Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
Dick,
In post after post you seem to be encouraging, nay, demanding that VFRs shut up ... so that they can become "invisible" to ATC.
I hate to tell you this, but they are still there ... and they are still jet fodder ... whether they maintain radio silence or not.
Shouldn't we, in the interests of maximum reasonable safety, encourage them to speak up, so the Controller can deal with the situation ... which he couldn't do in Class G, other than provide traffic info ... but can now, because he can budge the Jet?
Yes, perhaps a bit more workload, but geez ... most of us don't think the alternative is too attractive..
In post after post you seem to be encouraging, nay, demanding that VFRs shut up ... so that they can become "invisible" to ATC.
I hate to tell you this, but they are still there ... and they are still jet fodder ... whether they maintain radio silence or not.
Shouldn't we, in the interests of maximum reasonable safety, encourage them to speak up, so the Controller can deal with the situation ... which he couldn't do in Class G, other than provide traffic info ... but can now, because he can budge the Jet?
Yes, perhaps a bit more workload, but geez ... most of us don't think the alternative is too attractive..
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats where your argument fails Mr Smith!
1. VFR self announcing a conflict in E is nothing like D, as the Controller can take no action to separate them, in D they can
2. Is there a cost difference between
airlines [IFR] paying for CTA E or D? I think not!
3. VFR position reporting and separation in C can be based on many things including prominent topographical features
4. Civilair it seems listen to reality from 'actual' ATCO's in Australia. Silly would be to put ATCO's in a postion of having information [surveillance and/or radio] and not giving them the rules [or legislative protection] to effect safe resolution [class E]
5. ICAO does not mandate surveillance for C or E
6. C steps [with or without surveillance] have operated in Australia safely for many years
7. Paired ICAO D and C CTR/A towers work effectively [otherwise where are the incident and accident reports]
Here are a couple of bits and pieces to consider from the US
A. D towers are being promulgated for 90K GA moves P.A. Are you advocating Class D towers at Australian airports with greater than 90K P.A. GA moves?
B. TRSA [radar based VFR opt in ICAO D] are being replaced by C [SFC to Fl's]. Are you advocating C or B in Australia where traffic density and mix is similar to those of US TRSA's [past and present]?
Questions for you to ponder:-
1. Why does Class E play a starring role in the vast majority NMAC and MAC reports in the US? I guess you will find out soon enough [in the airspace over 4 Airports with Passenger Jet Services]!
2. Should the classification of airspace in a given area be determined via legislated Safety and Cost V Benefit process/es?
1. VFR self announcing a conflict in E is nothing like D, as the Controller can take no action to separate them, in D they can
2. Is there a cost difference between
because the airlines wanted to turn E airspace into some type of Class D, but without paying for Class D.
3. VFR position reporting and separation in C can be based on many things including prominent topographical features
4. Civilair it seems listen to reality from 'actual' ATCO's in Australia. Silly would be to put ATCO's in a postion of having information [surveillance and/or radio] and not giving them the rules [or legislative protection] to effect safe resolution [class E]
5. ICAO does not mandate surveillance for C or E
6. C steps [with or without surveillance] have operated in Australia safely for many years
7. Paired ICAO D and C CTR/A towers work effectively [otherwise where are the incident and accident reports]
Here are a couple of bits and pieces to consider from the US
A. D towers are being promulgated for 90K GA moves P.A. Are you advocating Class D towers at Australian airports with greater than 90K P.A. GA moves?
B. TRSA [radar based VFR opt in ICAO D] are being replaced by C [SFC to Fl's]. Are you advocating C or B in Australia where traffic density and mix is similar to those of US TRSA's [past and present]?
Questions for you to ponder:-
1. Why does Class E play a starring role in the vast majority NMAC and MAC reports in the US? I guess you will find out soon enough [in the airspace over 4 Airports with Passenger Jet Services]!
2. Should the classification of airspace in a given area be determined via legislated Safety and Cost V Benefit process/es?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hamsterdam
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality vs theory, fact vs fantasy.
