Class E down to 4500ft overhead YWLM?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E down to 4500ft overhead YWLM?
Can anyone tell me why, on the 19th November this year, the base of Class E airspace overhead Williamtown is being dropped from 8500ft to 4500ft? When the RAAF aren't staffing tower/approach/centre on Friday arvos, weekends and the month around Christmas, Brisbane Centre will control that airspace. It will be a semi-approach environment with less time for arriving aircraft to sort out traffic OCTA and less flexibility for the controller to separate.
And any reason why it could at least not be made C airspace, like Tamworth or Coffs Harbour which do not have the same amount of RPT traffic?
From my understanding, the TRA that existed successfully last Christmas stand down will not be reimplemented because certain parties do not want mandatory transponder coverage for VFRs transitting the areas.
And any reason why it could at least not be made C airspace, like Tamworth or Coffs Harbour which do not have the same amount of RPT traffic?
From my understanding, the TRA that existed successfully last Christmas stand down will not be reimplemented because certain parties do not want mandatory transponder coverage for VFRs transitting the areas.
Folks,
Didn't anybody tell you, NAS is Government airspace policy, and now we have a CASA Director of Aviation Safety who has very publicly expressed his support for NAS.
Dick Smith didn't invent Class E airpace, widely used throughout the aviation world, both with and without any radar coverage.
Tootle pip!!
Didn't anybody tell you, NAS is Government airspace policy, and now we have a CASA Director of Aviation Safety who has very publicly expressed his support for NAS.
Dick Smith didn't invent Class E airpace, widely used throughout the aviation world, both with and without any radar coverage.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS for how much longer?
Didn't anybody tell you, NAS is Government airspace policy, and now we have a CASA Director of Aviation Safety who has very publicly expressed his support for NAS.
As an aside I note the latest OAR review of Hamilton Island categorically rejected the use of Class E airspace to the circuit area without proper surveillance! That could make NAS expensive.
Leadsled...I wonder if you remember this quote-
Non-radar E?..VFR does not need a clearance...transponder?...but...that means you wish to use the TCAS as a traffic managment device....non-radar E...wonderful idea, isn't it...but then again you have seen all this before...anyway, it's a shame that new directors do not learn a little bit of history so they do not go off and repeat it.
I'm with Mr Gnu....NO E without surveillance! It is still controlled airspace with UN-Controlled aircraft just waltzing through minding their own business.
The CAA should take into account the limitations of see-and-avoid when planning and managing airspace and should ensure that unalerted see-and-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services.
I'm with Mr Gnu....NO E without surveillance! It is still controlled airspace with UN-Controlled aircraft just waltzing through minding their own business.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Aus
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozbusdriver. CASA responded to the BASI See and Avoid report in 2001.
....and should ensure that unalerted see-an-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services."
CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. The wording of the recommendation reflected its time and was prior to the 1995 Standards Australia AS/NZS4360 Risk Management Standard. CASA also understands that the use of the absolute "never" is not consistent with current ATSB practice.
To accept the absolute form of the recommendation would require the allocation of Class D or higher airspace wherever scheduled services operate. This would result in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with risk.
ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft. ICAO has introduced both of these classifications with the full knowledge of the limitations of see-and-avoid. ICAO makes no recommendation in relation to scheduled services not operating in these airspace classifications.
Overly discounting the effectiveness of see-and-avoid and devising unique procedures has itself led to unintended consequences that are unresolved. Pilots may scan significantly less and become over reliant on radio alerting through a concept known as diffusion of responsibility. The BASI report RP/93/01 (December 1993) and the continuing incident reports that are being filed listing near misses in mandatory radio Class E and G airspace may support this concern. CASA believes that radio alerting is only effective when the alerting area is small with readily identifiable reporting points so that the alert is specific.
The ATSB status? Closed - Accepted.
....and should ensure that unalerted see-an-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services."
CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. The wording of the recommendation reflected its time and was prior to the 1995 Standards Australia AS/NZS4360 Risk Management Standard. CASA also understands that the use of the absolute "never" is not consistent with current ATSB practice.
To accept the absolute form of the recommendation would require the allocation of Class D or higher airspace wherever scheduled services operate. This would result in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with risk.
ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft. ICAO has introduced both of these classifications with the full knowledge of the limitations of see-and-avoid. ICAO makes no recommendation in relation to scheduled services not operating in these airspace classifications.
