CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
There is no radar requirement linked to a MOA in the USA.
In a war there may actually be other aircraft around- called "the enemy"
That's why the military in other countries are not obsessed with sterilsed airspace.
It's good practice to look out!
In a war there may actually be other aircraft around- called "the enemy"
That's why the military in other countries are not obsessed with sterilsed airspace.
It's good practice to look out!
Moderator
Dick I have personally voiced my concerns directly to Mr McCormick, and not anonymously either.
I'd advise others to do the same, he seems pretty approachable.
Have also written same concerns to McCormick and to the FOI who looks after our AOC stuff, and sent reports to the ATSB of "black Saturday" at Jandakot..
Am currently overseas so this forum is my only way of finding out if anything is changing in the GAAPS so thread creep is getting pretty annoying.
I'd advise others to do the same, he seems pretty approachable.
Have also written same concerns to McCormick and to the FOI who looks after our AOC stuff, and sent reports to the ATSB of "black Saturday" at Jandakot..
Am currently overseas so this forum is my only way of finding out if anything is changing in the GAAPS so thread creep is getting pretty annoying.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I think you might be slightly wrong. Check out the 'Quick Facts' in the AOPA information sheet.
It's from the US AOPA website. I also understand that the USAF puts up AWACS if they can't guarantee ground-based surveillance.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa21.pdf
I think you might be slightly wrong. Check out the 'Quick Facts' in the AOPA information sheet.
It's from the US AOPA website. I also understand that the USAF puts up AWACS if they can't guarantee ground-based surveillance.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa21.pdf
There is no radar requirement linked to a MOA in the USA.
In a war there may actually be other aircraft around- called "the enemy"
That's why the military in other countries are not obsessed with sterilsed airspace.
It's good practice to look out!
In a war there may actually be other aircraft around- called "the enemy"
That's why the military in other countries are not obsessed with sterilsed airspace.
It's good practice to look out!
And why other countries have near / actual mid-airs; have massive limitations on their training and love coming to Australia to fly in our airspace which provides for minimum restrictions on training.
What other militarys in other countries have you visited and asked them if they are happy with their airspace?
The link is a good insight how MOAs do work...as the blurb says, Mr Smith...VFR has unrestricted access.. not LEGALLY required to use radio...interesting. Mil must pull up if a VFR is detected in the area.
Very interesting...considering the USAF still has restricted airspace and these MOAs so.....what R space would change to MOA....what criteria do the yanks use to differentiate? and as ftrplt says
Talking to a couple of Singaporean Air Force chopper pilots at AV one year...I asked them how they were handling living at Oakey...they raved about the airspace available to them...bigger than their entire island....I guess some things do make up for having to live in Oakey
Very interesting...considering the USAF still has restricted airspace and these MOAs so.....what R space would change to MOA....what criteria do the yanks use to differentiate? and as ftrplt says
And why other countries have near / actual mid-airs; have massive limitations on their training and love coming to Australia to fly in our airspace which provides for minimum restrictions on training.
My impression is that the U.S. military must have surveillance of some means within a MOA, to know when to check fire or knock it off. Bear in mind not all military aircraft have air to air radar or the ability to interrogate a transponder, hence I suspect over there they put in radar surveillance for MOAs.
Also the document mentions contacting the controlling authority for a MOA, and the local FSS station to discuss activation and status. Apart from restricted areas surrounding RAAF bases (where ATC are contactable), I don't know of any others that have either good radar surveillance or someone who understands aviation to talk to. We also don't have FSS's.
I raised the point because MOAs are another NAS characteristic that don't appear to translate to this country.
The U.S. military and commercial organisations do indeed like to come here and conduct activity (e.g. past Global Hawk & Predator ops, commercial UAVs) due to our ATC and CASA flexibility and can-do attitude. They say within the U.S. their activity is too restricted by airspace, procedures and FAA rules and bureaucracy.
Also the document mentions contacting the controlling authority for a MOA, and the local FSS station to discuss activation and status. Apart from restricted areas surrounding RAAF bases (where ATC are contactable), I don't know of any others that have either good radar surveillance or someone who understands aviation to talk to. We also don't have FSS's.
I raised the point because MOAs are another NAS characteristic that don't appear to translate to this country.
The U.S. military and commercial organisations do indeed like to come here and conduct activity (e.g. past Global Hawk & Predator ops, commercial UAVs) due to our ATC and CASA flexibility and can-do attitude. They say within the U.S. their activity is too restricted by airspace, procedures and FAA rules and bureaucracy.
Leadsled,
I said:
You said:
Abuse me if you wish. My comment is exactly what E airspace is all about, especially in the terminal area. It doesn't help IFR. The ONLY reason it exists is to provide flexibility and freedom to VFRs. Ask John and Martha King. One of the few sensible things they said on their roadshow a few years back was that "the only reason alphabet airspace exists is to look after VFR".
