Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is one example of the industry view of airspace change ‘process’
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...s/wa091030.pdf
6.1. OAR GAAP Update [Page 10]
Mr Smith,
- Are you happy with the quality of Airspace Change Process?
- Are you happy with this same quality of Airspace Change Process for Broome and Karratha?
- Are you happy with this same quality of Airspace Change Process for YWLM, YMAV?
The concerns being raised by industry are most valid!
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...s/wa091030.pdf
6.1. OAR GAAP Update [Page 10]
The WA RAPAC voted “No confidence in the process to instigate Class D zones at GAAP aerodromes”.
(Airservices Australia staff abstained from the vote).
(Airservices Australia staff abstained from the vote).
- Are you happy with the quality of Airspace Change Process?
- Are you happy with this same quality of Airspace Change Process for Broome and Karratha?
- Are you happy with this same quality of Airspace Change Process for YWLM, YMAV?
The concerns being raised by industry are most valid!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nose Wheel first
Nose Wheel first how can anyone possibly want less protection the closer you fly to a regional airport? This is what we have now with C above D. Extraordinary!
The whole problem with Australia’s airspace currently is that the further away from a regional airport you fly the more ATC services are provided. If the collision risk in Broome is determined as such to require the risk mitigation of Class D airspace then how can any cost benefit analysis objectively support having Class C airspace at 5 or 6000ft and 10 or 20 miles away where the collision risk is so small?
Dog One You say
Dog One surely you realise that descending out of a cloud layer in Class G now, represents the exact same potential collision (however remote) that you claim is likely to happen in Class E. The same potential for this collision exists now in Class G.
Making Class E airway corridors into Broome is not going to change that.
Blocka
This is totally absurd. You do need a CBA. Regardless, by your logic then Broome should be turned into Class B without a CBA because its safer than a CTAF.
You say
Are all you controllers in agreement on this? Scurvy D Dog in Launceston is adamant that its safer and more efficient if he provides procedural separation services for an area up to 60nm in diameter. God forbid it gets really busy in MLT!
Blocka you say ‘why not design it properly’. What design should the airspace above Class D be?
Howabout
You have a good imagination Howabout. By your logic we should make all airspace class A. Better yet, all airspace should be Restricted or closed to all traffic. Surely that is the safest option?
ARFOR
ARFOR, you are wrong. Class C does not extend to the flight levels in the US. It stops at 4000ft AGL.
ARFOR you clearly have no experience whatsoever with US NAS. Class D airspace is not TRSA. Class D is not a radar controlled airspace classification. The class E surrounding some class D airports has terminal radar available. VFR separation is not provided in Class E TRSA and VFR participation is voluntary.
You have no idea what you are talking about ARFOR. Every single day thousands of airliners fly through Class E below A100 around Boston, Detroit, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Miami and New York, just to name a few big Class B airports where arriving and departing traffic fly through class E <A100.
There are literally hundreds of regional and secondary airports like Colorado Springs, Aspen, Fort Lauderdale Chicago Midway where jets of all sizes fly through class E. There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day that fly through Class E non radar airspace.
Eagle Colorado for example not only does not have radar due to the mountainous terrain but it has Class E over D and is used by jets up to the size of 757s.
Since you asked. Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Peuce
You make no sense whatsoever. We currently have at Broome, uncontrolled airspace with unknown VFR aircraft. Yet if we turn a few airway corridors into class E then suddenly they are a problem? This defies any logic.
Why do they have to go out of their way to make it non standard and different to anywhere else and in this case provide a ring of reduced protection around the class D airspace before hitting C at the higher levels.
The whole problem with Australia’s airspace currently is that the further away from a regional airport you fly the more ATC services are provided. If the collision risk in Broome is determined as such to require the risk mitigation of Class D airspace then how can any cost benefit analysis objectively support having Class C airspace at 5 or 6000ft and 10 or 20 miles away where the collision risk is so small?
Dog One You say
The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on.
Making Class E airway corridors into Broome is not going to change that.
Blocka
The reason for the airspace role back was due to lack of risk assessment turning C into E above D; ie the risk was/may have been raised without evidence of the cost benefit analysis being positive. ie you can increase risk if the cost of doing so is achieved or bettered...