Overly discounting the effectiveness of see-and-avoid and devising unique procedures has itself led to unintended consequences that are unresolved. Pilots may scan significantly less and become over reliant on radio alerting through a concept known as diffusion of responsibility. The BASI report RP/93/01 (December 1993) and the continuing incident reports that are being filed listing near misses in mandatory radio Class E and G airspace may support this concern. CASA believes that radio alerting is only effective when the alerting area is small with readily identifiable reporting points so that the alert is specific.
The ATSB status? Closed - Accepted.
SCE to Aux,
There you go with more theory. Most of that stuff from CASA was written by MS, I well-known DS supporter. I simply cannot believe CASA thinks no radio is better than radio because people get lulled into a false sense of security. Actually, MS thought a few years ago. He's gone. I wonder what CASA today thinks?
ICAO also has no transponder requirement in E. If you reckon that is a good idea, you're crazy in my view. This is the same organisation (Euro centric) that has only just started to realise (after prodding from the Scandinavians) that 3000ft TL in Europe may not be a good thing. Der. Their airspace classifications belong in a bygone era, if you ask me. E was good for DC-3s and the occasional Cessna. Nowadays? CTA or OCTA+DTI+CTAF Rs. That's all it needs to be. A,C,D,E G? Alphabet soup!
There you go with more theory. Most of that stuff from CASA was written by MS, I well-known DS supporter. I simply cannot believe CASA thinks no radio is better than radio because people get lulled into a false sense of security. Actually, MS thought a few years ago. He's gone. I wonder what CASA today thinks?
ICAO also has no transponder requirement in E. If you reckon that is a good idea, you're crazy in my view. This is the same organisation (Euro centric) that has only just started to realise (after prodding from the Scandinavians) that 3000ft TL in Europe may not be a good thing. Der. Their airspace classifications belong in a bygone era, if you ask me. E was good for DC-3s and the occasional Cessna. Nowadays? CTA or OCTA+DTI+CTAF Rs. That's all it needs to be. A,C,D,E G? Alphabet soup!
SCE to Aux,
Well done, the anti see and avoid brigade love quoting the rather dated BASI report, but carefully avoid any qualification, including the ATSB acceptance of AS/NZ 4360, in the settlement of the recommendation, more than 10 years ago.
News really travels fast in aviation circles, doesn't it.
We all know, or should know, the limitations of see and avoid, and we all know, or should know, the range of techniques that are mitigators for the limitations of see and avoid, so that the resultant hazard level is acceptable.
Radio alerting is one, and only one, of many.
I never cease to be amazed (as illustrated in a previous post here) that people who quite happily accept IFR in G, with "known traffic", reject E as somehow less satisfactory. ---- Unless radar is available. As if VFR (with transponder)traffic "swanning about" in E were a greater hazard than if the same airspace is G, and there is no separation between IFR aircraft, and the same VFR aircraft are "swanning about", without any mandatory transponder.
Folks, re. the new airspace policy, many of us have seen the anodyne nonsense that was the first draft of a new policy. Being totally bereft of anything approaching a basic standard ( other than totally undefined "world's best practice"), or any coherence direction as a "policy", a "policy free policy", and all references to risk and safety having been excised. I rather think you will find it is the Minister/Secretary who were less than impressed.
The Minister does understand that the US has a lower collision rate than Australia,a lower ATC error rate, and TIBA is unknown in US, and therefore the US must be doing something right, that we are not. All this before the arrival of Mr. McCormick and the new CASA Chairman, Dr. Hawke.
Those who thought this was an opportunity to slip in the flavour of the month, a two class "managed/unmanaged" airspace system, and dump A thro' G, are going to be disappointed.
I would hazard a guess that this has only been reinforced by the new Director of Aviation Safety, a vocal supporter of the US way of committing aviation, based on his public statements, and testimony to the Senate RRA&T Standing Committee.
Tootle pip!!!
PS 1: It will be interesting to see what happens with the Albury tower review, last I heard the number were coming up to close it, and therefor the D and C airspace. This time, due to the GFC, encouragement from airlines, not resistance.
PS 11: Bloggs, nobody inside or outside CASA thinks/suggests/recommends "no radio" is better than "radio (alerted see and avoid)", and there is no suggestion to that end. What those of us who prefer facts do know, is that dropping in the word "mandatory" does not improve compliance with required/recommended radio usage.
