New Airspace proposal
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe that I am unaware of the way that the US system works, and I have flown there VFR, and IFR. I repeat that I am not attempting to "persuade and convince" those whose minds are already made up and who are not to be moved by a few facts to the contrary. I do wish to reiterate one point regarding the "essential" need for radar in E. Of course radar is better, but simply, where airpace is uncontrolled non radar G today with aircraft being given traffic and the responsibility of sorting it out on the go being that of the pilots, and it is made E tomorrow, the only difference being that a controller sorts out the IFR/IFR separation, it doesn't suddenly need radar. VFR are transparent to E, that is E. Otherwise, if the controllers own the VFR as well it is C. I believe that E with VFR uncontrolled is better than G with VFR uncontrollled. Let's leave the radar red herring out of it. E is G with a controller to help IFR separate from IFR. If you want C say so, but lets not call it E then try to regulate it as C simply because some Australian controllers can't comprehend the inherent freedom of the US system. (My old friend Wing Commander Sugden DFC and Bar used to say "They should never have been called "controllers", they should have been termed "air traffic expeditors" so that they would have more clearly understood what their job was. Just a thought.
That's well and good IF the IFR/IFR separation is actually going to be provided in what's currently G airspace if it is to be turned into 'non-radar E'. . .However, my understanding of the LLAMP proposal was that IFR in G would get ******-all except the privilege of listening out for position reports and sorting the whole shebang out for themselves.. .If that's the case, it's a disgrace.
Traffic info based on position reports is fine, but it has to be proactively sent to aircraft, as it is now. A computer can no doubt do the figuring out of possible conflicts, but the data entry and subsequent passing on of information to aircraft will have to be done by people, unless a cheap and reliable technological solution can be found.
Basically, I don't want to be tooling around in cloud with any less service than we get now, it would be an absolute shambles under anything but the most favourable circumstances.
Further to my last: having just checked the Airservices LAMP proposal to confirm the above, it does appear that the unpressurised IFR operators who can't cruise at F125 or above will be in the 'happy' position of relying on their listen-out for traffic info. That should be just peachy around Cape York / Horn Is. for example.. .For these aircraft, there is clearly a safety issue, with an extra level of difficulty being added to what can already be a very high workload situation.. .Are we going to go to 'No-armed paper hanging' now?
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: Arm out the window ]
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: Arm out the window ]</p>
Traffic info based on position reports is fine, but it has to be proactively sent to aircraft, as it is now. A computer can no doubt do the figuring out of possible conflicts, but the data entry and subsequent passing on of information to aircraft will have to be done by people, unless a cheap and reliable technological solution can be found.
Basically, I don't want to be tooling around in cloud with any less service than we get now, it would be an absolute shambles under anything but the most favourable circumstances.
Further to my last: having just checked the Airservices LAMP proposal to confirm the above, it does appear that the unpressurised IFR operators who can't cruise at F125 or above will be in the 'happy' position of relying on their listen-out for traffic info. That should be just peachy around Cape York / Horn Is. for example.. .For these aircraft, there is clearly a safety issue, with an extra level of difficulty being added to what can already be a very high workload situation.. .Are we going to go to 'No-armed paper hanging' now?
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: Arm out the window ]
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: Arm out the window ]</p>
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the delay I have been away for the past few days....
Captain Midnight states "To provide radio contact down to the hundreds of base 700/1200' 'E' corridors, ATC would, I suspect, require a number of additional VHF outlets."
I think you will find that there are many airports in the USA which have IFR approaches but no VHF coverage - let alone radar. That is why UNICOMs in the USA can obtain a clearance by telephone and pass it on to the pilot. The USA does not have an effective HF network and there are many places in Class E airspace, even enroute, where there is no VHF coverage. The system works really well. They simply don't put another aircraft in that airspace at that level.
Captain Midnight states "To provide radio contact down to the hundreds of base 700/1200' 'E' corridors, ATC would, I suspect, require a number of additional VHF outlets."
I think you will find that there are many airports in the USA which have IFR approaches but no VHF coverage - let alone radar. That is why UNICOMs in the USA can obtain a clearance by telephone and pass it on to the pilot. The USA does not have an effective HF network and there are many places in Class E airspace, even enroute, where there is no VHF coverage. The system works really well. They simply don't put another aircraft in that airspace at that level.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm out the window states the following:
"For E to work, you need radar, don't you?"
No you don't. From my experience in the USA (which is limited) much of the Class E airspace below 6,000' has no radar at all. Remember in the USA that all their Class E corridors go down to 1,200' AGL and the Class E airspace goes down to 700' at the non-tower airports. Obviously no country has radar to this level right across.