Every single time I have provided merging traffic info to V to V, never mind V to I in any airspace and offered separation/segregation the pilots have concurred to the service. Every single time.
Every single time I have provided merging traffic info to V to V, never mind V to I in any airspace and offered separation/segregation the pilots have concurred to the service. Every single time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read all the previous posts several times, I cannot see the need for E airspace outside of radar. At the moment, on descent into Broome, ATC advise any IFR traffic and thats it. We self announce our position in relation to Broome leaving F180. We monitor Broome CTAF and call inbound with what traffice we have gleaned from monitoring the CTAF frequency. The balance of the traffic is given by the CAGRO. We then organise our inbound track to advoid the traffice and track to the aerodrome, monitoring our TCAS to ensure that we haven't a foreigner utilising his freedom to fly.
So now what additional safety benefit does E airspace give me and the 100+ pax sitting behind me. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Being IFR, I will be under postive control, ie track via, descend to, call Broome Tower. I cannot vary my tracking without a clearance, but the unknown VFR aircraft can, and unless he/she has very good eyesight, might not see me approaching above a cloud layer. The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on. ( You will be surprised at the amount of VFR traffic that does not show up on TCAS until prompted about their transponder status)
From the above posts, the fundament difference between C & E is VFR either require a clearance or not. It still takes a controller to work the sector, regardless of it being C or E. So where is the benefit? Why is there E airspace between F180 to F245 west of Darwin. What is the advantage of this? Why not C from F180 to F600?
Why change the present system at Broome, their is no benefit to the RPT aircraft and their fare paying passengers.
So now what additional safety benefit does E airspace give me and the 100+ pax sitting behind me. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Being IFR, I will be under postive control, ie track via, descend to, call Broome Tower. I cannot vary my tracking without a clearance, but the unknown VFR aircraft can, and unless he/she has very good eyesight, might not see me approaching above a cloud layer. The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on. ( You will be surprised at the amount of VFR traffic that does not show up on TCAS until prompted about their transponder status)
From the above posts, the fundament difference between C & E is VFR either require a clearance or not. It still takes a controller to work the sector, regardless of it being C or E. So where is the benefit? Why is there E airspace between F180 to F245 west of Darwin. What is the advantage of this? Why not C from F180 to F600?
Why change the present system at Broome, their is no benefit to the RPT aircraft and their fare paying passengers.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Does this mean that VFR pilots operating in Class E airspace should monitor is purely optional or are we trusting safety on the possibility of an inexperienced flyer missing IFR that are under full control.
What is the benefit of Class E?
It has been achieved again.... an ongoing agenda diverting away from the specific thread. Thanks though for the opportunity to get an explanation of what is gained with Class E (link airspace?)
I understand that a CASA airspace review was the driving reason behind Class D ATS Towers to be provided at Broome and Karratha.
How many controller will be required for each tower? And more importantly, where are they going to come from, seeing that there is a shortage of controllers in Australia.
What is being done to address the shortage of ATC?
I think the GAAP's need about 30ish staff all up. We need about 6.
In reading the arguements, I can't for the life of me see an advantage to pilots if it is E or G. VFR's are invisible to the controller for all intents and purposes in both cases... so what is the actual difference to an IFR pilot? They still get traffic on the other known IFR??
All it will do is slow IFR aircraft down while we separate them on what is most likely a CAVOK day and they can clearly see the other aircraft. At least from what I can garner here.
In reading the arguements, I can't for the life of me see an advantage to pilots if it is E or G. VFR's are invisible to the controller for all intents and purposes in both cases... so what is the actual difference to an IFR pilot? They still get traffic on the other known IFR??
All it will do is slow IFR aircraft down while we separate them on what is most likely a CAVOK day and they can clearly see the other aircraft. At least from what I can garner here.
By the way, let me remind everyone of the informative statement made by Voice of Reason on this site a number of years ago in relation to class E airspace and United States practice.
