notwithstanding that we disagree.

However, some of the comments that are coming from your side of the fence are doing damage to rational debate.

We had a forum here where there was a degree of mutual respect. Yep, a little testy at times, but still worthwhile. I learned a bit too from your posts!

Unfortunately, it's degenerated to the usual emotive rubbish that's historically been fuelled by 'if you won't post your name, you're not believable.'

Sorry, Lead; I sincerely regret that you get pigeon-holed in that domain. I know you argue from conviction and always try to be objective; as much as I regard your arguments as being flawed.

You're dead-set wrong on E airspace, but at least there's a degree of civility in the debate.

I worked Hedland tower in the 80s when there was even less good gear around than today. Nothing but VOR/DME/NDB and we owned from the SFC up to FL250 in the despised (by some) upside down wedding cake of CTA and OCTA. All positive control and everyone was separated from everyone.

In the time I was there I cannot remember (and remember Alzheimers improves long term memory) ever denying a VFR aircraft a clearance through/into/across the CTA or CTR. Because, as others have mentioned, I had local knowledge and I devised clearances that allowed all the IFR and VFR to share the airspace and get where they wanted to go.

The coast, railway lines, roads, rivers (even when they were dry), the crushers to name a few were used in conjunction with the radials and DME to establish procedural separation between the aircraft. Then inside 10 miles we used the binos and our eyes. That posting enabled me to use those same things in a radar environment when 3nm was just too much when I could still use north and south of the river or the road or the railway line.

It costs the same for a controller to do A,B,C,D,E,F and G airspace. There is no difference to us, only the rules and protection that is afforded to those using the airspace.

Now I work in Germany and it costs the same for a controller to do the work independant of the airspace classification. Get it there is no lesser charge just because the letter changes. There is only a change in the service you receive- positive separation or see and be seen. That is the choice.

Ideology has no place in aviation safety. If you want my name use the PM function and I will gladly supply it.

Howabout,

Izzzatso!!! Only if many organizations and authorities around the world are wrong, starting with ICAO.

I have never ceased to be amazed at the vociferous objection to change in matters aviation in Australia, my first realization of this being the domestic pilots campaign against the use of weather radar. There are just so many other examples, over the years. In fact, there have been few technological advances that have nor been objected to by a particular group of domestic pilots.

In the main it is only domestic pilots, and then largely only members of the AFAP, who have long resisted harmonizations with the rest of the world. AIPA had little to say about NAS, how could they, working in all varieties of airspace, including the dreaded E, around the world on a daily basis.

As Dick Smith continually tries to point out, ATC direct costs are not the only costs attributable to airspace categorization, the Airservices practice of giving absolute priority over VFR also presents serious problems ---- very little VFR traffic is "private flight". So one category of commercial operations suffers unnecessary costs. No such discrimination exists in US, as one example. That Airservices only derives revenue from one has only added to the blatant discrimination against VFR.

The extract from a letter in a previous post, about the savage enforcement within Airservices may well be true as part of th explanation ( in DCA days the trappers were referred to as the Airstapo) ----- as is the Australian practice of all aviation law (and not just major offenses)--- right down to inadvertent clerical errors -- being criminal law ----- with widespread "strict liability", meaning there is only an extremely limited defense.

However, on matters of airspace categorization, it is fundamentally untenable to suggest that Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step. That the rest of the world had got it wrong.

Perhaps some of you should read the views of CASA's John McCormick, about Australian aviation, viz-a-vie the rest of the world, and our real place in "the big picture". It's all on the CASA web site. I agree with his remarks.

Tootle pip!!

PS: OAR is part CASA, not "the Department", the Civil Aviation Act is not the only legislation administered by CASA.

So why in Europe does C overly D CTRs where the traffic mix is such that it warrants? To protect the passengers is my guess. Dont believe me - then check out the Luftraumstruktur/Sichtflugregeln in Deutschland as an example.

The airspace is a lot busier than Oz but they seem to cope with the impost.

Gee Dick, don't sit on the fence:rolleyes: I must have been pretty slick to have got away with being clueless all these years. It strikes me that when ever you have started losing a rational argument, you lash out into personal attacks. A pity, but there you go...look up Zealot in your dictionary, then look in the mirror. What do you see?

BTW I used to work in Perth Tower once upon a time, and watched by the naked eye a B767 to 67nm on the GEL track, as someone posted before, those Steiner glasses are the bees knees and obviously even better than the MK 1 eyeball.

