As to operating to the top (including the CTA LL) of Class G, I have seen the following quoted:

AIP ENR 1.4 paragraph 1.1.7

I don't have a copy with me, so someone might have to check it out.

Okay, back to the AIP SUP.....

The ICAO Definition of a "Broadcast" is:

So, by definition, our VFR's broadcast goes out and a response is not required .. as it isn't directed at anyone.

Then, our VFR has to maintain 2 way comms with AV ... but no procedure for establishing 2-way comms has been published. :confused:

By mixing their terms, they are trying to get around the fact that they have established D/C ... not E.

In fact, what they have done is created an utterly unacceptable ambiguity.

What happens if the VFR doesn't get a reply from AV TWR, which, according to ICAO, he shouldn't expect anyway?

What they need to do is re-write the AIP SUP to say ... you must "Contact" the TWR.

You can't have it both ways CASA.

Wow, I just wanted CASA to allow the RAA to issue controlled airspace training+endorsements. Instead they've bent over backwards to rename controlled airspace class E. Now I can fly in it and legally I don't even need the extra instruction! :ugh:

Yeah....a big benefit there....Class E:rolleyes:

Incoming CASA Blurb.
 

• NFC 172/04 - Preamble
• Annex A - Summary of Responses
• Annex B - Final Changes
• Annex C - Safety Statement

Notice of Final Change – NFC 172/04
Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures

Background

On 19 February 2010, CASA released for public comment NPC 172/04 Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures.
The objective of the NPC was primarily to seek comment on proposed changes to regulations and aeronautical information relating to:

• introducing Class D procedures styled on those used in the United States of America at existing General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) aerodromes;
• aligning procedures for existing Class D aerodromes with those to be introduced at the former GAAP aerodromes;
  addressing findings of the 2008 ICAO USOAP audit with respect to wake turbulence and visual separation requirements; and
• correcting a number of obsolete or non-standard entries in MOS Part 172.

The period for public comment on the proposals contained in the NPC closed on 19 March 2010.
Purpose

The purpose of this NFC is to provide details of comments received on the NPC, to provide CASA’s response to those comments, and to list the final changes to be made to MOS Part 172 and the Australian AIP, resulting from the NPC consultation process.
Additional information

Contact Jan Goosen, MOS Part 172 Project Manger

When will you sycophant fundamentalists ever get the message:

It's been proven to be proven!! :}

After a brief reading of the NFC, a few observations pop into my mind:

Just like their standardisation policy at Avalon and BRM/KTA Class E Airspaces

That could not possibly be due to changes in GA activity or economic times?

Maybe I'm just slow, but I can see the potential for misunderstandings and ambiguities. Have I just got a clearance? Should I wait for a full one?
Why can't they bite the bullet and just say " a clearance shall be assumed to be received when a Class D Tower Controller provides you with an onwards instruction"... fullstop. They always want to have 50c each way.

Two issues ... (1) when will I know that I'm going to be re-directed back to an approach point ... when I have just navigated 10nm around to a more appropriate entry point for my operation?

(2) Fifty bucks it very quickly becomes the 'standard way'

I'm becoming too cynical, I know,:= and I hope it all works as planned. Time will tell.:(

As far as GAAP to D, I just wish I had an old VFG. The new procedures sound so much like the old pre-GAAP secondary aerodrome procedures.

Now here is where I do want a clarification. At MB, because of the two fingers of hangar line taxiways. I do not need a taxi clearance until I want to access Alpha or Golf taxiways...is that correct?

Because...the tower cannot see me?

Oh, how predictable, as predicted some time back:

Annex C - Safety Statement (posted by Frank above)

1. Executive Summary
1.1 In better aligning rules and procedures at Class D aerodromes (including those
using General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP)) with those used in the USA, Australia is moving towards the proven USA National Airspace System (NAS), whilst standardising the two disparate sets of rules which exist for Class D airspace in Australia. (my underlining).