Class E Airspace and United States Practice
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
Dick,
I guess you're going to keep that quote safely in your hip pocket until they lower you into that big hole ...
But seriously, my questions are ( and I'm getting sick of the sound of my own questions, over and over again):
I guess you're going to keep that quote safely in your hip pocket until they lower you into that big hole ...
But seriously, my questions are ( and I'm getting sick of the sound of my own questions, over and over again):
- Does our "National Carrier" fly through non-surveillance Class E in the States?
- As I've said before, the Yanks have to compromise ... because of their geography, traffic density, aerodrome density, weather etc ... we don't (is that a question?)
- If there was no cost difference in providing Class E or Class C above Broome, which would you rather ... and why?
If there was no cost difference in providing Class E or Class C above Broome, which would you rather ... and why?
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.
And don't give me the "I mandated transponders in E" stuff - even you could see that E is such a crazy idea that at least transponders would give some modicum of sensibility - not that you wanted to...
Peuce
It is almost as if you don’t understand the English language. You state
I will explain it again as I have done before.
If Class C airspace could be provided over Broome without reducing the safety in other airspace I would support it.
Quite clearly, if we have C airspace over the D at Broome, the Controller in the D tower will also be responsible for some of this C. Airservices data shows that the risk of a collision below 5,000 feet is something like one hundred times greater than the risk of a collision above 5,000 feet. This is obvious, as planes get together at lower altitudes and when coming into an airport. Let me explain it again as simply as possible.
If the Controller responsible for the D airspace is also given the responsibility for the C airspace above – but not just with the same classification but with even a more complex and difficult classification to work with, ie. VFR must be separated from IFR not just given traffic – there is a good chance that when the Controller moves his or her attention away from the D airspace close to the aerodrome to concentrate on lower risk aircraft in the C airspace above, that a collision could occur in the airspace close to the aerodrome area because off this diffusion of concentration.
This is the only reason I understand that countries like the US, Canada and Europe have small Class D volumes and larger E volumes in the low risk link airspace above.
No, our national carrier does not fly through non-surveillance Class E in the States because our national carrier only goes to major city airports. However, if our national carrier went to airports equivalent to Broome or Ballina in the USA, it would fly through non-radar airspace. Of course, in the USA they do not allow airlines to operate in G airspace – it’s only Australia and a few countries in Africa that allow this.
Put simply, the airspace in the United States, Canada and Europe is allocated using a scientific criteria. Our airspace tends to be allocated on the history of how we did it in the past and resistance to change.
By the way, why would you want to put C airspace above Broome and D airspace below? Surely the classifications are reversed? The D should be in the link airspace and the C should be in the terminal airspace where the risks are higher if you wanted to use Class C at all.
It is almost as if you don’t understand the English language. You state
If there was no cost difference in providing Class E or Class C above Broome, which would you rather ... and why?
If Class C airspace could be provided over Broome without reducing the safety in other airspace I would support it.
Quite clearly, if we have C airspace over the D at Broome, the Controller in the D tower will also be responsible for some of this C. Airservices data shows that the risk of a collision below 5,000 feet is something like one hundred times greater than the risk of a collision above 5,000 feet. This is obvious, as planes get together at lower altitudes and when coming into an airport. Let me explain it again as simply as possible.
If the Controller responsible for the D airspace is also given the responsibility for the C airspace above – but not just with the same classification but with even a more complex and difficult classification to work with, ie. VFR must be separated from IFR not just given traffic – there is a good chance that when the Controller moves his or her attention away from the D airspace close to the aerodrome to concentrate on lower risk aircraft in the C airspace above, that a collision could occur in the airspace close to the aerodrome area because off this diffusion of concentration.
This is the only reason I understand that countries like the US, Canada and Europe have small Class D volumes and larger E volumes in the low risk link airspace above.
No, our national carrier does not fly through non-surveillance Class E in the States because our national carrier only goes to major city airports. However, if our national carrier went to airports equivalent to Broome or Ballina in the USA, it would fly through non-radar airspace. Of course, in the USA they do not allow airlines to operate in G airspace – it’s only Australia and a few countries in Africa that allow this.