So turning G into E is a safety improvement... therefore, you do not need the CBA. So it will be perfectly acceptable to have E over D where G currently exists; cause it's G now, E = safer than G... But just because you can doesn't mean you should. Surveillance makes E so much simpler.
So turning G into E is a safety improvement... therefore, you do not need the CBA. So it will be perfectly acceptable to have E over D where G currently exists; cause it's G now, E = safer than G... But just because you can doesn't mean you should. Surveillance makes E so much simpler.
You say
IMHO, all the D towers should give up the 'overlying airspace'
Blocka you say ‘why not design it properly’. What design should the airspace above Class D be?
Howabout
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?
ARFOR
TRSA [radar based VFR opt in ICAO D] are being replaced by C [SFC to Fl's].
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…
Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!
You have no idea what you are talking about ARFOR. Every single day thousands of airliners fly through Class E below A100 around Boston, Detroit, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Miami and New York, just to name a few big Class B airports where arriving and departing traffic fly through class E <A100.
There are literally hundreds of regional and secondary airports like Colorado Springs, Aspen, Fort Lauderdale Chicago Midway where jets of all sizes fly through class E. There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day that fly through Class E non radar airspace.
Eagle Colorado for example not only does not have radar due to the mountainous terrain but it has Class E over D and is used by jets up to the size of 757s.
Outside of Class B Areas, where does the ‘Australian’ national carrier fly through E [below A100] in the US?
Peuce
I hate to tell you this, but they are still there ... and they are still jet fodder ... whether they maintain radio silence or not.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is totally absurd. You do need a CBA. Regardless, by your logic then Broome should be turned into Class B without a CBA because its safer than a CTAF.
You can make Broome a Class B if you wish without a CBA; but you can't make Sydney class D without a positive CBA outcome. In risk management, under ALARP, you can always improve risk outcomes without needing to justify why you are paying more than you need too; however you cannot increase risk and be compliant with ALARP without a supportive/improving CBA.
What design should the airspace above Class D be?
But to be fair, almost all Class D's have sectors with radars feeding them and except for a handful or so the towers have the full radar feed too and are trained to use them to separate, not just as a situational awareness tool.
mjbow2,
Firstly, we seem to be getting contradictory statements from yourself and Dick about what happens in the US.
Dick said:
"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"
You said:
"There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day "
So, no wonder we are confused. Maybe your Jets exclude RPT. If so, well that's not comparing apples with apples.
On your last point. It may defy your logic, but the point being made by me, and many others, is exactly that. There is no real increased safety by having Class E rather than Class G ...VFRs are still invisible(but there) and some even suggest that Class G is safer .. as the Pilot can maneuver, at will, to avoid VFRs. In Class E, any avoidance is delayed by first obtaining an amended clearance.
The question has to be asked ... what risk are the Regulators trying to mitigate by creating Class E down to the Zone?
Is it the chance of an IFR hitting a VFR? ... if so, forget Class E, it has to be Class C
Is it the chance of an IFR hitting an IFR? .. if so, then Class E is a possible option. But if this is the case ... show me the figures? Where are all the near misses that have brought this on?
My guess is, it's neither ... it's to make the Tower Controllers life easier ... by helping with sequencing. If so, can't they just make the Zone bigger?
Firstly, we seem to be getting contradictory statements from yourself and Dick about what happens in the US.
Dick said:
"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"
You said:
"There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day "
So, no wonder we are confused. Maybe your Jets exclude RPT. If so, well that's not comparing apples with apples.
On your last point. It may defy your logic, but the point being made by me, and many others, is exactly that. There is no real increased safety by having Class E rather than Class G ...VFRs are still invisible(but there) and some even suggest that Class G is safer .. as the Pilot can maneuver, at will, to avoid VFRs. In Class E, any avoidance is delayed by first obtaining an amended clearance.
The question has to be asked ... what risk are the Regulators trying to mitigate by creating Class E down to the Zone?
Is it the chance of an IFR hitting a VFR? ... if so, forget Class E, it has to be Class C
Is it the chance of an IFR hitting an IFR? .. if so, then Class E is a possible option. But if this is the case ... show me the figures? Where are all the near misses that have brought this on?