As I stated in a post way back (10 April), Blind Freddy could have seen this one coming. I think that the language that relates to the 'proven' USA blah, blah is a dead-set giveaway. My 10 April post:

The next stage, and this is just my take and my reading of the tea-leaves (but we got it right on 'standardised' Class D), will be the conversion of overlying C to overlying E in the interests of, you guessed it, 'standardisation!'

ARFOR,
From memory, the "700' below" is in Annex 10, Vol.2 as a recommendation, not a standard, and thus, what I have said is not inconsistent with what you have quoted.
Tootle pip!!

My simple view, with 30+ years of RPT experience, is that the airspace system is wrong. The current Avalon mess will be the final straw, where innocent people are going to be hurt. E outside of radar is an attempt to standardise E airspace. The ridiculous size of the D control zones for jet operations to mix with VFR light aircraft show's a lack of operational experience in the design phase.

The time has come for a Royal Commision into the whole sorry affair, especially to account for the wastage of public money and the lack of safety for the travelling public.

AS study
 

Just my take, but it seems the original report has been re-written subsequent to 'industry feedback' - I still have the original.

What is intriguing is a reference in the (apparently revised) report that lists the following feedback from 'industry' - for the life of me, I cannot imagine which section of 'industry' made the comment referenced below. It then goes on to record possible, future CASA options with respect to E over D. As follows:

(My underlining and bolding)

And the CASA response (this is in the Executive Summary) is as follows. Keep reading, it gets interesting:

Well, well, and to quote Gomer Pyle, SURPRISE! SURPRISE! (Sergeant Carter).

Now, bear in mind that this AS report was released in January this year and, it seems to me, amended to take account of 'industry feedback' some time later. I have absolutely no beef with that process - that goes to consultation and transparency.

However, the report was released in January and justifies the 'possible' reclassification of C over D, to E over a reduced D, based on the Airspace Policy Statement from 2007.

That statement was superseded by the statement effective from 1 January 2010, and released on 16 December 2009, which stated the following:

Nothing, nada, which says NAS must be the end-state. Only that NAS must must be considered as part of the mix - French, German, NZ, Upper Volta, Ethiopia, etc, etc. It is merely an example in the 2010 document as to where we should look for 'best practice.'

My question is as follows:

Why does a CASA report, released in January 2010, and (it seems to me) subsequently amended, refer to the 2007 Airspace Policy Statement as the authority when the Minister released a revised statement on 16 December 2009 that was effective from 1 January 2010?

The CASA release date on their study is 21 January 2010, a good 5 weeks after the revised statement was released, yet the only reference to direction is the 2007 statement. There is not a mention of the 2010 statement.

I'll give you all another prediction. The first cab off the rank, in the interests of 'standardisation,' wont be AS; it will be YMAY. Why? Because it's regional, out of the way, and will be judged to cause the least grief to prove the 'concept.'

Thanks Coral,

You're dead right.

I post again what I said 5 days ago:

Are they saying that they are thinking of downgrading the AS Control Zone?
If so, ... what would they downgrade it to? Class G?
Is it that quiet there?

Don't the NASTRONAUTS say that the airspace above can't be a higher category than the terminal one ... as that is where the greatest risk is?

Peuce you seem so caught up in hysterics that you cannot see the blatantly obvious.

You class E deniers have become so myopic. Just because an airport is not Class D it does not mean it has to be Class G. How about class E?

Let's do it. IFR stuck with procedural separation on the ATC freq whilst self-segregating with VFR on the CTAF. What planet are you calling from, MJBOW2?

Why on earth would anybody want E over an airfield if there wasn't enough traffic to justify D?

You NAStronauts have nothing credible to base your arguments on except "that's the way they do it in the US".

At least the boys at CASA have seen through you lot and are inventing their own airspace structure to keep the "show on the road".

Because I had already discounted the blantantly stupid.
But, in hindsight, that may have been an error :ugh:

Class E not permitted for Control Zones (ICAO).

For obvious reasons .......

That nips that one in the bud.

Bazinga!!!!!!:D:D

E should be for Eradicated! :}