Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Class E down to 4500ft overhead YWLM?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Class E down to 4500ft overhead YWLM?

Old 2nd Sep 2009, 21:35
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
As usual, Dick is confusing me. I never quite know what he really believes.
On September 1st, he said (my bolding):

Yes, C will be safer than E if it is properly manned.

In the Australian system most often one controller is responsible for all of the D and then huge volumes of C.

Accidents are most likely to happen in the D as the aircraft are most often closer together.

However a controller in Australia has often to take attention away from traffic in D to procedurally separate a VFR from IFR in the huge amount of C airspace above.

This increases the risk of an accident in the D and is the sole reason that countries like the USA and Canada do not have C above D.

My points:
  • Dick appears to state that STAFF are required to provide a service
  • Dick appears to state that diverting a Controller's attention between two different services or areas is unacceptable

Yet, he is now touting the introduction of "something new" that will undoubtedly require staff we don't have.

He has also been touting the need to have enroute controllers provide an additional approach service.

It is very difficult to take your views seriously Dick, when you are so contradictory in your ideas
peuce is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 03:45
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hiding..... in one hemisphere or another
Posts: 1,067
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yes, exactly.

Why do you morons keep feeding this idiot?
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 06:00
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick, in case you missed my question, do you think that E Airspace down to 4500ft over WLM should be run by controllers with approach ratings?
Here to Help is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 07:51
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
I believe the E should go down to at least 1200 agl and the airspace should follow proven international practice for low level class E.

Without the time to phone experienced controllers in Canada or the US I cannot confirm exactly how it should be done. I would follow advice from the experts in this field.

Yes, the controllers would have to be approach rated.

On those US figures it looks as if we are at least 100 controllers understaffed. The US has about 15 times the population and about 15 times the number of aircraft.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 10:36
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
E to 1200 agl

What does "E" down to 1200 agl acheive ?

How will Asa provide this level of service without a radar feed that low ?

What happens when a Mil acft (C130 etc) arrives outside WLM hours and wants to do a TACAN Approach (Not published in DAP)?

Can an ASA controller issue a clearance for final, for an Instrument Appraoch they do not have access too ?
C-change is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 11:00
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
E has nothing to do with radar. If controllers can provide an approach service at a place like Alice they can provide an approach service at Willy.

The controllers can be located anywhere as they cannot actually see through cloud even if they are located at the airport.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 11:25
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick, how do you propose they provide this service, this low without a Radar ?

Class "E" that low without surveillance will only slow things down and build in more delays.

What about the TACAN app ?

How is 1200' AGL going to be depicted on charts ?

No good using Alice as an example, it has ML en-route providing service down to 8500, then Alice TWR staff provide D to the surface. Very different to what your proposing.
C-change is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 11:26
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: earth
Posts: 137
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
can we just go back to this bit for a sec.

I’ve been told many times that the airspace between Melbourne and Brisbane is as busy as any airspace in the USA. In that case, I can’t see why the sector sizes are dramatically different to the U.S

It is not, Dick. Hence, the remainder of your post is incorrect.
Some of the city-pairs are quite busy eg. Melb/SY, SY/Bris, but that's it. The US has many more city-pairs in the same volume of airspace. A common misunderstanding, and an excellent demonstration of how statistics can be used to baffle the uninformed.
That seems to be a pretty straight forward response to an incorrect and misunderstood situation. Sector sizes, and associated screen scales, is critical - as people (who do the job every day) have said over and over again - to an understanding of some of the problems.

A simple "I was wrong about that" would be nice!
cbradio is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 12:48
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, the controllers would have to be approach rated.
Thanks for the reply Dick. I would just like to let you know that the ASA controllers who will be running the WLM airspace from 19th November onwards (including the entire month around Christmas) will be enroute rated only. There is not the time or staff or resources to provide such training beforehand. This will cause delays for IFR aircraft. Dick, do you find this situation acceptable?
Here to Help is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 13:53
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
This will cause delays for IFR aircraft. Dick, do you find this situation acceptable?
Stuck at 4500ft at the base of E waiting for a clearance, just where one does not want to be in the J curve...

Oh hang on, stuff the IFRs, "Cancel IFR, we're climbing, request IFR pickup"...

MJBow2,
Finally some common sense prevailing.

As an airline pilot I whole wholeheartedly welcome Class E.

Now for Launy, Maroochydore, Proserpine, Hamilton Island and many more.
Why do you Like E?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 20:58
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Bloggsy,

No, you'll be waiting at 1100ft AGL waiting for clearance.
peuce is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 22:09
  #52 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,

Stuck at 4500ft at the base of E waiting for a clearance
One of the issues for controllers in this airspace is that if the base of controlled airspace is a VFR level and there is an IFR aircraft operating within 500ft beneath it, then the controller must provide 1000ft separation with an IFR aircraft above the base.

If you are IFR and climb to 4500ft awaiting clearance then the controller must give an overflying/arriving aircraft at least 5500ft (not generally done in E because it is a VFR level and the airspace cannot be sanitised, so 6000ft would generally be the go) to prevent loss of separation (an a stand down). I believe you need to advise the controller if you are climbing to a non-IFR level, however if the restriction for a clearance in the first place is an IFR at 5000ft you can be expected to be requested to maintain an IFR level (eg 4500ft).

Also, the problem with lowering the base of this CTA is that the time you have to obtain a clearance is more susceptible to frequency congestion, and the terrain outside the 25nm MSA is above the base of CTA. On most tracks to the north of WLM, the route LSA is above 4500ft.

