Actual Delays to GA Ops by Airspace Design in Australia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actual Delays to GA Ops by Airspace Design in Australia
Re-reading through a lot that has been written about how NAS and the airspace changes being pushed by the few are going to be the panacea and reduce all these company destroying delays to GA.
Nobody to date seems to recall any significant delays from either side of the microphone however.
I am just curious - has anybody in the PPrune audience flying GA been unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification?
Give details (as much as you want to reveal) and lets see what the real problems are. Why not?
Nobody to date seems to recall any significant delays from either side of the microphone however.
I am just curious - has anybody in the PPrune audience flying GA been unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification?
Give details (as much as you want to reveal) and lets see what the real problems are. Why not?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-reading through a lot that has been written about how NAS and the airspace changes being pushed by the few are going to be the panacea and reduce all these company destroying delays to GA.
Nobody to date seems to recall any significant delays from either side of the microphone however.
I am just curious - has anybody in the PPrune audience flying GA been unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification?
Give details (as much as you want to reveal) and lets see what the real problems are. Why not?
Nobody to date seems to recall any significant delays from either side of the microphone however.
I am just curious - has anybody in the PPrune audience flying GA been unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification?
Give details (as much as you want to reveal) and lets see what the real problems are. Why not?
Is the right forum to ask a question about GA, given that it says its for Airline and RPT issues. Maybe it would be better placed in its companion Dunnunda & Godzone forum. Being a GA type, I normally just stick my nose in here and have a bit of a look around, without saying much.
That said, does being required to slow down to 0.75 normal cruise airspeed from TOC on a flight from YBTL to YBCS qualify as being "unduly diverted, delayed, pissed-around in the last say, 3 years, by reasons that can be attributed solely to the airspace classification"? If so, then yes I have!
Not too sure how to separate "airspace classification" from "traffic".
R
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RS,
Well thats kind of my point - if you read a lot what the pro-NAS lobby has to say, the solution seems to be 'NAS Airspace Classification'.
In your example, I don't see it would have made much difference (without knowing all the details). Indeed, your example would seem to suggest it is more to do with 'infrastructure' - i.e. available concrete on the ground! My own view, is that no amount of tinkering with D and C airspace classification is going to change that, therefore I wonder about a lot of the claims being made and their merits.
Even in the US (where there a lot more runways for GA to choose from), one cannot fly in to a Major airport at a busy time and not expect some sort of delay - if you were planning to fly your Mooney or Baron to Chicago somehow I don't think you would plan to go to O'Hare or Midway. Going to Cairns however, there isn't a lot of choice.
Well thats kind of my point - if you read a lot what the pro-NAS lobby has to say, the solution seems to be 'NAS Airspace Classification'.
In your example, I don't see it would have made much difference (without knowing all the details). Indeed, your example would seem to suggest it is more to do with 'infrastructure' - i.e. available concrete on the ground! My own view, is that no amount of tinkering with D and C airspace classification is going to change that, therefore I wonder about a lot of the claims being made and their merits.
Even in the US (where there a lot more runways for GA to choose from), one cannot fly in to a Major airport at a busy time and not expect some sort of delay - if you were planning to fly your Mooney or Baron to Chicago somehow I don't think you would plan to go to O'Hare or Midway. Going to Cairns however, there isn't a lot of choice.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..one cannot fly in to a Major airport at a busy time and not expect some sort of delay.."
True, but it neither sounded (on APPR or TWR freq) nor appearred (once on the ground), particularly "busy". Nor was the weather a significant issue.
I suspect that it was a procedural thing! It was easier to slow me down to put me at the end of the "heavies" arrival line up for the localiser onto the main runway, rather than take me a different way that would have allowed a visual appr to a right base onto the lighty's runway.
R
True, but it neither sounded (on APPR or TWR freq) nor appearred (once on the ground), particularly "busy". Nor was the weather a significant issue.
I suspect that it was a procedural thing! It was easier to slow me down to put me at the end of the "heavies" arrival line up for the localiser onto the main runway, rather than take me a different way that would have allowed a visual appr to a right base onto the lighty's runway.
R
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, a call to APP after landing might have answered your questions - perhaps the 'busy' period had been dealt with by the time you got on frequency? Isn't CS split in to 2 APP frequencies?
The RT is not always a good indicator of how busy the traffic is anyway, strange as it might sound.
Whatever the reason(s), having Class E airspace or a Class D tower would have made no difference in this case right?
