Merged: The Ambidji Report CASA should get their money back!
even the ATC's employed by Airservices love it at they can concentrate their attention to where the risk is greatest.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, by the way, the ATSB report on the Launy incident did not state that the E airspace should be changed.
It was good to get their support.
It was good to get their support.
MEDIA RELEASE : 19 January 2004 - ATSB investigation classifies Launceston airspace incident as serious
Last edited by Howabout; 1st Sep 2009 at 11:51.
Thread Starter
Howabout Mate, thanks for posting the media release. You are a friend indeed.
Note no call to reverse the E from the ATSB Just--
_ "It has recommended a review of certain aspects of the NAS airspace implementation in class E airspace including education, training and chart frequency material"
I could't have said it better myself. If you remember people at CASA at the time under Kim Jones did everything they could to undermine the Implementation Groups education and training.
I suggest you give Mike Smith a phone call and he will give you the whole sorry tale.
Note no call to reverse the E from the ATSB Just--
_ "It has recommended a review of certain aspects of the NAS airspace implementation in class E airspace including education, training and chart frequency material"
I could't have said it better myself. If you remember people at CASA at the time under Kim Jones did everything they could to undermine the Implementation Groups education and training.
I suggest you give Mike Smith a phone call and he will give you the whole sorry tale.
Thread Starter
Captain, re your post 177.
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.
This increase of an accident chance in the D has never been factored into the Australian safety case as Aussie controllers claim they are different to controllers in other countries and do not take their attention away from the D when separating VFR and IFR traffic in the C.
For some extraordinary reason they accept the extra personal liability- controllers I have spoken to in other countries astutely refuse to.
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.
This increase of an accident chance in the D has never been factored into the Australian safety case as Aussie controllers claim they are different to controllers in other countries and do not take their attention away from the D when separating VFR and IFR traffic in the C.
For some extraordinary reason they accept the extra personal liability- controllers I have spoken to in other countries astutely refuse to.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Ferris, what is the reason then? Love to hear your conspiracy theory.
By the way, my information came from a former FAA Vice President of ATC Mr Jeff Griffith.
Make sure you tell us your source.
By the way, my information came from a former FAA Vice President of ATC Mr Jeff Griffith.
Make sure you tell us your source.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite simple Dick. A controller in Australia isn't dealing with the traffic density. He has the time to deal with a large amount of C, as well as his little aerodrome airspace.
It's called "affordable safety". The traffic is different, so rather than have a tower controller sitting there under-utilized and extra bodies in a centre (tracon), Australia has very sensibly used it's resources to provide what could quite rightly be called a better solution.
The example you quote of Teterboro on other threads gives weight to my point. We dont have the GA activity to require us to dumb down our system to allow us to deal with it. Having worked in various ATC roles around the world, I can tell you, Dick, that a controllers ability to handle his allotted airspace does not depend on how much of it he has, or what service he is required to provide and the resources he has at his disposal, or just the traffic density. It is a combination of all those things. Trying to tell air traffic controllers otherwise on this forum gives rise to speculation about your motives.
My source: Me. All the ex-US controllers I work with (one of whom worked the very Teterboro airspace you quote). Other posters on this forum with relevant experience (especially current tower controller "jerricho", whom you studiously ignore)... so go ahead, and quote Mr Griffiths til your hearts content. Misunderstanding what he is talking about is another thing.
It's called "affordable safety". The traffic is different, so rather than have a tower controller sitting there under-utilized and extra bodies in a centre (tracon), Australia has very sensibly used it's resources to provide what could quite rightly be called a better solution.
The example you quote of Teterboro on other threads gives weight to my point. We dont have the GA activity to require us to dumb down our system to allow us to deal with it. Having worked in various ATC roles around the world, I can tell you, Dick, that a controllers ability to handle his allotted airspace does not depend on how much of it he has, or what service he is required to provide and the resources he has at his disposal, or just the traffic density. It is a combination of all those things. Trying to tell air traffic controllers otherwise on this forum gives rise to speculation about your motives.
My source: Me. All the ex-US controllers I work with (one of whom worked the very Teterboro airspace you quote). Other posters on this forum with relevant experience (especially current tower controller "jerricho", whom you studiously ignore)... so go ahead, and quote Mr Griffiths til your hearts content. Misunderstanding what he is talking about is another thing.
Dick,
Let's take Alice for example. Could you please explain what you mean by HUGE volumes of C ie altitude and distance from the field?
If the tower only did D, then who would do the E above? Another controller.
How would we jet jockeys self-segregate from VFRs also buzzing towards Alice like moths to a light? Look out the window?
While at the same time complying with ATC instructions to separate us from the other IFRs in the area?
C needs a controller. E needs a controller. I simply cannot see what the safety issue is. I'm actually glad that an ATC is separating me from the VFR that is also inbound. I don't really mind who does it, Centre or the Tower, but trying to dodge VFRs who I may not even know about inside 30nm whilst being under positive control while also organising an approach has got knobs on it.
The probable reality is that you can't give up your ideological stumbling block from the Airspace 2000 era that terminal C MUST be radar controlled.