You're a stats person: how about accepting that the three Class E incidents within a few months of introducing terminal E in 2003/2004 are sending a clear message that the concept is flawed. At that time, we had upward of 30 big jets a day being given traffic on a parachute aircraft about 40nm from the airport. Pathetic and dangerous. A330 crews looking out the window to avoid a parachute aircraft. What a joke.
I said:
So what do you think of no-speakeees VFRs who only want E airspace so they can go wherever they please through terminal areas, mixing it with A380s and the like, with no consideration for others?
Absolute rubbish, and I am certain you know it, putting up such ridiculous propositions smack of desperation, having run out of any logical and coherent arguments.
You're a stats person: how about accepting that the three Class E incidents within a few months of introducing terminal E in 2003/2004 are sending a clear message that the concept is flawed. At that time, we had upward of 30 big jets a day being given traffic on a parachute aircraft about 40nm from the airport. Pathetic and dangerous. A330 crews looking out the window to avoid a parachute aircraft. What a joke.
Ho Hum.......
So, I guess if Dick says that increasing the number of inbound rep. points from two (2) to three (3) is a BIG step in the 'Safety' direction, then, logically, why not increase them to FIVE(5) and make the situation Weally Weally safe!
There's plenty of (airspace) room out there.......From the SE just clear of Holdsworthy...right around to the N, to just clear of SY CTR......
And,.......if we were to keep those 'pesky' little bugsmashers well away from those BIG Kero-burning jobs, with certainty, and thus eliminate the risks for 'Capn Bloggs' & Co., (Mornin' Capn..) then we should ALL be happy..... let's call it...ah.....
CTA vs OCTA...PERIOD!
Then we won't need E over D, or G over F, or even A over T...
- That's A#se over Turkey.....or Inbounds over Outbounds - or Vice Versa...
Peuce - You've certainly got a 'Good Point' there...!! Over 40 Years eh?
Oh, to have been there then......
If it ain't broke..........That's about what this has degenerated into......
Cheers
So, I guess if Dick says that increasing the number of inbound rep. points from two (2) to three (3) is a BIG step in the 'Safety' direction, then, logically, why not increase them to FIVE(5) and make the situation Weally Weally safe!
There's plenty of (airspace) room out there.......From the SE just clear of Holdsworthy...right around to the N, to just clear of SY CTR......
And,.......if we were to keep those 'pesky' little bugsmashers well away from those BIG Kero-burning jobs, with certainty, and thus eliminate the risks for 'Capn Bloggs' & Co., (Mornin' Capn..) then we should ALL be happy..... let's call it...ah.....
CTA vs OCTA...PERIOD!
Then we won't need E over D, or G over F, or even A over T...
- That's A#se over Turkey.....or Inbounds over Outbounds - or Vice Versa...
Peuce - You've certainly got a 'Good Point' there...!! Over 40 Years eh?
Oh, to have been there then......
If it ain't broke..........That's about what this has degenerated into......
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Dick, you are correct - it relates to 'lights-out' training in MOAs.
What it signifies is that under the US system, people who are stupid enough are allowed to enter an area where high-speed military aircraft are operating without lights, making them effectively invisible to non-participating traffic.
I suggest that it must happen often enough to warrant the requirement for surveillance. On one of US AOPA's training programs there's actually video of an AWACS aircraft providing that surveillance, presumably because the ground-based variety isn't available for that particular MOA.
Given the paucity of radar coverage in this country, it begs the question as to what numbers a cost/benefit study would spit out if we had to adopt the same procedures here. I've got no idea how much an AWACS costs to operate, but I bet it ain't cheap.
What it signifies is that under the US system, people who are stupid enough are allowed to enter an area where high-speed military aircraft are operating without lights, making them effectively invisible to non-participating traffic.
I suggest that it must happen often enough to warrant the requirement for surveillance. On one of US AOPA's training programs there's actually video of an AWACS aircraft providing that surveillance, presumably because the ground-based variety isn't available for that particular MOA.
Given the paucity of radar coverage in this country, it begs the question as to what numbers a cost/benefit study would spit out if we had to adopt the same procedures here. I've got no idea how much an AWACS costs to operate, but I bet it ain't cheap.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the age old Westmead Hospital IRP is on the comeback. When did that get taken away, was that 7-8 years ago?
Next thing we will get RWY 18/36 back at YSBK. (Which will be nice when the 30kt southerlies blow up).
If more IRP are safer, more runways has to be safer.
Next thing we will get RWY 18/36 back at YSBK. (Which will be nice when the 30kt southerlies blow up).
If more IRP are safer, more runways has to be safer.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a waste of space these so called forums are!
I posted a week or so ago some comments about how I thought Class D GAAP might work; did I miss something about the name of this thread?