The RT is not always a good indicator of how busy the traffic is anyway, strange as it might sound.
Whatever the reason(s), having Class E airspace or a Class D tower would have made no difference in this case right?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a word. Yes.!
And I thought this whole matter was done and dusted in the VOR threads which BTW are still to be found.
Search "Voices of Reason" in D & G Reporting Points and read away. They are all locked BTW
but still make fascinating reading and are available for reference lest anyone is tempted to become an imperialist running dog revisionist. 
Maybe we should have them printed in a Little Red Book. 
And I thought this whole matter was done and dusted in the VOR threads which BTW are still to be found.
Search "Voices of Reason" in D & G Reporting Points and read away. They are all locked BTW
but still make fascinating reading and are available for reference lest anyone is tempted to become an imperialist running dog revisionist. Maybe we should have them printed in a Little Red Book.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't go there
Many of the thousands of small aeroplanes in Australia do not get delayed in controlled airspace, because they do not go there. They choose to skirt around the CTA's, because it's all too hard. This is fine. It's their choice. But I wonder if it is necessary. It is not good when they are scud running through the hills because the low lying coastal area seems to be reservrd for Airlines.
Is this because the little aeroplanes are flown by "imperialist running dog revisionists?"
Where there is no low level track for vfr aircraft, the airspace system must be very user friendly, to avoid wrecks in the hills.
Is it true that the airlines and the military need so much airspace because they are not very good at navigating? Or is our Airspace system so unweildly that we cannot handle it.
A canadian friend told me he went into Oshkosh in a 172 recently. On final he was number two to a Wright flyer, and had a mustang flollowing him.
Is this because the little aeroplanes are flown by "imperialist running dog revisionists?"
Where there is no low level track for vfr aircraft, the airspace system must be very user friendly, to avoid wrecks in the hills.
Is it true that the airlines and the military need so much airspace because they are not very good at navigating? Or is our Airspace system so unweildly that we cannot handle it.
A canadian friend told me he went into Oshkosh in a 172 recently. On final he was number two to a Wright flyer, and had a mustang flollowing him.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushy
exactly the point. They don't get nannied, they dont get patronised by those purporting to "help" them, they apply the skills they have been taught at boot camp and practise daily in, out of and around high traffic density areas. Sadly the training of recent generations of Australian pilots back to the early eighties has been so dumbed down, few would be able to handle what you describe.
It IMHO is really simple. When you get your drivers license it assumes that you will be driving through the often difficult and high density conditions in a city. There are no restrictions placed upon him/her beyond the rules and signage. It is a brave indeed foolhardy person who ventures into Sydney City in peak hour traffic for example for the first time without a "practise" with someone who can guide them and or some serious prior preparation.
The alternative is of course to plan to go when it is not busy or if you dont need to go around it. Every city/busy traffic environment in the world has a peripherique, beltway, bypass, circle road call it what you like that allows simple avoidance of the congested area should you not need to go there.
Not only do we as road users accept the extra distance involved but we welcome it, joyously. The extra distance is more than compensated by the time saving and personal frustration. Clearly this very pragmatic solution has not driven private cars off the road it has most likely had the opposite effect.
Now if you (as in we/us anybody) are not prepared to accept that as the way it is and want your own personal path cleared for you, all the traffic lights along your route changed to green without notice, every time, at the considerable expense, frustration, inconvenience and the effort required of others then you probably need medical help.
An unrestricted pilot license training includes operations into and around CTA at least it used to. So tell me again what is so difficult about the sytem we use in air traffic management.
So we come back to our North American cousins, if there was a single word that could decsribe them North and South pragmatic is probably it. Thats the way they built their ATC system to handle their particular geomorphic and geographic land use and us being fairly close cousins bound by substantially the same rules in the ICAO family have done likewise.
does not therefore IMHO automatically invoke;
probably.
with respect if you are the "wrong" side of the hills under those conditions you should stay there, no amount of ATC will solve that and if you are already coastal its not an issue.
On the other hand if you need a hand to relocate the coastal primaries around the coast of Australia to the "other side of the hills" to solve the airline coastal ownership problem you seem to believe exists for their benefit, I can introduce you to some South African entrepreneurs (code for carpetbaggers) who are dab hands at it.
Simple quiz question for you. How many and which "primary" airports in Australia are NOT either coastal or in the immediate hinterland.
A canadian friend told me he went into Oshkosh in a 172 recently. On final he was number two to a Wright flyer, and had a mustang flollowing him.
