Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said anything about not having CTA/R where mountains and radar exist?
Are you aware of any locations without radar and CTA/R [with RPT traffic] that you consider should be radar equipped CTA/R?
Have you asked the CASA to assess these locations for Aerostudy and related processes? What did happen to CASR Part 71?
You know why I'm asking, because a properly conducted aerostudy would assess real traffic, topography, and all other complexities as per regulated procedure, and then apply the classification that addresses the risks to an acceptable level in that location.
Are you aware of any locations without radar and CTA/R [with RPT traffic] that you consider should be radar equipped CTA/R?
Have you asked the CASA to assess these locations for Aerostudy and related processes? What did happen to CASR Part 71?
You know why I'm asking, because a properly conducted aerostudy would assess real traffic, topography, and all other complexities as per regulated procedure, and then apply the classification that addresses the risks to an acceptable level in that location.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are descending IFR in E without radar, how can you be sure that there is not a VFR aircraft cruising in between cloud layers? Bit hard to keeping looking out the window in reduced visibility for traffic, especially if they are on a different frequency and the IFR aircraft doesn't have TCAS.
It would appear that resistance to change is evident on both sides of the argument!
It would appear that resistance to change is evident on both sides of the argument!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kununurra has terrain surrounding the airfield and most RPT operators have special departure procedures to maintain terrain clearance in the event of an engine out.
This aerodrome is in G airsspace with a CTAFR.
One wonders if the money wasted over the years on airspace changes that didn't happen, had been spent on extending radar coverage. We would have by now had a large area of radar surveillance.
Then and only then could we have E airspace where IFR aircraft would be able to sing "God Bless America" and descend in complete safety relying on ATC to ensure you didn't descend below the LSA or fly into a mountain.
This aerodrome is in G airsspace with a CTAFR.
One wonders if the money wasted over the years on airspace changes that didn't happen, had been spent on extending radar coverage. We would have by now had a large area of radar surveillance.
Then and only then could we have E airspace where IFR aircraft would be able to sing "God Bless America" and descend in complete safety relying on ATC to ensure you didn't descend below the LSA or fly into a mountain.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil
If it were up to me, same answer as before. Do a 'proper' aerostudy, consult 'properly' with those who use the facility. Sure, if a location shows a higher level of service is desireable, then a CTR/A tower/app service well and good.
Some of the things I would ask:-
Is the IFR & VFR traffic density at Proserpine sufficent to warrant CTA/R?
Beyond traffic density, is approach complexity, topography, Wx, etc going to raise an elevated consideration for third party clearance services?
How extensive [if at all] is the track record of CFIT or related incidents and accidents [that could have be averted by having ATC at PSP] ? Is there justification?
Obviously we cannot have radar ATC holding the hands of IFR at every possible airport they might use! So where are the lines in the sand?
Come to think of it, are any other IFR operators requesting CTA D, E, C at G locations for CFIT protection?
If it were up to me, same answer as before. Do a 'proper' aerostudy, consult 'properly' with those who use the facility. Sure, if a location shows a higher level of service is desireable, then a CTR/A tower/app service well and good.
Some of the things I would ask:-
Is the IFR & VFR traffic density at Proserpine sufficent to warrant CTA/R?
Beyond traffic density, is approach complexity, topography, Wx, etc going to raise an elevated consideration for third party clearance services?
How extensive [if at all] is the track record of CFIT or related incidents and accidents [that could have be averted by having ATC at PSP] ? Is there justification?
Obviously we cannot have radar ATC holding the hands of IFR at every possible airport they might use! So where are the lines in the sand?
Come to think of it, are any other IFR operators requesting CTA D, E, C at G locations for CFIT protection?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Warning - RANT
Why do most people appear unconcerned about IFR/IFR segregation?
Try looking at it from the big picture - outside the circuit an IFR/IFR pair has a much higher collision probability than an IFR/VFR pair.
1 - IFR aircraft on approach to the same airport will probably be using the same approach with the same vertical profile, with quite large variations in speeds. VFR aircraft on the other hand will be approaching from random directions and altitudes.
