Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: dessert island
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ah, I remember the days of flying in to broome with 10x C210, 6x C206, 3x Float planes, a sky diving plane, a F100 and a B737, all estimating within 5 minutes of each other
kept the 'broome radio' dude on his toes...
kept the 'broome radio' dude on his toes...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Cost/benefit/risk Question
During that wonderful period in our lives called NAS 2b, a number of controllers were quite adamant that Class C is no more resource intensive to run than Class E. If this is indeed the case; ie a higher level of safety can be provided for a similar cost, what happens if (God forbid) a VFR operating in non-surveillance Class E (and not talking) slams into an RPT carrying trusting, fare-paying passengers?
I can just imagine the questions that a smart aviation lawyer might put to the CASA CEO on behalf of family members during the subsequent class action.
"So, let's get this straight: you could actually have had a Class C service, where the controller responsible would have guaranteed separation between the two aircraft involved at no extra cost, yet you elected to provide an inferior level of service and a lot of people died as a consequence of your decision. Would you like to explain that to the court?"
I just fail to understand the logic on this one. I also don't think that some sort of defence pertaining to "VFR freedom of the skies" is going to wash in such a situation.
Why would anyone knowingly do this when a whole lot of expert witnesses, I imagine, would be lined up to testify that a higher level of safety could have been provided, but they were directed by the Regulator to provide less safety than they were capable of offering?
I can just imagine the questions that a smart aviation lawyer might put to the CASA CEO on behalf of family members during the subsequent class action.
"So, let's get this straight: you could actually have had a Class C service, where the controller responsible would have guaranteed separation between the two aircraft involved at no extra cost, yet you elected to provide an inferior level of service and a lot of people died as a consequence of your decision. Would you like to explain that to the court?"
I just fail to understand the logic on this one. I also don't think that some sort of defence pertaining to "VFR freedom of the skies" is going to wash in such a situation.
Why would anyone knowingly do this when a whole lot of expert witnesses, I imagine, would be lined up to testify that a higher level of safety could have been provided, but they were directed by the Regulator to provide less safety than they were capable of offering?
Howabout
The statement
is clearly a lie, ie. a mis-truth, a non-fact.
More importantly, what they left out was the fact that in Australia at airports like Albury the Controller who was responsible for the Class D airspace below was also responsible for separating aircraft in the Class C airspace above.
While Class C may have indeed been safer, the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above.
Some of our controllers maintained that they had some type of super-human abilities when compared to controllers in other countries, and they could indeed do this extra workload without any reduction in safety in the airspace where the collision risk was far higher.
To put it simply, Class C airspace is “safer” than Class E if it is properly manned and the proper tools are provided.
Why Controllers would be so foolish as to claim they could give a higher level of service when compared to Controllers in all other countries in the world - ie. Class C without radar and without adequate manning – is quite beyond me.
This only damages the credibility of Controllers when they are claiming that they can accept the extra workload when at the same time they are claiming that there are already not enough staff.
Howabout – the answer to your third paragraph would be as follows:
The statement
a number of controllers were quite adamant that Class C is no more resource intensive to run than Class E
More importantly, what they left out was the fact that in Australia at airports like Albury the Controller who was responsible for the Class D airspace below was also responsible for separating aircraft in the Class C airspace above.
While Class C may have indeed been safer, the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above.
Some of our controllers maintained that they had some type of super-human abilities when compared to controllers in other countries, and they could indeed do this extra workload without any reduction in safety in the airspace where the collision risk was far higher.
To put it simply, Class C airspace is “safer” than Class E if it is properly manned and the proper tools are provided.
Why Controllers would be so foolish as to claim they could give a higher level of service when compared to Controllers in all other countries in the world - ie. Class C without radar and without adequate manning – is quite beyond me.
This only damages the credibility of Controllers when they are claiming that they can accept the extra workload when at the same time they are claiming that there are already not enough staff.
Howabout – the answer to your third paragraph would be as follows:
I didn’t elect to provide an inferior level of service – it was the bosses who refused to provide proper manning and tools (ie. radar) for the Class C – that’s why I insisted that the airspace where I had no evidence of where a VFR aircraft was remained Class E as it is in the rest of the world.