It IMHO is really simple. When you get your drivers license it assumes that you will be driving through the often difficult and high density conditions in a city. There are no restrictions placed upon him/her beyond the rules and signage. It is a brave indeed foolhardy person who ventures into Sydney City in peak hour traffic for example for the first time without a "practise" with someone who can guide them and or some serious prior preparation.
The alternative is of course to plan to go when it is not busy or if you dont need to go around it. Every city/busy traffic environment in the world has a peripherique, beltway, bypass, circle road call it what you like that allows simple avoidance of the congested area should you not need to go there.
Not only do we as road users accept the extra distance involved but we welcome it, joyously. The extra distance is more than compensated by the time saving and personal frustration. Clearly this very pragmatic solution has not driven private cars off the road it has most likely had the opposite effect.
Now if you (as in we/us anybody) are not prepared to accept that as the way it is and want your own personal path cleared for you, all the traffic lights along your route changed to green without notice, every time, at the considerable expense, frustration, inconvenience and the effort required of others then you probably need medical help.
An unrestricted pilot license training includes operations into and around CTA at least it used to. So tell me again what is so difficult about the sytem we use in air traffic management.
So we come back to our North American cousins, if there was a single word that could decsribe them North and South pragmatic is probably it. Thats the way they built their ATC system to handle their particular geomorphic and geographic land use and us being fairly close cousins bound by substantially the same rules in the ICAO family have done likewise.
Many of the thousands of small aeroplanes in Australia do not get delayed in controlled airspace, because they do not go there.
They choose to skirt around the CTA's, because it's all too hard.
Is this because the little aeroplanes are flown by "imperialist running dog revisionists?"
It is not good when they are scud running through the hills because the low lying coastal ....
On the other hand if you need a hand to relocate the coastal primaries around the coast of Australia to the "other side of the hills" to solve the airline coastal ownership problem you seem to believe exists for their benefit, I can introduce you to some South African entrepreneurs (code for carpetbaggers) who are dab hands at it.
Simple quiz question for you. How many and which "primary" airports in Australia are NOT either coastal or in the immediate hinterland.
Last edited by gaunty; 13th Dec 2006 at 23:32. Reason: Add quiz.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the question, I can confidently state that aircraft I handle are often denied clearances into Class E airspace because they are not on radar and cannot be procedurally separated with other traffic, either due to the disposition of the traffic, lack of navaids or lack of nav gear on the said aircraft. If the airspace had been left as Class G, they could climb to their planned flight level. This idea of Class E without radar coverage is a joke, restricts aircraft operations and prevents block level assignment.
These delays can be attributed solely to airspace classification.
These delays can be attributed solely to airspace classification.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knackers help me out here, so the amount/percentage of GAFA in Oz relative to the US is why the US NAS works well there but not so well here.
Are you saying G without say ADSB or E with. Seems to me you cant cherry pick bits of this with that and expect to get a +ve result.
Pity about low level ADSB being aborted for the time being, at one point we were the world leaders in the implementation for a system which like the Australian developed DME is/was tailor made for our peculiar and unique airspace requirements.
Are you saying G without say ADSB or E with. Seems to me you cant cherry pick bits of this with that and expect to get a +ve result.
Pity about low level ADSB being aborted for the time being, at one point we were the world leaders in the implementation for a system which like the Australian developed DME is/was tailor made for our peculiar and unique airspace requirements.
Last edited by gaunty; 14th Dec 2006 at 00:44. Reason: Oldtimers
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...prevents block level assignment...
...because they are not on radar and cannot be procedurally separated...
I hope I'm not picking on you Knackers, I just imagine S_T was after stories about being locked out of C airspace and complaints about the more flexible E airspace surprise me.
Knackers, it is so sad. You obviously don’t know how Class E airspace is supposed to work. Class E airspace in the USA works identically to Class G airspace when VMC exists, and identically to Class A airspace when IMC exists.
You may have noticed that in Australia, people at CASA and people at Airservices who resist change have prevented Class E airspace from being used properly. In the USA, if an aircraft is about to be held or diverted in VMC in Class E, one or the other pilot simply reverts to VFR. This then gives a traffic information service between the aircraft, and this of course is identical to it being Class G.
What you are saying is that to solve the problem in Australia we should convert the airspace back to Class G – i.e. not have the advantages of Class A and full separation when IMC exists! Wouldn’t it be a better idea to train pilots and air traffic controllers so that when in VMC, one or the other IFR aircraft simply reverts to VFR, takes a traffic information service and is not held or delayed.