My guess is, it's neither ... it's to make the Tower Controllers life easier ... by helping with sequencing. If so, can't they just make the Zone bigger?
Scurvy D Dog in Launceston is adamant that its safer and more efficient if he provides procedural separation services for an area up to 60nm in diameter. God forbid it gets really busy in MLT!
And where would the workload be if the airspace was a tiny D tower? With the overlying sector controller who can already get very busy with the current airspace arrangement. God forbid it gets really busy in the overlying TAS sector!
Will you or Dick answer me that? You seem to think that the workload & risk just evaporates if the D tower doesn't have it. Well, overlying sectors will not be restructured at such short notice so that's exactly where it will go, regardless of capability of the overlying sector to cope.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog One You say
Quote:
The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on.
Dog One surely you realise that descending out of a cloud layer in Class G now, represents the exact same potential collision (however remote) that you claim is likely to happen in Class E. The same potential for this collision exists now in Class G.
Making Class E airway corridors into Broome is not going to change that.
Mjbow2
Thank you for your confirmation that E airspace does not provide any improved safety. In fact G is safer from your observations because all traffic is at least on a common frequency and seperation can beachieved without a third party (ATC) being involved to delay tracking changes. The local VFR operators are very well aware of the problems and work together with us to ensure we all have seperation approaching the aerodrome.
I must also compliment you, Mjbow2, on your very well written and edited response, although a lot of your statements are worded very similar to another poster here who uses his real name. Perhaps you use the same computer!
This whole project sounds it will be another badly managed Airservices fiasco.
Quote:
The only hope of missing each other is that the silent VFR aircraft has a servicable transponnder, which is hopefully switched on.
Dog One surely you realise that descending out of a cloud layer in Class G now, represents the exact same potential collision (however remote) that you claim is likely to happen in Class E. The same potential for this collision exists now in Class G.
Making Class E airway corridors into Broome is not going to change that.
Mjbow2
Thank you for your confirmation that E airspace does not provide any improved safety. In fact G is safer from your observations because all traffic is at least on a common frequency and seperation can beachieved without a third party (ATC) being involved to delay tracking changes. The local VFR operators are very well aware of the problems and work together with us to ensure we all have seperation approaching the aerodrome.
I must also compliment you, Mjbow2, on your very well written and edited response, although a lot of your statements are worded very similar to another poster here who uses his real name. Perhaps you use the same computer!
This whole project sounds it will be another badly managed Airservices fiasco.
Class E airspace another fiasco brought to you by the forward thinking, master's of spin and highly paid clowns at Airservice Australia, a few political medlers, would be could be's and everyones mate!
Class E another great industry debacle paid for by the industry.
Class E another great industry debacle paid for by the industry.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have no idea what you are talking about ARFOR. Every single day thousands of airliners fly through Class E below A100 around Boston, Detroit, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Miami and New York, just to name a few big Class B airports where arriving and departing traffic fly through class E <A100.
Not flown in the USA ? Well Mr Smith certainly has, and it was only recently he stated on here he had never heard of “implied clearances” on the ground. You know them, surely – they are another of the “freedoms to carry a gun and kill people” the FAA is removing. But my point is that “flown in the USA ” does not seem to make some people knowledgeable about the facts. You claim USA experience and likewise your knowledge in your comparisons falls apart under scrutiny.
For Broome and Karratha we are talking E over D, without radar.
Of those locations in the US you quote, Colorado Springs , Fort Lauderdale , and Chicago Midway are E over C, not E over D. Aspen is certainly a D – with prior permission required.
Fact is the USA protects RPT with Class C terminals. You might remember that about two months ago Mr Smith was going to consult his FAA mate and tell us how many of the USA D airports (around 380) actually carry SCHEDULED air carrier traffic greater than 30 pax. Still waiting!
PS – re TRSA etc – try the current USA AOPA Magazine - pages 83 to 86. Wonder if the author has flown in the USA.