Well done, the anti see and avoid brigade love quoting the rather dated BASI report, but carefully avoid any qualification, including the ATSB acceptance of AS/NZ 4360, in the settlement of the recommendation, more than 10 years ago.
News really travels fast in aviation circles, doesn't it.
We all know, or should know, the limitations of see and avoid, and we all know, or should know, the range of techniques that are mitigators for the limitations of see and avoid, so that the resultant hazard level is acceptable.
Radio alerting is one, and only one, of many.
I never cease to be amazed (as illustrated in a previous post here) that people who quite happily accept IFR in G, with "known traffic", reject E as somehow less satisfactory. ---- Unless radar is available. As if VFR (with transponder)traffic "swanning about" in E were a greater hazard than if the same airspace is G, and there is no separation between IFR aircraft, and the same VFR aircraft are "swanning about", without any mandatory transponder.
Folks, re. the new airspace policy, many of us have seen the anodyne nonsense that was the first draft of a new policy. Being totally bereft of anything approaching a basic standard ( other than totally undefined "world's best practice"), or any coherence direction as a "policy", a "policy free policy", and all references to risk and safety having been excised. I rather think you will find it is the Minister/Secretary who were less than impressed.
The Minister does understand that the US has a lower collision rate than Australia,a lower ATC error rate, and TIBA is unknown in US, and therefore the US must be doing something right, that we are not. All this before the arrival of Mr. McCormick and the new CASA Chairman, Dr. Hawke.
Those who thought this was an opportunity to slip in the flavour of the month, a two class "managed/unmanaged" airspace system, and dump A thro' G, are going to be disappointed.
I would hazard a guess that this has only been reinforced by the new Director of Aviation Safety, a vocal supporter of the US way of committing aviation, based on his public statements, and testimony to the Senate RRA&T Standing Committee.
Tootle pip!!!
PS 1: It will be interesting to see what happens with the Albury tower review, last I heard the number were coming up to close it, and therefor the D and C airspace. This time, due to the GFC, encouragement from airlines, not resistance.
PS 11: Bloggs, nobody inside or outside CASA thinks/suggests/recommends "no radio" is better than "radio (alerted see and avoid)", and there is no suggestion to that end. What those of us who prefer facts do know, is that dropping in the word "mandatory" does not improve compliance with required/recommended radio usage.
Last edited by LeadSled; 13th Aug 2009 at 15:04.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Public vs Otherwise
LeadSled,
I think you will find the real objection is to the replacement on Class C (Not G) with Non-surveillance Class E.
You may be correct about your assertions regarding the Draft AAPS. However, this is policy and is strictly the domain of politicians. Prior to its election the ALP stated its determination to axe inapropriate airspace reforms. I suppose we will see where this policy ends up very soon. If i recall correctly the ALP Senators and MHRs responsible for this policy area made their objection to the NAS and its proponents very clear. The current ALP government may have its faults but it appears resolute in pursiung its policy objectives.
My rather sarcastic remark about the CASA CEO (Director of Aviation Safety) was based only on the common observation that a public servant will always back the published government policy. If you think Mr McCormick will do otherwise please expand on your remarks. (And yes I do acknowledge that the position we are discussing has a degree of statutory independence- as ably demonstrated by Mr Toller during the the NAS 2c debacle)
Given the risk based philosophies of the OAR and the published Albury review would they really redesignate all terminal airspace there as Class G and declare a CTAF (R)?
I think you will find the real objection is to the replacement on Class C (Not G) with Non-surveillance Class E.
You may be correct about your assertions regarding the Draft AAPS. However, this is policy and is strictly the domain of politicians. Prior to its election the ALP stated its determination to axe inapropriate airspace reforms. I suppose we will see where this policy ends up very soon. If i recall correctly the ALP Senators and MHRs responsible for this policy area made their objection to the NAS and its proponents very clear. The current ALP government may have its faults but it appears resolute in pursiung its policy objectives.
My rather sarcastic remark about the CASA CEO (Director of Aviation Safety) was based only on the common observation that a public servant will always back the published government policy. If you think Mr McCormick will do otherwise please expand on your remarks. (And yes I do acknowledge that the position we are discussing has a degree of statutory independence- as ably demonstrated by Mr Toller during the the NAS 2c debacle)
Given the risk based philosophies of the OAR and the published Albury review would they really redesignate all terminal airspace there as Class G and declare a CTAF (R)?
Leadsled,
Have you ever thought why (on my estimations) the majority of pilots and controllers on this board have a different view to you on this issue?