2 - When an IFR aircraft has to go around due to not being visual they generally head to the same hold where any other IFR aircraft will be holding. VFR aircraft will be holding in random locations or diverting elsewhere.
3 - A 100 hour private pilot can have an instrument rating. The 'do it yourself' system results in the segregation being dependent on his/her understanding of the traffic situation. In IMC there is no visual last defense option. Do you trust this guy/gal - you WILL be flying through EXACTLY the same piece of sky.
As much as anyone wants to discount it, the big sky theory is a risk mitigator. It is the predictability of the random decay of a radioactive isotope (ie statistics) that gives atomic clocks the accuracy that allows GPS to work. Likewise it is the predictably of the random nature of material science (statistics again) that allows maintenance systems to use an inspection program to determine airworthiness. The only requirement for using statistics for separation is that it has to be done on a sound scientifically defendable basis (which is the crux of the problem).
Now for those that argue that G is safer than E with the way it is implemented in Australia - you've got to be
joking.
1 - Outside a CTAF there is EXACTLY the same communication patterns - in both cases the IFR aircraft is talking to Centre (ATC) and the VFR aircraft is supposedly monitoring that frequency and announcing if in conflict - there is absolutely no difference there.
2 - Just about all VFR aircraft in E are required to have a transponder fitted AND operating mode C - in G they are only required to have it operating mode C if it is fitted. In any radar environment you can bet your arse that the controller is going to advise of any VFR aircraft as traffic even with an unverified altitude. If it's not and it's a large IFR jet it will have ACAS (I know ICAO doesn't recognize it as a safety mitigator for airspace design but it does add a level of safety). Yes I acknowledge that both of these defenses will work in both E & G, however the required transponder fitment is the difference.
3 - The weather doesn't change because the airspace is E rather than G.
4 - If we actually used ICAO G in Australia the differences would be far more significant. IMHO Australian G is really ICAO E without positive separation between IFR.
As to these ideas of making the zone bigger than Ben Hur - I have to concede that I agree with Dick on this one - you are going to take the focus away from the highest risk area for collisions which is the circuit. The other week I operated in D airspace that was quite busy at the time - almost constant radio traffic. Start including areas 30 miles away and you'll end up with restrictions and delays like they're experiencing at GAAPs at the moment. At Hamilton Island when the tower closes focus deteriorates as a result of the dozen or so aircraft operating between 6 and 25nm that are not conflicting airport traffic that are now broadcasting on the same frequency (and anyone says that they should shut up has rocks in their heads).
/RANT
Why do most people appear unconcerned about IFR/IFR segregation?
Try looking at it from the big picture - outside the circuit an IFR/IFR pair has a much higher collision probability than an IFR/VFR pair.
1 - IFR aircraft on approach to the same airport will probably be using the same approach with the same vertical profile, with quite large variations in speeds. VFR aircraft on the other hand will be approaching from random directions and altitudes.
2 - When an IFR aircraft has to go around due to not being visual they generally head to the same hold where any other IFR aircraft will be holding. VFR aircraft will be holding in random locations or diverting elsewhere.
3 - A 100 hour private pilot can have an instrument rating. The 'do it yourself' system results in the segregation being dependent on his/her understanding of the traffic situation. In IMC there is no visual last defense option. Do you trust this guy/gal - you WILL be flying through EXACTLY the same piece of sky.
As much as anyone wants to discount it, the big sky theory is a risk mitigator. It is the predictability of the random decay of a radioactive isotope (ie statistics) that gives atomic clocks the accuracy that allows GPS to work. Likewise it is the predictably of the random nature of material science (statistics again) that allows maintenance systems to use an inspection program to determine airworthiness. The only requirement for using statistics for separation is that it has to be done on a sound scientifically defendable basis (which is the crux of the problem).
Now for those that argue that G is safer than E with the way it is implemented in Australia - you've got to be
joking. 1 - Outside a CTAF there is EXACTLY the same communication patterns - in both cases the IFR aircraft is talking to Centre (ATC) and the VFR aircraft is supposedly monitoring that frequency and announcing if in conflict - there is absolutely no difference there.