That aside, let’s explore some of your examples:-
Boston [Logan Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class B SFC to A070
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 3 App, 1 Dep, 2 ATIS, & 7 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 196,502 , Total Operations through the associated airspace 199,556
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s
Detroit [Wayne County] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class B SFC to A080
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 5 App, 5 Dep, 1 ATIS, & 8 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 241,144, Total operations through the associated airspace 462,529
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s
Kansas [Kansas City Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class B SFC to A080
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 1 App, 2 Dep, 1 ATIS, & 3 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 120,336 Total Operations through the associated airspace 176,717
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s
Las Vegas [Mc Carran Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class B SFC to A090
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- Note the VFR transition requirements
- ATS 1 App, 1 Dep, 1 ATIS, & 5 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 388,653. Total Operations through the associated airspace 578,946
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D’s
Miami [Miami Int’l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class B SFC to A070
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- ATS 3 App, 2 Dep, 2 ATIS, & 6 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 297,111. Total Operations through the associated airspace 371,519
- Note the Class B and C CTA above the satellite Class D and C airports
New York [La Guardia, Newark and JFK] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class B SFC to A070
- Mode C Transponder mandatory within 30nm of the trio airports
- Full surveillance environment
- No SVFR
- NY ATS App, 5 Dep,
- JFK ATS 4 ATIS, & 6 tower freq’s
- JFK Air Carrier movements 2008 - 355,075. Total Operations through the associated airspace 446,968
- Note the Class B CTA above the satellite Class D airports
- Note the special procedures and requirements in the New York area
For the Class B examples you cite, the services actually provided by ATC above the designated B is at the very least a hybrid surveillance based D when taking account of the requirements placed on VFR, and the extensive B areas below. Or are you maintaining that VFR operate over these Class B airports without a service to both IFR and VFR? Of course not, Apples and Apples. The E in climb and Descent areas being discussed in Australia is just not the same for all the reasons posters have raised including surveillance, sector sizes, ATCO resources, user pays charging, the list goes on and on.
Class C
Class C does not extend to the flight levels in the US. It stops at 4000ft AGL.
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.
A Class C example
Grand Rapids [Gerald R Ford Int'l] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class C SFC to A048
- Full surveillance environment
- ATS 3 App/Dep [Chicago and Grand Rapids], 1 ATIS, & 3 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 15,826. Total Operations through the associated airspace 97,644
A Class D TRSA example
Harrisburg [Harrisburg Int'l ] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- Class D TRSA SFC to A060 (VFR opt in for separation services as opposed to traffic information only)
- Full surveillance environment
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 11,529. Total Operations through the associated airspace 67,912
The crux of the comparison
Pick a couple of locations in Australia, and look at the movement and mix comparison for 2008
Canberra – IFR >7t - 43,438 - Total movements 90,296
Rockhampton – IFR >7t - 16,604 - Total movements 39,906
Hobart – IFR >7t - 14,880 - Total movements 45,414
Launceston – IFR >7t - 11,416 - Total Movements 20,972
Maroochydore – IFR>7t - 9,532 - Total Movements 89,748
Compare the mix and totals to the US examples above. Then consider that all of the above fit within Part139 Class 1 [Air Carrier >30pax seat] Licensed Airports. In other words, the US Class D airports that are not servicing scheduled large Passenger aircraft under Part 139 are not relevant to these comparisons.
Class D airspace is not TRSA. Class D is not a radar controlled airspace classification. The class E surrounding some class D airports has terminal radar available. VFR separation is not provided in Class E TRSA and VFR participation is voluntary.
It is also a fact that TRSA areas are being phased out and replaced with either Class C or Class B!
Eagle Colorado for example not only does not have radar due to the mountainous terrain but it has Class E over D and is used by jets up to the size of 757s.
- Class D SFC [6,548ftAMSL to A091
- ATS 1 App/Dep [Denver], 1 ATIS, & 3 tower freq’s
- Air Carrier movements 2008 - 3,352 Total Operations 42,415
EGE - Eagle County Regional Airport
Airport Remarks
- CLOSED to unscheduled Air Carrier operations with more than 30 passenger seats except prior permission required
- High unmarked terrain all quadrants. Critical acft are Category D IV, B757–200 equivalent and lower. Ngt ops discouraged to pilots unfamiliar with arpt.