If the airlines or their passengers wanted a Class C service above places like Albury or Broome, I would be quite happy to provide it as long as the service was correctly manned and correctly serviced by radar
If the airlines or their passengers wanted a Class C service above places like Albury or Broome, I would be quite happy to provide it as long as the service was correctly manned and correctly serviced by radar
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th Nov 2009 at 06:50.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a controller I believe that Class C is much safer than Class E.
I do not understand what is gained with Class E and question the benefits of controlling IFR aircraft (which may include vectoring aircraft) yet have other unidentified aircraft with an unverified level that are not talking to ATS. The big sky theory will continue to work well until the day, which I hope does not come, 2 aircraft come together in Class E.
That said thanks Dick for highlighting the fact that the ATC system should be resourced and staffed with safety in mind. It is about time that CASA and Government instruct Airservices to fix it and increase ATC numbers.
Unfortunately as mentioned in another post Airservices does not seem to acknowledge that staffing numbers must be increased. There seems little hope especially according to the interview with Airservices CEO published in the December 2009 Australian Aviation. This article continues to maintain the position "that it now has enough staff, and that the bigger issue was not the number of controllers, but how they were deployed".
Seems nothing is going to change any time soon (I hope I am mistaken)
I do not understand what is gained with Class E and question the benefits of controlling IFR aircraft (which may include vectoring aircraft) yet have other unidentified aircraft with an unverified level that are not talking to ATS. The big sky theory will continue to work well until the day, which I hope does not come, 2 aircraft come together in Class E.
That said thanks Dick for highlighting the fact that the ATC system should be resourced and staffed with safety in mind. It is about time that CASA and Government instruct Airservices to fix it and increase ATC numbers.
Unfortunately as mentioned in another post Airservices does not seem to acknowledge that staffing numbers must be increased. There seems little hope especially according to the interview with Airservices CEO published in the December 2009 Australian Aviation. This article continues to maintain the position "that it now has enough staff, and that the bigger issue was not the number of controllers, but how they were deployed".
Seems nothing is going to change any time soon (I hope I am mistaken)
Last edited by twisties; 24th Nov 2009 at 10:44.
Dick, please explain how separating IFR in C is any more resource intensive than separating IFR in E. Both require a controller.
We're not interested in running any sort of airspace without adequate staffing. For the 86 billionth time you are being told it's all about resources. We're not the ones demanding change for the sake of change.
If you're so interested in safety why aren't you asking hard questions of Airservices instead of apparently believing what you're told by them? Ask them why are we continuing down this road instead of consolidating?
The only credibility damaged is yours by calling people liars. Nicely done using the anonymity of the forums to attack posters.
We're not interested in running any sort of airspace without adequate staffing. For the 86 billionth time you are being told it's all about resources. We're not the ones demanding change for the sake of change.
If you're so interested in safety why aren't you asking hard questions of Airservices instead of apparently believing what you're told by them? Ask them why are we continuing down this road instead of consolidating?
The only credibility damaged is yours by calling people liars. Nicely done using the anonymity of the forums to attack posters.
Derr' It's more resource intensive because a controller also has to separate VFR from IFR in C !
Why do you keep saying controllers can provide this upgraded service with the same staffing and equipment as E ?
No wonder you are exploited.
I suggest you talk to a US or Canadian ATC and ask them if they would be happy to convert their E above D to C without extra manpower and radar.
They would say they are not that foolish!
So why are you- or is it just resistance to change?
Why do you keep saying controllers can provide this upgraded service with the same staffing and equipment as E ?
No wonder you are exploited.
I suggest you talk to a US or Canadian ATC and ask them if they would be happy to convert their E above D to C without extra manpower and radar.
They would say they are not that foolish!
So why are you- or is it just resistance to change?
Dick,
1. Can you please provide the data to support your statement that ...
".....the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above."
That is , on what occasions has there been a safety issue ... or is it just your "best guess"?