I believe the problem exists because in Australia before Class E airspace was introduced we only had controlled and uncontrolled airspace. There are some pilots and air traffic controllers who simply can’t believe that the most successful airspace in the world can change depending on the weather conditions and the professionalism of the pilots and air traffic controllers.
Most of the time, Class E airspace in the USA operates as if it is Class G. This is because most of the time in the USA, VMC exists. One pilot will simply use the advantage of cancelling IFR or climbing VFR, receive a traffic information service and not be delayed. One day in the next three or four decades this will happen here and Class E airspace will be operating correctly.
For a bit more on this see here
You may have noticed that in Australia, people at CASA and people at Airservices who resist change have prevented Class E airspace from being used properly. In the USA, if an aircraft is about to be held or diverted in VMC in Class E, one or the other pilot simply reverts to VFR. This then gives a traffic information service between the aircraft, and this of course is identical to it being Class G.
What you are saying is that to solve the problem in Australia we should convert the airspace back to Class G – i.e. not have the advantages of Class A and full separation when IMC exists! Wouldn’t it be a better idea to train pilots and air traffic controllers so that when in VMC, one or the other IFR aircraft simply reverts to VFR, takes a traffic information service and is not held or delayed.
I believe the problem exists because in Australia before Class E airspace was introduced we only had controlled and uncontrolled airspace. There are some pilots and air traffic controllers who simply can’t believe that the most successful airspace in the world can change depending on the weather conditions and the professionalism of the pilots and air traffic controllers.
Most of the time, Class E airspace in the USA operates as if it is Class G. This is because most of the time in the USA, VMC exists. One pilot will simply use the advantage of cancelling IFR or climbing VFR, receive a traffic information service and not be delayed. One day in the next three or four decades this will happen here and Class E airspace will be operating correctly.
For a bit more on this see here
Dick thanks for the link but I am concerned that the most prominent feature on that page is a picture of a TCAS display, clearly this features prominently in your view of how to keep aircraft apart in E airspace!
So you mean weather dependent airspace rules. What if the non radar E is F180 to F245 with solid cloud at F225 up to F250. Which rules apply then? Do the aircraft below the cloud operate VFR and those above IFR?
Do you really think a 737 on RPT operations should downgrade to VFR category if it is fine weather? Do you think that they can?
I operate every day through non radar E airspace and I do not like it one bit. In radar coverage okay but no radar E is like russian roulette.
Class E airspace in the USA works identically to Class G airspace when VMC exists, and identically to Class A airspace when IMC exists.
Do you really think a 737 on RPT operations should downgrade to VFR category if it is fine weather? Do you think that they can?
I operate every day through non radar E airspace and I do not like it one bit. In radar coverage okay but no radar E is like russian roulette.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E
Knackers
Your argument just does not hold water. You do not need a clearance to operate VFR in class E. I take it then that you would object to Class C without radar too, which we have here is Oz?
Perhaps you actually do like NAS, its just that you dont understand it.
Icarus2001
You are trying desperately to complicate the issues here. Its a pity the picture on Dick's page distracted you from the real issue. The benefit of class E.
Imagine that you're flying from your favorite holiday spot in Cairns back home to Groote Eylandt. At some point you are going to descent out of class A into class G. On this particular day its lousy weather down to IFR minimums. Currently you get to battle it out with Air North and Royal Tropicana Airlines for positioning and separation while descending to Groote all between yourselves on the centre frequency then later on CTAF.
Meanwhile ****su-Tonka whos working that sector in Brissy is sitting staring at his screen tapping his fingers on the desk sucking down the last drop of mocca, waiting to give a clearance to Air Top end out of Milingradswalla and clearance to Jungle Airways to descend out of controlled area into Jabagrida, all while you lot sort yourselves out at Groote. No worries, its a little cumbersome with the chatter but you all get there with not too many dramas.
Once all 4 aircraft have left class A airspace (3 for Groote, 1 for Jabagrida) ****su is done with you.
If the airways into Groote and Jabagrida were class E, ****su would be controlling all of you procedurally until you cancelled IFR on the ground.
Now with E airways there is no extra chatter on the radios and you get positive controller separation all the way to the runway. Doesn’t that sound nice you think to yourself.
