Ask your mates what class of controlled airspace they'd want.

Would they be happy with non-surveillance Class E?

Porter. That is simply not true.

In practice procedural Class E in the USA in the terminal area in IMC is hardly any different to what pilots do in our present system in G.

Have you ever stood behind a controllor in the US who is doing procedural terminal Class E ? I would doubt it from what you say.

Captain Yes. If we are going to introduce some low level terminal class E we will need to copy the most evolved system in the world.. Otherwise it will fail,

Yes. I would be happy with procedural class E. Especially considering it brings in mandatory transponder requirements for all aircraft.

Captain, they said they'll work whatever airspace that's mandated, they said it's not their place to implement airspace classes and that it comes back to the proper training (procedural approach in this case).

Dick, what's the point of mandatory transponder in procedural approach? It's procedural because there's no radar. Is the mandatory transponder for the TCAS RA's?

Hi Dick

Procedural class E would be horribly restrictive to IFR aircraft, and the extra 4000ft of class E would provide no safety benefit whatsoever. Have you considered the potential restrictions placed upon IFR aircraft in poor weather? For example...

You are in the lowered CTA (say base of CTA A045), in IMC, below the grid lowest safe (say A066), and require left of track due weather. As an enroute controller I can not, and I will not clear you to deviate. What do you do?

Now, throw in another IFR aircraft, that I am separating you from (class E remember) who is inbound at A080, pushing for further descent, and wanting to deviate in the same direction that you do. And this is with horribly restrictive procedural standards remember?...Fast running out of options here.


Or it could stay class G, you can move as you wish, and receive detailed traffic advice and 'suggested' options if you ask for them.

Radar class E at Williamtown was implemented after a CASA mandate, and the net gain to safety was zero. However; Increased complications for IFR aircraft? Check. CTA below GRID LSALT and enroute ATC not having the training and authority to use the full range of tools available? Check. More restrictive to RPT? Check. Complicated ATC procedures where the rules specified in Mats are at best contradictory? Check. Increased risk to all concerned? Check.

Im all for discussion on improving in the current setup, but lowering class E is not a good answer to anything, especially below LSALT. Having some aircraft in CTA recieving an ATC service mixing it with VFR's who are doing as they wish is not safer for anyone concerned. But that's just my opinion.

So we are planning to change airspace.

Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2015 as signed by one Warren Truss, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development is the reference document. Signed 8th of July 2015.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...ement_2015.pdf

Process for Changing the Classification of a Volume of Airspace at an Aerodrome
To help determine when changes to airspace classification may be required in the airspace immediately around an aerodrome, (referred to as the control zone at a controlled aerodrome) the following criteria will be used: annual passenger transport operations (PTO) aircraft movements, the annual number of passengers and total annual aircraft movements (see Table 1).

Class B 1/ 750,000 2/250,000 3/25 million

Class C 1/400,000 2/30,000 3/1 million

Class D 1/80,000 2/15,000 3/350,000

1/Total annual aircraft movements
2/Total annual PTO aircraft movements
3/Total annual PTO passengers

Process for Applying the Criteria
18 When annual traffic levels at an aerodrome meet a threshold of any one of the criteria CASA should complete an aeronautical risk review in consultation with the public, industry and other government agencies, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
19 CASA will then make a determination to change the classification of airspace if necessary.
20 If annual traffic levels at an aerodrome fall below all three thresholds for its current classification, CASA should complete a similar risk review to determine whether a lower classification of airspace is appropriate, subject to the requirements of Paragraph 24.
21 If CASA has completed an aeronautical risk review in the previous year then it may choose to update that existing review if an aerodrome were to meet or fall below the threshold levels in the following year.
22 While the criteria provide a good indicator of likely airspace classification, CASA will be able to consider public, industry and agency comments, forecast future traffic levels and any significant risk mitigators already in place or planned at the location, before finalising an airspace determination.
23 This process will be undertaken by CASA in close consultation with Airservices, given that agency’s responsibility for the introduction of new or changed air traffic services and facilities arising from such CASA determinations.
24 Notwithstanding the above, these criteria do not preclude CASA examining the requirement for airspace changes at other aerodrome locations should CASA consider such examination is required, for example, on risk or safety grounds.

Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace
25 CASA’s risk review process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated.
26 The process for change will commence with CASA or a proponent identifying the volumes of airspace to be reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007; and be accompanied by comprehensive supporting evidence for the proposed change.
27 The review process will then lead to the completion of a risk assessment of the particular volume of airspace under review.
28 The risk assessment should take into account the types of aircraft involved, the density of air traffic, the meteorological conditions, topography and such other factors as may be relevant.
29 On completion of the risk assessment process, CASA shall outline its proposals on the overall safety requirement for a particular airspace classification or designation.
30 These proposals will be to (a) change the classification or designation of airspace, (b) not change a classification or designation, but make other proposals to improve airspace arrangements, or (c) recommend a continuation of current airspace arrangements without any other proposals.
31 CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
32 Following a decision to change the class of a volume of airspace (a determination), that change must be formalised as a legislative instrument, endorsed by the airspace delegate, and published on FRLI. After a change has been registered on the FRLI, it can then take effect on, or after, the day on which the determination is published in the AIP or when notified by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Designations of Prohibited, Restricted and Danger Areas may be published in the AIP or notified by a NOTAM subject to the requirements of the Airspace Regulations 2007.
33 There may be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative and it may not be practicable to comply with parts of this process.

Regional Aerodromes
40 The Government is committed to ensuring that effective ATM infrastructure and systems are used to protect and enhance air safety, with ATM services being extended to more regional areas as appropriate, where there has been or is likely to be growing passenger transport services.
41 CASA should ensure that appropriate airspace arrangements are in place at all aerodromes regularly served by passenger transport services which respond to changes in aviation activity over time such as changes in traffic density, the mix of aircraft types and increases in passenger transport services.

As an aside, why isn't Sydney CTA/CTR Class B?

Perspective
 

Dick. You say;
This is exactly what experts have been trying to explain to you.

It follows then, practically speaking, what are you achieving with changing G (uncontrolled) to E (half controlled IFR only) over Ballina?

The only practical change will be ATC having to Procedurally Separate IFR's where they currently safely segregate themselves.

Is there safety data that says this needs to change? If so , why only Ballina?

Quite separate from the IFR separation question, ATC monitored terrain protection (Pilot Deviation from ATC clearances) is NOT available without low altitude surveillance, which as you know does not currently exist over Ballina (and many like type airports elsewhere).

I ask again therefore, do you want the installation of Radar, Multilat, or an ADS-B mandate for IFR (and VFR for traffic information purposes) over Ballina (and like type Airports)?

In VMC (visual) with VFR aircraft floating about in Class E, it follows (as you said) that it is 'Hardly any different to wat pilots do in our present system in G'

Given surveillance does not exist below 5,000ft at Ballina, and VFR (transponders ON or not) are invisible to ATC (and IFR Pilots if the VFR is not transponder equipped or simply forgot to turn it on which is common). What benefit is derived from changing from G to E in an IFR verses VFR conflict context?

IF all you are trying to change is IFR Self-segregation in G to ATC provided Procedural E separation, is the cost of establishing remote ATC Procedural Separation services at Ballina (a One in - One out - effectively a 10 mins apart service) a measurable cost increase that addresses an identified safety problem that requires change?

Perhaps you are arriving at the same conclusion as others have been trying to explain to you.

Regards

Q

Most recent Ballina study
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...allina2013.pdf

From the report
Just under the 350,000 for the establishment of a Class D Tower. Given that some 30 months has elapsed since the last review then it is probable that the trigger has been well and truly reached.

Based on the numbers, control tower for Ballina?

