Merged: The Ambidji Report – CASA should get their money back!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The economics of classifications of airspace under discussion
A large difference between E and ICAO D and C is the speed restriction/s below A100. In D and C ATC can cancel speed restrictions where operating crews would prefer high speed climb or descent. This is possible as all traffic that could operate at those speeds are fast turbo-prop and turbo-jet IFR who regularly operate through ICAO D and C areas, all other IFR and VFR are below 250kts. No traffic is reliant on unalerted self separation.
In E, ATC cannot cancel speed restrictions as the speed limits are in place to support unalerted visual traffic aquisition and self separation which is inherent to the classification. The same applies to ATC decision making with regard to discretionary track shortening.
How much time and money do those unnecessary restrictions add up to over time? The additional costs to industry of the above speed inefficiency would be several orders of magnitude greater than any cost associated with D & C separation and the resulting infrequent profile adjustments i.e. short duration level off's and the like.
ICAO D and C is Accountant candy!
A large difference between E and ICAO D and C is the speed restriction/s below A100. In D and C ATC can cancel speed restrictions where operating crews would prefer high speed climb or descent. This is possible as all traffic that could operate at those speeds are fast turbo-prop and turbo-jet IFR who regularly operate through ICAO D and C areas, all other IFR and VFR are below 250kts. No traffic is reliant on unalerted self separation.
In E, ATC cannot cancel speed restrictions as the speed limits are in place to support unalerted visual traffic aquisition and self separation which is inherent to the classification. The same applies to ATC decision making with regard to discretionary track shortening.
How much time and money do those unnecessary restrictions add up to over time? The additional costs to industry of the above speed inefficiency would be several orders of magnitude greater than any cost associated with D & C separation and the resulting infrequent profile adjustments i.e. short duration level off's and the like.
ICAO D and C is Accountant candy!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joker 10
Glad you agree. Accountants get a big say in these things where maximising their company efficiencies is concerned. There is no doubt that the cumulative additional cost to operators of having to slow down and waste time in class E would be very relevant to a cost verse benefit assessment when comparing the more expeditious and efficient D and C classes.
This economic negative of Class E is very pertinent but quite separate from the safety discussion of the reduced risk mitigation available in changing C to E.
Combined, the cost and safety negatives have the ledger looking decidedly lopsided
Glad you agree. Accountants get a big say in these things where maximising their company efficiencies is concerned. There is no doubt that the cumulative additional cost to operators of having to slow down and waste time in class E would be very relevant to a cost verse benefit assessment when comparing the more expeditious and efficient D and C classes.
This economic negative of Class E is very pertinent but quite separate from the safety discussion of the reduced risk mitigation available in changing C to E.
Combined, the cost and safety negatives have the ledger looking decidedly lopsided
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arfor, But increasing the complexity of airspace by any bureacratic mechanism increases cost and delivers no safety benefit.
Alpahabet airspace only benefits the man with the calculator.
Scary stuff at the end of the day as we souls fly into uncharted territory wher statistics determine the outcome.
Alpahabet airspace only benefits the man with the calculator.
Scary stuff at the end of the day as we souls fly into uncharted territory wher statistics determine the outcome.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joker 10
Statistics are only as good as their real accuracy and if and how they are integrated into risk assessment. The most common failure of quantifying via numbers is the blind ommission of missing or uncollected data which eventually translates through to an undershoot estimation of the actual risk exposure. OCTA VFR data is a prime example.
Complexity (comm's, scanning, flightdeck task and workload increase and interuption) often comes from less service. Costs for provision of D & C or D & E would be similar, safety protections do increase with classifications closer to A.
Statistics are only as good as their real accuracy and if and how they are integrated into risk assessment. The most common failure of quantifying via numbers is the blind ommission of missing or uncollected data which eventually translates through to an undershoot estimation of the actual risk exposure. OCTA VFR data is a prime example.
Complexity (comm's, scanning, flightdeck task and workload increase and interuption) often comes from less service. Costs for provision of D & C or D & E would be similar, safety protections do increase with classifications closer to A.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a heart-to-heart with a US controller about what gets reported and what doesn't, and you will immediately stop using any figures generated there to run safety arguments. Unless you have an agenda...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Check this out...What do you reckon Bloggs?
"Close call" in the skies above Northern Utah - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News
"Close call" in the skies above Northern Utah - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News
I have been there........ if at 10,000 feet your TCAS says Descend descend...... makes you glad if it was VMC, because in IMC you would really not want to. It would be a fight between the TCAS and the EGPWS saying CLIMB CLIMB 
If anyone knows those hills you will know exactly what I mean.