What would a pilot of an A320 or B737 do if, due frequency congestion or traffic, they are not visual and are approaching the edge of the MSA awaiting a clearance. Do they just climb to avoid terrain or hold inside 25nm? If not visual, the controller cannot even vector an aircraft unless it is above A066 for most of the airspace, even within 25nm. This surely impacts on the workload of the pilot, in the back of their mind knowing that they must have a contingency if clearance is not available. The controller must also be aware of pilot intentions because they still need to pass traffic OCTA to the guy climbing behind you?

The controllers will not have the ratings, tools, or airspace design to provide the flexibility and expedtion of traffic that the airspace "design" requires. This will increase workload for all involved with possible losses of SA, compounding with the numbers of aircraft involved. This will be significant at times during the RAAF Christmas stand down period and on weekends.

And I haven't even gotten on to the subject of thunderstorms close to/at the aerodrome requiring diversions/holding in Dec/Jan.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2009, 22:25
  #53 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Capn Bloggs you also mention IFR pickup. This is actually not the same IFR Pickup that us used in the US. Over there, you can fly as a VFR aircraft until you want to "pick up" the IFR flightplan and receive that service. In Australia, you have to be processed as IFR first and then choose to go "IFR pickup" (ie VFR with IFR services apart from separation - you are still IFR), and only when you want to . It defeats the purpose of being able to, in VMC, depart WLM VFR, sort your own traffic out and climb through E up to FL180 and then, at some stage, requesting a pickup of IFR services.

IFR pickup in Australian airspace is completely different to the US (almost the opposite) and is workload intensive. It is available but is hardly used.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 00:55
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Here to Help,
You highlight the practical limitations of a low-level CTA base of any description. It's not in the design specs for Class E which the purists espouse. Practically though, even doing a US-style IFR pickup as you describe is fraught with danger. The only reason it would be done would be because ATC couldn't clear you. In a radar environment, that would mean the opposing traffic was pretty close. Throwing caution to the wind and going VFR to get around "clearance not available" would be irresponsible. It would often be impossible for the crew to gather all the info (CTAF on one radio, ATC on the other) they need to come up with a safe plan of action in time.

The only practical option would be to stay on the ground (Dick's beloved E down to 1200/700ft AGL; onya Puece) until cleared. I would be on the threshold, stopping all movements.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 01:01
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Our IFR Pickup was intentionally changed by the people at CASA so it would not work.

Re Williamtown, I was not involved in the decision to change the level of the class E airspace. If I was responsible for the detail it would be done correctly- just as the AMATS changes were.

No doubt it can be done using en-route standards but I don't know why someone would want to do it this way.

Airspace change requires skilled leadership and in depth knowledge of the way the system being copied works.

Don't complain to me on PPRUNE- talk to your Boss.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 01:17
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Dick,
Our IFR Pickup was intentionally changed by the people at CASA so it would not work.
Don't avoid the issue. Blasting off using IFR pickup of any description into low level CTA near Willy to negate the need for an ATC clearance is not what the punters sitting behind me paid for.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 02:08
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
You do not understand. In the US under NAS an IFR planned aircraft climbing in E before gaining a clearance gets exactly the same information from ATC as an IFR aircraft climbing in Australian G.

That is traffic information on all known aircraft.

That's why E is superior to G as E allows a full separation service when IMC exists and a G service when VMC exists.

Plus, in Australia, E includes a mandatory transponder requirement that does not exist in G

I introduced the mandatory transponder requirement without a RIS when I was Chaiman of CASA. This was to improve safety by encouraging more E airspace so that finite resources could be better allocated.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 02:48
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Dick,
You do not understand. In the US under NAS an IFR planned aircraft climbing in E before gaining a clearance gets exactly the same information from ATC as an IFR aircraft climbing in Australian G.

That is traffic information on all known aircraft.
Oh yes I do. I can't get a clearance because ATC cannot separate me from other IFR using radar standards. Blasting into the airspace anyway as VFR would in my view be stupid. I know I'm pretty clever and can run segregation more efficiently than non-radar standards, but even I admit that I couldn't safely manage traffic that is inside radar standards.

Plus, in Australia, E includes a mandatory transponder requirement that does not exist in G
Transponders are mandatory above 10,000ft in any type of airspace and they must be on, if you have one, in any type of airspace. E is nothing special except when we're talking about below 10,000ft.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 07:41
  #59 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re Williamtown, I was not involved in the decision to change the level of the class E airspace. If I was responsible for the detail it would be done correctly- just as the AMATS changes were.

No doubt it can be done using en-route standards but I don't know why someone would want to do it this way.
Thanks Dick, that clears it up for alot of people who were wondering, including me. You are right to wonder why anyone would want to do the airspace this way. As I have pointed out, it will increase delays and disruptions to what the traffic in that area normally experience. It also has the potential to be alot less safe.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 07:47
  #60 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,

You are right. If a clearance cannot be issued by the controller, then it is for a reason. Most likely it is workload, traffic or frequency congestion. In all cases, if the controller is unlikely to be able to give a clearance, they are also unlikely to be able to pass traffic as they are required to do immediately on receiving your request.

As an ATC I have seen/heard of 3 times IFR pickup being used. In two cases it was an inappropriate request (G going into C) and all were many years ago after it first came in.
Here to Help is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.