There is a myth propagated everywhere that you needs radar for Class E. This is certainly not the fact. Someone else might be able to explain.
"For E to work, you need radar, don't you?"
No you don't. From my experience in the USA (which is limited) much of the Class E airspace below 6,000' has no radar at all. Remember in the USA that all their Class E corridors go down to 1,200' AGL and the Class E airspace goes down to 700' at the non-tower airports. Obviously no country has radar to this level right across.
There is a myth propagated everywhere that you needs radar for Class E. This is certainly not the fact. Someone else might be able to explain.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue in relation to unalerted see and avoid in relation to a collision is not “can it happen”, the issue is “what is the probability of it happening”. Two engines in a Dash 8 or a 777 can fail at the same time with serious consequences, however these aircraft are allowed to fly with passengers because the probability of both engines failing is small.
If the probability of hitting an unalerted VFR aircraft is the same, surely the airspace design is satisfactory. All the anecdotal evidence which is given about someone seeing an aircraft and nearly hitting it (mostly, I note, in MBZs) is irrelevant if the probability of an actual collision is less than the probability of two engines failing in a Boeing 777. That is the issue and the only issue yet it is rarely canvassed on this forum.
Does anyone know what this risk is in the airspace above 5,000’ at an airport like Broome? Does anyone know the percentage of the VFR aircraft which are actually monitoring the correct frequency and with the volume turned up? i.e. they are not talking to their passengers and otherwise enjoying their flight.
I look forward to comments.
If the probability of hitting an unalerted VFR aircraft is the same, surely the airspace design is satisfactory. All the anecdotal evidence which is given about someone seeing an aircraft and nearly hitting it (mostly, I note, in MBZs) is irrelevant if the probability of an actual collision is less than the probability of two engines failing in a Boeing 777. That is the issue and the only issue yet it is rarely canvassed on this forum.
Does anyone know what this risk is in the airspace above 5,000’ at an airport like Broome? Does anyone know the percentage of the VFR aircraft which are actually monitoring the correct frequency and with the volume turned up? i.e. they are not talking to their passengers and otherwise enjoying their flight.
I look forward to comments.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that CASA has rejected the LAMP proposal in relation to altering the size of MBZs. As the whole LAMP safety case relies on MBZs being changed in size, surely this puts the kybosh on the LAMP proposal. Does anyone have any information on this?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indiana! Anything else NEW to add? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Gee! you have the good oil at CASA!. LLAMP is going cold as we speak, Is it? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Welcome to the mosh pit!
P.S You left Helo's off your Profile <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Enjoyflight, I accept that E may not need radar to work, and didn't mean to spread a furph. However, in Australia, E airspace has been established where there is radar coverage.
If whatever new model of airspace management we may end up with has non-radar E controllers providing separation between IFR aircraft all across the country, I'll be happy.. .Unfortunately the LAMP proposal has a huge area of Australian airspace classed as G, and even though there will still be a lot of IFR aircraft running around in there, they will get diddley squat in terms of assistance in separating themselves from other IFR.. .Frankly, I think that idea sucks. At least DTI is better than nothing.
If non-radar E can be provided, why can't we have it everywhere? Cost, I hear Airservices reply.
I just feel that it's pretty shabby that we can be considering an airspace modernisation proposal that reduces the level of service to those who I think need it probably more than anyone - IFR OCTA.
If whatever new model of airspace management we may end up with has non-radar E controllers providing separation between IFR aircraft all across the country, I'll be happy.. .Unfortunately the LAMP proposal has a huge area of Australian airspace classed as G, and even though there will still be a lot of IFR aircraft running around in there, they will get diddley squat in terms of assistance in separating themselves from other IFR.. .Frankly, I think that idea sucks. At least DTI is better than nothing.
If non-radar E can be provided, why can't we have it everywhere? Cost, I hear Airservices reply.
I just feel that it's pretty shabby that we can be considering an airspace modernisation proposal that reduces the level of service to those who I think need it probably more than anyone - IFR OCTA.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz -Sometimes
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After working for the CAA then Airservices for 5 years, I am still amazed that we have to change our airspace system (one off the most ridiculously complex in the world) every week, then realise, oh that’s **** and doesn’t work, lets change it again.. .We only have a population of 19M, Remember AA do more flights per day than QF in a year. You would think we could get an airspace system right. . .Its my experience that ASA managers give these airspace projects out to people that they cannot use on an ATC roster—ie something to do! My god if the airlines only knew how much they are being ripped off. No wonder I left years ago. As a pilot, I work in the USA for years and was amazed user friendly the system is; and gee it doesn’t change every second so one can actually know it. Safety!!!!. .So much for TAARTS which was going to such a great system. Good to see that ASA managers still stuffing up!