You appear to treat everyone as idiots. You speak down to other pilots and controllers and we get the feeling you believe we are criminals.
One can quote as many international standards, treaties or mathematical formulas as one likes ... however, the majority of pilots and controllers have a real problems with "see and avoid" and "Class E in non surveillance airspace".That is a fact.
These pilots and controllers operate in the airspace everyday, and have built up a fair evaluation of the psyche of the flying community. Now, they don't feel comfortable. That is a fact.
Their understanding of what goes on is not going to change because you quote an international standard to them. That is a fact.
You, and the Regulators, have to find another way to convince those whose lives are dependent on the success of the airways system that your way will be an improvement.
Hitting us over the head with a baseball bat will not work.Telling us we are idiots will not work. Telling us that we don't understand will not work.
Find another way.
Have you ever thought why (on my estimations) the majority of pilots and controllers on this board have a different view to you on this issue?
You appear to treat everyone as idiots. You speak down to other pilots and controllers and we get the feeling you believe we are criminals.
One can quote as many international standards, treaties or mathematical formulas as one likes ... however, the majority of pilots and controllers have a real problems with "see and avoid" and "Class E in non surveillance airspace".That is a fact.
These pilots and controllers operate in the airspace everyday, and have built up a fair evaluation of the psyche of the flying community. Now, they don't feel comfortable. That is a fact.
Their understanding of what goes on is not going to change because you quote an international standard to them. That is a fact.
You, and the Regulators, have to find another way to convince those whose lives are dependent on the success of the airways system that your way will be an improvement.
Hitting us over the head with a baseball bat will not work.Telling us we are idiots will not work. Telling us that we don't understand will not work.
Find another way.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leadSled
The Minister does understand that the US has a lower collision rate than Australia,a lower ATC error rate, and TIBA is unknown in US, and therefore the US must be doing something right, that we are not. All this before the arrival of Mr. McCormick and the new CASA Chairman, Dr. Hawke.
Australia and the US had a similar rate of midair collisions involving general aviation aircraft during the period 1981-2003. The US had a higher rate of general aviation aircraft involved in collisions per flight hour away from the circuit area, which is consistent with the US having more general aviation flying activity and a higher traffic density
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Dog House
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E airspace is cumbersome and offers little real protection, with the added bonus (?) of a higher workload for pilots and controllers alike, to believe otherwise is just pure folly. Defence of it’s virtues are not reflected by the wider community of pilots who have to use it on either a professional or private basis.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Albury tower review, last I heard the number were coming up to close it, and therefor the D and C airspace. This time, due to the GFC, encouragement from airlines, not resistance.
They know that the hang gliding fraternity have submitted a number of proposals over the last couple of years to reduce the steps there to facillitate their access. North east Victoria is a prime hang gliding and other sports aviation types area, with activity regularly up to A100 in G and E.
Changing the Albury airspace to G or E gives these types unrestricted access, not something I think the airlines and other IFR operators would be happy with.
SCE to AUX
CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. And that, my friend is legalise BS duck and weave.
Funny, aviation ONLY deals in ABSOLUTES. Either there is minima or there is not...either you see the runway environs or not. CLearance or no clearance!
We fly like computers if =1 then or if not = 1then. There is no statistical subroutine of probability that justifies whether a flight is within the rules or not.
Leadsled...two airspace??? now why would THAT come up?
My point being that if the then CAA did follow BASIs recommendations, a whole lot of airspace changes would not occur...no wonder it came down to not recognising "Absolutes"...
CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. And that, my friend is legalise BS duck and weave.
Funny, aviation ONLY deals in ABSOLUTES. Either there is minima or there is not...either you see the runway environs or not. CLearance or no clearance!
We fly like computers if =1 then or if not = 1then. There is no statistical subroutine of probability that justifies whether a flight is within the rules or not.
Leadsled...two airspace??? now why would THAT come up?
My point being that if the then CAA did follow BASIs recommendations, a whole lot of airspace changes would not occur...no wonder it came down to not recognising "Absolutes"...
Australia and the US had a similar rate of midair collisions involving general aviation aircraft during the period 1981-2003.
Similar is not the same as "the same". The figures quoted by John McCormick are about the same as other and I have, which is about 30% fewer mid-airs in the US, compared to Australia.
The difference is big enough and consistent enough that it cannot be written off as a statistical error.
It's all public information.