As for the rest of your post, others have already pointed out the error of your ways, so now I'm off back to work, moving traffic both ways across the Atlantic and sequencing a/c into the London terminal area, that's if I can find a clue somewhere:E

ps I do note with interest that if an anti NAS poster doesn't name him/herself, they are a "Coward" but if they are pro NAS and don't identify themselves, then they are good people worried about their jobs...can't really have it both ways old son:ugh:

http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1239308887.jpg

Mike don't let Dick get you...

found this when I GOOGLEd 'Dick Smith"



TT

PSL: hope your greenhouse is ok!

Hey TT
 

No worries mate...I just got tired of the incessant whining about identities...

the greenhouse has survived it's first real test...thunderstorms and squall lines, happily no hail!

Take care:ok:

Mike , I apologise but do you really expect me to believe a real ATC would use bino's to separate an IFR from a VFR 20 miles east of Broome tower?

If not why did you make such a claim ?.

I bet you don't have any class C without radar in Europe.

- thats because without radar you have no way of verifying where the VFR is if out of site.

Leadsled & Dick,

You are always trying to bring the argument around to "resistence to change" on the part of a nasty group within the Industry.

You naughty boys know that is just being mischievious. Unless I'm mistaken, we have been discussing whether the steps into Broome and Karattha should be either "C" or "E" ... not whether they shouldn't be changed. I think most have accepted that both locations will become controlled. The only question is, what type of control?

You also talk of the cost to VFRs in being re-routed in C. The reality is, wherever there is a conflict between two aircraft (and they know about it) there will be a cost to either one , or both, re-routing to some degree. Whether it's self separation, or Controller separation. So that cost is irrelevant to this discussion.

So now we only have the debateable issues of safety and controller cost. Leadsled has said that both C and E are equally safe ... in the right place. Leadsled says E is the appropriate safety net at Broome , others think otherwise. It's a very thin line ... could go either way.

So, let's decide on Controller cost. Dick says C is more expensive, the Controllers have said bollocks. Leadsled, I think, has been quite on the issue.

So, it's marginal ... whichever way you look at it.

Considering the recent "comments/rulings" on what constitutes Negligence, and he marginal differences in the arguments, I say, would it not be safer(in all respects) to err towards C?

Do you mean out of sight - as in you cannot see it?

.....


What can you say?


TT

If the aircraft are being visually separated by the tower controller [lateral diverging using azimuth], larger aircraft [Kingair and bigger] are regularly sighted [ATC's using their weapon/s of choice :}] 30+nm out. Happens everyday. At night with lights, they will 'see' inbound' [larger] aircraft at 100nm out. Mind you, at that distance, I guess they look pretty low on the horizon initially :E

Again, I am sure I will be corrected if wrong, but there are occasions where visual [controller applied] separation can be achieved by sighting one of the two aircraft concerned. i.e. visual observation [azimuth] outside the procedural tolerances [+1nm] of the other conflicting aircraft. I think that would normally apply between an arriving and departing conflict ;)

Folks,
The High Court judgment referred to was 1982, hardly recent.

Particularly in light of other judgments subsequent to 1982, and the "legal" emergence of decisions that have validated policies and practices based on risk management standards, as opposed to the rather absolutist position stated in the 1982 Gibbs decision --- ie: the progressive recognition by the High Court that there is no such thing as "absolute safety", and not striving to institute "absolute safety" does not constitute negligence.

Put another way, accepting a risk exists, which is quite foreseeable and can be potentially eliminated --- but deciding to live with a risk ---- is not negligence, per se.

Indeed, may I quote the Chief Justice of NSW: "Negligence is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

That quote far more recent than 1982. The various State and Federal court's approach to "negligence" has changed markedly since the era of the Gibbs HCA.

Tootle pip!!

PS1: The oft quoted BASI report that recommended to CASA positive air traffic control for all RPT services was acquitted on the basis that "risk management" of air safety, as opposed to absolute air safety, was now Government policy.

PS2: If Broome had the same level of overflying traffic as almost any airfield in Germany, and given the nature of the overflying traffic, it would probably be C, even if the D airfield wasn't there at all. In other words, the existence of the D airfield is not related to the decision as to classification of the overlaying airspace. Have a look for the E over D in Germany.

Eurocontrol application of risk management processes in CNS/ATM resourcing, and the publication of risk management targets, and regularly publishing actually achieved performance, against the published planning benchmarks is really worth a little study ---- in ensuring they do not have resources inversely proportional to the risk, as we continually see here.

No one is arguing that point, nor is that what is being argued here.

What is being argued is As Low As Reasonably Practicable i.e. Safer C for the cost of E, not as you wrongly suggest, 'absolute safety'. :=

You well know the difference Leadsled!

In this context, Justice Gibbs pronouncement is valid, and dare I say it, any contemporary Justice would find the same in this airspace context.

Its a very simple concept :ok:

COP OUT! until soemone gets an eye poked out:ugh:

So, the CASR is only guidelines? Strict Liability does not apply?..I WAS managing the risk, your honour.

