Merged: The Ambidji Report CASA should get their money back!
Thread Starter
All instrument approaches in the USA are in a minimum of class E controlled airspace.
In the UK they have tower airspace with instrument approaches in class G uncontrolled airspace
It is true that in the USA if an IFR aircraft goes through a small amount of G when under radar control the controller will keep providing a control service.
None of this stupid "you are cleared in and out of controlled airspace"
It's just commonsense!
In the UK they have tower airspace with instrument approaches in class G uncontrolled airspace
It is true that in the USA if an IFR aircraft goes through a small amount of G when under radar control the controller will keep providing a control service.
None of this stupid "you are cleared in and out of controlled airspace"
It's just commonsense!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points:
1. As far as I am aware UK ATC does not "control" aircraft in G airspace. Air Traffic Services are offered, be they low level radar or approach into a towered airport. In either case vectors can be supplied at pilot request but the onus remains on the pilot for separation with other aircraft.
2. I think the reference to IFR pilots getting clearances in G airspace is referring to clearances to enter E or higher classes of airspace. Nobody needs a clearance to be in G airspace.
In relation to Class D airports; the current difference between ours and the US is that we use D to transition IFR aircraft into C or A whereas the FAA uses E.
There appears to be no reason to stop us using ICAO CLass D at GAAP airports but that should include making the number of aircraft in the circuit a controller discretion issue instead of mandatory. However some thought has to go into what pilots do if ATC denies a clearance when they are inbound. Does anyone know what you do at Van Nuys if the tower controller won't talk to you?
The IFR issue is more vexed because a simple statement such as IFR pilots can have a higher standard of service if they want it, ignores the problems. Sure a US Class D tower will provide an IFR service but only when they can; that's why US pilots cancel IFR. If they don't they will be kept circling by the Centre until such time as the Class D tower has sufficient gaps in the traffic to will allow traffic information to be given, or two or more IFRs to be separated.
Why do I say "kept circling by the Centre"? Because all aircraft above 1200 feet AGL inbound to a US Class D airport are in Class E airspace. This is also how the airport remains safe, as Dick states, after the Tower controllers go home. Because the Class D no longer exists the airspace automatically becomes Class E protecting IFR aircraft making IFR approaches. This service is provided from the 24/7 ATC Centre.
The lack of Class E around our GAAP airports is going to make operating them as Class D difficult unless they all adopt Class D steps like our regional airports. How you provide an IFR service to a private IFR flight departing one of our GA airports with no intention of climbing into Class C airspace I have no idea, perhaps Ambidji can do another consultancy.
1. As far as I am aware UK ATC does not "control" aircraft in G airspace. Air Traffic Services are offered, be they low level radar or approach into a towered airport. In either case vectors can be supplied at pilot request but the onus remains on the pilot for separation with other aircraft.
2. I think the reference to IFR pilots getting clearances in G airspace is referring to clearances to enter E or higher classes of airspace. Nobody needs a clearance to be in G airspace.
In relation to Class D airports; the current difference between ours and the US is that we use D to transition IFR aircraft into C or A whereas the FAA uses E.
There appears to be no reason to stop us using ICAO CLass D at GAAP airports but that should include making the number of aircraft in the circuit a controller discretion issue instead of mandatory. However some thought has to go into what pilots do if ATC denies a clearance when they are inbound. Does anyone know what you do at Van Nuys if the tower controller won't talk to you?
The IFR issue is more vexed because a simple statement such as IFR pilots can have a higher standard of service if they want it, ignores the problems. Sure a US Class D tower will provide an IFR service but only when they can; that's why US pilots cancel IFR. If they don't they will be kept circling by the Centre until such time as the Class D tower has sufficient gaps in the traffic to will allow traffic information to be given, or two or more IFRs to be separated.