A good airport to highlight the points of difference being made! Thankyou!
Re: where does the ‘Australian’ national carrier fly through E [below A100] in the US?. To conclude, you said
Since you asked. Los Angeles and San Francisco.
LA is class B up to A100 Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
- With VERY strict VFR Route requirements [equivalent to hybrid D or TRSA]
San Fran is also Class B up to A100 Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
As with any technical discussion, facts are what is important, not who is right or wrong!
You make no sense whatsoever. We currently have at Broome, uncontrolled airspace with unknown VFR aircraft. Yet if we turn a few airway corridors into class E then suddenly they are a problem? This defies any logic.
I might also add, the CASA is driving these airspace processes, Airservices will impliment what the CASA decree. Direct your venom at the correct agency!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blockla,
Firstly Blockla you do need a CBA when allocating finite resources to mitigate varying risks. Otherwise we would not need to justify billions of dollars installing TARs at every tower and CTAF in the country. This is an obvious waste of resources. Your logic is completely flawed.
Class C in the enroute environment is another wasted resource we have that would never stand up to an objective CBA when Class D is used below it where the risk is even greater.
There is no possible way an objective CBA can allocate high risk airspace (airports), a lower level of risk mitigation (class D) than the low risk enroute and link airspace surrounding it. No scientific CBA= C over D airspace. If anything it should be reversed!
Peuce
CTAF airports that have instrument approaches (class E to surface and 700ft AGL surrounding the approach paths) are uncontrolled airports. ie VFR aircraft are uncontrolled! Do you understand this?
You ask
So we do not have the repeat of the Orange incident where and RPT and another IFR aircraft nearly collided in IMC. Simple as that.
In relation to deviating from track to ensure separation from VFR in Class E let me give you my experience. Extremely rarely did I ever have to alter my course in both radar and non radar covered class E due to VFR aircraft in the US. Rarely.
Australia set upon regulatory reform some 15 years ago, or more. Had that reform been allowed to progress unabated we would probably be allowed to make visual approaches without the ridiculous altitude, tracking and DME requirements we have now.
The FAA allows a pilot to track however they want with respect to altitude and heading when making a visual approach.
I suspect that were we able to make visual approached like they are allowed in the US it would alleviate some concerns expressed by Capn Bloggs and indeed yourself.
Peuce my support for class E airways has been expressed many times before in that it positively separates IFR aircraft in IMC conditions.
I do not support however making any class D tower controllers area of responsibility any bigger. From my experience flying the jet into Queenstown New Zealand regularly, the huge area of responsibility of the class D controller (non radar assisted 90nm across) is a disaster waiting to happen.
On clear weather days, getting timely descent clearances and timely traffic information was sometimes near impossible. The controller was so busy talking to such huge volume of VFR and IFR traffic at the same time that in my view Queenstown Class D is an accident waiting to happen. I hope we can avoid that here by reducing the area of responsibility of all class D towers before the traffic volumes increase to an intolerable level.
Dog One
I have never stated that IFR/VFR separation is better in E than in G. That is not what E is designed for. E is designed for positive separation for IFR aircraft.
Dog One, I have no idea where you get the idea that VFR is guaranteed to be on the same frequency as an IFR in class G.
Thank you for the compliment. I am flattered.
You don't need a CBA to reduce risk, you do to increase it.
In risk management, under ALARP, you can always improve risk outcomes without needing to justify why you are paying more than you need too
In risk management, under ALARP, you can always improve risk outcomes without needing to justify why you are paying more than you need too
Class C in the enroute environment is another wasted resource we have that would never stand up to an objective CBA when Class D is used below it where the risk is even greater.
There is no possible way an objective CBA can allocate high risk airspace (airports), a lower level of risk mitigation (class D) than the low risk enroute and link airspace surrounding it. No scientific CBA= C over D airspace. If anything it should be reversed!
Peuce
"There are hundreds of Class D and uncontrolled airports in the US that are served by turboprop and Jets every day "
So, no wonder we are confused. Maybe your Jets exclude RPT. If so, well that's not comparing apples with apples.
