No more G air space?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No more G air space?
I am trying to look over the horizon a little. If they get rid of all the "dirt road" airspace and bring down E into existing G what will happen to all the ex GA. boys and girls who have left and play the R.A.Aus. game. I have not jumped yet but I almost feel a silght pressure in my back, not to mention my wallet.
Cheers.
Solocmv.
Cheers.
Solocmv.
Last edited by solocmv; 18th Feb 2006 at 10:30. Reason: wrong title
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wont' be a case of no G airspace. There will be 'inverted wedding cake' E airspace over some of the busier non-towered aerodromes, like Wagga, Broken Hill etc. The airspace won't be down to the ground either, but about 1200 or 800 feet AGL.
Anyway, it will still be free to go VFR in G anyway.
Cheers,
NFR.
Anyway, it will still be free to go VFR in G anyway.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather #3,
I think the point is if you only have RAA 'licencing' then you must not fly in CTA; including Class E. E Free or not for VFR, it's not available for ultralights etc.
I think the point is if you only have RAA 'licencing' then you must not fly in CTA; including Class E. E Free or not for VFR, it's not available for ultralights etc.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not to worry
the way the aviation industy goes it will probably only be a matter of time b4 the regulators change things to the way they were in the past. Or at least something resembling it. To my (sceptical) mind anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember a concerted effort to open up the airspace to GA PVT ops, and now there is a concerted campaign to change it back again.
If the radar coverage exists I agree it should be used, but it has to be reliable coverage. Does it make sense to commission and maintain new SSR radar heads when ADS-B is starting to be rolled out? The answer to that is obvious if you want to talk most bang for your buck - aviation safety bucks at that.
But whether it is radar or it is ADS, if it is E airspace, and all the responsibilities under ICAO airspace as well as legal duty of care liabilty that entails - the cost of providing those ATS will rise significantly. The main reason is the service provision requires much smaller sectorisation than we have now to enable adequate display scales for radar / ADS services. Also considerable extra training for all the controllers working those services in the multitude of instrument approaches within that newly deisgnated airspace. I suspect MSAW systems will have to be surveyed and implemented if the E is down to te ground.
Air Traffic Controllers as professionals would have no objection to any of this. despite what you may hear some out there saying. But any reasonable person can see that this is going to cost millions of dollars to implement and continue providing every year. So the big question - who pays for it? And - is it the best use of your aviation safety dollar?
If the radar coverage exists I agree it should be used, but it has to be reliable coverage. Does it make sense to commission and maintain new SSR radar heads when ADS-B is starting to be rolled out? The answer to that is obvious if you want to talk most bang for your buck - aviation safety bucks at that.
But whether it is radar or it is ADS, if it is E airspace, and all the responsibilities under ICAO airspace as well as legal duty of care liabilty that entails - the cost of providing those ATS will rise significantly. The main reason is the service provision requires much smaller sectorisation than we have now to enable adequate display scales for radar / ADS services. Also considerable extra training for all the controllers working those services in the multitude of instrument approaches within that newly deisgnated airspace. I suspect MSAW systems will have to be surveyed and implemented if the E is down to te ground.
Air Traffic Controllers as professionals would have no objection to any of this. despite what you may hear some out there saying. But any reasonable person can see that this is going to cost millions of dollars to implement and continue providing every year. So the big question - who pays for it? And - is it the best use of your aviation safety dollar?
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"'E' is transparent to VFR aircaft!!" - with CASA licences!
The NAS plan has been on the table for a while now and this is the first stirrings of interest from the RAAA fraternity that the plan (if it ever goes any further, the previous minister seemed determined it would, the current doesn't... erm, doesn't seem to have done anything yet...) will exclude their pilots from all aerodromes with instrument approaches in total, most others above 700 AGL and most other airspace above 1,200 AGL.
Have your say guys.
The NAS plan has been on the table for a while now and this is the first stirrings of interest from the RAAA fraternity that the plan (if it ever goes any further, the previous minister seemed determined it would, the current doesn't... erm, doesn't seem to have done anything yet...) will exclude their pilots from all aerodromes with instrument approaches in total, most others above 700 AGL and most other airspace above 1,200 AGL.
Have your say guys.