Hi Dick

The recent accident between an F16 and a Cessna 150 in the U.S highlights why the class E concept is flawed, and at the very basic level, unsafe. It appears that the F16 was operating with a clearance in class E, and the C150 VFR in class E (from my understanding anyway).

Pages 2 and 3 of this discussion make for very interesting reading, particularly about U.S airspace concepts, and it's shortcomings, by those who fly in, and control it.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...olina-usa.html

I sit at the console every day and shake my head at some of the things I see in class E, and I hear the frustration in RPT pilots voices when I advise them of unidentifed VFR aircraft in close proximity, intentions unknown...

You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both.

According to that updated policy statement "Table 1. Airspace Criteria Thresholds" it looks like the criteria for a TWR now covers PTO pax numbers, not simply aircraft movements. Maybe I've missed something in recent years.

That'll please the locals. Things won't be quite so free and flexible, with ATC in attendance and obliged to provide separation.

If other places are any indication, it will cost quite a few million $ to put a TWR in ($M10?) and a few million per year to run, and the costs passed onto the users and pax.

Fortunately Clause 22 of the policy statement gives CASA an out.

tyler durdan and Quoll - I like your line of reasoning. This pretty much sums it up:

[QUOTE][/You should either be controlled in controlled airspace, or recieving a traffic service In uncontrolled airspace. But not both. QUOTE]

Class E has always been a half-baked solution which frustrates a lot of IFR pilots while pretty much allowing VFR to do as they please in areas where they probably shouldn't be doing as they please...

Modern? Airspace Classes?
 

This entire discussion is amazing. It points out the folly (and unnecessary extreme complexity) of our current CNS/ATM system globally. All to just get from A to B, or from A back to A, while keeping Vehicle 1 from hitting Vehicle 2, or from any vehicles trying to occupying the same space on a runway at the same time, whether in IMC, or VMC, or unknown MC (e.g., at night or between cloud).

If Wilbur and Orville (or Pearce, Whitehead, or Clement Ader) had to deal with all this, ...things like ICAO and various state versions of Class A, B,C,D, E, (F), and G airspace, and an inch thick set of airspace rules, they likely might have decided to never invent the airplane in the first place!

The bottom line is that this entire discussion points out the serious need for all of us, globally, to re-rethink what we're doing, and how, and why, with separating air vehicles, and with coping with all-weather operations at a more fundamental level. Just with Class E alone, there are pages and pages of pros and cons that will never be definitively resolved.

So while there may be some very useful ideas, in what Australia has contributed (e.g., FANS and a simple version of ADS-B), and some useful ideas from the US (e.g., TCAS, RNP, GLS, and early data links), and useful ideas from Scandinavia (remotely operated facilities), ...it is time to fundamentally re-baseline all this ATS evolution globally, recognizing that no one country or system, especially not the US ATS system, has a corner on the market of good ideas, or for that matter, on weaknesses. Both NextGen, as well as PresentGen, need massive attention, review, and evolution, as does SESAR, before any of these should be considered as any model for any other state.

Don't hold your breath for any global changes
 

On average it takes SEVEN years to process a change thru ICAO, with only one change in recent times going thru in about 3 or so.

The mass of the ATC system in North America and Europe would make even discussion on major change very difficult, especially if they don't see a problem.

A risk assessment on a major change might probably conclude that the risks involved in the change alone are not worth the change? As a result any changes would have to be piecemeal and as a result would take a lifetime.

Like it or not the menu of airspace classes is what we have and from an Oz point of view that is the choice, with only perhaps minor procedural changes etc.

In that case rebrand our G to F. That's what it really is. It would also put back in their box those herring-merchants that to feed to the naïve press that we, shock, horror, have that terrible USA Class G.

Not providing surveillance approach is unsafe...
Procedural practices are unsafe...
Non surveillance Class E is fine...
Procedural Class E terminal areas are efficient and safe...
We need more surveillance...
I'm not fitting my aircraft with ADS-B but I want to operate in perfectly safe (or was it unsafe?) non surveillance airspace...
Controllers are blocking change...
Pilots don't know what's good for them...