So, no wonder we are confused. Maybe your Jets exclude RPT. If so, well that's not comparing apples with apples.
You ask
The question has to be asked ... what risk are the Regulators trying to mitigate by creating Class E down to the Zone?
In relation to deviating from track to ensure separation from VFR in Class E let me give you my experience. Extremely rarely did I ever have to alter my course in both radar and non radar covered class E due to VFR aircraft in the US. Rarely.
Australia set upon regulatory reform some 15 years ago, or more. Had that reform been allowed to progress unabated we would probably be allowed to make visual approaches without the ridiculous altitude, tracking and DME requirements we have now.
The FAA allows a pilot to track however they want with respect to altitude and heading when making a visual approach.
I suspect that were we able to make visual approached like they are allowed in the US it would alleviate some concerns expressed by Capn Bloggs and indeed yourself.
Is it the chance of an IFR hitting an IFR? .. if so, then Class E is a possible option...
My guess is, it's neither ... it's to make the Tower Controllers life easier ... by helping with sequencing. If so, can't they just make the Zone bigger?
My guess is, it's neither ... it's to make the Tower Controllers life easier ... by helping with sequencing. If so, can't they just make the Zone bigger?
Peuce my support for class E airways has been expressed many times before in that it positively separates IFR aircraft in IMC conditions.
I do not support however making any class D tower controllers area of responsibility any bigger. From my experience flying the jet into Queenstown New Zealand regularly, the huge area of responsibility of the class D controller (non radar assisted 90nm across) is a disaster waiting to happen.
On clear weather days, getting timely descent clearances and timely traffic information was sometimes near impossible. The controller was so busy talking to such huge volume of VFR and IFR traffic at the same time that in my view Queenstown Class D is an accident waiting to happen. I hope we can avoid that here by reducing the area of responsibility of all class D towers before the traffic volumes increase to an intolerable level.
Dog One
In fact G is safer from your observations because all traffic is at least on a common frequency and seperation can beachieved without a third party (ATC) being involved to delay tracking changes.
Dog One, I have no idea where you get the idea that VFR is guaranteed to be on the same frequency as an IFR in class G.
Thank you for the compliment. I am flattered.
Last edited by mjbow2; 27th Nov 2009 at 03:23.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARFOR
You post an impressive amount of information. I have no idea what point you are trying to make with it all.
Read your own posts again ARFOR, I was correcting your wildly inaccurate statements
This is simply not true. They are widely exposed to class E including below 10,000ft even at LAX. Put your impressive research abilities to work and you will see that to the west and south of LAX, large jets are vectored as low as 6000ft AGL as close as 20nm from LAX in class E. Not B
You post an impressive amount of information. I have no idea what point you are trying to make with it all.
Read your own posts again ARFOR, I was correcting your wildly inaccurate statements
Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Class "E" airspace is very good for separating IFR aircraft in IMC.
Having flown into both Broome and Karratha a few hundred times I can count on less than 1 hand how many times it has been proper IMC and I have only once started an instrument approach and became visual well above minima!
The Problem with Class "E" in these areas is when the weather gets bad, its usually TX and constant track diversions to stay clear!
How the hell is Class "E" going to be safer when EVERYONE is heading for the same gap.
Its going to be less safe due to the fact that everyone is heading for the same gap and IFR cannot make adjustments without a clearance!
Putting Northern hemisphere airspace that spends half the year in FOG and Snow has no place in Australia.
Having flown into both Broome and Karratha a few hundred times I can count on less than 1 hand how many times it has been proper IMC and I have only once started an instrument approach and became visual well above minima!
The Problem with Class "E" in these areas is when the weather gets bad, its usually TX and constant track diversions to stay clear!
How the hell is Class "E" going to be safer when EVERYONE is heading for the same gap.
Its going to be less safe due to the fact that everyone is heading for the same gap and IFR cannot make adjustments without a clearance!
Putting Northern hemisphere airspace that spends half the year in FOG and Snow has no place in Australia.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr/Mrs mjbow2
You have lost me with your claim regarding KLAX
If you look at the sectional [might need to zoom it out a couple of clicks] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
1. The Airport is a parallel, east west arrangement [no crossing north south runways].
2. Class B east and west of the runways [approach and departures tracks] is Class B SFC to A100 out to >10nm from the runways [extended centrelines and tollerances.