As for the "problems" with Class E, and the preference for G as, somehow, safer, it simply makes no logical sense.If that is me "talking down", I'll have to wear that criticism, but the fact remains, it is unsupportable on any logical risk grounds.
the ALP stated its determination to axe inapropriate airspace reforms.
By and large, all the right words are in there, "safety", "risk management", "cost/benefit justified", "ICAO compliant" etc., it will, indeed, be interesting.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the biggest influence on the final "new" policy will be the CASA CEO.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 14th Aug 2009 at 15:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LedSled et al,
You know, all the stats and "proof" and "logic" and academic argument really don't impact on the topic of this thead. It is about Williamtown airspace in particular. There are other active threads about NAS/E/See and Avoid.
Comments specifically about whether or not, or how this airpace will work more safely after the Defence designed/CASA imposed airspace are most welcome.
To my mind, the lowering of E to 4500 from 8500 (replacing existing G) reduces the flexibility that IFR RPT have in determining their own separation with other aircraft by limiting their tracking/frequency options until 4000ft lower than they can today.
E in this situation does not protect the aircraft from VFR any more than G does. In both cases, IFR is given traffic on VFR, but in one case IFR can manoeuvre as desired/required after an appropriate traffic statement and in the other, the IFR must get a new clearance from ATC to avoid the traffic. The time and space available for this, in the WLM area, is quitre limited. At least if the airspace was C, like over TW, CFS, and WLM when the RAAF are active, there would be positive separation between VFR and IFR.
The controller has less flexibility. Given that Brisbane Centre is not Approach rated, the tools for separation they have are limited (eg cannot vector below lower safe, cannot use 3nm radar separation etc). This, and the limited time/space to afford clearances without delay will result in increasing workload and restrictions to IFR aircraft where no such restrictions occur today in G.
The time available for departing aircraft to get a clearance above A040 is shortened compared to A080 and makes frequency congestion even more critical in ensuring that departing aircraft can manage their own separation with terrain and each other. Bear in mind that Brisbane Centre is also managing airspace in the Port Macquarie area.
This airspace will serve to make operations more restrictive for IFR aircraft, for controllers and increases the risk associated with increasing pilot/controller workload and frequency congestion.
You know, all the stats and "proof" and "logic" and academic argument really don't impact on the topic of this thead. It is about Williamtown airspace in particular. There are other active threads about NAS/E/See and Avoid.
Comments specifically about whether or not, or how this airpace will work more safely after the Defence designed/CASA imposed airspace are most welcome.
To my mind, the lowering of E to 4500 from 8500 (replacing existing G) reduces the flexibility that IFR RPT have in determining their own separation with other aircraft by limiting their tracking/frequency options until 4000ft lower than they can today.
E in this situation does not protect the aircraft from VFR any more than G does. In both cases, IFR is given traffic on VFR, but in one case IFR can manoeuvre as desired/required after an appropriate traffic statement and in the other, the IFR must get a new clearance from ATC to avoid the traffic. The time and space available for this, in the WLM area, is quitre limited. At least if the airspace was C, like over TW, CFS, and WLM when the RAAF are active, there would be positive separation between VFR and IFR.
The controller has less flexibility. Given that Brisbane Centre is not Approach rated, the tools for separation they have are limited (eg cannot vector below lower safe, cannot use 3nm radar separation etc). This, and the limited time/space to afford clearances without delay will result in increasing workload and restrictions to IFR aircraft where no such restrictions occur today in G.
The time available for departing aircraft to get a clearance above A040 is shortened compared to A080 and makes frequency congestion even more critical in ensuring that departing aircraft can manage their own separation with terrain and each other. Bear in mind that Brisbane Centre is also managing airspace in the Port Macquarie area.
This airspace will serve to make operations more restrictive for IFR aircraft, for controllers and increases the risk associated with increasing pilot/controller workload and frequency congestion.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complications????
No-one likes more restrictions and complications, particularly when they are not necessary do they?
The same applies to the pilots of smaller smaller VFR?IFR aircraft that are carrying transponders around birdsville and Oodnadatta and hardly ever get within radar range of anything. They do not want to be loaded up with more expensive gear that is irrelevent.
The same applies to the pilots of smaller smaller VFR?IFR aircraft that are carrying transponders around birdsville and Oodnadatta and hardly ever get within radar range of anything. They do not want to be loaded up with more expensive gear that is irrelevent.