Put simply, the airspace in the United States, Canada and Europe is allocated using a scientific criteria. Our airspace tends to be allocated on the history of how we did it in the past and resistance to change.
By the way, why would you want to put C airspace above Broome and D airspace below? Surely the classifications are reversed? The D should be in the link airspace and the C should be in the terminal airspace where the risks are higher if you wanted to use Class C at all.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bloggs
Maybe the CAO XX whatever it is should be rewritten to include apart from a compass and ASI a radio and Transponder with air or gear switch.
Maybe the CAO XX whatever it is should be rewritten to include apart from a compass and ASI a radio and Transponder with air or gear switch.
Capn Bloggs
It’s obvious that your mind is totally set in concrete. I’m amazed that you are not asking to go back onto DC4s because they have four engines, not just two as in the jets you are flying now.
Of course, four engines have a perception of being safer than two, so pilots should rely on perception, not reality.
Bloggsy, it’s exactly the same with Class E – you have a perception that it’s not safe, however that’s not true. You state
I suggest you read Link #49 again – this was from Voice of Reason that was so widely applauded by professional pilots and air traffic controllers on this website.
I haven’t seen anyone state that the claims in the post on airspace by Voice of Reason are wrong.
It’s obvious that your mind is totally set in concrete. I’m amazed that you are not asking to go back onto DC4s because they have four engines, not just two as in the jets you are flying now.
Of course, four engines have a perception of being safer than two, so pilots should rely on perception, not reality.
Bloggsy, it’s exactly the same with Class E – you have a perception that it’s not safe, however that’s not true. You state
E is such a crazy idea
I haven’t seen anyone state that the claims in the post on airspace by Voice of Reason are wrong.
Dick
Who is going to carry the workload of providing the E service? You're ignoring the increased workload involved if it's being assigned to an existing sector. Separation is more labour intensive than providing traffic & you can bet there won't be a new sector created.
So you're quite happy with increasing the risk in the overlying sector because by your own argument they may become distracted by the extra workload? Particularly if they're having to provide it down to a very low level.
You aren't reducing risk, you're just transferring it elsewhere.
Who is going to carry the workload of providing the E service? You're ignoring the increased workload involved if it's being assigned to an existing sector. Separation is more labour intensive than providing traffic & you can bet there won't be a new sector created.
So you're quite happy with increasing the risk in the overlying sector because by your own argument they may become distracted by the extra workload? Particularly if they're having to provide it down to a very low level.
You aren't reducing risk, you're just transferring it elsewhere.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Applauding the sage words on process!
Whay would they? The quotes in context aren't in conflict with comments by others on these threads. Lets look at what the quote says:-
I say again, most US airports that service Air Carrier [>30pax seats] aircraft are D TRSA, B or C zones SFC up and then from FL180 above. Above A100 is of little use to the vast majority of VFR even if there is a radar covered band of E from A100 through FL180. Fact is ‘most’ aircraft are transponder equipped anyway due surveillance saturation for many years.
Outside of Class B Areas, where does the ‘Australian’ national carrier fly through E [below A100] in the US?
Interactions? Sure, in all US classes of airspace, many of which are B, C, D TRSA which have separation of IFR and VFR, or/and traffic information for Large Air Carrier Operations. So the statement is correct taking account of the relatively small amount of Class E exposure to US domestic Passenger Transport Operations.
Surveillance based clearly!
Above A100? As above?
Radio? Sounds a lot like Aussie G without IFR Sep! then the real news appears
As we have been saying, IFR Sep in E creates delays! I again ask, where are the Incident and Accident reports for IFR v IFR Directed Traffic Information and Self Separation in G??
In both examples above, VFR are unknown to ATS and IFR pilots! And, in the case of Class E, IFR are paying for a separation service that addresses the wrong conflict threat IFR v VFR
Accept? Or Tolerate?
Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!
No argument with that!
Doing business?