2. Your statement ...
"...Derr' It's more resource intensive because a controller also has to separate VFR from IFR in C !"
may sound valid to the uninitiated.. that is, of course, unless you are a Controller and understand that it is quite often safer, easier and quicker to positively separate a VFR from an IFR ... rather than guess where the VFR may go and continuously vector an IFR (hopefully) around him. That is, assuming you have the surveillance capability to know where both aircraft are. And quicker means you can move on to another task.... hence it's less resource intensive.
1. Can you please provide the data to support your statement that ...
".....the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above."
That is , on what occasions has there been a safety issue ... or is it just your "best guess"?
2. Your statement ...
"...Derr' It's more resource intensive because a controller also has to separate VFR from IFR in C !"
may sound valid to the uninitiated.. that is, of course, unless you are a Controller and understand that it is quite often safer, easier and quicker to positively separate a VFR from an IFR ... rather than guess where the VFR may go and continuously vector an IFR (hopefully) around him. That is, assuming you have the surveillance capability to know where both aircraft are. And quicker means you can move on to another task.... hence it's less resource intensive.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick....
Im still not sure whether you don't understand what you are talking about, or are self-delusional about YOUR abilities (in that you know better about ATC than actual controllers).
You have repeated this lie, this untruth, many times, and had it explained to you before.
Another BLATANT lie. Controllers in oz have never said this. They have merely pointed out that if you add VFR workload in oz , it is an enormously small workload compared to if you added VFR workload to towers in the US of A, where there is ****eloads more VFR traffic, and they couldn't do it without many more controllers. Read peuce's post. If there were a very large number of VFRs operating around an airport (like they have in the states) then more resources would be required.
"A lie told a hundred times........" And you certainly like telling them a hundred times, Dick.
the Class D would immeasurably drop in safety when the single controller in the tower was attempting to control circuit traffic close to the airport as well as separating an IFR and VFR enroute aircraft possibly twenty miles away in the C airspace above
Some of our controllers maintained that they had some type of super-human abilities when compared to controllers in other countries, and they could indeed do this extra workload without any reduction in safety
"A lie told a hundred times........" And you certainly like telling them a hundred times, Dick.
Peuce
I’ll try and explain it a little more basically, but please open up your mind.
The airports being talked about in this thread are Broome and Karratha. At the present time, Controllers provide a traffic information service on known traffic to IFR aircraft descending into and climbing out of these airports. In such cases, the Air Traffic Controllers have no idea of what VFR aircraft are present in the link airspace and therefore they do not give traffic on these VFR aircraft nor, in my forty years’ experience in aviation, have I ever heard a Controller claim that there is a safety problem with this.
If we upgrade the link airspace at these two airports to Class E, Controllers then suddenly start raving about VFR aircraft and how they have some type of responsibility to the IFR to give traffic. This is rubbish! If the G link airspace is acceptable to Controllers and pilots at the present time where a VFR traffic information or separation service is not given it is obvious that upgrading it to a Class E can only improve safely.
Simply, Peuce, at the present time at these airports in the link airspace you are not separating IFR from VFR as it’s Class G. There is no reason if it upgrades to Class E that you the have an obligation or a safety reason to separate the IFR from the VFR.
Obviously at these two airports you do not have a “surveillance capability” so you do not have an obligation to give an IFR to VFR traffic or information service – just as you don’t in the Class G airspace at the present time.
Set in concrete in your minds is in the old days before we introduced the ICAO airspace classifications where Controllers separated absolutely everything from each other – or gave no service at all.
Believe it or not, world aviation experts have decided that it’s better to have a graded response with classifications from G to A. The reason for this is that it is a more effective way of allocating finite and limited safety resources.
In relation to where there has been a safety issue in Class D, a simple but slightly different example was the incident at Hamilton Island where a competent Controller nearly put two airline aircraft together. Of course, what was covered up by the ATSB (they would not release the transcript) was that the Controller was also communicating to other aircraft which were unnecessarily increasing the workload.
This is exactly what would happen when Class C airspace exists above and the D Controller in the tower below is also responsible for communicating with VFR aircraft in the link airspace above.
To put it even more simply, you seem to think that you have a different obligation in relation to VFR traffic in Class G to Class E. In fact, you don’t. Get yourself informed. In relation to VFR, Class E and Class G are identical – nowhere are you complaining about Class G into airports with jet traffic such as Ballina and Ayers Rock.