3. A parallel operation [irrespective of landings and take-offs to the east or west], arriving and departing traffic will flow vector in circuits south and north of the airport.
4. A vector for a 'downwind' type leg prior to vectors for final intercept would not require below A050 on a wide circuit + approach descent profile.
5. In support of point 4 above. It can be seen that stepped CTA bases [A020 East, West, A025 North East, with progressive protection of the centreline profile] occur in the 'vector for final' type wide base areas!
I'd be guessing when I say, they probably do not permit close visual circuits at KLAX!
An Aircraft would have to go very wide, long and very low in either of the the contra-vectored parallel runway traffic flows [against normal profile] to depart Class B protection!
You have lost me with your claim regarding KLAX
If you look at the sectional [might need to zoom it out a couple of clicks] Flight Planning and Aeronautical Charts at SkyVector.com
1. The Airport is a parallel, east west arrangement [no crossing north south runways].
2. Class B east and west of the runways [approach and departures tracks] is Class B SFC to A100 out to >10nm from the runways [extended centrelines and tollerances.
3. A parallel operation [irrespective of landings and take-offs to the east or west], arriving and departing traffic will flow vector in circuits south and north of the airport.
4. A vector for a 'downwind' type leg prior to vectors for final intercept would not require below A050 on a wide circuit + approach descent profile.
5. In support of point 4 above. It can be seen that stepped CTA bases [A020 East, West, A025 North East, with progressive protection of the centreline profile] occur in the 'vector for final' type wide base areas!
I'd be guessing when I say, they probably do not permit close visual circuits at KLAX!
An Aircraft would have to go very wide, long and very low in either of the the contra-vectored parallel runway traffic flows [against normal profile] to depart Class B protection!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mjbow2
Your comment
"I have never stated that IFR/VFR separation is better in E than in G. That is not what E is designed for. E is designed for positive separation for IFR aircraft."
Then what is the use of E? We are given IFR/IFR traffic in G. VFR traffic is only a problem below A100, but if they are local pilots, they communicate and seperation is sorted. You have shown us that E does not provide any real service, and certainly is less safe than G airspace.
IFR seperation in IMC, whether aircraft to aircraft or, controller to aircraft is not the worry. In E airspace it would be the scud running VFR who does not have announce their present on the ATC frequency.
Having operated jets into these and other areas of Australia for the past 40+ years, this classification of airspace would be the most dangerous. By the way, my mind is not "set in concrete", I wouldn't be where I am now if it was. But, as one who is continually operating in and out of this area, I certainly will not accept anything less than an increase in safety, which E cannot give.
Your comment
"I have never stated that IFR/VFR separation is better in E than in G. That is not what E is designed for. E is designed for positive separation for IFR aircraft."
Then what is the use of E? We are given IFR/IFR traffic in G. VFR traffic is only a problem below A100, but if they are local pilots, they communicate and seperation is sorted. You have shown us that E does not provide any real service, and certainly is less safe than G airspace.
IFR seperation in IMC, whether aircraft to aircraft or, controller to aircraft is not the worry. In E airspace it would be the scud running VFR who does not have announce their present on the ATC frequency.
Having operated jets into these and other areas of Australia for the past 40+ years, this classification of airspace would be the most dangerous. By the way, my mind is not "set in concrete", I wouldn't be where I am now if it was. But, as one who is continually operating in and out of this area, I certainly will not accept anything less than an increase in safety, which E cannot give.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly Blockla you do need a CBA when allocating finite resources to mitigate varying risks. Otherwise we would not need to justify billions of dollars installing TARs at every tower and CTAF in the country. This is an obvious waste of resources. Your logic is completely flawed.
If (for example) Qantas wants to ramp up it's maintanance program 4000% it can they don't need regulatory oversight or insurance approval, proving it in the business case to shareholders is a different thing. If they want to reduce it by 5% they must do a CBA to justify their changes to their insurers and their regulator.