The following weekend the weather is all that the top end can promise in the dry season. No instrument approaches now! You fly your trip home at the same time as last weekend and the same two airlines are arriving at a similar time. ****su clears Air North for a visual approach first because she's flying a fancy jet and got there first. Royal Tropicana is doing line training with a QF cadet so asks for the full GPS approach.
Uh oh you think... we're under full contol in class E so this is Tropicana’s approach is gonna slow me down because (as it turns out) you have the same ETA. You get on the phone and ask ****su if it will slow you down and he says ' Yes absolutely airman, I cannot clear you into the same airport until Royal Tropicana has cancelled IFR. 'Doh' you think to yourself. Then you remember what Dick Smith says about class E... hey its just like G if the weathers good.
Great you think to yourself. You key the mic and in your best airman’s voice say 'Brissy centre, Private Air MJB, request cancel IFR'. 'Done'! says ****su and off you go direct to a left downwind at Groote and get in well ahead of our young cadet... who’s having a little trouble getting configured by the FAF.
Full separating in IMC... flexible in VMC. Less chatter and stepping on one another on centre freq and not a hint of repeating the Bathurst incident. Everyone’s happy.
MJB
If the airspace had been left as Class G, they could climb to their planned flight level. This idea of Class E without radar coverage is a joke, restricts aircraft operations and prevents block level assignment.
Perhaps you actually do like NAS, its just that you dont understand it.
Icarus2001
You are trying desperately to complicate the issues here. Its a pity the picture on Dick's page distracted you from the real issue. The benefit of class E.
Imagine that you're flying from your favorite holiday spot in Cairns back home to Groote Eylandt. At some point you are going to descent out of class A into class G. On this particular day its lousy weather down to IFR minimums. Currently you get to battle it out with Air North and Royal Tropicana Airlines for positioning and separation while descending to Groote all between yourselves on the centre frequency then later on CTAF.
Meanwhile ****su-Tonka whos working that sector in Brissy is sitting staring at his screen tapping his fingers on the desk sucking down the last drop of mocca, waiting to give a clearance to Air Top end out of Milingradswalla and clearance to Jungle Airways to descend out of controlled area into Jabagrida, all while you lot sort yourselves out at Groote. No worries, its a little cumbersome with the chatter but you all get there with not too many dramas.
Once all 4 aircraft have left class A airspace (3 for Groote, 1 for Jabagrida) ****su is done with you.
If the airways into Groote and Jabagrida were class E, ****su would be controlling all of you procedurally until you cancelled IFR on the ground.
Now with E airways there is no extra chatter on the radios and you get positive controller separation all the way to the runway. Doesn’t that sound nice you think to yourself.
The following weekend the weather is all that the top end can promise in the dry season. No instrument approaches now! You fly your trip home at the same time as last weekend and the same two airlines are arriving at a similar time. ****su clears Air North for a visual approach first because she's flying a fancy jet and got there first. Royal Tropicana is doing line training with a QF cadet so asks for the full GPS approach.
Uh oh you think... we're under full contol in class E so this is Tropicana’s approach is gonna slow me down because (as it turns out) you have the same ETA. You get on the phone and ask ****su if it will slow you down and he says ' Yes absolutely airman, I cannot clear you into the same airport until Royal Tropicana has cancelled IFR. 'Doh' you think to yourself. Then you remember what Dick Smith says about class E... hey its just like G if the weathers good.
Great you think to yourself. You key the mic and in your best airman’s voice say 'Brissy centre, Private Air MJB, request cancel IFR'. 'Done'! says ****su and off you go direct to a left downwind at Groote and get in well ahead of our young cadet... who’s having a little trouble getting configured by the FAF.
Full separating in IMC... flexible in VMC. Less chatter and stepping on one another on centre freq and not a hint of repeating the Bathurst incident. Everyone’s happy.
MJB
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All well and good - but you are going to need a lot more ****su's to do all that stuff.
If it is really neccessary in someones opinion do it - controllers won't mind (they are not really resistant to change despite what you get told - in the last 10 years they have been in a state of constant change).
Ok - so now.... who is going to pay for it?
Also, E won't be on a separate frequency (unless someone wants to fund that too [pleeeease]) - the chatter from down below in VMC land will still be there.
If it is really neccessary in someones opinion do it - controllers won't mind (they are not really resistant to change despite what you get told - in the last 10 years they have been in a state of constant change).
Ok - so now.... who is going to pay for it?
Also, E won't be on a separate frequency (unless someone wants to fund that too [pleeeease]) - the chatter from down below in VMC land will still be there.