No-one including of Dick Smith has tried to debate the subject. Am I wrong, will it work, is there another way? PS Dick. There were attempts to gather together all of the responses from Oakland into one document, but it was specifically forbidden by your GM at the time. An airline pilot I believe, who better to reform Australian airspace!
Just for the record ftrplt the C in ICAO and CASA stands for Civil. Military operations including air bases should be in G airspace. Controlled airspace should be designed for 1. fare paying passengers and 2. other civil IFR aircraft. Military pilots don't even have civil licences, fortunately that does not reflect on their ability or intelligence, I'm only making a point.
Yes, to another thread, our lower controlled airspace is too big, but when comparing it with US airspace don't forget their B, C and D is surrounded by E! Such an elegant solution I believe even the Chinese are working towards it.
Can we start another thread entitled "This is where Dick and his detractors swap insults, please stay off all the other forums"
I posted a week or so ago some comments about how I thought Class D GAAP might work; did I miss something about the name of this thread?
No-one including of Dick Smith has tried to debate the subject. Am I wrong, will it work, is there another way? PS Dick. There were attempts to gather together all of the responses from Oakland into one document, but it was specifically forbidden by your GM at the time. An airline pilot I believe, who better to reform Australian airspace!
Just for the record ftrplt the C in ICAO and CASA stands for Civil. Military operations including air bases should be in G airspace. Controlled airspace should be designed for 1. fare paying passengers and 2. other civil IFR aircraft. Military pilots don't even have civil licences, fortunately that does not reflect on their ability or intelligence, I'm only making a point.
Yes, to another thread, our lower controlled airspace is too big, but when comparing it with US airspace don't forget their B, C and D is surrounded by E! Such an elegant solution I believe even the Chinese are working towards it.
Can we start another thread entitled "This is where Dick and his detractors swap insults, please stay off all the other forums"
Mr A, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding. Many different organisations own portions of airspace as designated by government. There is no overriding principle that says it's all for civilian use. You don't have a God given right.
Restricted airspace is there for a reason - to protect all users. Ever thought of asking for a clearance? Or is that too inconvenient? Maybe you like mixing it with random shells & fast jets?
Just be happy you don't fly in a place like China.
Restricted airspace is there for a reason - to protect all users. Ever thought of asking for a clearance? Or is that too inconvenient? Maybe you like mixing it with random shells & fast jets?
Just be happy you don't fly in a place like China.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what has this to do with any GAAP revised procedures?
How many ATCO's does it take to change a light globe?
How does this help the situation at Bankstown?
How many ATCO's does it take to change a light globe?
How does this help the situation at Bankstown?
You call for ICAO compliance, but want FAA D. Which is it buddy? Can we make our minds up?
You know, as well as I do, that I was referring to radio communications phraseologies.
Now, what do I want at the GAAPs ----- the same ICAO COMPLIANT D as FAA.
You should have realized by now that FAA do NOT regard their D procedures as non-compliant, because they have filed a difference for VMC conditions. We already have those "different" VMC conditions for low level VFR. "FAA D" is shorthand. Has Australia filed a difference for our VFR criteria --- I don't know, I haven't looked.
Quite simply, the FAA (and the CASA OAR) do not accept there is any such thing as "FAA D". Just ICAO D with the filed differences to the Annex/SARPS.
Across the board, we have quite a few "differences" filed with ICAO (for example --- logging pilot hours, not to mention various CNS/ATM differences) that thereby make Australia "ICAO compliant" in these areas. Some are in the AIP Green pages, but generally Australia does not have a good record for filing differences, see the 1999 and most recent ICAO Audit reports.
"FAA D" has become an unnecessarily distracting shorthand to say what we should be doing to make all our D towers ICAO D, with the same difference filed as FAA.
As a matter of interest, the US is "ICAO compliant" with MOAs off-shore. Australia is not. No "difference" can be filed, to make Australia compliant in this area, no such power exists.
There is remarkably little R or P airspace in US. In the UK, the RAF conduct virtually all exercises except live firing in G, there is remarkably little military R or P in the UK, or western Europe. Or perhaps it is Australia that is remarkable, with the vast swathes of mil. restricted airspace, for a miniscule force, compared to equivalent countries.
As required by treaty, US MOAs beyond the 12 mile limit are "Warning" areas, because the US (or any other country, including Australia) does not have the power to restrict aircraft in international waters (except "Australian" aircraft, if Australian regulations so dictate).
Thus, there is no legal standing to the vast military Restricted areas "published" by Australia, beyond the 12 mile limit. Don't confuse the 200 nm "Economic Zone" with the 12 mile limit.
Tootle pip!!
Owen
I’ll see if I can get the information from a person I know at the FAA. However, I would think that it would be that at least 50% of the US Class D airports would have large air carriers of more than 31 seats going to them. Most D airports I see in the USA are similar to Coffs Harbour, ie. a larger town with RPT jets and a terminal. Come to think of it, it could even be 80% of the 380 USA Class Ds which allow RPT jet traffic.