2 - Just about all VFR aircraft in E are required to have a transponder fitted AND operating mode C - in G they are only required to have it operating mode C if it is fitted. In any radar environment you can bet your arse that the controller is going to advise of any VFR aircraft as traffic even with an unverified altitude. If it's not and it's a large IFR jet it will have ACAS (I know ICAO doesn't recognize it as a safety mitigator for airspace design but it does add a level of safety). Yes I acknowledge that both of these defenses will work in both E & G, however the required transponder fitment is the difference.
3 - The weather doesn't change because the airspace is E rather than G.
4 - If we actually used ICAO G in Australia the differences would be far more significant. IMHO Australian G is really ICAO E without positive separation between IFR.
As to these ideas of making the zone bigger than Ben Hur - I have to concede that I agree with Dick on this one - you are going to take the focus away from the highest risk area for collisions which is the circuit. The other week I operated in D airspace that was quite busy at the time - almost constant radio traffic. Start including areas 30 miles away and you'll end up with restrictions and delays like they're experiencing at GAAPs at the moment. At Hamilton Island when the tower closes focus deteriorates as a result of the dozen or so aircraft operating between 6 and 25nm that are not conflicting airport traffic that are now broadcasting on the same frequency (and anyone says that they should shut up has rocks in their heads).
/RANT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
ARFOR,
As for YBPN I wasn't talking about terrain avoidance - see my last post. Dick's the one that argues that ICAO states that the best mitigator against CFITs is ATC with Radar.
Now let me get this straight.
On one hand you argue for using C rather than E because the cost is minimal.
Yet you don't want to use E rather than G because??? OK there are display, monitoring and staffing issues. In AUS G you (ie ATC) have to assess whether to pass aircraft as traffic - I assume you use the same standards you would use for separation in Class C. Yes it would add some workload to actually separate the aircraft, and it would certainly add delays.
But then what would I know - with over a couple of thousand hours of charter logged I still don't have either an instrument or twin rating.
As for YBPN I wasn't talking about terrain avoidance - see my last post. Dick's the one that argues that ICAO states that the best mitigator against CFITs is ATC with Radar.
Now let me get this straight.
On one hand you argue for using C rather than E because the cost is minimal.
Yet you don't want to use E rather than G because??? OK there are display, monitoring and staffing issues. In AUS G you (ie ATC) have to assess whether to pass aircraft as traffic - I assume you use the same standards you would use for separation in Class C. Yes it would add some workload to actually separate the aircraft, and it would certainly add delays.
But then what would I know - with over a couple of thousand hours of charter logged I still don't have either an instrument or twin rating.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea Werbil, make the zone 5 miles radius, thats 90 secs at 210 kts, which is the lowest clean speed we can maintain, and bear in mind all the instrument approaches at Broome are 10 miles plus the holding pattern. By having a Ben Hur size CTR, at least the controller has time to get a reasonable traffic flow worked out between jets and VFR charter aircraft. Incidentally, the current CTAFR at Brome is 30 miles.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like to see folks getting passionate about this stuff 
I agree with many of the points made in your first [of three] post above.
G [Oz F] above A100
1. The treatment of IFR/IFR in climb/descent/cruise above A100 is less of a concern than below A100, due minimal VFR, TXPDR use, and IFR not being in the early departure or late arrival phase of flight. As you suggest quite rightly that the situational awareness may not be as sharp or as comprehensive below A100. [Traffic density, pilot workload]
2. I would argue that IFR/IFR are a lower chance of mid-air intimacy as they know about each other [DTI] from ToD and Taxi throughout [Traffic density, pilot workload]
3. Lower time IFR may be less prepared for complex traffic senarios [traffic density], two or three IFR twins in to somewhere like YSDU might be pushing it, most would have a bit of an idea of the various performance envelopes, is this not part of IFR training? if not, wouldn't you wait a minute or two? pick a different outbound track [granted re-brief involved]? All that aside the regulator should be engaged in regular sampling of traffic density [IFR/IFR data is obviously available] and incident data to watch for hot spots!