And all fought through the media. Right so we're doing this again, are we? =/

I don't think so, they need the appropriate resources to do the task, appropriate sector volumes, frequencies, surveillance (radar or ADSB), fit for purpose procedures, training to name a few.

Re tread. Class E terminal airspace does not require radar. Many hundreds of non tower airports in the USA have E to 700 agl and no survailance below the IAF.

It works superbly so why not at Ballina.

Just have to train the en route controllers to do approach work like they do all across the USA

That's quite a big "just" Dick. There are quite a few more "justs" along the way......

Our sectors and controller numbers are arranged to provide "just" the service we do. We'll "just" have to simulate the extra workload and "just" have to simulate new sector boundaries before we "just " train controllers and "just" recruit and "just" train the extras required.

We "just" need the resources to do it. We don't have any extra space to "just" open however many new sectors it will require.

Anyone who tells you that separating traffic is easier than "just" giving traffic is blowing smoke, has never worked procedural airspace or you're "just" hearing what you want to. Most of the time giving traffic is far easier when there's no surveillance coverage - you give the traffic and that's it because you can't see anything else.

Ok ok. You win.

There is simply no way of even trialling class E terminal airspace using en route controllers as they do in other leading aviation countries.

Just give traffic info and let us pilots do the air traffic " control " function as we fly around in IMC in the terminal area.

Dumb me. I thought controllors were trained to " control " aircraft and seeing that the risk is higher in the terminal area I thought that's where the service would be provided.

You're the one who said it was "just" a matter of training the en-route controllers. As we keep telling you "just" give us the resources.

Dick,
I actually support more E instead of G. However, as others were saying, its not just a matter of flicking a switch. Most enroute controllers have not had the training to provide services in terminal areas. Doesnt sound much but the effect of terrain on control practices is significant. There are also other things which have to be done (short list):
- safety analysis: CASA requires this and its not a quick process
- data changes: modern ATC systems need a lot of data defined
- procedures: how aircraft are processed between groups takes some work to define
All up, and speaking for myself, I will work whatever the aviation community wants. If you/they want G or E or anything else then my job is to provide the service. Just dont expect change to happen overnight.

I fly my Mooney IFR in Europe all the time....and in rented aircraft in the USA....France especially is similar to the US with Class E....it all works fine with Nice Approach.... I fly into Cannes often and am mixing it in Class D and E with all types of traffic...airlines, bizjets, helis, VFR fixed wing....same with flying in the LA basin, or Houston or Tampa...

What stunned me last time I flew in Perth was that VFR was not allowed in Perth Class C airspace (which is bigger than some European countries!)...except some tourist sightseeing routes....unbelievable....I'm sometimes embarrassed at the ridiculous restrictions to flying in Australia....although the U.S. has a great system, they also have an American can-do culture to go with it....it seems you cannot transplant US airspace into Australia without transplanting American culture...not going to happen....Aussies love regulation....look at the AIP...unbelievably all regulations start with an explanation of penalties and strict liability....only Australians would think that is OK...years ago I went to a talk in Perth by John and Martha King describing the U.S. NAS....they were equally baffled by the negative sentiment in the room... Plus ca change...

awqward,
But--- the our local experts ( think Captain Bloggs) despite their nil experience in the area, will tell you E doesn't work -yadda yadda yadda --- you are certainly right about the "cultural" aspect, in Australian aviation the "Can't do" culture is not confined to Can'tberra.

As you have found out the hard way, first come, first served doesn't hack it here. We do not even have (legally) public use airports, there are plenty of examples of where particular types or sizes of aircraft are excluded from what, on the surface, appear to be public airports.