J
J
Last edited by Jabawocky; 3rd Sep 2009 at 01:44.
mandatory Transponder requirement for all aircraft in all E in Australia.
I say once again (not for the last time):
In Australia mandatory transponder is not required for all aircraft in Class E airspace.
Many types are exempt, and operate right now in E and have been for a number of years.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said previously, its like playing Russian Roulette, while it may be mandatory in your mind Dick, in reality, as Capt Midnight says it is not mandatory! Who is right and who is wrong? As Chuck says, airspace built around TCAS. Great safety margin. Passenger safety is being comprised because the whole safety case is based on the lowest common denominator, ie the VFR aircraft.
Ever been into some of these busy CTAF's where you do not get TCAS returns from some light aircraft, is their transponder on or is it u/s. The same can apply in E without radar. The transponder can appear to be operating, but in actual fact if its not no one will know.
Ever been into some of these busy CTAF's where you do not get TCAS returns from some light aircraft, is their transponder on or is it u/s. The same can apply in E without radar. The transponder can appear to be operating, but in actual fact if its not no one will know.
Thread Starter
ARFOR
After studying your posts I am starting to believe that you are a traitor. Yes, a serious assertion, but I believe correct nevertheless.
I believe the majority of your posts are directed to undermining the efficiency of aviation in Australia. Who is to say you are not someone who wants to do this? You are anonymous and that means you could be doing anything and everything you can to harm our country.
In reading your posts I believe there is evidence of this.
If for one second you were genuine about your claims, you would stand by them under your own name. Your campaign against Class E airspace is particularly ill-informed and damaging.
Once again, I quote the very informative post by Voices of Reason “VOR” in relation to Class E airspace.
I warn all people who read this website, especially young pilots, that PPRuNe would be an ideal place to undermine what’s good about aviation in this country. I honestly believe there are people on this site who are doing everything they can to damage our future. What’s happened around the world supports the suggestion that this type of subversion can happen anywhere.
I bet that one day ARFOR will be exposed as a person who was affiliated with some organisation which was totally opposed to the interests of aviation and who was doing everything he/she/they could do to undermine Australia.
After studying your posts I am starting to believe that you are a traitor. Yes, a serious assertion, but I believe correct nevertheless.
I believe the majority of your posts are directed to undermining the efficiency of aviation in Australia. Who is to say you are not someone who wants to do this? You are anonymous and that means you could be doing anything and everything you can to harm our country.
In reading your posts I believe there is evidence of this.
If for one second you were genuine about your claims, you would stand by them under your own name. Your campaign against Class E airspace is particularly ill-informed and damaging.
Once again, I quote the very informative post by Voices of Reason “VOR” in relation to Class E airspace.
“Class E Airspace and United States Practice
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.”
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.”
I bet that one day ARFOR will be exposed as a person who was affiliated with some organisation which was totally opposed to the interests of aviation and who was doing everything he/she/they could do to undermine Australia.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
I am glad you are studying the content of posts, not before time. Far from making unsubstantiated claims, I have provided information via links to local and overseas information sources that provide factual foundations to these discussions. It is not surprising that you take the view you do, and far from being a 'traitor' to aviation in Australia, I might suggest what you dislike is a sound opposing argument, is that the difference you dislike?
Am I traitor to your airspace commentary? In your eyes clearly yes, that does not suggest anything other than a difference of conclusion that makes you unhappy. Threatening and maligning my character matters not to me, it gives me greater cause to share information with industry peers and a heightened concern to scrutinise the content of your proposals.
I am glad you are studying the content of posts, not before time. Far from making unsubstantiated claims, I have provided information via links to local and overseas information sources that provide factual foundations to these discussions. It is not surprising that you take the view you do, and far from being a 'traitor' to aviation in Australia, I might suggest what you dislike is a sound opposing argument, is that the difference you dislike?
Am I traitor to your airspace commentary? In your eyes clearly yes, that does not suggest anything other than a difference of conclusion that makes you unhappy. Threatening and maligning my character matters not to me, it gives me greater cause to share information with industry peers and a heightened concern to scrutinise the content of your proposals.
Thread Starter
Frank
You are 100% correct. It is simply not possible to threaten or malign a character of a non-entity.
By the way, this site clearly says at the bottom of each page that it may be used by “the unscrupulous”. What I am doing is confirming that the operators of the site are probably correct.
You are 100% correct. It is simply not possible to threaten or malign a character of a non-entity.
By the way, this site clearly says at the bottom of each page that it may be used by “the unscrupulous”. What I am doing is confirming that the operators of the site are probably correct.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabawocky
A few nervous moments for the jet crew. The airspace rules in that case E
Mr Smith,
Confirming or wishing? or just failing!