If only it were that simple. The reality is a better service can be provided given the very different airspace density and infrastructure. Not to mention the different regulatory requirements for ATCO’s and Airspace services.
See previous answer
Interesting take! What would be more relevant is the amount of ‘reclassification’ that has occurred in recent times!
Generate a ‘safety deficiency’? Is the suggestion that industry not accepting second best change for changes sake, that the decision makers will as a consequence do nothing?
Perhaps this state of affairs has been reached by constant ‘interference’ from less well informed ‘know it all’s’!
The change management processes that presumably you support Mr Smith?
Far from supporting a non-radar Class E area above Broome and Karratha, the quote highlights the contextual differences being referred to by many in these [and related] threads!
I suggest you read Link #49 again – this was from Voice of Reason that was so widely applauded by professional pilots and air traffic controllers on this website.
I haven’t seen anyone state that the claims in the post on airspace by Voice of Reason are wrong.
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace[/B]
This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.
There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace [B]are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.
We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.
Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace
is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, [U]do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means[U].
That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis.
In both examples above, VFR are unknown to ATS and IFR pilots! And, in the case of Class E, IFR are paying for a separation service that addresses the wrong conflict threat IFR v VFR
The airlines accept that mode of operation.
NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect [U]not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past
– but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.
Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it.
Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.
NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.
We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve.
Perhaps this state of affairs has been reached by constant ‘interference’ from less well informed ‘know it all’s’!
By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.
Far from supporting a non-radar Class E area above Broome and Karratha, the quote highlights the contextual differences being referred to by many in these [and related] threads!
Okay Dick ... if I am reading correctly, you are saying that C above Broome would "increase the risk" because the Broome Tower Controller would be providing it ...and could get distracted.
So, therefore, you believe that if it was E above Broome, the Broome Tower Controller wouldn't be providing it ... and therefore, wouldn't be distracted.
Is that really the case? Can someone in the know confirm that:
I don't think that would be the case Dick ... but I could be wrong.
So, therefore, you believe that if it was E above Broome, the Broome Tower Controller wouldn't be providing it ... and therefore, wouldn't be distracted.
Is that really the case? Can someone in the know confirm that:
- if it is E above, the Sector above will do it
- If it is C above, the Broome Tower Controller will do it
I don't think that would be the case Dick ... but I could be wrong.
Dick,
You know as well as I (well, you should do) that we don't have class G in Australia. You may like to call it that to suit your own selfish ends (and to fool the uneducated pollies in CBR), but it is not G. It's even better than Class F: IFR have full DTI, carriage and use of radio by VFR above 5000ft is mandatory, and carriage and use of transponders above 10,000ft is mandatory and use of a transponder, if fitted is also mandatory. Stop distorting the truth. To liken Australian G to Africa is just plain deceptive. 
Of course, in the USA they do not allow airlines to operate in G airspace – it’s only Australia and a few countries in Africa that allow this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, we relieve the Tower controller of seperating anything other than the traffic in his Class D Control Zone. This will have a radius of 15 nm up to 5000'. The jets will call inbound, the unknown VFR will call inbound from many different directions, and need to be postively controlled to either end of the runway where the jets are also heading. So in a matter of a few minutes he/she has to sort out the traffic flow. Missed calls, stepped on calls, repeated intructions, read backs etc will turn the zone into chaos. I don't believe that will work, the Safety Case would blow it out of the water.
Proper use of C over D would give both the sector controller and the tower controller a chance to organise the traffic flow, such as in Hobart, before it reaches the circuit.
And again for Mr Smith's benefit, there is no additional safety for a jet rpt operating in E outside radar coverage over G. In fact E restricts the availability to vary heading or track, as the aircraft is being controlled. If we cant be affored extra safety, leave it as it is.
Proper use of C over D would give both the sector controller and the tower controller a chance to organise the traffic flow, such as in Hobart, before it reaches the circuit.