Why do I say "kept circling by the Centre"? Because all aircraft above 1200 feet AGL inbound to a US Class D airport are in Class E airspace. This is also how the airport remains safe, as Dick states, after the Tower controllers go home. Because the Class D no longer exists the airspace automatically becomes Class E protecting IFR aircraft making IFR approaches. This service is provided from the 24/7 ATC Centre.
The lack of Class E around our GAAP airports is going to make operating them as Class D difficult unless they all adopt Class D steps like our regional airports. How you provide an IFR service to a private IFR flight departing one of our GA airports with no intention of climbing into Class C airspace I have no idea, perhaps Ambidji can do another consultancy.
Thread Starter
ARFOR, How about an answer to my post no 79?
What services are not provided in FAA class D?
Howabout, not increased costs- just a simplified standardised system for all non radar towers.
What services are not provided in FAA class D?
Howabout, not increased costs- just a simplified standardised system for all non radar towers.
Dick you said-
Re my post88, how are you going to simplify if you still have the same airspace restrictions around BK?
just a simplified standardised system for all non radar towers.
Grandpa Aerotart
I fly VFR GA in the UK several times a year and you most assuredly are not controlled OCTA. You can call up and get a 'pop up clearance' through military and many civil CTR zones easily - Farnborough for instance - and they have unicoms at even little grass airstrips - but generally speaking you fly around VFR < 2000' very easily. The higher costs associated with GA in the UK come from them still having a system of 3 year major airframe inspection/correction as well as annuals, not so much from nav charges.
Dick re- your post79...the difference is more what you CANNOT do with ICAO D compared to FAA D and GAAP.....it's got something to do with parrallel runway ops.
Could you please post the bit where the Ambidji report actually recommended procedure changes in GAAP?
Could you please post the bit where the Ambidji report actually recommended procedure changes in GAAP?
Thread Starter
Owen, yes ,well below the LSA/MSA so ideal for saving lives with an ATC minimum altitude alarm and simple procedures which inform the controller whether tho pilot is visual or not--as per the NAS system!
Thread Starter
Clinton, if it was my decision I would have recommended procedures at busy airports which would keep arriving and departing traffic apart where possible.
I just wouldn't have mandatory VFR reporting points as we do!
I just wouldn't have mandatory VFR reporting points as we do!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
I provided a link to you via PM earlier this arfternoon that answers those questions. I did not post the link or quotes on the forum, as the mod's might not approve cross posting from competing websites. In the absence of any hard contrary facts from you, I take the other as reasonable!
Howabout answering howabout!
I provided a link to you via PM earlier this arfternoon that answers those questions. I did not post the link or quotes on the forum, as the mod's might not approve cross posting from competing websites. In the absence of any hard contrary facts from you, I take the other as reasonable!
Howabout answering howabout!
Do not start...you guys know full well that radar coverage BLA can also drop off BLW080.
(I have a far better idea for OCTA that doesn't cost anywhere as much as even the old FSU and give BETTER coverage and service.)
Cumon Mr Smith, Howabout deserves an answer.
(I have a far better idea for OCTA that doesn't cost anywhere as much as even the old FSU and give BETTER coverage and service.)
Cumon Mr Smith, Howabout deserves an answer.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys, but Dick won't answer.
He's been caught out and, as I said, the tactic is not to answer the questions. Rather, it's letting it die over a few pages, so it's forgotten.
So, last go. As I said before:
Any chance that we back off till we get a response?
Dick, post #84-87.
Respectfully, no obfuscation. Can I have a response.
Now guys, let's give the man a chance without side issues.
He's been caught out and, as I said, the tactic is not to answer the questions. Rather, it's letting it die over a few pages, so it's forgotten.
So, last go. As I said before:
Any chance that we back off till we get a response?
Dick, post #84-87.
Respectfully, no obfuscation. Can I have a response.
Now guys, let's give the man a chance without side issues.
Thread Starter
I answered the posts 84-87 with my post 89.
ie The USA and the UK are totally different. I would support the US system as all IFR approaches are in controlled airspace.