Of course, if the two airlines had hit in that particular incident at Hamilton Island and hundreds of people had been killed, we would have then moved to the proven international procedures where Controllers concentrate where the collision risk is highest, and in the link airspace a lower classification of airspace is wisely provided.
Ferris - you are wrong. At Karratha and Broome the Class E airspace will not add VFR workload to Controllers. As there is no radar coverage in the area, the VFR aircraft in the link airspace above will be invisible and not be a responsibility to the Controller. This is exactly the present position where Class G airspace exists.
Ferris, why don’t you actually ask some Controllers from Canada, the USA or Europe how the system works and why they so strongly support it? They are sensible and professional, and they don’t want to be responsible for airspace that is so far away and where they have no surveillance capability as they cannot provide a proper service – it is obvious.
I’ll try and explain it a little more basically, but please open up your mind.
The airports being talked about in this thread are Broome and Karratha. At the present time, Controllers provide a traffic information service on known traffic to IFR aircraft descending into and climbing out of these airports. In such cases, the Air Traffic Controllers have no idea of what VFR aircraft are present in the link airspace and therefore they do not give traffic on these VFR aircraft nor, in my forty years’ experience in aviation, have I ever heard a Controller claim that there is a safety problem with this.
If we upgrade the link airspace at these two airports to Class E, Controllers then suddenly start raving about VFR aircraft and how they have some type of responsibility to the IFR to give traffic. This is rubbish! If the G link airspace is acceptable to Controllers and pilots at the present time where a VFR traffic information or separation service is not given it is obvious that upgrading it to a Class E can only improve safely.
Simply, Peuce, at the present time at these airports in the link airspace you are not separating IFR from VFR as it’s Class G. There is no reason if it upgrades to Class E that you the have an obligation or a safety reason to separate the IFR from the VFR.
Obviously at these two airports you do not have a “surveillance capability” so you do not have an obligation to give an IFR to VFR traffic or information service – just as you don’t in the Class G airspace at the present time.
Set in concrete in your minds is in the old days before we introduced the ICAO airspace classifications where Controllers separated absolutely everything from each other – or gave no service at all.
Believe it or not, world aviation experts have decided that it’s better to have a graded response with classifications from G to A. The reason for this is that it is a more effective way of allocating finite and limited safety resources.
In relation to where there has been a safety issue in Class D, a simple but slightly different example was the incident at Hamilton Island where a competent Controller nearly put two airline aircraft together. Of course, what was covered up by the ATSB (they would not release the transcript) was that the Controller was also communicating to other aircraft which were unnecessarily increasing the workload.
This is exactly what would happen when Class C airspace exists above and the D Controller in the tower below is also responsible for communicating with VFR aircraft in the link airspace above.
To put it even more simply, you seem to think that you have a different obligation in relation to VFR traffic in Class G to Class E. In fact, you don’t. Get yourself informed. In relation to VFR, Class E and Class G are identical – nowhere are you complaining about Class G into airports with jet traffic such as Ballina and Ayers Rock.
Of course, if the two airlines had hit in that particular incident at Hamilton Island and hundreds of people had been killed, we would have then moved to the proven international procedures where Controllers concentrate where the collision risk is highest, and in the link airspace a lower classification of airspace is wisely provided.
Ferris - you are wrong. At Karratha and Broome the Class E airspace will not add VFR workload to Controllers. As there is no radar coverage in the area, the VFR aircraft in the link airspace above will be invisible and not be a responsibility to the Controller. This is exactly the present position where Class G airspace exists.
Ferris, why don’t you actually ask some Controllers from Canada, the USA or Europe how the system works and why they so strongly support it? They are sensible and professional, and they don’t want to be responsible for airspace that is so far away and where they have no surveillance capability as they cannot provide a proper service – it is obvious.
Bloggsy
Surely you are joking? The change is self-evident. If we upgrade Karratha and Broome to Class D and E from it’s present Class G, we have a safety improvement.
Give me a phone call some time and I’ll try and explain it to you.
