Okay, at Alice, if D is out and E is out, then, in line with recent CASA decisions, here's my prediction:

• Class G Zone
• Including a "Broadcast" to ML Centre requirement
• Including a continuous 2-way comms with ML Centre requirement
• Including DTI from ML Centre on all known aircraft (that's everyone)

Some people, like Griffo, might call this an AFIZ ... but I wouldn't :O

Gee Mr 'P',

I just lurved the smell of an AFIZ in the morning.............

They worked - didn't they?
Everyone knew where everyone else WHO MATTERED was....and all with the minimum of fuss.

Can't see 'them' doing it tho, - 'they' would have to employ more staff, and pay them at ATC rates accordingly, so t'would be
'same ole service' but at an inflated cost...........:}

Rotsa Ruck Guys & Gals..:ok::ok:

Bloggs,

Check you history books.

All QF, and many Ansett and Australian Airlines aircraft were fitted with early models of TCAS long before it was mandated anywhere. An AATA policy decision, because of the high rate of ATC error in Australia. The now long gone B747 "Classics" had the VSI needle presentation, a retrofit. Every glass cockpit aircraft that I have flown has the RA command on the FDH/ADI/ EADI/name of choice command bars.

All QF B767/744 came factory fitted with TCAS ---- and that is a long time ago, check the delivery dates. Check the date of "Revison 7", which was just about the definitive TCAS 11

Seems to me that you could update quite a lot of your "knowledge" -- and get your facts straight ---before you start criticizing the knowledge of others.

Tootle pip!!

The oldest B767-338 in the QF fleet is about 20+ years old, the now disposed of B767-238 several years older, at least, so there is your 20+ years.

Delivery date: 20/10/1988 for VH-OGB, as quoted on another web site, so the first seven B767-238 were delivered well before that, starting some time in 1985, starting with VH-EAL, then -EAJ and on.

Lets see the proof of that claim. Perhaps it was because pilots make mistakes too.

OZBUSDIRIVER:

I've got two old VFGs in my bookshelf; one from 1968 and one from 1971.

Wotdoyawannaknow?

CaptainMidnight

Like The United States, we do not need ICAO permission to do anything.

By the way, when a tower closes at night or at a non towered airport, its called a CTAF not a control zone.

Capn Bloggs

You state
Because it provides IFR-IFR protection in IMC conditions. Its fascinating that you cannot see this simple fact.

Finally you admit that the US example is credible. It is credible because airspace classifications are assigned on scientifically validated data from tens of millions of flights across all airports. From the busiest to the least busy CTAF.

I find it amazing that you pass blind judgment on an airspace system that you have obviously never had the benefit of using. You clearly are absolutely clueless on how class E would work when arriving into a CTAF despite being told repeatedly.

You state the same garbage again...

And again I will tell you that situation does not exist. If it is VMC you can conduct a visual approach from 30 nm out. You will never be cleared into the airport vicinity if other IFR aircraft are still present. You will not be given the same kind of ridiculous close in procedural separation you get at places like Launy or Maroochidore. You will be separated (from other IFR) well in advance of your arrival into the CTAF area if it is a non radar environment. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?


I understand that you might think there is no way around the unique Australian tracking and altitude requirement for a visual approach but regardless, we should copy the United States, Canada and New Zealand etc and allow a pilot to track however they see fit, once cleared for a visual approach (unless the visual approach clearance is given with a restriction... ie follow xyz aircraft, No 2).

mjbow2
NASTRONAUT

Why might that be? Is it because visual separation [i.e. a standard] and related is not applicable to remote offsite ATC :hmm:
Ridiculous? Application of any number of 'international' [including US NAS] separation standards such as visual separation and safe segregation monitoring by ATC eyes onsite is why aircraft can be safely 'separated' into the circuit and then all the way to the gate.

clearly you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS ;)
In Class E, the difference between visual procedures is:-

1. an IFR pilot in VMC who cancels IFR [elects to cancel their IFR category/flight plan] becomes invisible like all other VFR
2. an IFR on a 'visual approach' as per normal IFR and ATC procedures retains separation from other IFR in E

In D, C or B [if permitted], if the pilots elects to cancel IFR, they will still receive an ATC service [separation, segregation or DTI] with regard to ALL other traffic IFR and VFR.