VFR is assumed to be Blundering Bug Smashers, Weekend Warriors, and generally the ill/un-trained, the blind, deaf and generally incompetent, even if the VFR PIC has 20-30,000 hours in somewhat larger aircraft. After all, if they were real pilots, they would be IFR. I just love hearing Oh! so forceful regional F/Os presuming to tell me where and how to fly my VFR aeroplane, automatically assuming, being VFR, that I am a pratt or a dunce, and probably both, and undoubtedly a threat to air safety --- and their schedules, because "they are RPT, they have priority", which they do not!

Tootle pip!!

awqward, Leadsled et al,

First, yes, I agree, I think we are quite over-regulated here. That's the way it's developed over many years and many Governments. To claw it all back would be a tremendous challenge.....for any Government and for any Administrators. imagine the change in thinking required for that????

Secondly, I think you continue to miss the point on this Class E airspace discussion. As most Controllers (and aerodrome operators) on here keep saying...they'll service what ever airspace is decreed....given the appropriate preparation time, the appropriate rules, the appropriate training, the appropriate surveillance and the appropriate resources.

The question is....can that happen in Australia?

We have finite money (unless the airlines have a bottomless pit) and we have finite suitable ATC applicants...but a bloody great big airspace to manage.

Yes, wouldn't it be nice to be like Europe and the USA? However, the reality is...we just can't afford it, in so many ways. Therefore we have to compromise...and make do with a system that we can, just, afford. It's not the most efficient and it's probably not the safest...but it's the best we can do with our money and resources.

Unless Dick has a magical way of paying for the extra Controllers, extra equipment and the extra Unicoms...we are stuck with what we have...unless we hit the flying public in the pocket. That would be a very tight balancing act indeed....

So Capt Bloggs Sen in his A380 now has to contend with "get out of my way" Aqwod and Lidslid as they wander around in their VFR-exempt Class E...

Yep, give me self-managed Class F anytime. "Can't Do" indeed.

Do pray tell, what are they?

Dick....no one is debating the shocking situation that exists in australian airspace. The question is, if you are so concerned about the latent risks of RPT IFR traffic leaving CAS at 8500ft, why are you NOT concerned about the equally high risks of the same traffic flying around Class E with uncontrolled VFR traffic?

Class D towers...into Class C extended steps..into Class A air routes/TMA. Problem solved.

Goodnight.

Old mate Dick. You can thank him for this sh1tfight...

Well done mate. You wanted it, now own it :yuk:

ERSA is a good place to start.
In some cases the exclusion is explicit, no non-VH, no private category, or effective exclusion by making minimum charges the equivalent of, say, a B-717.
In one case, it is RPT only.
And, before you jump in, I am not talking about Class C/D airspace airfields where certain pilot categories would be excluded by regulation.
Tootle pip!!

So if they are not public and listed in ERSA with the conditions, what is your problem with the owner limiting who uses their airfield?

Typical. You're making the claim, you justify it!

While you're at it, show us the costs of terminal Class E in the regions. You want it; how much is it going to cost?

affordable safety?
 

Who was it, or atleast has been attributed to without a refute I can find, that pushed the concept of 'affordable safety' in Australian airspace a few years ago?

Love, old mate, fantastic, why didn't somebody else thing of that??

Oh!, they did --- the good old Australian trick of having the CNS/ATM services available that are inversely proportional to the risk ---- or if that is too difficult a concept for you, as the risk diminishes, you increase the restrictions.

Ever heard of risk management, or do you prefer absolute safety??

Ask nafai, he probably prefers unaffordable safety, instead of affordable safety ---- we already have enough CASA unaffordable safety to go around, isn't aviation so obviously thriving on CASA unaffordable safety. Clearly, the more unaffordable aviation safety becomes, the more aviation will boom ??? If some of your are to be believed.

Tootle pip!!

topdrop,
Go back and read what I actually wrote, I did not refer to airfields that were not nominally public use.

Leadsled...