I don't support the UK system where tower controllers (yes controllers) at non radar towers actually "control" aircraft in uncontrolled airspace
ARFOR, does that mean you cannot find any measurable difference between NAS class D and ICAO class D ?
I won!
And OWEN, if the Benalla accident had happened at a similar airport where the radar went to ground level they would have still all died.
That's because there has been constant resistance to putting in proper procedures or airspace after the FSO's were removed.
How many more will have to die before modern proven overseas practices are introduced?
ie The USA and the UK are totally different. I would support the US system as all IFR approaches are in controlled airspace.
I don't support the UK system where tower controllers (yes controllers) at non radar towers actually "control" aircraft in uncontrolled airspace
ARFOR, does that mean you cannot find any measurable difference between NAS class D and ICAO class D ?
I won!
And OWEN, if the Benalla accident had happened at a similar airport where the radar went to ground level they would have still all died.
That's because there has been constant resistance to putting in proper procedures or airspace after the FSO's were removed.
How many more will have to die before modern proven overseas practices are introduced?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Aug 2009 at 12:25.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dick, by your own admission ATC control in G in the US - it's the 'little bit pregnant' argument.
Secondly, you did not justify the replacement of ICAO D with FAA D - cost versus benefit.
You lose!
Secondly, you did not justify the replacement of ICAO D with FAA D - cost versus benefit.
You lose!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Clearly you did not read the information provided! In basic terms, this is what I read the main difference to be;
1. ICAO class D requires Controllers to prevent collisions. That may be achieved through clearances providing separation, and/or spacing + directed traffic information to IFR and VFR as necessary to 'prevent a collision'
2. FAA (US) D (GAAP) the primary responsibility rests with the pilot to 'prevent a collision' as no separation (nor guaranteed directed traffic information) is applied in VMC!
As has been stated previously, where GA need high volume throughput the additional safety of 1. (above) is not possible without traffic metering, wider spaced parallel runways, navaids, and the like!
Where scheduled RPT (PTO) operate, the safety of 1. (above) quite properly takes centre stage, hand in hand with a vast variety of aircraft performances, wake turbulence standards, and generally lighter traffic volumes enabling the additional safety service of ICAO D without restriction to traffic demand.
You won? what? the duck and weave prize!
Clearly you did not read the information provided! In basic terms, this is what I read the main difference to be;
1. ICAO class D requires Controllers to prevent collisions. That may be achieved through clearances providing separation, and/or spacing + directed traffic information to IFR and VFR as necessary to 'prevent a collision'
2. FAA (US) D (GAAP) the primary responsibility rests with the pilot to 'prevent a collision' as no separation (nor guaranteed directed traffic information) is applied in VMC!
As has been stated previously, where GA need high volume throughput the additional safety of 1. (above) is not possible without traffic metering, wider spaced parallel runways, navaids, and the like!
Where scheduled RPT (PTO) operate, the safety of 1. (above) quite properly takes centre stage, hand in hand with a vast variety of aircraft performances, wake turbulence standards, and generally lighter traffic volumes enabling the additional safety service of ICAO D without restriction to traffic demand.
You won? what? the duck and weave prize!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as far as I can tell Dick has been entirely consistent in his arguments about airspace and ATC in Australia and CASA and its predecessors. It is about standardising systems and procedures and reducing costs. For the life of me I cannot understand ( well I can actually but you would need to write another book and call it thirty years in the Hall of Doom!) why Australia has to be different in just about every area to do with government management or regulation of aviation in this country.
We have a miserable number of towers and a limited number of capital cities any fool can see you can go to one class for primary, one class for secondaries and one for the non radar places and leave it at that. Instead every time someone like Dick attempts to argue for a commonsense standardised approach the contrarians attack Dick.