But what does this have to do with the issue?
I’ll see if I can get the information from a person I know at the FAA. However, I would think that it would be that at least 50% of the US Class D airports would have large air carriers of more than 31 seats going to them. Most D airports I see in the USA are similar to Coffs Harbour, ie. a larger town with RPT jets and a terminal. Come to think of it, it could even be 80% of the 380 USA Class Ds which allow RPT jet traffic.
But what does this have to do with the issue?
Leadie, when that particular chunk of airspace is active....what type of activity is going on?..and....what type of surveillence is provided just in case someone blunders in unannounced?
Can't have the RAAF tieing up airspace when you fly LHI-BK can we? While you are at it Leadie, can you put in a good argument to allow overflights over SY so you can get a DCT LHI-BK happening...thats a good lad
Can't have the RAAF tieing up airspace when you fly LHI-BK can we? While you are at it Leadie, can you put in a good argument to allow overflights over SY so you can get a DCT LHI-BK happening...thats a good lad
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
That just doesn't make sense. How can Australia restrict any aircraft, Australian reg or not, if it has no powers beyond 12nm?
ICAO signatories do have the "power" to restrict/limit/control aircraft over international waters. It is a cornerstone of why ICAO exists. However, the US military is not a civil organisation, and therefor do not comply/adhere to/subject themselves to such control when it suits them. What they do in other places looks a lot more like what happens in Australia re; exclusive airspace, rather than what they do at home!
Anyway, quite a drift from topic (although related).
As required by treaty, US MOAs beyond the 12 mile limit are "Warning" areas, because the US (or any other country, including Australia) does not have the power to restrict aircraft in international waters (except "Australian" aircraft, if Australian regulations so dictate).
ICAO signatories do have the "power" to restrict/limit/control aircraft over international waters. It is a cornerstone of why ICAO exists. However, the US military is not a civil organisation, and therefor do not comply/adhere to/subject themselves to such control when it suits them. What they do in other places looks a lot more like what happens in Australia re; exclusive airspace, rather than what they do at home!
Anyway, quite a drift from topic (although related).
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead, in the first instance, thank you for your reply. I do not subscribe to the theory that anonymity on this forum somehow decreases credibility! I have always found your posts to be reasonable and measured - notwithstanding that I don't always agree.
However, I fail to understand (call me stupid) how filing a 'difference' then makes you 'compliant.' Regardless of what the FAA says, they cannot be technically compliant if a 'difference' has to be filed.
I appreciate that you and Dick are a double-act and I don't doubt the sincerity of your efforts but, for the life of me, I see absolutely no gain in reclassifying GAAP to ICAO D (with FAA modifications and the filing of a 'difference').
As I have stated before, I believe that the end-game is D at GAAPs, compliant D at regionals (for the sake of uniformity), which then re-opens the argument about the 'unique' practice of having C over ICAO D (with the FAA exception). In short, it's not done anywhere else (read US) Minister, so why do we have unique procedures here? It's roll-back of the roll-back by stealth.
As regards military airspace and Warning Areas, I (partially) take your point. So I got on the web and looked at how others do business. I would suggest that the military does not perceive a 'threat' from aircraft that are foreign registered. I'd say that their main worry is domestically registered aircraft that want to go through training areas, regardless, because they can.
So, I refer you to the NZ CAA publication: www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/GAPs/GAP_NZ_Airspace.pdf
Check out the requirements for NZ registered aircraft with regard to MOAs, no matter how far off the coast.
However, I fail to understand (call me stupid) how filing a 'difference' then makes you 'compliant.' Regardless of what the FAA says, they cannot be technically compliant if a 'difference' has to be filed.
I appreciate that you and Dick are a double-act and I don't doubt the sincerity of your efforts but, for the life of me, I see absolutely no gain in reclassifying GAAP to ICAO D (with FAA modifications and the filing of a 'difference').
As I have stated before, I believe that the end-game is D at GAAPs, compliant D at regionals (for the sake of uniformity), which then re-opens the argument about the 'unique' practice of having C over ICAO D (with the FAA exception). In short, it's not done anywhere else (read US) Minister, so why do we have unique procedures here? It's roll-back of the roll-back by stealth.
As regards military airspace and Warning Areas, I (partially) take your point. So I got on the web and looked at how others do business. I would suggest that the military does not perceive a 'threat' from aircraft that are foreign registered. I'd say that their main worry is domestically registered aircraft that want to go through training areas, regardless, because they can.
So, I refer you to the NZ CAA publication: www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/GAPs/GAP_NZ_Airspace.pdf
Check out the requirements for NZ registered aircraft with regard to MOAs, no matter how far off the coast.