The difference in service to IFR [who retain their IFR status] in VMC in any of the countries mentioned would be what exactly? :hmm:

I'll help you ..... NONE

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS :=

I'm gobsmacked ...The Dodgey Brothers Construction Company is at it again:
... moving the bleeding goalposts:ugh:

The whole premise upon which Dick initiated the AMATS/Airspace 2000/NAS changes, and upon which the Minister has published his Policy, was that...

WE MUST ALIGN WITH THE ICAO AIRSPACE MODEL

Now the nastronauts are telling us that ... we can do what we like, if it suits us:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

If that's the case, then lets stop wasting our time and go back to CTA/OCTA ... which worked:{

Ledsled,
All I said was:
What are the wrong facts here? You are a bit touchy, aren't you?

PS: Oh fount of all knowledge, how's that defintion of "Continuous Two Way" for VFR in E coming along?

MJBOW2/Dick Smith,
I am well aware of how E airspace works. It's not rocket science. It's just dumb. If the sky is gin-clear from miles out, I don't need E airspace. If the sky is really cloudy all over the CTAF, I still don't need E airspace. I self-segregate. Affordable safety. No-radio lighties flying over the top of Broome or Karratha at 4500ft in E, I don't need!

And yes, there are plenty of scenarios when I am not VMC (or am not willing to accept a change to VFR) during the arrival when there are VFR aircraft below the cloud in the CTAF. So yes, I will be constrained by procedural ATC standards when in G I could do my own thing in concert with the other IFR after being given that very un-American service called DTI.

YOU just don't understand that See and Avoid is not just "OK, I hear you on the radio so well miss each other".

Ledsled,
Is that so?

From some reasonably current FCOMs:

717:
FD bars disappear during RA

737:
Note: Do not use flight director commands until clear of conflict.

767:
The flight director is not affected by TCAS guidance. Therefore, when complying with an RA, flight director commands may be followed only if they result in a vertical speed that satisfies the RA command.

777:
Note: Do not use flight director commands (integrated cue)/flight director pitch commands (split cue) until clear of conflict.

Airbus:
I believe FDs are to be turned off during an RA.

That's progress, Eh? :cool:

Bme & Kta Nas
 

Late entrant into the NAS by stealth etc argument i know.

The fundamental difference between the system as proposed here and as it runs in the US is that in BME and KTA you aver a 100NM from the nearest radar. THAT is what makes the US airspace a lot safer than the crock that is being visited on us here.

If all RPT or even if all IFR hve TCAS is irrelevant, since none of them are the slightest good if the vfr in question does not have a functionig transponder, dont forget that most of the VFR aircraft flying into BME have just come off a dirt strip, only takes a stone sometime since the last time it was checked.(Checking usually comes about when an RPT (WHO ONLY KNOWS ABOUT HIM BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN GIVE TRAFFIC) fails to pick him up on TCAS.

A 737 cockpit at 10 miles ibound is a busy place, (as is that of an E170/190, Fk100 etc), throw in a bit of cloud at A035 and you are flying an RN/RNAV/NDB approach and the very last thing you want is some un-notified VFR traffic who is not yet on the tower frequency to ruin a lo of people day. Can't happen?? How many mid-airs have happened in just that scenario in the US?? and that is WITH radar coverage!!!!

Unalerted see and avoid is putting a lot of confidence in TCAS....if it is that good why do we even have controllers??