Surely you are joking? The change is self-evident. If we upgrade Karratha and Broome to Class D and E from it’s present Class G, we have a safety improvement.
Give me a phone call some time and I’ll try and explain it to you.
Hi dick,
I've worked the airspace which you refer to. I know exactly the traffic and where and where it flies. These aerodromes desperately need towers. However, I think the class E situation is probably more work for the controller than you think. I would far prefer to have positive separation between a jet with 150 people than hoping the VFR piper arrow that reported inbound broome to overfly has seen the the jet flying at 250knots descending through clouds above at 1500ft per/min plus. The simple fact is I will have to pass traffic info to the outbound/inbound jet on the reported VFR if he has reported on frequency that he overflying the area and their may possibly be an airprox/collision. I would be in jail if I didn't pass the traffic to the jet on the VFR, even if your procedures said I did the right thing or not.
For me its quite simple. If the clearance to travel trough a class C steps is not available because I don't have a separation standard with departing/inbound jets, the vfr doesn't get a clearance. He has to fly around. Maybe a VFR corridor would be more suitable therefore limiting the area in which VFR aircraft can fly and allow the jet to depart while assuring they are not in conflict with VFR traffic.
In a surveillance area, there is no way in hell I am going to let one of my jets fly into a VFR aircraft. I will not/ cannot give a clearance for a jet to fly into another plane. This is what your class E insists I do. This possibly means I will vector/clear my IFR aircraft so not to give a clearance that will put the IFR aircraft in direct conflict with an VFR aircraft like you insist.
If at any stage the aircraft becomes known to the controller via a radio call, then it is not invisible and I think we are more than obligated to pass the information to the IFR aircraft.
I believe the separation in the class C steps would be done by the area controller in the centers. The tower would only have upto 5-6000ish, correct me if I am wrong.
Dick, I don't understand why they just don't make it C airspace. Therefore we know we have separation for the RPT jets. I guess it comes down to what you think is better. Is it better that the student pilot gets to fly over broome as he pleases whether in conflict with RPT jet traffic conflicting or not? Or is it better that the VFR gets denied a clearance once in a while and you can be absolutely sure they won't clean up a Jet on the way in/out?
I've worked the airspace which you refer to. I know exactly the traffic and where and where it flies. These aerodromes desperately need towers. However, I think the class E situation is probably more work for the controller than you think. I would far prefer to have positive separation between a jet with 150 people than hoping the VFR piper arrow that reported inbound broome to overfly has seen the the jet flying at 250knots descending through clouds above at 1500ft per/min plus. The simple fact is I will have to pass traffic info to the outbound/inbound jet on the reported VFR if he has reported on frequency that he overflying the area and their may possibly be an airprox/collision. I would be in jail if I didn't pass the traffic to the jet on the VFR, even if your procedures said I did the right thing or not.
For me its quite simple. If the clearance to travel trough a class C steps is not available because I don't have a separation standard with departing/inbound jets, the vfr doesn't get a clearance. He has to fly around. Maybe a VFR corridor would be more suitable therefore limiting the area in which VFR aircraft can fly and allow the jet to depart while assuring they are not in conflict with VFR traffic.
In a surveillance area, there is no way in hell I am going to let one of my jets fly into a VFR aircraft. I will not/ cannot give a clearance for a jet to fly into another plane. This is what your class E insists I do. This possibly means I will vector/clear my IFR aircraft so not to give a clearance that will put the IFR aircraft in direct conflict with an VFR aircraft like you insist.
the VFR aircraft in the link airspace above will be invisible and not be a responsibility to the Controller
This is exactly what would happen when Class C airspace exists above and the D Controller in the tower below is also responsible for communicating with VFR aircraft in the link airspace above.
Dick, I don't understand why they just don't make it C airspace. Therefore we know we have separation for the RPT jets. I guess it comes down to what you think is better. Is it better that the student pilot gets to fly over broome as he pleases whether in conflict with RPT jet traffic conflicting or not? Or is it better that the VFR gets denied a clearance once in a while and you can be absolutely sure they won't clean up a Jet on the way in/out?