Regarding the NMAC at Launy, it is a shame that you didn't quote this bit:
Which plainly implies, as Howabout suggests, that the airspace setup sucks and needs a lot of work. "with a view to enhancing pilot's situational awareness". How are you going to do that then?
We told you before Airspace 2000, we told you before NAS, and we will tell you again. Non-radar terminal E doesn't work! How many scares do we have to have before metal meets metal and you and Leadsled go back to your slide rules and work out some more statistics?
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.
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.
If the tower only did D, then who would do the E above? Another controller.
How would we jet jockeys self-segregate from VFRs also buzzing towards Alice like moths to a light? Look out the window?
While at the same time complying with ATC instructions to separate us from the other IFRs in the area?
C needs a controller. E needs a controller. I simply cannot see what the safety issue is. I'm actually glad that an ATC is separating me from the VFR that is also inbound. I don't really mind who does it, Centre or the Tower, but trying to dodge VFRs who I may not even know about inside 30nm whilst being under positive control while also organising an approach has got knobs on it.
The probable reality is that you can't give up your ideological stumbling block from the Airspace 2000 era that terminal C MUST be radar controlled.
Regarding the NMAC at Launy, it is a shame that you didn't quote this bit:
based on the circumstances of this serious incident, the ATSB has recommended that CASA and Airservices Australia, in consultation with the NAS Implementation Group, review NAS procedures and communications requirements for operations in Class E airspace, particularly for Air Transport operations during climb and descent in non-radar airspace, with a view to enhancing pilots' situational awareness.
We told you before Airspace 2000, we told you before NAS, and we will tell you again. Non-radar terminal E doesn't work! How many scares do we have to have before metal meets metal and you and Leadsled go back to your slide rules and work out some more statistics?
Captain, re your post 177.
Yes, C will be safer than E if it is properly manned.
Yes, C will be safer than E if it is properly manned.
Thread Starter
I have made it clear that I support the current direction to AsA that if C is to be allocated above E it must be provided with terminal radar and separate approach controllers.
Otherwise the C is a sham- if a VFR pilot inadvertenly flew the airspace beyond visual distance from the controller the ATC would not know. That's why primary and secondary radar is required if you are going to offer a service that claims to separate VFR from IFR.
Ferris, your comments are all about keeping the status quo.
I had similar comments during the AMATS changes- if they had not gone ahead we would still have airline aircraft in en-route radar covered airspace below 12500' being forced on a FS frequency with no access to the radar!
Otherwise the C is a sham- if a VFR pilot inadvertenly flew the airspace beyond visual distance from the controller the ATC would not know. That's why primary and secondary radar is required if you are going to offer a service that claims to separate VFR from IFR.
Ferris, your comments are all about keeping the status quo.
I had similar comments during the AMATS changes- if they had not gone ahead we would still have airline aircraft in en-route radar covered airspace below 12500' being forced on a FS frequency with no access to the radar!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 3rd Sep 2009 at 01:06.
Dick,
You just don't get it do you? As far as I am concerned, C is not about having a radar to catch VFR pilots who stray into CTA, it's about having ALL aircraft in the area positively separated. I accept that there will be VCAs in any type of controlled airspace, but VCAs are not the point.
The ONLY reason you want E over D is so you can fly "free" doing as you please with scant regard to other users. VFRs flying over the top of Alice at 6000ft in E between The Rock and Isa saying nothing when there are jets going willy nilly into and out of Alice is just plain crazy. ALL of the RPT midairs as far as I know in the USA have been big jets running into lighties. See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK, and if the VFR isn't even being controlled eg in E, it's even more dangerous.
Otherwise the C is a sham- if a VFR pilot inadvertenly flew the airspace behond visual distance from the controller the ATC would not know. That's why primary and secondary radar is required if you are going to offer a service that claims to separate VFR from IFR.
The ONLY reason you want E over D is so you can fly "free" doing as you please with scant regard to other users. VFRs flying over the top of Alice at 6000ft in E between The Rock and Isa saying nothing when there are jets going willy nilly into and out of Alice is just plain crazy. ALL of the RPT midairs as far as I know in the USA have been big jets running into lighties. See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK, and if the VFR isn't even being controlled eg in E, it's even more dangerous.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 2nd Sep 2009 at 01:00. Reason: "VAs" changed to "VCAs".
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
CaptainMidnight;
More information needed
in view of the no radio no transponder types now allowed in E,
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris, your comments are all about keeping the status quo.
More information needed
Info here:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post3638553
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
the rules were changed
It may interest you to know there are significant changes to cabin crew requirements in hot air balloons-(also on exemptions). I'm unsure how many of these exemptions are current.
I haven't seen too many hang gliders operating above 8,500 ft in the J curve, but I suspect if they are, they are the "exception" rather than the "rule".
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problems, Dick old fruit. If you reckon that the ATSB release was supportive of terminal E, then you took a different course in comprehension to that which I did.
The ATSB, at the time, worked for a minister that knew nothing about aviation and had been led up the garden path with some slick, but deceptive, argument. You know as well as I that government departments, or their subordinate agencies, don't drop a minister in it when he's been a fool and publicly supported (in parliament) a dog.