Same is true of airspace changes; why was NAS2b rolled back... find out sunshine, no visible CBA but definitely visible change in risk.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It somewhat surprises me we hold the US up as the shining beacon of Airspace Design. It is not.
When flying into LAX and SFO you spend more time with your eyes out the window than flying the aircraft, knowing there is unknown VFR traffic often in close proximity. Knowing that if you go around from 3000ft you must descend because of that same traffic.
I've only ever had two RA's... one in each SFO and LAX.
The point here is not whether the airspace works in the USA. The point is IS IT SUITABLE FOR USE IN AUSTRALIA. We should be striving to have the best air traffic control and airport system in the world, not just meeting the cheapest justifiable. We must protect all heavy metal on RPT ops... to do otherwise is just penny pinching.
Get some resources into the system NOW, and all of this becomes redundant.
When flying into LAX and SFO you spend more time with your eyes out the window than flying the aircraft, knowing there is unknown VFR traffic often in close proximity. Knowing that if you go around from 3000ft you must descend because of that same traffic.
I've only ever had two RA's... one in each SFO and LAX.
The point here is not whether the airspace works in the USA. The point is IS IT SUITABLE FOR USE IN AUSTRALIA. We should be striving to have the best air traffic control and airport system in the world, not just meeting the cheapest justifiable. We must protect all heavy metal on RPT ops... to do otherwise is just penny pinching.
Get some resources into the system NOW, and all of this becomes redundant.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFROR
I am not claiming anything. You made the claim that
This is patently false and the KLAX airspace, including hundreds of other class B, C and D airports with E above and surrounding them, proves it.
To the north of KLAX class B extends only about 15nm. Class E beyond that. Can you see the arrival and departure routes depicted with the silhouetted 4 engined jet and dashed arrows? Class E ARFOR.
It even has the range of altitudes depicted. A040-A080 for North West departures From KLAX. The Sadde 6 arrival for example from the north west over Ventura VOR has traffic sequenced as low as A050 in Class E!
Surely you can see that KLAX is also not the only airport that jets are being sequenced to? Van Nuys, Burbank, Chino, Ontaria, Santa Ana and Riverside also. All surrounded with Class E above.
Your claim that airliners are not widely exposed to Class E below A100 in America is patently untrue ARFOR. Untrue! So why make such claims if not to muddy the waters when it comes to Australian pilots properly understanding the use and benefits of class E, both radar and non radar.
If you cannot accept that Class E below A100 in America is used every day by ALL airlines AFROR then ok, keep your eyes shut. Keep resisting the inevitable but I am sure the readers can see otherwise.
You have lost me with your claim regarding KLAX
Most airlines (the bigger ones) are not widely exposed to Class E below A100, and certainly not without surveillance!
To the north of KLAX class B extends only about 15nm. Class E beyond that. Can you see the arrival and departure routes depicted with the silhouetted 4 engined jet and dashed arrows? Class E ARFOR.
It even has the range of altitudes depicted. A040-A080 for North West departures From KLAX. The Sadde 6 arrival for example from the north west over Ventura VOR has traffic sequenced as low as A050 in Class E!
Surely you can see that KLAX is also not the only airport that jets are being sequenced to? Van Nuys, Burbank, Chino, Ontaria, Santa Ana and Riverside also. All surrounded with Class E above.
Your claim that airliners are not widely exposed to Class E below A100 in America is patently untrue ARFOR. Untrue! So why make such claims if not to muddy the waters when it comes to Australian pilots properly understanding the use and benefits of class E, both radar and non radar.
If you cannot accept that Class E below A100 in America is used every day by ALL airlines AFROR then ok, keep your eyes shut. Keep resisting the inevitable but I am sure the readers can see otherwise.
Last edited by mjbow2; 27th Nov 2009 at 22:50.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point here is not whether the airspace works in the USA. The point is IS IT SUITABLE FOR USE IN AUSTRALIA. We should be striving to have the best air traffic control and airport system in the world, not just meeting the cheapest justifiable. We must protect all heavy metal on RPT ops... to do otherwise is just penny pinching.
If you would allow me to change the word 'best' to 'safest' then we would have the 'best'.
When my wife and kids go flying without me i want them home safely. Every time. Period.