Last edited by mikk_13; 24th Nov 2009 at 22:55.
Why do you keep saying controllers can provide this upgraded service with the same staffing and equipment as E ?
No wonder you are exploited.
I suggest you talk to a US or Canadian ATC and ask them if they would be happy to convert their E above D to C without extra manpower and radar.
They would say they are not that foolish!
So why are you- or is it just resistance to change?
No wonder you are exploited.
I suggest you talk to a US or Canadian ATC and ask them if they would be happy to convert their E above D to C without extra manpower and radar.
They would say they are not that foolish!
So why are you- or is it just resistance to change?
As I keep repeating & repeating & repeating. And you keep failing & failing & failing to listen: anything can be done with the appropriate resources. Give us the resources. Appropriate surveillance, appropriate sectors, appropriate staffing, appropriate equipment. Unfortunately our Dear Leader is on a mission from God (or is it Mammon) & won't listen.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hamsterdam
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where would DG&P without all of this airspace, secotorisation workload, confusion, chaos and reduced safety levels. Year after year it continues much to the embarrassment of Australia; the place that had the simplest, most functionally efficient, effective and safest airspace with the added bonus of SERVICE to the industry. A world best standard, admired by many in the USA. CTA and OCTA, FS and ATC, dependant upon complexity, density and type of operation. The Howardism by Dick of sycophantic surrogacy to copy someone elses nightmare. But its not Dicks fault - as often is the case, it is the non-accountable politician that enabled a power base to cause this. But we are slowly slowly getting back to common sense, in different terms of course. So off you all go again and I will continue to read, shake my head and chuckle. 
Mikk 13
VFR aircraft that are currently over flying Karratha and Broome in the link airspace are currently not calling Air Traffic Control so you can give them as traffic to the IFR airline aircraft. Why aren’t they doing that? Because it’s not a required procedure and it’s not an effective way of allocating our resources.
Why then would a VFR aircraft have to or want to call you when flying through Class E airspace at the same locations?
In the USA, Canada or indeed Europe, if VFR aircraft called up Air Traffic Control in Class E non-radar and gave a position report, it would tend to bring the system to a halt. In fact, Air Traffic Controllers and regulatory authorities do not allow such position reports, as that’s what Class D or higher airspace is allocated for – not Class E.
You state
I agree with you. That’s why in every other modern aviation country, VFR aircraft are not allowed to make random position reports to ATC in Class E airspace. They can request flight following in radar covered airspace and this is always workload permitting at Controller discretion.
You state,
I hope you are wrong. That would be a completely unique system that has never been attempted anywhere else in the world.
At the present time, the Centre is responsible for the link airspace above Broome and Karratha and does not provide a separation or even a traffic service to VFR aircraft. Why, then, would we want to provide this unique service with Class E when there is no measurable safety reason for it.
You don’t seem to understand that airspace has to be allocated in relation to an objective criteria. At the present, your student pilot flies over Broome and Karratha without getting a separation or a traffic information service. Why, then, would it need to change because we are going to upgrade the terminal airspace below to Class D?
Tobzalp, the requirement for a terminal radar in all Class C still remains. No Minister will ever remove that requirement whilst it is accepted practice in every other modern aviation country.
I know some Aussie Controllers are prepared to have a cheaper and lower safety service here - where they somehow “guesstimate” - where the VFR aircraft is in non-radar C, but no professional controller anywhere else in the world would be prepared to provide such an amateurish system.
Fortunately, the Minister understands this and the directive remains.
I’m amazed that Civil Air do not come out and support this directive, ie. if Air Traffic Controllers are going to be made responsible for separating IFR and VFR aircraft behind visual range, they must have the tools to do it – radar and proper manning levels.
Green Goblin – yes, I agree with you, the days of unaffordable safety were far better. That was when perpetual motion machines ran amok and Joe Bjelke-Petersen’s water-fuelled car was on the building blocks!
VFR aircraft that are currently over flying Karratha and Broome in the link airspace are currently not calling Air Traffic Control so you can give them as traffic to the IFR airline aircraft. Why aren’t they doing that? Because it’s not a required procedure and it’s not an effective way of allocating our resources.
