Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

What about deviations for weather or manouevring for IFR approaches?

E for exciting airspace.

[Dog One]

Sorry Capt, but no I have only a faxed copy which has the email address unreadable. search around the CASA website, and goto the OAR site. You should be able to get them to email you a copy.

[89 steps to heaven]

Stationair8 I think you are correct. Watch the Broome airspace model be extended Australia wide. Back to the NAS2b errors, unnecessary & unsubstantiated change.

If we want more flexibility in airspace, Class D zones and Class D steps and en-route would be worth a look. Class E over Class D, no radar or in busy areas cannot be supported by any safety case.

Talk to the pollies.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick's original child, Airspace 2000 (in the 90's) had E corridors everywhere. Then in the mid 2000s the LLAMP group looked extensively at E corridors and concluded they were unworkable.

[Dizzy Llama]

Watch the Broome airspace model be extended Australia wide

I wonder if that's why some people changed their tune about new towers? The Trojan horse for E airspace. Probably hoping ASA said sorry no staff - can't do it, and a new ATS provider got a foot in the door as well.

Sounds like someone's plan all along.

It will be interesting to see how "E" goes as "high performance" VFR becomes more prevalent. I believe their is already a light business jet operating that likes to zip around VFR occasionally.

[Capn Bloggs]

Justice Gibbs quoted in the CASA Alice Airspace study Jan2010:

Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.

E over D? Definitely not, your ona!

[peuce]

Playing Devil's advocate ....

Could you not say that the current Airspace (Class G) above Broome will be made safer by installing Class E ... in that IFRs will be seperated from themselves?

Now with White hat back on ...

Could you then not say that, for a small, if any, increase in cost ... it could be made Class C above Broome and remove most of the residual risk?

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by peuce

Playing Devil's advocate ....

Could you not say that the current Airspace (Class G) above Broome will be made safer by installing Class E ... in that IFRs will be seperated from themselves?

No. In my opinion, separation from IFRs is not the main problem, the main problem is separation from VFRs*. With the present G airspace, it is effectively a mandatory broadcast zone, all traffic within 30nm of YBRM must listen and broadcast on the CTAF. If it is E above A045 then there will be no requirement for VFR to broadcast until they are entering the D airspace, therefore the volume of airspace we receive traffic information on VFR aircraft will be much smaller, so we will have less time to detect threat aircraft visually and to work out a separation plan.

*Edit: That's not quite true, I mean that separation from IFR and VFR is both problematic, but the safety concern relating to the lack of VFR information in the new airspace will not be offset by the increased safety provided by the IFR to IFR separation.

[CaptainMidnight]

And a point I've made many times, Class E can - and does - have many no radio no transponder types operating therein, completely unknown to all.

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And a point I've made many times, Class E can - and does - have many no radio no transponder types operating therein, completely unknown to all.

Yep, if you're trying to reduce the collision risk at an airport with a lot of VFR traffic, why would you implement airspace that allows VFR aircraft to be invisible?

[Howabout]

Bloggs and AerocatS2A,

You may be interested in this little gem from the 2008 Avalon Aeronautical Study (original study on Avalon). The quote is direct from the Executive Summary under 'Findings' (elaborated on in the body of the study). If you tie this up with the previous quote you posted here Bloggs, from Justice Gibbs regarding negligence, one has to wonder why.

Anyone can access this stuff and the quote appears to have been made without any qualification. Here it is, and make of it what you will, when read in conjunction with the Gibbs' statement. Maybe there's some logic at work here, but it's outside my orbit.

1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service
provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport
aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D
and Class E.

[CaptainMidnight]

Justice Gibbs quoted in the CASA Alice Airspace study Jan2010:

Quote:
Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.

and

Quote re Avalon airspace:
1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service
provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport
aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D
and Class E.

In view of the comments by Justice Gibbs and their own determination re Avalon airspace, one would assume that CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation would have first run their proposals re Broome and Karratha for E over D instead of C over D past their Office of Legal Counsel before making their determination .........

[peuce]

So, considering those findings on face value, and in the context given, if they go ahead with E over D ... it would be fair to assume that there must be some other very significant forces or issues at play ... that we aren't privy to ....

[AerocatS2A]

1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service
provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport
aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D
and Class E.

The above quote may be true for Avalon, but Broome does not have a radar anywhere near by, so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E. Class C would be great but isn't likely given the existing infrastructure. I think Class D up to A100 with E on top would be an ok compromise.

[CaptainMidnight]

so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E.

No, the cost is the same because ATC can provide Class C services or E, with no additional equipment.

Radar is not an issue. Alice does not have radar C, along with other places. C clearly provides greater protection than E, hence the findings and quotes.

[Capn Bloggs]

but Broome does not have a radar anywhere near by, so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E.

This is the ideological block that Dick Smith has - "C must have radar". Poppycock. Just because they do that in the USA doesn't mean it has to be everywhere else.

All the radar in C does is increase capacity over non-radar C. Given capacity isn't an issue and KTA and BME, the C cost will be the same as E.

Think outside the square, Dick.

[AerocatS2A]

Yes that's true. My thinking has been coloured a little by an IRT question I was once asked, "What's the difference between Class C and Class D airspace?" I rattled off the differences in separation services provided and was told, "No, Class C is Radar and Class D isn't." I knew that this was technically wrong, but couldn't be bothered arguing the point.

Sure, if CASA will put non radar Class C in place, that would be best. And as more and more aircraft get ADSB, the radar-like services will come.

[werbil]

The big difference between C & D is capacity in VMC.

In C VFR must be positively separated from IFR. This means a technical separation standard must be applied by ATC (can an ATC help me here) - which I believe effectively means no other aircraft in the circuit area whilst an IFR aircraft is taking off or landing.

In D the ATC has a lot more options to segregate traffic (including sight and follow, hold in circuit).

Whilst radar is not essential in C, it does reduce the separation standards drastically and therefore increases capacity.

Where an aircraft is operating to SVFR procedures it has to be separated from IFR aircraft irrespective of whether it is Class C or D.

[cbradio]

Sorry werbil - not even close!

Ill let a current Class C Procedural controller go into detail - it's been awhile -but quite often a procedural standard is less restrictive than radar - lateral, visual, etc.
Nowhere near one at a time.

[5miles]

In C VFR must be positively separated from IFR. This means a technical separation standard must be applied by ATC (can an ATC help me here) - which I believe effectively means no other aircraft in the circuit area whilst an IFR aircraft is taking off or landing.

Not sure what the difference between a technical separation standard and a plain old everyday separation standard is, but class C towers can run VFR in the circuit with IFR departures so long as the ADC can maintain visual separation, or apply a number of other techniques. We even run IFR circuits with IFR/VFR departures.

In D the ATC has a lot more options to segregate traffic (including sight and follow, hold in circuit).

If the aircraft are required to be separated, the same standards can be applied. Sight and follow is simply pilot assigned responsibility for separation, and is not specific to any class of airspace.

Whilst radar is not essential in C, it does reduce the separation standards drastically and therefore increases capacity.

Correct - most of the time; and in a radar approach controlled environment, we can run similar types 3nm apart. However, an ADC can run them even closer once in sight, regardless of radar coverage.