And again for Mr Smith's benefit, there is no additional safety for a jet rpt operating in E outside radar coverage over G. In fact E restricts the availability to vary heading or track, as the aircraft is being controlled. If we cant be affored extra safety, leave it as it is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post Arfor.
For the pilots out there reading this- Dick constantly tells a lie, over and over, about controllers being "distracted" or some such rubbish, if they have to do more than one task or provide different services simultaneously. See his posts above. He claims it is a key reason for having E instead of C. He goes on to assert that ATCs elsewhere think it is a joke that ATCs in oz would do this.
ATCs in oz do this already (and have done for many years) because they have to (resources). It is not dangerous, the controllers don't get "distracted" or any such BS- often, controllers in oz will simultaneously provide FS (DTI), radar control in various classes of airspace, and procedural control- all simultaneously. A tower controller (with the correct workload), can do many things without becoming dangerously "distracted". Dick's lie that this cannot/shouldn't be done is just ignorant/mischievous. It's true, US controllers find it interesting, and they certainly wouldn't do it themselves over there- because they have ****eloads more traffic, and ****eloads more controllers to deal with that traffic (and FS etc etc). They don't do it over there- not because they think it's dangerous- they just don't need to. They have the resources. Much like the policeman on Norfolk Isl is the customs officer, the post master (and a number of other delegations) being told he can't do that because Dick asked the post master in New York if he thought he could run the customs at JFK as well as the DMV etc. and he laughed and said it wasn't possible.
In short, the only person persisting with this untruth is not an air traffic controller.
For the pilots out there reading this- Dick constantly tells a lie, over and over, about controllers being "distracted" or some such rubbish, if they have to do more than one task or provide different services simultaneously. See his posts above. He claims it is a key reason for having E instead of C. He goes on to assert that ATCs elsewhere think it is a joke that ATCs in oz would do this.
ATCs in oz do this already (and have done for many years) because they have to (resources). It is not dangerous, the controllers don't get "distracted" or any such BS- often, controllers in oz will simultaneously provide FS (DTI), radar control in various classes of airspace, and procedural control- all simultaneously. A tower controller (with the correct workload), can do many things without becoming dangerously "distracted". Dick's lie that this cannot/shouldn't be done is just ignorant/mischievous. It's true, US controllers find it interesting, and they certainly wouldn't do it themselves over there- because they have ****eloads more traffic, and ****eloads more controllers to deal with that traffic (and FS etc etc). They don't do it over there- not because they think it's dangerous- they just don't need to. They have the resources. Much like the policeman on Norfolk Isl is the customs officer, the post master (and a number of other delegations) being told he can't do that because Dick asked the post master in New York if he thought he could run the customs at JFK as well as the DMV etc. and he laughed and said it wasn't possible.
In short, the only person persisting with this untruth is not an air traffic controller.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite clearly, if we have C airspace over the D at Broome, the Controller in the D tower will also be responsible for some of this C.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is going to carry the workload of providing the E service? You're ignoring the increased workload involved if it's being assigned to an existing sector. Separation is more labour intensive than providing traffic & you can bet there won't be a new sector created.
So you're quite happy with increasing the risk in the overlying sector because by your own argument they may become distracted by the extra workload? Particularly if they're having to provide it down to a very low level.
You aren't reducing risk, you're just transferring it elsewhere.
So you're quite happy with increasing the risk in the overlying sector because by your own argument they may become distracted by the extra workload? Particularly if they're having to provide it down to a very low level.
You aren't reducing risk, you're just transferring it elsewhere.
As a controller I would much prefer to work 'procedural C' than radar E any day... It's not about having a closed mind it's about being in charge of my own destiny... If someone is there I know nothing about I'm in the clear, in radar E I am responsible if it goes wrong even if the VFR only painted once and my attention was elsewhere on my scope when it did...
IMHO, all the D towers should give up the 'overlying airspace' but the upper sectors shouldn't be inheriting the airspace as they are, a total review of the sector structure should ensue; wasn't this one of the reasons for SDE, to enable changes in airspace categories and sector alignments much easier?