A few nervous moments for the jet crew. The airspace rules in that case E
Mike Fergus, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration Regional Headquarters in Seattle, said their investigation found there was only “a ½ mile of separation” when the SkyWest jet passed 200 to 300 feet below the skydiving plane.
Fergus admitted that no FAA rules were violated in the close call, but still called it “unacceptable.”
Fergus admitted that no FAA rules were violated in the close call, but still called it “unacceptable.”
Main Entry: character
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: individuality
Synonyms: appearance, aspect, attribute, badge, bent, caliber, cast, complex, complexion, constitution, crasis, disposition, emotions, estimation, ethos, frame, frame of mind, genius, grain, habit, humor, kind, makeup, mettle, mood, morale, mystique, nature, personality, quality, record, reputation, repute, sense, set, shape, singularity, sort, specialty, spirit, standing, streak, style, temper, temperament, tone, trait, turn, type, vein
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: individuality
Synonyms: appearance, aspect, attribute, badge, bent, caliber, cast, complex, complexion, constitution, crasis, disposition, emotions, estimation, ethos, frame, frame of mind, genius, grain, habit, humor, kind, makeup, mettle, mood, morale, mystique, nature, personality, quality, record, reputation, repute, sense, set, shape, singularity, sort, specialty, spirit, standing, streak, style, temper, temperament, tone, trait, turn, type, vein
By the way, this site clearly says at the bottom of each page that it may be used by “the unscrupulous”. What I am doing is confirming that the operators of the site are probably correct.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insights into the Smith mind.
Dick, just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it right.
Posting on the forum requires you to adhere to the rules and etiquette of the forum. It's interesting that you need this explained to you. Or do you only adhere to rules that suit you?
Dick, just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it right.
Posting on the forum requires you to adhere to the rules and etiquette of the forum. It's interesting that you need this explained to you. Or do you only adhere to rules that suit you?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 209
There is definitely a conspiracy going on here. ARFOR's real name is Yuri Kutchukokov. He was inserted into this country as a 'sleeper' during the Cold War, with precise directions about undermining aviation. He has long been under suspicion.
I've had similar concerns about Bloggs: erstwhile, witty, and urbane B717 pilot (it's just a bloody front!); but, unlike Kutchukokov, I reckon he's in the pay of the Chinese government. The link? - mining, associated resources, and WA! - throw in Harold Holt as well!. Bloggs went to Portsea once on a family holiday - yeah, right, 'family holiday!' He was spied as a two-year old building a sandcastle on the beach, just after Holt was spirited away on a Chinese submarine.
While these guys are a real worry, my biggie is OZBUSDRIVER. Now, there is a dead-set serious, and nefarious, individual. He lurks under the radar; and it's all to do with a more contemporary threat - oil money and the Middle East. OZ is a plant; and I have it on good authority that in espionage circles he is known simply as 'The Busdriver.' How scary is that?
Beware! And, oh, by the way:
It ain't about the smokescreen that is GAAP vs D. It's about universal FAA D and overlying E.
There is definitely a conspiracy going on here. ARFOR's real name is Yuri Kutchukokov. He was inserted into this country as a 'sleeper' during the Cold War, with precise directions about undermining aviation. He has long been under suspicion.
I've had similar concerns about Bloggs: erstwhile, witty, and urbane B717 pilot (it's just a bloody front!); but, unlike Kutchukokov, I reckon he's in the pay of the Chinese government. The link? - mining, associated resources, and WA! - throw in Harold Holt as well!. Bloggs went to Portsea once on a family holiday - yeah, right, 'family holiday!' He was spied as a two-year old building a sandcastle on the beach, just after Holt was spirited away on a Chinese submarine.
While these guys are a real worry, my biggie is OZBUSDRIVER. Now, there is a dead-set serious, and nefarious, individual. He lurks under the radar; and it's all to do with a more contemporary threat - oil money and the Middle East. OZ is a plant; and I have it on good authority that in espionage circles he is known simply as 'The Busdriver.' How scary is that?
Beware! And, oh, by the way:
It ain't about the smokescreen that is GAAP vs D. It's about universal FAA D and overlying E.
Curse you Howabout.....barely made it out alive....after letting on about secret technology and then this!!!!! Thanks for nuthin
You know how hard it is to evade high tech surveillence cameras....I had to put on my Dick Smith disguise and walked out right past them....Ha, western fools...
EDIT- The poster above me is an imposter....I am DICK SMITH Really!
You know how hard it is to evade high tech surveillence cameras....I had to put on my Dick Smith disguise and walked out right past them....Ha, western fools...EDIT- The poster above me is an imposter....I am DICK SMITH Really!
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 3rd Sep 2009 at 11:32.