Why then would a VFR aircraft have to or want to call you when flying through Class E airspace at the same locations?
In the USA, Canada or indeed Europe, if VFR aircraft called up Air Traffic Control in Class E non-radar and gave a position report, it would tend to bring the system to a halt. In fact, Air Traffic Controllers and regulatory authorities do not allow such position reports, as that’s what Class D or higher airspace is allocated for – not Class E.
You state
If at any stage the aircraft becomes known to the controller via a radio call, then it is not invisible and I think we are more than obligated to pass the information to the IFR aircraft.
You state,
I believe the separation in the class C steps would be done by the area controller in the centres. The tower would only have up to 5-6000ish, correct me if I am wrong.
At the present time, the Centre is responsible for the link airspace above Broome and Karratha and does not provide a separation or even a traffic service to VFR aircraft. Why, then, would we want to provide this unique service with Class E when there is no measurable safety reason for it.
You don’t seem to understand that airspace has to be allocated in relation to an objective criteria. At the present, your student pilot flies over Broome and Karratha without getting a separation or a traffic information service. Why, then, would it need to change because we are going to upgrade the terminal airspace below to Class D?
Tobzalp, the requirement for a terminal radar in all Class C still remains. No Minister will ever remove that requirement whilst it is accepted practice in every other modern aviation country.
I know some Aussie Controllers are prepared to have a cheaper and lower safety service here - where they somehow “guesstimate” - where the VFR aircraft is in non-radar C, but no professional controller anywhere else in the world would be prepared to provide such an amateurish system.
Fortunately, the Minister understands this and the directive remains.
I’m amazed that Civil Air do not come out and support this directive, ie. if Air Traffic Controllers are going to be made responsible for separating IFR and VFR aircraft behind visual range, they must have the tools to do it – radar and proper manning levels.
Green Goblin – yes, I agree with you, the days of unaffordable safety were far better. That was when perpetual motion machines ran amok and Joe Bjelke-Petersen’s water-fuelled car was on the building blocks!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the current NAS radio reporting requirements, a VFR in class G should be on the appropriate CTAF frequency if they are in the approach/departure path near an aerodrome. That way if they hear an IFR, say RPT jet, inbound/outbound in confliction they can pipe up and self-announce to organise separation.
In class E, there would be no requirement for them to even be on the frequency nor to make any announcements.
How is this safer?
My understanding may be wrong, and feel free to correct me.
Cheers,
NFR.
In class E, there would be no requirement for them to even be on the frequency nor to make any announcements.
How is this safer?
My understanding may be wrong, and feel free to correct me.
Cheers,
NFR.
no further requirements – you are wrong in relation to Class E. Australia has completely unique radio requirements for VFR aircraft in Class E. No other country in the world has such a requirement.
I have just looked at one of the documents put out by Airservices Australia which states,
This is not Class E airspace. Can you imagine Civil Air allowed their Controllers to be put in this invidious position because the airlines wanted to turn E airspace into some type of Class D, but without paying for Class D.
As I said before, I simply can’t believe that the ATC union can so let down their members by having a Class E airspace which clearly makes Air Traffic Controllers responsible for traffic and, in some cases, separation between IFR and VFR aircraft.
If Air Traffic Controllers stood up for their rights they should say that this is not Class E airspace, and they will operate it as Class C but terminal radar and proper staff levels must be provided as per the Minister’s Directive – it is all pretty obvious.
I have just looked at one of the documents put out by Airservices Australia which states,
VFR pilots operating in Class E airspace should monitor the frequency of the ATS unit responsible for that airspace. When aware of any impending conflict with other traffic, pilots should also alert the ATS unit (or the other pilot, where more appropriate) to their presence.
As I said before, I simply can’t believe that the ATC union can so let down their members by having a Class E airspace which clearly makes Air Traffic Controllers responsible for traffic and, in some cases, separation between IFR and VFR aircraft.
If Air Traffic Controllers stood up for their rights they should say that this is not Class E airspace, and they will operate it as Class C but terminal radar and proper staff levels must be provided as per the Minister’s Directive – it is all pretty obvious.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Nov 2009 at 04:55.