Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
To clarify, what we are saying is more appropriate and safer is Class C instead of Class E overlying the Class D ............
I don't know anyone who has a problem with Class D SFC-4500.
It is the overlying airspace that is the problem.
I don't know anyone who has a problem with Class D SFC-4500.
It is the overlying airspace that is the problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposed Class D upper limit is 2500' The holding altitude for the NDB is currently 2200' - 300' below the upper limit of Class D. Both RNAV approaches start outside the zone. Does this mean you could be holding in IMC at 2200' and have a unnown VFR overfly you in VMC with less than a 1000' seperation?
Dog One, yup! Less than 500' separation more importantly (we get around all the time with 500' between VFR and IFR.) There are two proposals, one from CASA and one from ASA, the ASA one has a much bigger Class D area (22nm and A045 I think.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500' sepration doesn't worry me, its the unknown aspect of the the VFR traffic that does. A missed approach would put out the top of the D airspace in around 30 secs, not much time to arrange seperation from unknown VFR traffic.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ACP gives the following airspace details
The airspace design will be
The design of the Class D is suitable for light aircraft, but certainly not RPT jet aircraft.
Half the RNAV approaches and holding patterns are outside the Class D CTR. The tower will be controlling both the Class D and surrounding E, possibly on difference frequencies.
I would suggest they forget the idea and stay with the present system, its simpler and safer at the moment. If paying passengers realised how unsafe the proposal is, the ensuing bad publicity will make interesting reading!
The airspace design will be
- Class D CTR surface to 2600 ft
- Class E Airspace steps shall contain the 2.5 degree descent profile from existing Class E airspace (currently F180) down to 3000 ft then 3 degrees to touchdown
- Lowest Class E airspace base at 700 AGL
- The steps beyond approx 30 nm shall be laterally limited to contain published ATS routes with applicable navigation tolerances.
- Class D is only active during ATC hours
- The Class E airspace under the jurisdictionl of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by BN Centre(and may be the tower frequency - the Class D CTR)
The design of the Class D is suitable for light aircraft, but certainly not RPT jet aircraft.
Half the RNAV approaches and holding patterns are outside the Class D CTR. The tower will be controlling both the Class D and surrounding E, possibly on difference frequencies.
I would suggest they forget the idea and stay with the present system, its simpler and safer at the moment. If paying passengers realised how unsafe the proposal is, the ensuing bad publicity will make interesting reading!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dog
Have the OAR decided on the height of the split between Tower and Centre airspace? A045?
Irrespective, if the split is below A100 [the lower it is the worse it is]
- VFR on descent and on climb out will have to monitor 2 E frequencies to have any idea of the adjoining/conflicting IFR traffic? How many comm's do VFR's generally have?
- IFR on descent and climb out will have to monitor 2 ATC frequencies for mostly silent VFR who could be on either, or in the process of changing freq!
Are the surrounding G [F] frequencies to be 'paired' with the Centre CTA E frequency?
How is the CTAF going to work outside tower hours?
Centre E down to 700agl
- Is the CTAF going to be a different frequency to the Centre Class E?
[it would have to be a separate frequency due the additional chatter loading on the 'huge' overlying sector]
- VFR and NVFR will [maybe] broadcast on the CTAF!
- IFR will have to 'actively' interact with both frequencies during high workload!
- IFR will have to 'cancel' with ATC below circuit height on approach [more likely after landing]! One in one out Centre based procedural control in the meantime!?
Who is designing this garbage?
The Class E airspace under the jurisdictionl of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by BN Centre(and may be the tower frequency - the Class D CTR)
Have the OAR decided on the height of the split between Tower and Centre airspace? A045?
Irrespective, if the split is below A100 [the lower it is the worse it is]
- VFR on descent and on climb out will have to monitor 2 E frequencies to have any idea of the adjoining/conflicting IFR traffic? How many comm's do VFR's generally have?
- IFR on descent and climb out will have to monitor 2 ATC frequencies for mostly silent VFR who could be on either, or in the process of changing freq!
Are the surrounding G [F] frequencies to be 'paired' with the Centre CTA E frequency?
How is the CTAF going to work outside tower hours?
Centre E down to 700agl
- Is the CTAF going to be a different frequency to the Centre Class E?
[it would have to be a separate frequency due the additional chatter loading on the 'huge' overlying sector]
- VFR and NVFR will [maybe] broadcast on the CTAF!
- IFR will have to 'actively' interact with both frequencies during high workload!