I feel sorry for the controllers who will have to work these zones, they are being set up for a catastrophe which will not be of their making. They know the system that they are being asked to implement is unsafe, even CASA knows it is unsafe, that is why they will not do a safety audit on it. It is also unnecessary, CASA's own review of the Brome airspace, released less than 2 months before CASA DEMANDED that AsA put in a tower by 18/11/2010, stated that the current sytem was working well and would continue to do so for the next 5 years or until movements increased by another 10,000 movements. Please note that there was NO consultation with ANY of the stakeholders before this decision was taken. What kind of organisation goes against the results of its own review? This decision is an idealogical one only.

One last point, how many mid-air collisions have there been between two aircraft who were in reciept of a directed traffic information in Australia???? Find this number and compare it with the number of mid-air collisions in contolled airspace.....

Safe flying everybody, just dont expect it around BME after November 18

mjbow2

You said:Because the topic of discussion was the current airspace architecture at Alice Springs I, like everyone else assumed you were referring to the control zone.

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you are suggesting - disestablish the control zone and Tower and make the airspace Class E?

Re Peuce's comment;

"If that's the case, then lets stop wasting our time and go back to CTA/OCTA ... which worked.."

You're getting c l o s e r ......:ok::ok:

mjbow
I know you like to get a little picky, so Ill pick back. Not just in IMC, IFR is separated from IFR in all weather conditions in E airspace.

Thats an incredibly vague statement, IFR aircraft still present? where, taxiing on the ground?.
So, you then end up loitering in a holding pattern away from the airport for hours on end.

I'm still yet to hear a *convincing* argument as to why have E as opposed to a higher class.
And just saying "because the US does it" really doesnt cut the mustard, and is the least convincing argument in the world. I thought everyone would've learned by now to just say no to blindly following whatever the Americans do (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).

ARFOR
I may have missed your/the point with this statement.
By saying visual (with ref to the ground) doesnt mean an automatic cancel of IFR, if meant visual with an conflicting aircraft then separation will still have to be 'assigned' from ATC to the pilot (and not an immediate cancel of IFR).
And from what I can see in the 'books' even if you are doing a visual approach from 30 or miles out in VMC doesnt automatically mean a cancel of IFR, and ATC still need to separate.

I believe the answer to the first question is NIL
To the second, some.

The point, I believe, is that ALERTED see and avoid has worked well for us in Australia.

To implement un-surveilled Class E ... in an area that's busy enough to require IFR seperation ... is a retrograde step.... as it introduces UNALERTED see and avoid.

Bodgying part of it up with Broadcast Areas proves the wariness of the Regulator ... yet they still proceed with it.

mjbow

Quote:
Because it provides IFR-IFR protection in IMC conditions

In C airspace, we get protection from all aircraft, in E in IMC we have the unnown VFR traffic to contend with, who might not have a servicable transponder, who might not understand or want to understand minimum distances from cloud etc etc etc.

E outside of radar provides no protection at all to IFR, so why have it. C provides protection at similar costs to all.

mjbow, you have yet to convince me!!

rotorblades

I worded that bit poorly. Have amended to clarify. :)

If anyone saw last post..appols. Bit over the top..

Griffo, I will keep saying this until I die. FS was cut from the tree long before its best fruit was produced. If the two airspace model continues and with remote basing and the proper use of TAAATS FS would have become world's best practice for service outside of what is now Class A/B/C airspace.

NAS without ALL of the US facilities, procedures and developed culture is exactly the same as a Cargo Cult!

Go easy on him Capt Bloggs; if that's the version of MS Flight Sim he his using, that's all he knows!

Why aren't you Victorians watching the AFL instead of making mischief on the forums? Carlton are flogging Melbourne, so that's newsworthy at least if you give a toss either way.

You all should leave your body to science. Perhaps then, we can find out what the fixation with the God given right you assume to inherit about absolute Australian intellect is all about.

man on the ground! a highly qualified jet penguin perhaps. Do you have any input except amateur sniper?:mad:

OZBUSDRIVER;

I missed your last. Must have been a doozy for you to apologise. As an avid collector of your bile, can you PM me a copy if you still have the doc?:D