I think the last sentence of the press release was the most telling; notwithstanding that the whole blurb was a 'get-out-of-jail' card for the ATSB when the inevitable hit the fan - saved only by 'roll-back.' To whit:
The ATSB knew what industry's reaction would be; with the exception of a few fundamentalists.
Your problem here, Dick, is that you are not dealing with a demographic that gets their news via the Tele and A Current Affair. While Wayne, who's only aim in life is to get maggoted and place a bet on Race 5 at Sandown, will swallow 'dirt road airspace' and 'manual telephone exchanges,' your audience on this forum is a little more discerning.
Anyway, that's enough for me. Except to say to those of you attending RAPACs in the near future:
It ain't about the smokescreen that is GAAP vs D. It's about universal FAA D and overlying E.
That said Dick, I really enjoy the fencing. And I must get a copy of that DVD 'Mountains of the Moon.' I am dead-set serious, as I've always been fascinated by those chaps Burton, Speke and Grant. I have what I regard to be the best set of books on the Blue and White Nile - the early exploration - which are now out of print. Despite our disagreements, you do some stuff incredibly well - it's just that airspace isn't one of them.
The ATSB, at the time, worked for a minister that knew nothing about aviation and had been led up the garden path with some slick, but deceptive, argument. You know as well as I that government departments, or their subordinate agencies, don't drop a minister in it when he's been a fool and publicly supported (in parliament) a dog.
I think the last sentence of the press release was the most telling; notwithstanding that the whole blurb was a 'get-out-of-jail' card for the ATSB when the inevitable hit the fan - saved only by 'roll-back.' To whit:
It is also desirable that the responsible authorities seek industry input in their review.
Your problem here, Dick, is that you are not dealing with a demographic that gets their news via the Tele and A Current Affair. While Wayne, who's only aim in life is to get maggoted and place a bet on Race 5 at Sandown, will swallow 'dirt road airspace' and 'manual telephone exchanges,' your audience on this forum is a little more discerning.
Anyway, that's enough for me. Except to say to those of you attending RAPACs in the near future:
It ain't about the smokescreen that is GAAP vs D. It's about universal FAA D and overlying E.
That said Dick, I really enjoy the fencing. And I must get a copy of that DVD 'Mountains of the Moon.' I am dead-set serious, as I've always been fascinated by those chaps Burton, Speke and Grant. I have what I regard to be the best set of books on the Blue and White Nile - the early exploration - which are now out of print. Despite our disagreements, you do some stuff incredibly well - it's just that airspace isn't one of them.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would have to agree with Capt Bloggs, E outside radar coverage to a jet crew is like playing Russian Roulette. See and avoid does not provide a sufficient safety margin for a jet,and relying on TCAS is a last resort. Why have E outside of radar? It may as well be G airspace for all the value it is. What cost saving is there to heavy RPT aircraft.
These are exemptions dating back to 1988 and beyond. They encompass hang gliders of 70 Kgs up to the military testing of the NH90 Tactical transport helicopter of 9,100 kgs.
These Parts all state that the types can be flown in G and E in VMC:
95.8 Hang gliders
95.10 Privately Built Single Place Ultralight Aeroplanes
95.12 Gyroplanes Having an Empty Weight not in Excess of 250 kg
95.12.1 2 Place Gyroplanes and Single-Place Gyroplanes
95.32 Weight Shift Controlled Aeroplanes and Powered Parachutes
95.54 Manned Balloons and Hot Air Airships
95.55 Certain ultralight aeroplanes
Gliders around the country including the J curve regularly operate in class G and E to the lower flight levels. Hang gliders in north east Victoria regularly operate in G and E up to A100 from launch sites around Albury.
As I said in the original post clearly most of these types do not have electrical systems capable of powering a transponder which means they don't need to operate a transponder in class E.
It is my understanding that these exemptions published in 2006 specifically included access to class E for these types, because previously areas of class E base 8500 implemented initially with NAS prevented activity that had always taken place in areas. In some instances to allow activity to continue, areas of class E were reclassified to G. Example: the E base 8500 that used to lie NW and SE of Albury used to be reclassified to G for the period November to April to specifically facilitate the various types of glider and other ops. I'm told ATC christened that reclassified airspace as "GONAD" (Gliders Operating Near Albury "D"?).
When the initial elements of NAS were implemented i.e. areas of low level E base 8500 I don't think the glider and sports aviation types appreciated the impact it would have on their ops until it was actually in, hence the reclassifications.
My point is if the current Class C over D around the country was to be changed to E over D, then these types would have access to the E airspace.
And I'm yet to be convinced that would be a good thing
Thread Starter
Dog, you have obviously forgotten that when I was Chairman of CASA I introduced the worlds first mandatory Transponder requirement for all aircraft in all E in Australia.
This means that Australian E has a major safety advantage over G.
Tcas is a great safety improver- no mid air has ever occured in the world when an aircrew correctly complied with an RA.
This means that Australian E has a major safety advantage over G.
Tcas is a great safety improver- no mid air has ever occured in the world when an aircrew correctly complied with an RA.