I agree, E is technically safer than G - Because of the formalisation of IFR 'separation' by a third party. How much safer for the relatively large cost of establishing an IFR separation service [additional CTA]?
Here is the thing, if ATC have surveillance of G, they issue DTI, they can then monitor the proximities of IFR from IFR, is this so much worse than separating them if it were E? Not if the if delays are lengthy!
If an area of G or CTAF G is showing data that indicates an additional service is necessary, then do the process with industry
Re: D Again I agree. The key here of course is to provide the right number of ATC positions within the tower to manage the traffic in that particular location. RPT with modest traffic might be single frequency, RPT with moderate to busy might be 2 or three frequencies [Aerod, SMC, CLDel]. It is pointless providing X,Y or Z ATS if it is not set up to manage the environment.
Re your second above - Neither was I, regional 'terrain avoidance services' are not being asked for by industry as far as I am aware. I assumed as it followed Mr Smiths terrain comments you were asking the same. Appologies.
On one hand you argue for using C rather than E because the cost is minimal.
Yet you don't want to use E rather than G because??? OK there are display, monitoring and staffing issues. In AUS G you (ie ATC) have to assess whether to pass aircraft as traffic - I assume you use the same standards you would use for separation in Class C. Yes it would add some workload to actually separate the aircraft, and it would certainly add delays.
Bottom line, if the safety of the facility requires improvement beyond IFR/IFR DTI, then factoring delay costs [remote ATC verses onsite], surveillance cost and availability [might not be any until ADS-B rocks along], the classification that adds most value [safety and expedition ] for the money is local D not remote E.
Until reaching a need for D [where both IFR and VFR are serviced] what is the point of Class E? as there is in effect little difference with G except the cost!
No argument on ADS-B, the sooner the better
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil
Good idea to have alook at he ICAO migators, Mr Smith only pushes one migator, and this has been proved incorrect on this forum numerous times. Its a problem when dealing with some one who's mind is set in concrete and shows a reluctance to change.
Briefly, the#1 migator is the Captain or PIC. Strange that, but ICAO understand the concept that the command of the flight remains in the cockpit. A proper crew briefing covering the descent and approach, MAP and the visual segment from MDA to the runway. Included in this briefing is the terrain advoidance requirements. ATC have a share of the Captain's responsibility by ensuring that in the approach environment that the aircraft is seperated from both other traffic. Each level assignment below 10,000 is cross checked in the cockpit to ensure compliance with the lowest safe altitudes. In a nutshell, its called situational awareness and the five P's.
Good idea to have alook at he ICAO migators, Mr Smith only pushes one migator, and this has been proved incorrect on this forum numerous times. Its a problem when dealing with some one who's mind is set in concrete and shows a reluctance to change.
Briefly, the#1 migator is the Captain or PIC. Strange that, but ICAO understand the concept that the command of the flight remains in the cockpit. A proper crew briefing covering the descent and approach, MAP and the visual segment from MDA to the runway. Included in this briefing is the terrain advoidance requirements. ATC have a share of the Captain's responsibility by ensuring that in the approach environment that the aircraft is seperated from both other traffic. Each level assignment below 10,000 is cross checked in the cockpit to ensure compliance with the lowest safe altitudes. In a nutshell, its called situational awareness and the five P's.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My heart bleeds for the poor chap who finds he has to look out the window, going in and out of KLAX, I do hope he looks out the window in Australian airspace, in accordance with Australian regulated requirements.
My point is simply that the US airspace isn't perfect, and I'm a bit disapointed that so many blindly say our airspace should just resemble the US airspace which has more than its fair share of floors. Instead it should be designed to be the safest in the world.
ARFOR, I know it must get you all really mad, but the system you are flying in now that you are so desperately trying to defend is the system I was responsible for introducing in 1991 when I was Chairman of CAA. Its just that it was only the first stage of a number of stages including upgrading to E in certain locations that have not been completed.