- IFR will have to 'cancel' with ATC below circuit height on approach [more likely after landing]! One in one out Centre based procedural control in the meantime!?
Who is designing this garbage?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
WOT was all that 
...........OMG!!!
Class C or G sounds like the Go!
ohh hang on that was Chuckspace or Scurvy D Dog Space.....CTA/OCTA........
What are you talking about Jaba!
...........OMG!!!Class C or G sounds like the Go!
ohh hang on that was Chuckspace or Scurvy D Dog Space.....CTA/OCTA........
What are you talking about Jaba!
Next year will be the 20th Anniverary of the commencement of the many unsuccessful attempts to change the "you're either in, or you're either out" airspace ... into something betterer ....
Talk about 20 years in the Aviation Hall of Doom ....
Talk about 20 years in the Aviation Hall of Doom ....
Twenty years of reforms to airspace or watching people sell their souls?
Could tell a lovely little story about an individual flogging his viewpoint on the need for airspace reform, and the arguement he picked with a number of pilots and how it went downhill from there....!
Could tell a lovely little story about an individual flogging his viewpoint on the need for airspace reform, and the arguement he picked with a number of pilots and how it went downhill from there....!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should be a very interesting WA RAPAC tomorrow I imagine. Given the assertions of YPJT operators on 'lack of consultation' regarding GAAP to E over D and some of the statements in a few recent aeronautical studies, I'd love to be a fly on the wall.
I am wondering if that shy, retiring 'shrinking violet,' aka Bloggs, might not have a few polite questions to put to the OAR reps regarding proposed airspace classifications in the NW.
It seems to me that history is repeating itself, particularly regarding GAAP: we never seem to learn. Under NAS, I don't think anyone ever convincingly identified a problem that needed solving. In this case I believe that we have a 'solution' looking for a problem.
There's a big difference between opinion and fact. NAS, from my perspective, was opinion-driven, not facts-driven. Regrettably, I perceive the same error being repeated and, for the life of me, cannot understand the rationale.
A famous philosopher once said 'Beware of preconceived goals and the attempt to use selective evidence to justify those goals. If thou pursuest that course, thou art condemned to failure' - Aerodonicus, 23BC.
Actually, that's BS; I made it up. But, IMHO, that's where we're at.
I am wondering if that shy, retiring 'shrinking violet,' aka Bloggs, might not have a few polite questions to put to the OAR reps regarding proposed airspace classifications in the NW.
It seems to me that history is repeating itself, particularly regarding GAAP: we never seem to learn. Under NAS, I don't think anyone ever convincingly identified a problem that needed solving. In this case I believe that we have a 'solution' looking for a problem.
There's a big difference between opinion and fact. NAS, from my perspective, was opinion-driven, not facts-driven. Regrettably, I perceive the same error being repeated and, for the life of me, cannot understand the rationale.
A famous philosopher once said 'Beware of preconceived goals and the attempt to use selective evidence to justify those goals. If thou pursuest that course, thou art condemned to failure' - Aerodonicus, 23BC.
Actually, that's BS; I made it up. But, IMHO, that's where we're at.
Should be a very interesting WA RAPAC tomorrow I imagine.
My experience has been while there has been much huff and puff leading up to RAPAC meetings about issues, on the day people have sat there meekly saying nothing ...........
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult to disagree with your thoughts Howabout 
. The GAAP to D fiasco will only bare its true impact after the horses are in the new paddock 
Re: Broome and Karratha, at the very least CASA through RAPAC are asking for [and saying a bit] regarding the airspace split. That is a good [if not late] start
I have a feeling that besides the good work already done by those who will operate through this airspace, there might be 'other interested' cavalry riding in to the discussions
with a similarly aligned view. All concerned need to continue communicating their views to each other 
strength in numbers and all that.
Keep up the good work all!
. The GAAP to D fiasco will only bare its true impact after the horses are in the new paddock Re: Broome and Karratha, at the very least CASA through RAPAC are asking for [and saying a bit] regarding the airspace split. That is a good [if not late] start
I have a feeling that besides the good work already done by those who will operate through this airspace, there might be 'other interested' cavalry riding in to the discussions
with a similarly aligned view. All concerned need to continue communicating their views to each other strength in numbers and all that.Keep up the good work all!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLX and CM,
Here's a real, not made up, one. If we could operate with this philosophy on airspace, how much better off would we be?
I'll leave it there.
Here's a real, not made up, one. If we could operate with this philosophy on airspace, how much better off would we be?
Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. ~Winston Churchill