Being a controller, I am interested in absolute saftey. It may suprise you to know that it's my main job description. Shocking I know! Or is that too difficult a concept for you too? I'm pretty sure most of the flying public feel the same way.

Toodle pip 'ol boy.

So who do you reckon is the more delusional?

Members of the public who think there is such a thing as absolute safety in aviation, or an ATC who thinks they can deliver it.

Affordable safety is not a "concept". It's reality.

That's why the response to the Germanwings tragedy was not a requirement for a third pilot to be available on every flight, in case one of the other 2 has to leave the cockpit to use the toilet.

I have this absolutely revolutionary concept for airspace design...

Wait for it...

Controlled airspace, and uncontrolled airspace.

Yep. That's it. If you want to come into controlled airspace, no problems, but you need to file a flight plan, and you are subject to a clearance, and separation. No avcharges for VFR, but if controller workload is too high, clearance not available.

No more of this dodgy class 'E' where my RPT DH8-400, with 70 odd people on board, cruising along at 240kts IAS (but grounding 350kts-ish), supposedly subject to a clearance and separation, but also subject to 'see and avoid' with unknown VFR traffic. None of those dodgy class 'E' procedures (IFR pickup etc). Or at least class D as a compromise, where VFR traffic mixing it with aircraft subject to a separation service is known VFR traffic...

Standing by for incoming....:ouch::E

Lover,
I understand "absolute safety" all too well, as a completely unobtainable target, and a totally useless concept in any operational planning, and has no place in rational management.

But, of course, CNS/ATM in Australia has never been rational, nor has the general AsA approach -- or what are just deliberate misconceptions of the possible pumped out to the public by aviation bureaucracies, as to what is achievable.

I recall a so called study, some years ago, conducted by AsA, that found the controller error rate was less than one in 10 to the minus 7, but for professional pilots executing an ATC instruction, the error rate was between 1:1 and 1:2, that is, between 100% and 50% of the time a pilot got a clearance wrong or "procedure" wrong.

It was the AsA people (now retired, I just noticed) who put the study together that were 100% wrong. But, obviously, they believed they had proved that Australia had the worlds most perfect (beyond competent) controllers, and the world's most incompetent pilots --- and it didn't raise a flag??

This was the same mob that put together a US collision risk study that completely neglected the fact that most of the US mid-west is around 5000' or so ft. AMSL ---- all the collisions cited were in circuits, not en-route.

There are parts of the AsA SMS policy that are just daft, not merely conceptual nonsense.

Tootle pip!!

Tyler, by "file a flight plan" do you mean a NAIPS electronic FP done before the flight? What is the problem with requesting a VFR clearance a few miles outside? Seems very unpopular in Australia....but is the norm in more advanced aviation countries...in fact even if you had filed a VFR flight plan it is unlikely the controller would even have seen it....

Unlike many places overseas we don't have paper strips any more so have to manually create an electronic flight data record if we don't have access to a filed flight plan. While it's not difficult it takes more time than grabbing a strip and quickly scribbling some brief details on it - there are quite a few compulsory fields to fill before the system will accept it.

If you happen to strike us when we're busy with something else more important you'll likely get told to remain OCTA until we can spare a minute to create the plan. If you do file one we won't get a copy unless you plan to enter CTA in the first place.

Stop being a plonka with the "more advanced" crap - different systems have different requirements. Get over it. It's very easy to be flexible with a "dirt track" 1930s pen and paper system as you can write what you want where you want. Not so easy with an electronic one that requires things done just so.

I didn't say "more advanced systems" ... I said "more advanced aviation countries"...

I didn't say "more advanced systems" ... I said "more advanced aviation countries"... For example Aberdeen has a lot more movements than Perth...and they use electronic strips...but don't refuse VFR flights...not to mention the Class B airspace over Houston or LA... They seem to just deal with it.... Just calling it as I see it from the cockpit...IFR and VFR...

Correction: EGPD has ca.125,000 movements vs YPPH at 145,000...