I love it you desperately hang on to the status quo and resist change in every way you can.
The vast amount of money that has been wasted in airspace change is because of the reversals. The reversals, in all cases, have come because there are people with a fundamentalist view who do not understand science.
In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents. I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen probably wishful thinking when there are so many people in Australian aviation who are totally opposed to looking at what happens overseas or, indeed, anywhere else.
I love it you desperately hang on to the status quo and resist change in every way you can.
The vast amount of money that has been wasted in airspace change is because of the reversals. The reversals, in all cases, have come because there are people with a fundamentalist view who do not understand science.
In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents. I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen probably wishful thinking when there are so many people in Australian aviation who are totally opposed to looking at what happens overseas or, indeed, anywhere else.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Dec 2009 at 23:53.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is getting mad? 
No one as far as I can see is 'trying to hang on to the Status Quo', rather arguning that where change is desirable, that change that actually 'improves safety and efficiency' be considered.
Yes, sadly much money has been wasted on flawed change process. You would think political and agency masters would recongise the problem after the first few attempts!
Thats what happens when monitoring and change processes are 'dicked around'.
Agree. What is your take on Class E [below A100] accidents and incidents in the US?
Totally opposed? No, smart enough to recognise when a square peg is being unsucessfully rammed into round hole!
No one as far as I can see is 'trying to hang on to the Status Quo', rather arguning that where change is desirable, that change that actually 'improves safety and efficiency' be considered.
The reversals, in all cases, have come because there are people with a fundamentalist view who do not understand science.
Yes, sadly much money has been wasted on flawed change process. You would think political and agency masters would recongise the problem after the first few attempts!
In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents.
I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen
probably wishful thinking when there are so many people in Australian aviation who are totally opposed to looking at what happens overseas or, indeed, anywhere else.
Dick Smith said:
Ya joking aren't you? To my knowledge, the only country in the world that has an airspace system that has killed innocent jet RPT passengers in midairs with VFRs is the USA.
In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents. I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 2nd Dec 2009 at 01:05. Reason: Punctuation
Dick,perhaps we should be looking at this in the way Malcolm Turnbull suggests we look at Climate Change ....
... take the safest option (eg Class C) until it's proven that a more lenient approach (eg Class E) is warranted ...
We obviously have strong competing opinions within the Industry. Perhaps you are right and the many others are wrong ... but until that is proven ( and "I believe" is not proof) then we should take a more softly, softly, conservative approach ... what's wrong with that?
... take the safest option (eg Class C) until it's proven that a more lenient approach (eg Class E) is warranted ...
We obviously have strong competing opinions within the Industry. Perhaps you are right and the many others are wrong ... but until that is proven ( and "I believe" is not proof) then we should take a more softly, softly, conservative approach ... what's wrong with that?
Peuce
You state
Class C is only the safest option if it is adequately manned.
The Aussie system of using a Class D Controller who sometimes is very busy to also be responsible for vast amounts of Class C airspace is clearly an accident waiting to happen.
You only have to see what happened at Hamilton Island where a Controller nearly put two RPT jets into each other, and hidden in the safety incident report was the fact that there are other people communicating. I also understand from locals that there were aircraft being held outside the zone.
I believe this is a clear example that if you load a Class D Controller with too much workload, errors can take place which reduce the safety in the D even though you have lulled yourself into a false complacency because we have lots of C above!
You state
... take the safest option (eg Class C)
The Aussie system of using a Class D Controller who sometimes is very busy to also be responsible for vast amounts of Class C airspace is clearly an accident waiting to happen.
You only have to see what happened at Hamilton Island where a Controller nearly put two RPT jets into each other, and hidden in the safety incident report was the fact that there are other people communicating. I also understand from locals that there were aircraft being held outside the zone.
I believe this is a clear example that if you load a Class D Controller with too much workload, errors can take place which reduce the safety in the D even though you have lulled yourself into a false complacency because we have lots of C above!