Your all living in the past. Decades of unnecessary controls and regulations have buggered the industry and left us in the position of needing a law degree or a lawyer beside you to even work out what your supposed to be doing at any time. Your all so used to living in a dysfunctional state that you no longer recognise normal, it is a well known psychological phenomena, identifying with your capturs, in this case CASA and ASA both.
Every time the industry is about to escape the clutches of unnecessary regulation and control and do something positive that will save money, improve safety by standardising processes, actually being allowed to use or introduce new technology and leaving the decision making (risk management) to those who are actually directly involved in the industry, our keepers drag out the vision of their sacred cow - SAFETY and you all get down on your knees and grovel to this phantom shibboleth. It is truly pathetic.
Lets do something different, might be good for you - so instead of attacking and villifying Dick Smith for reminding you of the problem, how about you actually say, thanks Dick you know we believe your right, lets do something about it.
We have a miserable number of towers and a limited number of capital cities any fool can see you can go to one class for primary, one class for secondaries and one for the non radar places and leave it at that. Instead every time someone like Dick attempts to argue for a commonsense standardised approach the contrarians attack Dick.
Your all living in the past. Decades of unnecessary controls and regulations have buggered the industry and left us in the position of needing a law degree or a lawyer beside you to even work out what your supposed to be doing at any time. Your all so used to living in a dysfunctional state that you no longer recognise normal, it is a well known psychological phenomena, identifying with your capturs, in this case CASA and ASA both.
Every time the industry is about to escape the clutches of unnecessary regulation and control and do something positive that will save money, improve safety by standardising processes, actually being allowed to use or introduce new technology and leaving the decision making (risk management) to those who are actually directly involved in the industry, our keepers drag out the vision of their sacred cow - SAFETY and you all get down on your knees and grovel to this phantom shibboleth. It is truly pathetic.
Lets do something different, might be good for you - so instead of attacking and villifying Dick Smith for reminding you of the problem, how about you actually say, thanks Dick you know we believe your right, lets do something about it.
Moderator
Grip, I agree with you on much of that having worked as a pilot in other countries before coming here, a lot of the regulations were and still are a joke. But in this instance the head of CASA has made an arbritrary decision that instead of reducing costs has cost operators up to 40% of thier business overnight with no increase in safety, and absolutely NO CONSULTATION.
How will Class D reduce costs? Someone has to pay for more ATC, if anyone can find some, and it will be us, the airport users. We may be restricted to only flying when the cloud base is above 2500 to comply with clearance from cloud, still have to deal with a circuit cap reducing our chance to get the job done even more. So, with more ATC to pay for that will INCREASE costs. A former ATC friend of mine reckons Jandakot could be limited to around 100, 000 movements a year if it becomes Class D, that's only 20% of capacity, about 25% od what was working well previously and is unviable. Unlss the logic is that if we all go bankrupt we will have no more operating costs.
Dick if in your retailing days you were told, by someone who had never worked in retailing, that you had to reduce your floor space and trading hours of your shops by 40%, but take on more staff, would that make sense?
The property developers must be rubbing their hands in glee. Never mind Class D, the zoning will be commercial or residential!
How will Class D reduce costs? Someone has to pay for more ATC, if anyone can find some, and it will be us, the airport users. We may be restricted to only flying when the cloud base is above 2500 to comply with clearance from cloud, still have to deal with a circuit cap reducing our chance to get the job done even more. So, with more ATC to pay for that will INCREASE costs. A former ATC friend of mine reckons Jandakot could be limited to around 100, 000 movements a year if it becomes Class D, that's only 20% of capacity, about 25% od what was working well previously and is unviable. Unlss the logic is that if we all go bankrupt we will have no more operating costs.
Dick if in your retailing days you were told, by someone who had never worked in retailing, that you had to reduce your floor space and trading hours of your shops by 40%, but take on more staff, would that make sense?
The property developers must be rubbing their hands in glee. Never mind Class D, the zoning will be commercial or residential!