So class E costing is a risk managment exercise as opposed to absolute safety implied by class C?

OR...

The State is betting the farm that because of the low perceived risk of a mid air collision in the environs of terminal airspace there is only a need for class E rules.

Accidents WILL happen but to allow an accident to happen because of managing a risk?????

Better hope the insurance is paid up...because a even small risk is too much.

Why the hell did you think 2B was wound back the first time...RISK!

Geeeze, fellas, what would the High Court of Australia (HCA) know, compared with the views on the law as expressed by some of you here.

Just for a start, there is no such thing as "absolute safety", and that has been recognized by the HCA. Risk Management standards such as (but not limited to) ASNZ 4360 only go back to 1999 or so. Long after 1982.

Amendments to the Trade Practices Act, to recognize the legitimacy of high risk commercial activities is far more recent than 1982. The whole thrust of HCA judgments, and considerable bodies of legislation, have changed radically (and for the better -- reintroducing personal responsibility for personal behavior, as but one example) since 1982. Although in an entirely different area, recent HCA judgments effectively disallowing certain aspects of NSW OH&S legislation ---- legislation that implied absolute safety is achievable ---- are relevant.

In short, a decision by CASA, based on current legislation, that E over D is what is required in Broome or Karratha, in that it satisfies the risk management criteria as embodies in the airspace regulation,ie: the minimum classification that meets the separation assurance criteria, is a lawful decision.

Such a decision (if the processes have been correctly applied) would not be found to be negligent, because of claims by some that "C over D is safer". If you understand the legislation, (remember it is no longer up to Airservices and their rather strange internal risk management system, as it was with the NAS 2b rollback) all OAR is doing is as required by the Parliament --- they are not making personal judgments about airspace classification ---- but complying with the Airspace Act 2007.

In this respect, it is very similar to the "new" Design, Certification and Manufacturing Rules, where and unlike pre. 1998 rules there is no "----- and CASA is satisfied". Neither CASA nor its employees can be found negligent for following processes laid down by Parliament --- if they have properly followed the processes.

If you want to sue Parliament for alleged negligent regulation --- good luck.

Tootle pip!!

ARFOR,
I rather think you are referring to ALARP as embodied in the Airservices SMS as per the NAS 2b era, that no longer applies ---- ALARP as a concept is still with us, but in proper risk analysis, it does not mean quite the same thing as during the period prior to the Airspace Act, and as applied by Airservices.

Well put OZ, my argument entirely.

We can talk all we like about 'risk management,' but it will not wash in court, before a jury, in the event of a MAC. 'So, Mr OAR, are you telling me you took a risk that was avoidable and, as a result of taking that avoidable risk, people died? Is this what you're telling the court?'

Yeah, right. A smart lawyer, and I'm sure there are some that are following this very thread, would go straight to the BITRE website - a Government agency (all I did was Google 'value of life+aviation'). They'd extract the 'value of life' figure for aviation accidents ($2.17m), multiply that by the number of fatalities, ask for clarification as to exactly how much was saved by giving VFR open slather, and whoever signs off on this garbage would be finding an open window on a very tall building.

'Well Your Honour, there was this C182 that had to remain OCTA, and that cost him an extra $35 in AVGAS and then there was a PA28 that was forced to track overhead, instead of direct, and that accrued an extra $15 to his fuel bill and then there was.....'

There'll be no running and no hiding.

Clinton, just read your post afterwards. What's your opinion?

Clinton,

I will have to try and find my copy of the speech, just to satisfy you, I actuall went to the trouble of printing it off.

As I recall, it was in the context of legislative change in NSW, that substantially reduced the avenues for negligence actions in accident cases in NSW, particularly motor vehicle accidents. Changes that had certain factions of the local bar in uproar.

It was/is obviously a favorite topic, I have personally listened to him on the subject.

I am sure you would agree that the tone of court judgments in the area, whilst not entirely consistent, have certainly changed since the Gibbs High Court.

As a related matter, have a look at Jones v. Bartlett [2000] HCA 56 at 23.

As good a definition of Safe/Safety as I have seen, given that "safe" or "safety" are rather useless terms --- despite the great majority "knowing what is safe/safety" it is an emotive term without dimension. I can measure risk, I can't measure "safe", and as the saying goes: "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it".

Tootle pip!!

Nope - radar coverage in DE is not absolute, there are many gaps in coverage due terrain. There are also areas where there is no primary coverage, much the same as no radar if you do not have a working TPDR.

The amount of traffic is not the only consideration wehn discussing airspace classes, it is a combination of the mix and the amount.

Eurocontrol only 'own' airspace down to FL285 so probably not a real good guide as to the type of airspace they would have over a D zone.